Mr. A. Carlyle has placed this subject in its true light in the chapter on "Natural Supernaturalism," in his Sartor, which I would commend to your special attention.

The

Mr. B. I have read it, and will give all the credit you can ask for the genius there displayed. Perhaps we could not take a better il lustration of your method of treating subjects connected with religion. Instead of direct denial, backed with the usual arguments, you virtually deny the miracles of the Bible, by making all things so marvelous, and by clothing your expressions in such imagery, that one thing appears to be as miraculous as another. rising of the sun would be a stupendous miracle to a man who should see it for the first time. The rising of a dead man would not appear to be a miracle if we should see dead men rise every day. The chemist could work miracles in the eyes of ignorant heathen. That is, all is miraculous to men which they are not familiar with. Had we an eye to see a little farther into the operation of natural laws, every miracle recorded in the Bible or any where else would appear a natural rather than a super-natural event. Therefore, whether any thing shall be miraculous or not, depends not upon the thing itself, but upon our degree of insight into the laws of nature. This is the leading idea of Carlyle's chapter on Natural Supernaturalism, and the substance of all your writers have to say upon the subject of miracles. Granting that there is truth in this view of the subject, yet the most favorable construction I can put upon the argument is, to call it an evasion of the real point at issue. True, you exhort us with earnestness to think deeper, that we may see more of the miraculous with which we are constantly surrounded. But, believe in a miracle, in any proper sense of the word, you do not.

Mr. A. We are heartily weary of

It

the endless debate upon such questions in the Christian system. tends only to doubt and denial. The whole forensic discussion from the first century to this, upon the proofs of Christianity, have been fruitful in nothing but infidelity. A religion-any part of a reli gion-which needs the logic of the understanding for its support, is not worth the argument. If men have not an eye to see and a soul to feel religious truth, argument will avail nothing. Religious men should take the high ground that religion is a native germ in the heart of man, and is to be cultivated by other means than disputes about the forms which Christianity has assumed. Let us leave the questions of plenary inspiration, miracles, trinity and unity, the humanity and divinity of the Savior, the sabbath and the church, all which are entirely foreign to religion itself, and retire within ourselves, to listen to God's voice in the soul, and be religious.

Mr. B. Ah! but there is a question to be answered-yes or noupon which very much depends. If at the word of Christ the dead awoke to life, and the eyes of the blind were opened, did he not exercise a power superior to that of the chemist or man of genius; and so much superior that none can doubt it to be supernatural. And you need not be told that if the works attributed to Christ could be shown not to have been wrought by him, instead of being an inspired teacher sent from heaven, as you often term him, he was an impos tor. One can hardly give you credit for sincerity, when you eulogize Christ and his religion, and upon the same page say, what, fairly interpreted into intelligible language, stigmatizes him as a deceiver. These inconsistencies need to be explained. You are ready enough to discuss other questions of history; why not those connected with the Christian religion?

Mr. A. It is one of the first lessons of our religion not to use the sensual logic with men, but to turn their attention to the great truths that are written upon the tables of the heart. We expect like the great Master, to be reviled, but we shall not return reviling for reviling. You will yet see, and I hope in this life, that there is enough which is miraculous without going back eighteen hundred years. But at pres

at

ent I must leave you to gaze God's world, without seeing any thing wonderful in the thousand forms of beauty and goodness which lie in every direction; but only a little chemical matter to be analyzed, explained, and scientifically arranged. But it is painful to see man, standing in the midst of wonders, like the stupid ass, with his whole attention upon food for his stomach; or like an ambitious boy, beating his drum to arrest the eyes of the world, as if he were the only real prodigy to be admired. The secret of the universe is open, but only to those who have an eye to see it. Men must retire into the holy of holies, their own souls, and then the Shekinah will appear, and from the altar of the heart acceptable incense will ascend. Be silent, my brother, as you stand in this star-domed temple of God, and his presence shall overshadow you; and you shall feel that man-all that is in him and around him-is a miracle! Man is the high-priest of Nature beautifully emblemed in the priest of Jewry; he is the eye of the earth which should be turned towards heaven. He is the highest form of the godlike. "Be still and know that I am God," is a text I beg of you to consider.

Mr. B. And I would request you to preach your doctrine from any text in your numerous Bibles, to any uninitiated audience you can find, that you may be convinced of the impracticability of making mankind understand such a sublimated religion. You extol earnest, rapt emotions, whether in the Mussulman at the tomb of his prophet, or in the worshiper of the sun, the river, the star, or any other created object. Try your transcendentalism then, and see if the eye moistens, and the fire of devotion burns in the heart under its influence? You call attention to your new philosophy, and as hearers we have a claim on you to speak in a known tongue the very thing you mean. You attack almost every article of our belief, and we have a right to know just what you would have substituted in its place. Our views of God, of Christ, of the Bible, of Christianity, of worship, of man-his nature, his duties, and his destiny-our system of moral science, our literature, and even our civil institutions, are in your opinion defective. You call for a radical change. One of your writers says, "It is not to be denied that the principles of this system are those of reform in church, state, and society, and for this cause they are unpopular." Thus we find ourselves attacked in a new and pecu liar manner. We are exhorted in the phraseology of Christianity, to throw off all its present forms of belief and practice, and go on unto perfection! But before we strip naked in this style, we wish to know whether you have better gar ments for our covering.

In all that we say concerning those great evils that grow out of human nature under the conditions of society, we would not so far disparage our country nor ourselves, as to charge them upon our political institutions, as if they were exclusively American and if any of them appear more rank and noxious here than elsewhere, we would not exaggerate their relative importance, by forgetting that other and greater evils abound under institutions of a contrary nature. We are persuaded that on the whole, if an impartial hand could hold the scales between this nation and any other, as to the good and evil, the weal and woe, of their respective conditions, they would turn in our favor. It is the fault of alarmists and cynics to think only of existing evils, and to rail at their external condition as if it were alone responsible, and therefore the worst possible. And on the other hand, it is a narrow provincial presumption, a sort of diffusive vanity, in some other men, that blinds them to the more dangerous tendencies peculiar to their own condition. The latter are too boastful to be vigilant; the former too distrustful to be active. For Americans to croak over even the evils that are peculiar to republican institutions, instead of expounding and applying a remedy, is at best an unwise discontent; and to crow over their advantages, instead of securing and enhancing them, is only a more amiable folly. As long as human character retains its radical imperfections, not only must social evils be looked for under every kind of government, but every kind of government will be found to foster one class of evils rather than another, a republic as well as a monarchy having its own pernicious tendencies. Our rare

freedom brings with it already certain mischiefs, and threatens greater. It can not be won nor kept without a price; "with a great sum obtained we this freedom." And among the evils that have the most room and encouragement under such institutions as ours, must be reckoned the one we have named at the head of this article. It is generally acknowledged to be a chief source of harm and insecurity to our country, and has become a common topic of declamation. We should not think it worth while to descant upon it in that general way, saying only what is admitted to be true, and may be repeated again with no effect; but there are some things concerning it not so generally borne in mind, that we choose to have understood and considered by all good citizens. And if our readers would come to a just conclusion as to their individual duties on this subject, let them not only take it for granted that party spirit produces various mischiefs, but recur distinctly to some of its effects, and in order to revive the just impression of them, we shall speak of them with some particularity. There is now, as there has been of late, in political affairs, a pause of fatigue and uncertain expectation, while yet some vague preparation is going on for new strife. The time is more favorable therefore than those tumultuous seasons, when calm words can not be heard, for gaining candid attention to such subjects. And here, once for all, though we speak chiefly of partisanship in political affairs, yet we request our readers to observe for themselves how far the same spirit works similar mischiefs in the affairs of religion, and how far it calls for the same severe amendment in the action of all that call themselves Christians.

We reckon it among the most serious mischiefs of party spirit, though the fact is generally overlooked, that it occasions the sacrifice of individual dignity. He who has become a partisan, has in one sense ceased to be a man. Instead of standing by himself, filling his own sphere of thought and action, and making a corresponding impression by what he is and what he does, he has given up his individuality, and become like every other man who belongs to the same faction.

He is melted into the mass, and contributes to its successful movement by swelling its bulk. If he would be himself alone, he would receive and give an individual impression in his political as in his social relations; but now he is nothing more than one item, like every other item, in this or that column of political calculations. That is all there is of him. Instead of exercising the privileges of a freeman, he is put to the use of voting. When he might be a thinking, active man, whose opinions and wishes give at least some impulse to political operations, he is not even a whole political machine, but rather a wheel among wheels, or a cog, by which one drives another. Partisanship in civil affairs has the servility, without the honor, of military obedience; for the man who only votes with a party and not otherwise, has no more to do with the science of government, than a soldier who builds his section of a breastwork or fires his shot, with the evolutions of a battle or the plan of a campaign; and he only follows a leader where there is no danger to be encountered, and therefore no glory to be won. Now all this is unworthy of one who calls himself a freeman. He only takes his choice of masters, or he is the servant of many masters rather than of one. It is injurious to himself, so far as he is affected by his political rights: for he surrenders his

opinions and feelings and course of conduct, when he might ennoble himself by maintaining them in conscientious and manly independence. It is injurious to the public interests for if it is important that he should be entitled to give a vote, it is because he is supposed to be capable of knowing how to bestow it, and ready to bestow it, for the advantage of his country; yet he follows the dictates of another without the use of his own independent capacity, which is thus lost, whatever it may be worth. It is a sad thing for one who boasts that he commands a vote which will go as far as any other man's, to take his place as unintelligently as the bal lot-box itself; to be as little moved by wise and patriotic considerations on his own part, as the bit of paper prepared to his hand. Yet is not this the picture of a man who has no opinion, no choice, no vote, but with a party to which he has at tached himself?

Another evil is, that it commits men to action in matters of which they are not qualified to judge. The mere fact that a man has the opportunity of putting forth some influence on public affairs, by his vote or otherwise, is not alone a reason why he should avail himself of it. He ought to act, if at all, either from his own convictions of what is conducive to the public good, or from his reasonable confidence in the convictions of those whom he believes competent to guide him on such subjects. Now a partisan does not seek out those persons on whose authority he thinks he may most properly rely, and follow them for that reason, but in fact, though without acknowledging it, rather commits himself to the leaders of his faction for some accidental rea

*We could wish the printed ballot were still declared invalid, as a device unduly answerable to others, as in viva of party convenience, often making men

voce voting.

son, while his knowledge of their capacities and dispositions is confessedly too scanty to warrant any such confidence. Still less can he be supposed to act generally from his own convictions; for many of the political questions on which he puts forth such influence as belongs to him, are beyond his reach. Some of the subjects now agitated between the contending parties in this country, are in themselves difficult of investigation, presenting exceed ingly intricate questions, questions indeed which no man is competent to settle who has not given time and attention to them, and made them in some measure a part of his business. Almost every individual will confess himself perplexed by them. The tendencies of banking systems, the fluctuations of currency, the exact ultimate operation of free trade or a protective policy these are really profound subjects, and we would be all ready to say, if questioned individually, that we need information and reflection before we can speak positively on many of the questions they involve; we have more to learn than to teach upon them. Yet what confidence, what vehemence, do we witness among all sorts of men, on the one side and on the other of these same questions? The men who would look about modestly for advice, if there were the same perplexity in their personal affairs, are as noisy declaimers as any others on our national embarrassments. Every newspaper writer presumes to discourse of them as readily as if the whole domain of political economy were mapped out under his feet, and he could correct every blunder of every administration. Surely there is some evil in all this. It is not right that the zeal of a partisan should so far outrun the judgment of the man. Of course we do not mean that we ought not to entertain any opinion on questions of national policy, until we are wise enough to

have a place in the cabinet; but we do mean that it is a serious calamity to any country that its great interests should be swayed chiefly by the impulses of any party, and that they who are least competent to understand those interests should give heat and bulk, where they can give nothing more, to the faction that may happen to control those interests. It is to be lamented that men who individually, to say the least, might do no harm, should band themselves together and plunge beyond their depth into those troubled waters which they can not purify nor calm.

As an effect still worse, it corrupts moral habits. We have all observed that men will do as partisans what they would be ashamed to do as men. The trickery of politicians and the profligacy of party presses, are among the commonest subjects of complaint on every hand. The saying, 'all is fair in politics,' is understood to be a common principle with the actors in them. The very name of politics has an ill odor with upright men generally. Every diligent observer of these times learns to put very little confidence, on subjects of this nature, in the candor of men, whose honesty in other things he would not think of distrusting. An editor who does not misrepresent nor discolor facts, for or against any party, is either reckoned a singular man, or reviled by every party. In political movements, whether on a great or small scale, what deceptions, what perversions of facts, what misconstruction of motives, what lies, what virulent contentions and reproaches, what base intrigues, what miserable counterfeits of patriotism! And these things are witnessed, not in those persons who quietly entertain and modestly express their own opinions on proper occasions, but in such as are pledged to a party, and always keep pace with its