him contemptible, as he could have no voice in the selection of those officers, for the performance of whose duties, as the head of the executive, he was responsible. They obviated both objections, by giving him the sole power of nomination, and the right of approval or rejection to the Senate. Nomination is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to appointment; but the revision. to which it is subject imposes on the President the necessity of avoiding favoritism, intrigue, and a careless use of patronage.

In no case, perhaps, is the advantage of this system more perceptible than in the judiciary of the United States. It is impos sible to conceive a more admirable mode of selecting judges. In England the appointment rests with the minister of the day, and the choice is not always such as meets the approbation of the bar or the public. In Canada the general rule used to be, cæteris paribus, that the senior member of the profession was held to possess the best claim to preferment. Even that mode is open to serious objections, but the present practice is beyond comparison the worst to be found in any country. A seat on the bench is now a political prize, and the dominant party claims it for partisans. None of those high qualifications so essential to the efficient and respectable discharge of judicial duties, neither talent, learning, nor integrity are recommendations equal to political services. High and honorable as the office of judge is in England, it is infinitely more so in the Great Republic. The commission is awarded neither by the personal friendship nor political sympathy of the President, but by the deliberate choice of that officer and the concurrence and approbation of all the States in the Union, as expressed by the collective voice of their Senators. Well may that country be proud of its judiciary, when so constructed; and the judges of an appointment that rests solely on great abilities, undoubted rectitude of condnet, and universal respect.

The House of Representatives is composed of delegates of the several States. In the old republic the elections were annual; an improvement has been made in the new by extending the term to two years; a period which the best informed men in the country think still too short. As this is called the popular branch, its members being chosen directly by the people, while the Senate is the result of a double election, and less under their immediate control, it possesses the exclusive right of originating

all bills for raising revenue, which is the only privilege it enjoys in its legislative character not participated in by the Senate, and even money-bills can be amended by them. The two Houses are an entire and perfect check upon each other, and one of them can not even adjourn, during the session of Congress, for more than three or four days, without the consent of the other, nor to any other place than that in which both shall be sitting.*

It is not within the scope of this work to enter more at large on this subject. It was stated, in an early part of this volume, that republicanism in America was not the result of the Revolution, but that it existed there from its first settlement. The whole of this historical narrative clearly proves that assertion. It was subsequently said, that in its original form it was infinitely more democratic than the present Constitution of the United States; and to illustrate that position I have drawn up the foregoing brief comparison of the leading features of each. In the course of our examination, succinct as it necessarily must be, enough appears to exhibit the delicate skill, consummate knowledge, enlarged views, and patriotism of the statesmen who framed the Federal Constitution. Nothing by any possibility could be devised more suited to the situation, feelings, wants, habits, and preconceived opinions of the people. It has conferred happiness and safety on many millions: may it ever continue to do so. Esto perpetuo.

* See Kent's Commentaries, vol. I. p. 223.

CHAPTER VII.

DEMOCRATIC FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.-ITS EFFECT ON POLITICAL OPINIONS.

Different Course pursued by the Church and Dissenters at the ReformationDifference between Presbyterians, Independents, and Puritans-Three kinds of Puritans-Their Doctrines and Form of Ecclesiastical Government-Singular Valedictory Address of the Puritans to the Members of the Church of England - Extraordinary Union of Church and State among the formerCause of present political Unity of Action between Dissenters and Romanists.

WHILE the people on the continent of Europe were engaged in the work of reformation, the Church of England, with equal zeal and more discretion, set herself about the great task of restoration. She had never voluntarily submitted to Rome, nor fully admitted her authority over her. She had been previously encroached upon from time to time, owing to the imbecility or contentions of her princes, but had never failed either to resist or protest, to assert her exclusive jurisdiction, or to claim the exercise of her ancient usages.

If not anterior to that of Rome, the Anglican Church was at least coeval with it, being founded, as there is substantial ground for believing, by one of the Apostles. At a very early date, it had its orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, and subsisted, as independent in its action as it was isolated in position, for a period of nearly six hundred years, before the grasping and aspiring spirit of Rome attempted to seduce or force it into an acknowledgment of her supremacy. At the close of the sixth century, about the year 596, Gregory I. sent Augustine the monk to demand the submission of the English prelates, who, with their flocks, had gradually been driven westward by the barbarians that had invaded the island; and as these successful emigrants were heathens, he was at the same time instructed to Christianize them, if possible. In the first object of his mission he wholly failed, having received a decided refusal from the seven bishops, who assembled in Worcestershire to hear his proposition. In the latter (the conversion of the conquerors) he was more suc

cessful, and immediately assumed jurisdiction over his proselytes. The Papal power having thus obtained a footing, never afterward ceased its endeavors to enlarge it upon every practicable occasion, or plausible pretense.*

To shake off the errors and corruptions of Romanism, and preserve what was sanctioned by the usage of the apostolic age, was a work of great labor, and at the same time great delicacy. The task of the Church, unlike that of the impetuous and headstrong body of innovators who called themselves Protestant Reformers, was not to pull down and reconstruct, but thoroughly to repair and completely restore the ancient edifice in all its beauty, simplicity, and proportion. Nobly was this arduous and important duty performed. Search was made for the forms of the olden time, before the irruption of the Roman priesthood; for the prayers in all the ancient sees were not alike, as each bishop had, according to primitive custom, the power of regulating the liturgy of his own diocese. From these authentic sources was compiled with great labor and infinite patience the Book of Common Prayer, which has extorted from one of the most learned and eminent Dissenting divines of this century this extraordinary eulogium : "That it is by far the greatest uninspired work extant." f

Romanists themselves, when permitted to exercise an inde pendent judgment, admitted its unexceptionable character and great beauty, and joined in its use for more than twelve years. Two of the Popes, Paul and Pius IV., went so far as to offer to sanction it if Queen Elizabeth would acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope. Upon her refusal she was excommunicated, in 1569, and from that period British Papists became schismatics.

The English Dissenting Reformers, though not so ignorant as those of the Continent, were, with some distinguished exceptions, in general violent and vulgar fanatics. They were but little acquainted with the history or antiquity of their own primitive church, and cared still less about it; all they knew was, that even when purified and restored, it still resembled that of Rome too much to please them. As they had rejected the Pontiff, they saw no reason to obey a bishop; and it was obvious to the meanest capacity, that if the regular clergy were abolished, tithes

* Bennet on Common Prayer. Theophilus Anglicanus.

† Hall.

would necessarily cease also. So convenient and so unscrupulous a party were soon seized upon by politicians to advance their own ends. They were told then, as their descendants are informed to this day, by the leading Liberals of England, who view with no friendly eye such a Conservative body as the Church, that it was the child of the Reformation, the offspring of chance, and the result of a compromise between royal prerogative, Papal pretension, and popular rights; that it had neither the antiquity of the old, nor the purity of the new faith; and that it was behind the enlightenment of the age. In fact, it was stigmatized as deriving its origin from no higher authority than an Act of Parliament. Macaulay has lent his aid to perpetuate this delusion, and the innovating propensities of the Whigs may well be imagined from the fact, that even history is not safe in the hands of a reformer.

As this dissentient body, at a subsequent period, furnished the pioneers who settled in New England, it is necessary to take a cursory view of their position, divisions, and political and religious principles, that we may understand the character and temper of the people we have been treating of.

There were at that time three great parties of Nonconformists in the parent country-the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Puritans. There were some points in which they all agreed, but there was a broad line of distinction among them in others. They concurred in a thorough hatred of Popery and prelacy, which they affected to consider nearly synonymous terms, and united in a desire to restrain the regal authority, but different in degree. The Presbyterians, from the habit of mingling politics with their religious discourses, often gave vent to violent and seditious language. A preacher at St. Andrews, called monarchs "Beelzebub's children," and not long after, another at Edinburgh, said the king had been possessed of a devil, and that one being expelled, seven more fierce and unclean had entered in his place, and wound up by declaring that the people might lawfully use and take the sword out of his hand. But, notwithstanding these ebullitions of vulgar abuse and priestly insolence, the party in general, both in England and Scotland, were desirous of going no further than reducing the king to the simple station of first magistrate.

The Independents wished to abolish the monarchy altogether,