presence of the individuals referred to. In like manner, also, in the burial service, pp. 102, 103, we have the following: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, in his wise providence, to take out of this world the soul of our deceased brother, we, therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, "etc. How would such language appear at the burial of the aforesaid impenitent criminals? See, also, the prayer after burial at sea, p. 106.

In like manner "at the funeral of a public personage, p. 96, we have the following Scripture, "Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?" These words as applied to Abner, were literally true, but in what sense is a public personage who is neither an Israelite nor a Christian professor to be regarded as a prince and a great man in Israel? The same remark applies to the language used "at the funeral of a military personage, p. 97, "The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places"-language literally applicable to Saul and Jonathan. But in what sense can it now be deemed applicable to an ungodly or infidel commander? In the prayer for the bereaved friends, p. 99, they, also, are called "thy bereaved servants," though they may be ungodly, or infidels, or even atheists. We protest against such an utter misapplication of the words of eternal life.

It is indeed suggested by the compiler that any expressions which do not commend themselves may be easily omitted. But the question here is not about omitting them. It is as to the propriety of their being thus presented and recommended to be used. But our limits forbid us to go more fully into the matter now, and we hope there may be no occasion for resuming the discussion of the subject hereafter.

L.

CONTENTS.

I. THE UNION AND THE CONSTITUTION, No. I.
By Rev. Samuel J. Baird, D. D.,

II. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1863.

By Rev. R. L. Stanton, D. D.,

III. STUDIES ON THE BIBLE, No. V.-Israel in the Wil

PAGE

345

370

Volumes I and II, of this work, may be obtained of the Publishers at $2.00 per volume, or Volumes I, II, and III for the years 1861, 1862, and 1863, at $6 for the set in numbers.

DANVILLE REVIEW.

No. III.

SEPTEMBER, 1863.

ART. I.-The Union and the Constitution.

In what sense and to what extent the people of the United States are one, has heretofore been the subject merely of speculation among political theorists, and of the declamations of party leaders. But amid the throes of a convulsion which has shaken our Union to its center, and threatens to rend it asunder, and prostrate in ruin the temple of liberty which our fathers founded, in the presence of a gigantic conspiracy, avowedly resting on and sanctioned by the assumption that we are not one people, but many, leagued together in a confederacy of independent sovereignties-the question becomes one of the profoundest practical importance. "Let it never be forgotten," says a recent political writer of eminence,* "that we are one people and one nation only so far as the Constitution makes us one. Outside of that bond we are thirty-four people and thirty-four nations, none of which have any more right to interfere with the local laws and institutions of the rest than with the local laws and institutions of China and Brazil. The people of the States have a right, under the Constitution to defend their local laws and institutions by arms, if necessary, and it is the duty of the United States to uphold and aid them in the attempt. A war confined to such an object would not be rebellion, even though the United States were the aggressor."

* Amos Kendall, in the National Intelligencer, February 21, 1862.

That a war against the constitutional rights of any part of the Union would be treasonable, and that in such a case, resistance could not justly be stigmatized as rebellion, is certain; not because the Union is a confederated league of distinct nations, but because any violation of the Constitution, by whomsoever committed, is treason to the sovereignty of “the people of the United States" by whom the Constitution was "ordained and established;" while they who, loyally and in good faith, should maintain the integrity of the Constitution, and oppose its assailants, would occupy the position of faithful lieges and guardians of that sovereignty. But that the American people are a society composed of thirty-four distinct people and nations, is so far from being unquestionably true, that it would rather seem to be without support, whether by appeal to the common sense of men, to sound theoretical principles, or to the criterion of historical facts, the only decisive test on such a question.

In looking into the original sources of our national history, nothing is more manifest, nothing stands out with more distinctness upon the whole face of the record, than the fact that the Union existed prior alike to Constitution and Confederation; that, from the first movement of the colonies in the controversies which resulted in their independence, they all recognized that Union, and their duty of allegiance to it, as already existent realities, not by virtue of any act of voluntary league or confederacy on their part, but from the very manner of their origin and native relations to each other, and to the British crown and people. The Constitution did not create the Union. It only gave it organization and defined relations to the people and to the State governments.

Originally, the American colonies were integral parts of the British nation-the fountain of their blood, the land of their fathers and home of their brethren. They were identified in the common nationality, and subject, in all external relations and general interests, to the paramount authority of the king and parliament. In their migration to America they retained all the rights and privileges of native-born English freemen, and were organized in subordinate colonial governments for the protection and exercise of those rights, and management of local and municipal affairs. While thus re