Jefferson stands, a fair specimen of the political philosophersplausible rather than profound-whom the spirit of the eighteenth century and the atmosphere of the French revolution called into life.

What led to the downfall of the Federal party? Independently of its own divisions, there were probably causes at work which would inevitably, and before a long period, have placed this party in the minority. The democratic tendencies of American society would evidently have proved too strong to be resisted successfully by the party which had a less degree of confidence in "the people" and in the advantages of universal suffrage. But the downfall of this great, intelligent, and patriotic party, dates from the division in its own ranks, and but for this division might have been, perhaps for a considerable time, retarded. In the quarrel between Mr. Adams and a portion of his cabinet, which resulted in the separation of the party into the Adams and Hamilton factions, there were, as is usual in quarrels, two sides, and it is not perfectly easy to say where the blame principally belongs. Mr. C. F. Adams has written very ably in vindication of his grandfather for the part which he acted in this disastrous dispute. Mr. George Gibbs, in his commentary on the Papers of Oliver Wolcott, has presented the opposite side with much warmth and with needless asperity The publications of the younger Hamilton, and of Randal, enter fully into the questions at issue. The personal characteristics of Adams unquestionably contributed much to produce the rupture in the federal ranks. Dr. Franklin pithily said of him that he "was always honest, sometimes great, but often mad." He was indeed thoroughly honest, and as intrepid as he was upright. He scorned concealment and had too little patience as well as too much principle to be a successful intriguer. He was one of the few great orators of the revolutionary period. His learning was ample, his reasoning powers of a high order, and though infected, like Jefferson, with the skeptical philosophy of the times, in the foundations of his character he was a puritan. But the hot passions of Mr. Adams stood in the way of his complete success as a public

He was constitutionally jealous, and if the testimony of most of his contemporaries is to be believed, vain. He had

no prudence in restraining the expression of his thoughts, and his excited feeling frequently gave an exaggerated form to his utterances. Everything that his imagination construed into an attempt to manage him he repulsed with vehemence. Despite his infirmities of temper, John Adams was a patriot in every fibre of his heart. Had he received from nature a less sensitive temperament, he might be excused for feeling annoyed or even aggrieved at seeing his Secretaries deferentially consulting a man like Hamilton, and using their power to conform the policy of the administration to the suggestions of their chosen leader. It is true that he did not know the full extent of their confidential intercourse with Hamilton, for this has come to light through the publication of letters, of the existence of which the President was not at the time aware. But he was at no loss to divine the principal quarter from which the inspiration to counsels adverse to his own views really emanated. Yet it would be an error to suppose that Hamilton made himself the leader of a cabal, or was actuated by a love of power which impelled him to carry forward a systematic opposition of a personal character to the nominal chief of the party. On the contrary, he sometimes differed from his friends of the Cabinet and the Senate; and a signal example of his independence and unselfish feeling is afforded in the course he took at the outset of Mr. Adams's administration in regard to an embassy to France. In opposition to the strong wishes of his political associates, he favored the sending of such an embassy, to be made up from both parties. Mr. C. F. Adams maintains that there had been from the beginning in reality three parties; that President Adams in his political ideas and predilections stood between the Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, so that the extreme policy with reference to France, as well as on questions of domestic politics, was of necessity distasteful to him. The first occasion in which he was placed in opposition to members of his Cabinet, was in reference to the relative rank of the officers to serve under Washington in the army to be raised for the expected war with France. That Washington was to some extent influenced by the representations of Pickering and McHenry to insist upon giving the precedence to Hamilton, in preference to Knox or Pickering, either of whom the

President strongly preferred, is not to be doubted. Mr. Adams was baffled in his wishes in this particular, and his keen disappointment was partly owing to such exertions on the part of ministers as in our days would ordinarily be considered inconsistent with their proper relations to the head of the government. The measure, however, which put an end to harmony in the Federal party, was the nomination by Mr. Adams, without consultation with his Cabinet, of a new minister to France in the person of Mr. Murray. The Federalists were resolved upon war. The long continued insults and injuries which France had inflicted on this country had awakened a deep resentment among men of the most pacific disposition,a feeling which finds the strongest expression in the confidential letters of Washington. The Federalist leaders felt certain of carrying the country with them; and it is highly probable that their readiness for war was quickened by the expectation that it would ensure the continued ascendency of their party. It is right to allow to Mr. Adams the credit of being animated by honest motives in the step he took of initiating a new attempt at negotiation. He could plead a semi-official avowal of Talleyrand that he was ready to receive a new minister; and in making the nomination, he recommended that before the ambassador should present himself at Paris, the most explicit assurance should be demanded of the French government that he should be honorably received. But to make the nomination at all without conference with his Cabinet, to proceed to this bold measure without even having asked their sanction, was the proclamation of the fact that he no longer trusted them and was determined not to expose himself to their opposition. He believed that the best and only sure way of accomplishing his object, which was to prevent the war if he could, was to proceed independently of his Cabinet and take the Federalists by surprise. The mission to France was a success. The country was saved from war with no sacrifice of national honor. But the Federal party was hopelessly rent in twain, and the sceptre passed out of their hands. If this calamity is partly chargeable to infirmities of temper which belonged to the President, Hamilton and his friends cannot be wholly acquitted of a like fault. The effort of Hamilton, in 1800, to

substitute Pinckney for Adams for the first office, could only have the effect to embitter the latter and his supporters, to the last degree; and, when on the eve of the election, Hamilton allowed his attack on Adams to see the light, he struck a blow at the prospects of the party at which all its foes exulted. Exasperated by the derogatory remarks which Mr. Adams, with his usual imprudence, was in the habit of making about him and the "British faction" of which he stood as the leader, Hamilton was unable to resist the temptation to give vent to his natural indignation and to vindicate himself against un. founded aspersions. He proved himself a poor party manager on this as on other occasions, and allowed Jefferson to be carried into power by the bickerings and animosities of his adver saries, who, had they been heartily united or been able temporarily to hush up their quarrels, might have retained still longer their ascendency.

ARTICLE VIII.-NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS.

DALE'S CLASSIC BAPTISM.*-Mr. Dale is known to us only from the testimony of his book; but this shows him to be a strong thinker, and a vigorous, if not a polished, writer. In the treatment of his subject he is too intensely controversial for our taste. He has his antagonist always before him, and like Homer's heroes, when he gives a good blow or thrust, he breaks out into loud triumph over the prostrate foe. Unfortunately, this is not a mere matter of taste. If Mr. Dale had developed his own views with the calmness of scientific inquiry, and in criticising the views of others had been content with a clear but unexultant exposure of their weakness, he would have been more likely to inspire the confidence or overcome the prejudices of his readers. The subject is, evidently, one to which he has devoted the study and reflection of years. Perhaps the long and labored preparation which has qualified him for his task, has given him a somewhat exaggerated notion of its importance. We fear, at least, that some will think so, when they find nearly four hundred octavo pages taken up with a discussion which covers only a part, though an interesting part, of the Baptist question. Here, again, we cannot help thinking that Mr. Dale has stood in his own light. The facts and arguments of his treatise might have been presented with equal, or even greater, clearness and effectiveness in a book of half the size; and many readers would have ventured upon the smaller book whose courage will hardly suffice for so bulky a volume. Indeed, a mere elimination of the passages in which he triumphs over the inconsistencies and absurdities of Baptist critics, would go far to effect the desired reduction.

By "classical writers" on the title-page are meant heathen writers, and, perhaps, it would have been better to call them so: there seems to be no sufficient reason why Plotinus, and Proclus, and Æsop, and Chariton of Aphrodisias should be esteemed classical more than a Basil or a Chrysostom. Of passages in which the

Classic Baptism. An Inquiry into the meaning of the word baptizo, as determined by the usage of classical Greek writers. By JAMES W. DALE, Pastor of the Media Presbyterian Church, Delaware County, Pa. Boston: Draper & Halliday. 1867. 8vo., pp. xxii., 354.