Gazette of the United-States. (New-York [N.Y.]) 1789-1793, June 10, 1789, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    (barcttV r /^Tratcbv»tatct>,
[So. XVII.]
u The habit of acquiring propertybegets a caution in
parting with it."
MEN who poflefs a censorious temper are apt
to complain, that people lose their incJina
- ititn to do good, in proportion as their ability
creases. This is hardly true in the extent which
£ commonly supposed, and even where the fatft
fxifts it often deserves an apology. When a man
rofp'ers in bufmefs, his friends are too much in
clined to imagine, that they have a claim to par
ticipate in his good fortune ; and it often happens,
that applications for assistance, to this prosperous
man, multiply falter than his property enlarges.
Every one, who meets with a refulal, charges liim
■with unkindnefs, and really believes, that wealth
has hardened his heart, and abated his regard for
bis friends.
It may be granted for once, that the fa<£ fully
authorises the charge, and that men grow avari
cious as they grow rich. Some real'ons, however,
ihoutf be offered to explain and apologize for this
change of disposition.
In the firft place, it may be mentioned, that as
men extend their business they find by experience,
that they sustain more inconvenience than they
expetfted, in aflifting their acquaintance. Ihe
frequent disappointments and lofl'es they meet
■yrith, by advances to their friends, destroy their
confidence in mankind; and they fufpecft all, who
have not given unequivocal proofs of their punc
tuality and knowledge of business. This loss of
confidence is a powerful cause in restraining rich
men from lending assistance to their less prosper
ous friends and neighbours. When they former
ly feemedinore difpofedto patronise others, they
did not anticipate the confequepces,that would re
sult from indulginga temper of undiftinguifhing
Another reason for this change of disposition,
which is complained of, may be drawn from the
influence tliat prosperity unavoidably
over the mind. The sympathetic impulses do not
operate vigorously, where there is 110 fiinilarity
of circumttances. A man, entering into business
with a small capital, has occasion to ask assistance ;
and when it is asked of him, he denies with foine
reiu&ance, because he has a fellow-feeling with
him who solicits it. But when he becomes
independent, he forgets the pleasure and advan
tage that are derived from benevolent aid, and
therefore his sensibility does not, as formerly,
prompt him to grant the favors that are requested.
A third reason results from the nature of the
human constitution. Avarice and precaution are
among the attendants of old age. If therefore
we perceive a man, who was benevolent and
friendly when he was young, afluming a different
character when he becomes old, we inuft, in ad
dition to the other causes that have been enumer
ated, fuppole that he is acting agreeably to a law
«f his nature.
Mr. Fen no,
EVEIIY friend to the rights of conscience, equal
libeny and diffufive happiness, mult have felt
patn on feeing the attempt made by one of your
conefpondents, in the Gazette of the United
States No. 8, May the 9th, to revive an odious
system of religious intolerance The author may
not have been fully sensible of the tendency of
his publication, because he speaks of preferring
imiverfal toleration. Perhaps he is one of those
who think it confident with justice to exclude
certain citizens from the honors and emoluments
society, merely on accbunt of their religious
opinions, provided they be not restrained by
racks and forfeitures from the exercise of that
worship which their consciences approve.—lf
.' )e s riew?, in vain then have Americans
allociated into one great national union, under
the express condition of not being ffiackled by re
ligious tests ; and under a firm persuasion that
tnev were to retain when aflociated, every natu
'al right not expressly surrendered.
Is it pretended that they, who are the objeifts of
an intended exclusion from certain offices of honor
and advantage, have forfeited by an ads, or trea
*Oii against the United States, the common rights
°\ n r at V ,e » or r^e stipulated rights of the politi
cal iociety, of which they form apart ? This the
■wthor has not presumed to aflert. Their blood
•owed as freely (in proportion to their numbers)
t0 ,ei "snt the fabric of independence as that of
ot their fellow-citizens: They concurred
boil P C '' la P s g rea *cr unanimity than any other
.? ■' 01 lne n, in recommending and promoting
*t government, from whose influence America
1 icipa;esall thebleffings of jullice, peace, plen
y> goou order and civil and religious liberty.
v character ihall we then give to a fyftwn of
WEDNESDAY, June 10, 1789.
policy-, for the express purpose of diverting of
rights legally acquired thole citizens, who are
not only unoffending, but whose conduct has
been highly meritorious ?
These observations refer to the general tenden
cy of the publication, which I now proceed to
conlider more particularly. Is it true as the au
thor Hates, that our forefathers abandoned their
native home ; renounced its honors arid comforts,
and buried themselves in the immense forefts of
this new world, for the fake of that religion
which he recommends preferable to any other ?
Was not the religion which the emigrants to the
four southern States brought with tliem to Ame
rica, the pre-eminent and favored religion of
the country which they left ? Did the Roman Ca
tholics who firft came to Maryland, leave their
native foil for the fake of prelerving the Protes
tant church I Was this the motive of the peacea
ble Quakers in the settlement of P<yinfyl vania ?
Did the firft inhabitants of the Terfeys and New-
York, quit Europe for fear of being compelled
to renounce their Protestant tenets ? Can it be
even truly aiTirmed.that this motive operated on
all, or a majority of those who began to fettle
and improve the four eastern States ? Or even if
they really where influenced by a desire of pre
ferring their religion, what will ensue from the
facfl, but that one denomination of Protestants
fought a retreat from the persecution of another?
W ill history juftify the aflertion that they left
their native homes for the fake of the Protestant
religion, understanding it in a comprehensive
sense asdiftinguifhed from eVery other ?
This leading fact being so much miftated, no
wonder that the author /houldgo on bewildering
himfalf more and more. Heaflerts that the reli
gion which he recommends, laid the foundation o]
this new and great empire-, and therefore contends
it is entitled to pre-eminence and distinguished
favor. Might I not fay with equal truth, that
the religion which he recommends exerted her
powers to crush this empire in its birth, and still
is laboring to prevent its growth? For, can we
so soon forget, or now help feeing, that the bit
terest eneyiies of our national prosperity profefs
the fame religion as prevails generally in the Uni
ted States? What inference will a philosophic
mind derive from this view, but that religion
is out of thequeftion ? That it is ridiculous to fay,
the eftablilhment of the American empire was
not the work of this or that religion, but arose
from a generous exertion of all her citizens to
rt-drefs their wrongs, to aflert their rights, and
lay its foundations on the soundest principles of
jultice and equal liberty ?
When he ascribed so many valuable effects to
his cherillied religion, as that she was the nurse oj
arts andfciences, could he not reflect, that Homer
and Virgil, Dimoflhenet anil Cicero, Thucydidet and
Livy, Ihidias and Apelles flourifhed long before
this nurse of arts and sciences had an existence ?
Was he so inconsiderate as not to attend to the
consequences, favorable to Polytheism, which
How from his reafoning?.Or did he forget that
the Emperor Julian, the subtle and inveterate ene
my of christianity, applied this very fame argu
ment to the defence of Heathenish superstition ?
The 1 recollection of that circumstance may induce
him to fufpecft the weight of his observation, and
perhaps to doubt of the fadl, which he aflumed
for its basis.
But he tells us that Britain owes to her religion
her present distinguished greatness : a gentle invira
tionto America topurfue the lame political max
ims, in heaping excluhve favors on one, and de
prefling all other religions !
But does Britain owe indeed the perfection and
extent of her manufactures, and the enormous
wealth of many individuals to the cause afligned
by this author ? Can he so soon put it out of lus
mind, that the patient industry so natural to En
glish artificers, and the long monopoly of our
uade, and that of their dependencies, byincrea
fing the demand and a competition among her
artizans, contributed principally to the perfec
tion of the manufactures of Britain ? And that
the plunder of Indian provinces poured into her
lap the immense fortunes which murder and ra
pacity accumulated in those fertile climes ? God
forbid that religion should be instrumental in
railing such greatness !
When the author proceeds to fay, that the
clergy of that religion, which operated such
wonders in Britain, boldly and zealously fteppaa
forth and bravely stood our distinguished fentineh to
bring about the late glorious revolution, lam almofl
determined to follow him no further: He is lead
ing me on too tender ground, on which I chufe
not to venture. The clergy of that religion be
haved, I believe, as any other clergy wpuld have
\j?tlblijhcd on Wednesday arid Saturday.]
clone in similar circumstances : But the voice of
America will not contradi&me, when I aflert that •
they discovered no greater zeal for the revoluti
on, than the minilhry of any other denomination
When n;en comprehend not, or refufe to ad
mit the luminous principles on which the lights
of confidence and liberty of religion depend,
they are induftrigus to find out pretences for into
lerance. If they cannot discover them in the
actions, they strain to cull them out of the te
nets of the religion which they wish to exclude
from a free participation 6f rights. Thus
this author attributes to his region the merit of
being the moj\ favorable to freedom, and affirms
that not only morality but liberty like wife must
expire, if his clergy should ever be contemned or
legletted: all which conveys a refined insinuation,
that liberty cannot consist with, or be cherished
by any other religious institution; and which
therefore he would give us to underfland, it is'
not fafe to countenance in a free government.
I am anxious to guard against the impression
intended by such insinuations; not merely for
the fake of any one profeflion, but from an ear
nest regard toprcferve inviolate for ever, in our
new empire, the great principle of religious free
dom. The constitutions of some of the States
continue still to intrench on the sacred rights of
eonfcience ; and mepwho have bled, and open
ed their purses as freely in the cause of liberty
and independence, as any other citizens, are
molt unjustly excluded from the advantages which
they contributed to establish. But if bigotry and
narrow prejudices have prevented hitherto the
cure of these evils, be it the duty of every lover
of peace and justice to extend them 110 further.
Let the author who has opened this field for dif
culfion, be aware of slyly imputing te anj set of
men, principles or consequences, which they
disavow. He perhaps may meet with retaliation.
He »nay be told and referred to Lord Lyttleton,
as zealous a Protestant as any man of his days,,
for information, that the principles of non-rt
fiftence seemed the principles of that religion which
we are now told is mofl favourable to freedom; and
that its opponents had g'jne top far in the Other ex—
He may be told farther, that a Reverend Pre
late of Ireland, the Bishop ofCloyne, has'lately
attempted to prove, that the Protestant Epifcoput
church is belt fitted to unite with the civil consti
tution of a mixed monarchy, while Presbyterian-
Lfm is only congenial with republicanism. Must
America then yielding to these fanciful fyfteins,
confine her iiijlingu'tjhing favors to the followers
of Calvi.n, and keep a jealous eye on all others ?
Ought she not rather to treat with contempt these
idle, and generally speaking interelted (pecula
tions, reftited by reaAjn, hiliory, and daily ex
perience, and reft the preservation of her liber
ties and hi;r government on the attachment of*
mankind to their political happiness, to the fe
curityof their persons and their property, which
is independent of religious dotfirines, and not
restrained by .any PACIFICUS.
* Sec dialogues of the dead, ift dialogue.
[Continued from No. XVI.}
AS an impartial and able interpretation of the
laws and regulations of a country, which deter
mine the merits or demerits of its citizens, isne
cellary to the life, liberty, and property
of the fubjed:, and ought to be placed in a dif
tindt and feperate body of men independent of
the other branches of government, the constitu
tion of the United States has wifely provided;
for the establishment of a national
Competent to the deliberation upon, and deter
mination of, those disputes and causes, civil and
criminal, between individuals only and between
individuals ;and rhe community, to which the
present existing judiciaries would not have been,
competent, their researches and practices being
rather confined to corporate and municipal law,,
and not involv ing the great and extensive objects
of national jurisprudence : The limple felf evi
dent proportion, thatthe means ought ever to be
commenfuratc with the end designed, points out
the need of a national judiciary ; the inconveni
encies and incompatibilities which must have ne
ceflarily result ed from the interpretation of the
national laws by the State judicial courts, the
partial determinations to he feared from juries f»
iinpannelled as; to have their corporate if not per
sonal interest : iffetfted by the iflue of many causes;
the strong biaji of feperate interests and views,
are so many fstrcafms upon the idea, and appear
so obvioully in lproper to the thinking mind as to
make any mojre particular Uluftratiovs unneces