Gazette of the United-States. (New-York [N.Y.]) 1789-1793, June 10, 1789, Image 1
(barcttV r /^Tratcbv»tatct>, [So. XVII.] THE TABLE T. No. 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 liberality. Another reason for this change of disposition, which is complained of, may be drawn from the influence tliat prosperity unavoidably produc.es 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 PR OTESTANT RELIGION IS THE IMPOR TANT BULWARK OF OUR. Co NST IT UTIO If ? Thai 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 whatever. 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— tremf.* 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. A SALILH Ut V7JT MUTUAL STATE OF AMERICA. ~ [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 fecu.ve 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 sary.