more than he was one of the low or little. If I understand his character, he was too polished a man, in every sense of the term, and had seen too much of human nature, to confound ignorance or honest zeal without discretion, with bad motives, or mischievous designs, and to treat either as he would have done wilful misconduct: And this brings me to a point in relation to that great and good man, and the clause of the constitution in question, which deserves a little serious consideration.

Mr. Jay, it is understood, descended from the Huguenots, who were so barbarously cut off in the unhallowed massacre of St. Bartholomew. That massacre, in which so many protestants, with the illustrious Coligny at their head, suffered martyrdom, was, I believe, instigated more by political than religious bigotry. It was, I suspect, altogether political in its conception. It was a horrible prostitution of all the principles and precepts of the gospel and its Divine Author. But be this as it may, some of Mr. Jay's ancestors, I have understood, were the victims of that foul massacre; or at least had to fly from it to this country. These circumstances, it seems, did not transform Mr. Jay into an enemy of Christianity; for he was an exemplary and faithful member of a Christian Church; and I believe spent the last years of his illustrious life in writing a vindication of the gospel. But did it not give birth in his mind to a deep-rooted jealousy of the power and influence of the Clergy? The best and wisest of men frequently cherish the

greatest of errors. Saint Paul, the greatest man who ever lived, bore witness of this fact in and of himself: And with all due deference to the memory of Mr. Jay, did he not commit a grievous error, if he suffered the remembrance of the wrongs done to his ancestors by the furious intolerance and bigoiry of the Roman Catholic Clergy-(if indeed they were actually engaged in it)-to lead him into the commission of an act of intolerance and proscription towards the Clergy of his native state of all denominations? Is that constitution, I would ask, free and equal in its prescriptions, which disqualifies any portion of the people, for whom it was made, from participating in its honors and emoluments-its rights and its privileges? The learned professions, let Ignorance and Folly say what they may, are essential pillars of the social edifice in every country. They cannot be dispensed with unless society is to be left to sink into barbarism, as it did in Europe, under the eruptions of the Goths and Vandals upon the Roman Empire and its dependencies. Whilst, therefore, I would not bestow upon them any exclusive privileges, all such privileges being the bane of a free constitution; I would not, at the same time, exclude them from a free and equal participation in all the benefits of the Republic.

If the people are capable of self-government, they know who to entrust with power; and if they are not, there is an end to all argument or reflection on the subject. It is certain that to guard ALL from

the TYRANNY of ANY, is the intention of a free government, and not to subject ANY to the arbitrary will of the REMAINDER. If all men, in the language of our Declaration of Independence, are born free and equal; then all the citizens of the United States and of the individual States, are entitled to equal rights and privileges or in the language of the immortal Author of that inimitable State Paper, to "equal and exact justice." And here a reflection presents itself, which, I should suppose, would have some weight, at least, even with Infidels who are friendly to liberty and justice; and which is, that as Clergymen are excluded from all other offices, or honors, under the government, it would seem to partake of a very contracted and niggardly, as well as a persecuting spirit, to strip them of the small honor of serving as Chaplains in the Legislative Halls, and in the army and navy: As to the latter, indeed, next to being engaged in a righteous and justifiable war-a war of defence, and not of offence, the only war that becomes a Christian people-the offering up of prayer to the God of battles, for victory in the day of battle, is the most important and indispensable duty: And who is more properly qualified to perform this office, than the individual who has been educated for the service of God, and is faithfully devoted to it? Why, then, deny to the clergy the only portion of the honors of a free government, which may, with strict constitutional, moral and religious propriety, be conferred upon them? Why mark them out as

objects of jealousy and hatred? Why persecute them? Why hold all other citizens capable of duly estimating, enjoying and preserving a proper regard for civil liberty, while they are held up and proscribed as enemies to it; and as such, excluded from the privileges, which all others enjoy under our boasted republic? Why set a mark, like that of Cain, upon them, as though each and every one of them had murdered his brother! And as though there was no other. profession, class, or description of men, capable of doing mischief against our free institutions! The sublime reason, I presume, is, that because ignorant and bigotted, weak, wicked and unfaithful Clergymen, under governments wherein church and state have been improperly connected, and during rude and barbarous ages, were themselves guilty of proscription, tyranny and persecution; ergo, virtuous, enlightened, liberal and faithful Clergymen, as well as patriotic and faithful citizens, under a government wherein no such connection is allowed to be, and in a highly cultivated and improved age, must be subjected to proscription, tyranny and persecution! If such be the logic of those who first proscribed, and of those who continue the proscription of the Clergy; if it be thus that they confound the innocent with the guilty; it is high time that they were sent to school again, to learn at least the elements of civil and political science or economy: For every man of common sense who reflects a moment on the subject, must perceive, that a church and state connection, is that state of

relationship, between the government and the church, in which the church itself is made a part of the constitutional charter, established and sup ported by law, at the expense of the people, and against their will; and not the mere admission of the pastors of the church to the same civil and political privileges as are enjoyed by all the other portions or classes of their fellow-citizens. The form

er is what is meant by, and what is indeed, the church and state connections of the old world; while the latter is no more than the free, equal and just possession and enjoyment of the privileges, common, or ought to be so, to all the citizens of a free government. One, and perhaps the strongest, if not the only ground of Mr. Jay's mistake in this case was, that he did not discriminate between a state in which the Clergy possessed all, or at least paramount authority; and one in which all other classes possessed, or were to possess, an equal chance with them, to enjoy the honors and privileof the constitution. Nor did he discriminate between a government founded on an express written constitution and one growing out of custom and . "usage, or habit, and depending on the arbitrary will of one or more individuals. There was a time when the clergy had all the learning; when they were the only persons who could write; and consequently they had all the power. But was it because they were Clergymen that they made a bad use of this power? No it was because they were men frail men like Mr. Jay himself, and all other

ges