the Senate, House of Representatives or Council of State.→ This is done abruptly by the old North State and wants a preamble-such an one as the clergy cannot “ 'go to war upon. That is furnished by the Constitution of New-York in these words after providing for religious freedom

"And whereas the ministers of the Gospel are by their profession dedicated to the service of God and the cure of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore no minister of the Gospel or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to or capable of holding any civil or military office or place within this State."

Were ever stronger expressions of respect and reverence for man or his vocation used, than are contained in that preamble?—and was there ever greater distrust, fear and alarm manifested than in the succeeding clause, lest the clergy should get into office on some pretence or other?

It cannot be disguised that the framers of the Constitution feared the physicians of souls-dreaded the men who are dedicated to the service of God-and meant to keep them at their vocation lest they should interfere with State affairs and do civil mischief. They are even kept out of military office --forgetful that in the Revolutionary war the clergy came gallantly up to their full measure of duty, and that they both preached and fought as occasion required in the cause of liberty.*

We have seen that by some of the State Constitutions it is provided that a man who has too little religion cannot hold any office-and in the case before us the clergy are excluded for having too much! And so between the several provisions we must seek out a just and constitutional religious medium. "Believe in a God and the Christian religion" says one Constitution, "or you can hold no office." "If you teach the being of a God and any religion whatever, you shall hold no office," says another. So if you believe in a God and do not teach it, you may be eligible to office in one State--but if

*Rev. Thomas Allen, who was at the battle of Bennington, under General Stark, was asked if he killed any one. He answered, "he did not know, but that, observing a flash often repeated in a bush hard by, which seemed to be suoceeded each time by a fall of some of our men, he leveled his musket, and firing in that direction, put out the flash!",

you teach the being of a God, whether you believe it or not, you are excluded from office in another.

Democracy cuts an awkward figure in coquetting with religion. It seems to have difficulty in defining its position, and had better at once assume an air of perfect indifference. The Constitution forbids any minister of the Gospel or priest of any denomination from holding office. What persons answer this description? A priest we may know-but who is "a minister of the Gospel "? I know of no legal adjudication as to what is "The Gospel." And so I put a case with great respect. A new sect has lately arisen called Mormons, who believe in the divine authenticity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, but claim to have an additional revelation through an inspired prophet by the name of Smith. In their religious exercises, which I have witnessed, an ordained priest or minister presides. He preaches a sermon from a text usually taken from the Christian Bible--he prays --and the congregation sing psalms from a small book composed by their order. In their manner of religious exercise and devotion it is difficult to distinguish them from Protestant dissenters. Are their preachers and administrators of their sacred rites "ministers of the Gospel or priests of any denomination" within the meaning of the Constitution of New-York? They exist in this State, and the question may possibly arise upon the election of a Mormon teacher to office.

This provision in the New-York Constitution sprang from the memory of religious persecutions in which the priests. acted a large part. But it is to be borne in mind that they are powerless unless the law lends them its energies. If we have no State religion-if we will not allow any notice or preference of any one feature of any religion whatever to be given by the laws—if the State neither directly nor indirectly will recognise religious faith or the absence of it as material in any case, then the teachers of religion will be disarmed of that power which seemed to be dreaded by the framers of the Constitution, and ought to be as eligible to office as any other citizens. Separate religion from the State, and the minister of the Gospel and the teacher of any religion would stand

upon his merits like any other member of society. And if the people desired his election to office, it seems to me he might serve the State in an official capacity, without any grievous neglect of the cure of souls or the service of the Almighty.

This disfranchisement of the clergy is without any sound principle to rest upon; and since the State is not to know or inquire into men's opinions, or religious faith or practice, and as all rational moral beings are to have their full enfranchisement by the law until they offend against right, and thus fall into the category of the governed, it would seem that we ought to erase the article in question from the Constitution.*

* The Democratic Review, of December, 1843, contains an able article, attribu ted to John Bigelow, Esq., of the city of New-York, on the subject of Constitutional Reform, in which the distranchisement of the clergy is thus spoken of:

"We object that the clergy are, by the Constitution, ineligible to, and incapable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State,' and are thus denied a full, practical enjoyment of the privileges of citizenship. This, we be lieve, is the only clause in the present Constitution, which is unconditionally discreditable to the statesmanship of every man who advocated it. If anything could add to the absurdity of the act, it would be the reasons they gave for doing it.'Whereas, the ministers of the Gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the cure of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomi nation whatever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding any civil or military office or place within this State.' In the first place, the conclusion is, in itself, a wretched non sequitur; and, in the next place, when it is as well remembered as it was once understood, that this provision against the political elevation of the clergy was introduced solely to protect our institutions from the principles of that body, which were generally conceived to be fatally adverse to the existence of civil and religious liberty, every one will, at once, perceive that we have branded the whole body with a mark of public distrust, which, whether deserved or not, is no more necessary, under our liberal suffrage system, than it is to compel the people to border their garments with fringe, as the Jews were commanded by Moses, that they may become more mindful of, and obedient to the laws that exist.

"We will admit, if necessary, that, at first, the clergy would make unpractica. ble, and, we believe, unpopular statesmen; but, we have not the remotest idea that it would be possible for their whole united order to turn the Legislature of the State, in any perceptible degree, from its appointed orbit. Whether they would choose to avail themselves of the privilege of holding office, would depend upon two questions; first, whether it were calculated, as the Convention sug gested, to divert them from the duties of their sacred functions; and, secondly, whether, if it were, they were conscientious enough to refuse it. If they were not, it is hardly worth while for the State to oppose obstacles to their leaving a profession which they can't but disgrace. If they were, it is idle to impose prohibitions upon them. If on the other hand, the duties of the two functions were not found to be inconsistent, it is a gross injustice to the clergy to deprive them of their just influence in the making and administering of those laws which they are forced to submit to. It is not that we look for any special accession of wisdom to the counsels of the State, or fidelity in the administration of her affairs, by removing these restric ions from the clerical profession; but we are not willing that our Constitution, the sanctuary of our political faith, should any longer give refuge to a principle of legislation so intolerant and so mean."

CHAPTER V.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, &c.-CONTINUED.

THERE appears to be no good reason why a State should not be as cautious about incurring debt as a private person, nor why the integrity of a nation is not as deeply stained by default of payment as that of an individual. It seems strange, indeed, while every private debtor is anxious to have his obligation cancelled, and congratulates himself on his good fortune when he obtains his discharge, that a proverb should have prevailed to the effect that “a national debt is a national blessing."

The debt of an individual demands the sacrifice of his freedom, for he must toil until it is paid; of his luxuries and sometimes of his comforts, for these abstract money from his creditor; of his pride and independence, since he is embarrassed by another's power; and so long as the debt remains unsatisfied, his integrity is exposed to criticism, and after failure to censure. Seeing all this, an individual will not in general incur debt, unless stimulated by hope or goaded by necessity, as to obtain a good which will more than countervail the evil of debt, or to escape from a condition more to be dreaded than that of a debtor.

Far from regarding debt as a blessing, he detests it as a grievous burden, and oftentimes, goaded to desperation by its increasing weight, he associates the person of the creditor with the cause of his wretchedness, and detests him also; so that a loan may convert a friend into an enemy, and the conferring of a pecuniary favor may only bring a curse in return. Excessive pride revolts at the sense of obligation, and in the absence of conscience calls the passions to its aid, and fills the mind of the harrassed debtor with vindictive feelings towards his creditor. The former must possess a sound integ

rity, and no small share of philosophy besides, if, while groaning under a load of debt, he preserve a pure conscience and kind feelings towards a creditor who presses hard for payment.

And yet nothing is more reasonable than that a debt ought to be paid-nothing more sacred than its obligation.A debtor ought to employ every faculty of his mind and body in obtaining means to satisfy his debts, and he ought to deny himself of everything which is not necessary to his health and comfort until he has fulfilled his obligations. He consented to this when he incurred them. The credit was based upon his supposed talent, industry, economy and integrity. These are the pledges which he gave, and of these will the exactions of the creditor be made. It is no light affair, therefore, to incur such an obligation, and the wonder is that men so freely take it upon them.

The debt of a State is not less burthensome nor less sacred than that of an individual man. It binds the labor, the wealth and the conscience of every citizen. No one is at liberty to question its obligation, or to postpone its payment. The creditor of a State, instead of trusting to the fidelity of one man, has confided in that of many men, and parted with his property-perhaps his only means of living-on the faith of a nation's integrity. In a Republic every man is implicated in this obligation, since every man is deemed to have sanctioned it. He may not have done it directly, but his agent or representative who acted in his stead has authorized the debt; and if he did not intend to be bound by the act of his agent, he ought not to have constituted one with power to bind him by a pecuniary obligation without his express consent. The only thing to be done by the constituent body is, to pay up the debt contracted by their improvident agents, and to guard against their misconduct for the future. This will save the integrity and honor of the State, and preserve it from further debt.

The Constitution of each State in the American Union ought to present a barrier against an unjust public debt.— The representatives of the people ought to be prohibited