Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

upon man in his civil and political, as well as in other relations of life; and that, where the Redeemer by his special revelation makes known his claims, no man or class of men, without incurring his displeasure, as Lord of all, can disregard those claims. This is the decided language of the Church of God. In proof of this truth, as the sentiment of christians, that civil rule, in a christian land, should be employed upon christian principles, I need only refer you to the several Confessions of the respective communities. It would indeed be surprising were it otherwise. That an institution ordained of God, put into the hand of the Christ of God for purposes of high moral consideration; conversant about man as a moral being;-appointed to guard his rights, political and religious; sustained, valuable, and efficient, in promoting his personal and social interests, in proportion as pervaded by a moral influence; that such an institution, in its frame and administration, should, in a land where the gospel is revealed, be regardless of him in whose hand is the temporal, the spiritual, the moral, and immortal destiny of man, is absurd to suppose, and impossible in fact. And let it be observed, whatever may be the defects of political institutions, the unceasing aim of the christian will be, in all his deportment under them, to bring them to subserve the high interests of our rational nature; and for that end, he will seek the diffusion of sound principle through the mass of community, among the constituted authorities of the land, and its influence over all their administrations of state. Where no pledge is given to maintain defects, and a testimony against them is admitted, there is no inconsistency in acting upon principles that are sound, and in improving facilities that are afforded, under a system that has its wants, in order to supply them, and in supplying them to gain the ends of the social state.

This will furnish an answer to the inquiry, and it is an inquiry of deep import-How is christianity to be applied to civil society? Most certainly not by provisions and enactments unauthorized, or not sustained, by public sentiment; but by making the members of society sound in principle and virtuous in practice. When this is effected, the people will carry their christianity into every department of civil life. None but they can do it; and they will do it, under such forms as the peculiar condition of each nation may indicate to be most proper.

To further this, every christian should be at his post, and wherever duty to his God, the church, and his country, calls, there he should be found. Let not christians by a mistaken view of spirituality, retire from social duty, or alienate their rights, as men, to be the inheritance of infidels and profligates. Between the most exalted spirituality of mind and an intelligent and liberal assertion of social rights, there is no discrepancy. Infidelity, for obvious reasons, would persuade us to believe, that religious and civil duties are hostile to each other. Believe it not. The man after God's own heart was a statesman and a captain, as well as a distinguished saint.

LETTER II.

THE MORAL ESTIMATE OF THE CIVIL INSTITUTIONS OF

THE UNITED STATES.

Dear Sir,

It may be proper to apprize you, that in my brief reply to the query you stated, I purpose to keep far from the vexing points which it involves under their mere political aspects. I treat it exclusively as a question of morality.

It is well known, however, that since the commencement of the United States' governments, great diversity of opinion has existed, respecting the political provisions of these institutions, as well as concerning their moral character. Men of undoubted integrity and talent, at an early period, were ranged upon different sides. The disputes are not yet settled.The christian who condescends to examine the matter, if not very deeply versed in its history, may not be the less prepared for his task, in being aware that the question of its morality is more nearly connected than he may have supposed, with that of the political aspect under which the respective parties contemplate the subject. It must, at the same time, be obvious that an examination of the case, upon its own merits, irrespective of opinions which may have been entertained and expressed of it, is likely to result in a decision, at least as candid,

as when influenced by the views of others. Still, I must be far from treating with neglect what respectable men have of fered upon the subject. But candour requires that we consider the circumstances under which they formed and stated their sentiments, and that we inquire what changes have taken place since they did so, justifying a modified judgment of the matter, by the same or other men. Great injustice may be done to the opinions formed a quarter or half a century since, should this course be neglected. Upon these things, some profess to see important changes; others say "All things continue as they were."

To arrive at a satisfactory conclusion in this inquiry, there are some points which ought not to be confounded.To obtain light, judge fairly, and do justice, we must discriminate. The false witness and the partial judge like to deal in generals. That we do not so, in the case before us, let us distinguish between the men into whose hands our political system may sometimes fall, and the system itself.We must not confound unauthorized abuses, with regulations which admit of a better application. We must not determine simple neglects, to be absolute rejections of what is good. We ought, too, while describing the requisitions of moral character, and of course pointing to the most perfect standard, and demanding the maximum, the highest excellence, as our uniform and ultimate end, to remember that there is a minimum, a least, with which, in the mean time, we will be content to admit the legitimacy of the institution. In reference to civil institutions, the ascertaining of this minimum of moral worth, with which an enlightened and virtuous man may be, for the time, so far content, as to act under it, is important. Carrying along with us these, and such preliminary considerations, it may be advisable, in the first place, to glance at the moral character of the state governments; and, in the second place, consider the effect of the Union of the States, upon the moral character of the individual commonwealths.

To pass in review all the twenty-four constitutions of these states, would, indeed, be a laborious task, and I presume, in this case, a very useless one. The selection and examination of one of these instruments will be sufficient, and more satisfactory than taking up the whole. I therefore fix upon the constitution of my own state, and if at any time I

speak in the first person, of a civil relation, it is as a citizen of the commonwealth of New-York. I beg your attention to the following observations.

I. The Commonwealth of New-York is a free, sovereign, and independent state.

Sovereignty and independence are claimed by every state of the Union; and, in the constitutions of many of them, expressly asserted. Massachusetts asserts these attributes, in her bill of rights, as belonging to her. The people of NewHampshire, after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, solemnly declared themselves "a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state." Such is the style in which the New States speak, it may be presumed, for the purpose of affirming their equality with the elder commonwealths. The term State, in this application, is of the same general import with nation. It indicates the civil community or body politic. Authorities to establish this import of the term need not be quoted, as it is believed every jurist and statesman admits it; and men of high name in several states of the Union, employ state and nation as convertible terms.

New-York before and since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, has occupied as high a ground as any of her sister states, in asserting her independent sovereignty. Within herself, this state possessed all the first, comprehensive and essential elements of government; and in delegating a portion of her power to the confederation, she acted, and continues to act, as a sovereign with the other sovereigns of the league. She had and still has her own constitution of government, her own legislature, her own judiciary, her own executive, and her own affairs, with which the confederation may not interfere; and which embrace all that is immediately most interesting to the citizen. How few, comparatively, are the points delegated? How seldom does the citizen, of any state, come in contact with the Federal power? And how few of the citizens in their affairs,—if we except the post office establishment-ever touch it at all? Not so, however, with their own state governments. They are seen and felt wherever they go, and at all times. Thus finely, as well as judiciously, writes one of our distinguished jurists-Chancellor Kent-who will not be suspected, from political partialities, of giving too strict

an interpretation to our federal bond. He truly says: "The vast field of the law of property, the very extensive head of equity jurisdiction, and the principal rights and duties which flow from our civil and domestic relations, fall within the control, and we might almost say, the exclusive cognizance of the state governments. We look essentially to the state courts for protection to all these momentous interests. They touch, in their operation, every cord of human sympathy, and control our best destinies. It is their province to reward and to punish. Their blessings and their terrors will accompany us to the fire-side, and be in constant activity before the public eye.

The true interests and the permanent freedom of this country require, that the jurisprudence of the individual states should be cultivated, cherished, and exalted, and the dignity and reputation of the state authorities sustained with becoming pride."* The state felt herself free and independent when she entered into the confederacy; and she exercised her sovereignty in fixing her terms. Had she refused to enter into the compact, no power on earth could of right have compelled her; in such an event, no compulsion would have been attempted. Like those states which did hold back for a time, she would have found herself treated by the confederated commonwealths, in their commercial and political relations, as a foreign state. The doctrine of state sovereignty has an important bearing upon the moral aspect of the general subject before us. I beg it to be attended to, when I return to its fuller consideration in a more proper place.

II. The government of this State is founded, fairly and directly upon the common will, expressed in peace, expressed fully and repeatedly, and in the absence of all fear, compulsion, or tumult.

Since the Revolution three conventions, at distant periods from each other, have been called, to frame or amend the constitution of government. The year 1821, will long be gratefully remembered, by the friends of human right in the state of New-York. Defects were found in her constitution of government, to the rectifying of which the power of ordinary legislation was deemed inadequate. It was recommended to the citizens to express their pleasure upon the measure of

*Kent i. 418.

« AnteriorContinuar »