calling a convention, to do that which their legislature could not constitutionally effect. The public mind was decidedly favourable to the measure. The time of choosing delegates to the proposed convention was fixed. The citizens of every condition, in the utmost quietness and most exemplary order, assembled in their respective towns, wards, or districts. The choice of delegates was fairly made, and they convened in the capitol; into their hands was placed the whole frame of the government of a great state; they sat for months; deliberated, debated, and decided upon those provisions of government, which were deemed best for the public weal. Their doors were open, their halls crowded, their debates published; no guards were required to insure safety, no police officers were put in requisition to preserve the peace. There was neither danger nor tumult. When the convention had done their best, they committed the result of their counsels and toils to the people, in their primary assemblies, to be accepted or rejected by them at their pleasure. After due examination the people expressed their unbiassed judgment, and adopted the deed as their own. That was a proud season for the friends. of self-government; and many such seasons have been enjoyed in the western world. Upon this subject, the twenty-four Republics of confederated America, furnish materials for a splendid page in the history of man. Such a condition of society, much less than a century since, was thought of in the closet, but deemed visionary in practice. Government here rests where alone it can be permanent-upon the consent of the public mind, guided in its actings by light, and influenced by a sense of moral order.

In looking back to the period of the reformation, in the British Isles, the heart is pained at the results of the mighty struggles of patriots and saints. Principles, indeed, were exhibited and shed a light upon man which shall never be extinguished; but the fabric of civil reformation tumbled down, and in its ruins buried many of its friends. It could not be otherwise. The foundation was unsound, The government, in all its parts was an usurpation upon the prostrated rights of of humanity. Who authorized the house of Stuart with its feudal lords, to dictate laws and force them upon those realms? The principles of the Reformation were, as they still are, liberal and holy; but they could not sanctify usurpation. The

Saviour who came to redeem and raise from debasement our injured nature, however he might approve of the motives of individuals-as in the case of David in his well meant proposal to build the temple-and whatever the amount, personally, of their moral worth-refused to accept, in rearing the civil edifice of those nations, the labours of men, while in their public character they were clad in the spoils of plundered man.* This fundamental cause of failure in the British reformation of the seventeenth century, calls for the attention of reformers in the nineteenth. Let those of that empire who are the friends of moral reformation look, while their statesmen are beginning to tear away the rubbish, for a firmer basis upon which to lay their excellent material, than was found in the days of their fathers.

From this digression, if such you should be inclined to think it, I return, and shall, mean while, only assert that such a basis of government, as the British reformers wanted, the state of New-York possesses; the public will fully and without compulsion expressed. The mode of building must, too, be somewhat modified. The man who fixes his eye upon the measures and modes of two hundred years ago, determined to pursue them without accommodation to circumstances, will effect little for the public weal. Principles are permanent, but circumstances control their application.

III. The instrument of which I now speak, the constitution of New-York, is not blotted by a single immoral principle.

The provisions of this document are, so far as they go, in accordance with the eternal rule of righteousness. God is acknowledged by it as presiding over the destinies of the state, and the confession of his grace and benificence, as manifested in allowing the people to choose their form of government, is inscribed upon its front. Might not then the question be asked: Supposing that in this deed there were no recognition of any principle peculiar to the supernatural system

* Plundered man.-The above remarks refer to the political system of Great Britain, rather than to individual men. 'The feudal character of that system was, in the period noticed, more strongly marked than at present.The revolution of 1688, gained something for the people which they had not before. The American who admires the political constitution of Britain, in its radical principles, during any part of the 17th century, and prefers it to the civil institutions of his own country at this day, must be somewhat of a singular being.

of grace, might it not, nevertheless, according to the fundamental positions of my last letter, be acknowledged as the ordinance of God, for good to men? Formed by a free and deliberate expression of the public will, containing many moral provisions, and none that is immoral; the people under it advancing in knowledge, enjoying every right, and in possession of prosperity and happiness in an unexampled degree; would you place your signature to the declaration, that would proclaim it the device of Satan, originating in his dark abode, and posting thither again! You would not. No man who regards, or should be regarded in public opinion, would either conceive such a thought or utter such a declaration. Upon this ground, did I proceed no farther, would I not be safe in affirming the government of New-York to be a moral institution, worthy the support of upright men? It seems to me the assertion should subject no man to reproach. But I go farther, and affirm,

IV. That it is not only a moral system, but also a christian government, in actual and voluntary subjection to Messiah.

I do not affirm that it does all in respect of morals and religion, which ought to be done. Try any man or any church, by the test of doing all that ought to be done, and what must the decision be? That there is, in the civil and political system of New-York, both a laudable moral character and a substantial confession of Messiah, is the affirmation made. It is sustained by the following considerations:

1. The constitution confesses God and his gracious providence.

2. While it secures liberty of worship, it declares against licentiousness.

3. It prohibits the granting of lottery laws and other games of chance.

4. Slavery is abolished in the state, and can never again be authorized.

5. Tens of thousands of the state treasury are devoted, annually, to the promotion of useful knowledge, in the support of primary schools and higher institutions of literature.

6. The christian Sabbath is acknowledged in the code of public law, and provision is made to guard its sanctity.

7. The infidel is rejected by her courts as incompetent to give testimony.

8. The ministers of the gospel are recognized as an order of men devoted to the spiritual interests of their flocks, and that they may not be diverted from their appropriate labours, are exempted from various civil exactions.

9. Ecclesiastical property is secured by special statutes, and, in some cases, ecclesiastical officers are recognized by law as invested with the power of trustees.

10. By the solemn decisions of her supreme court, the Christian Religion is declared to be the religion of the state; and that the blasphemer of Christianity, or of its Author, is punishable by law. The case has been acted upon and the blasphemy has been punished by fine and imprisonment.Need I add, that the houses of the legislature employ christian ministers, as their chaplains, and pay them out of the treasury of the state. I deem it altogether out of place to press upon your patience, by a prolonged course of reasoning on the subject. The matters of fact just stated speak for themselves; and, whatever the mere party caviller may say, candour will have no difficulty in understanding their language.

Who, then, is right? He who misnames this an immoral and infidel government, or he who holds it to be a moral institution of God, bowing to Immanuel, and doing good to men? Verily, if this be the institution of the enemy of our race, I fear it will be hard in any land, or at any time, to find the ordinance of God. That government which requires of me the confession of no immoral principle, nor the doing of an immoral act; which protects every citizen, of whatever colour, in his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; which disposes, every year, largely of its treasures to promote the interests of literature and science, and to bring education to the habitations of the indigent; which guards the interests of morality against vice; which, while proclaiming liberty in the worship of God, makes constitutional provision against licentiousness; which banishes the infidel from its courts, refusing to believe his testimony; which secures the property of the church, recognizes the gospel of Christ, confers, not corrupting but distinguishing favours upon its ministers, and employs them in its legislative halls; which honours the Son of God by giving its sanction to the consecrated day of religious rest, and guards its sanctity by public law; and finally, which con

fesses God, in his grace and beneficence, as presiding over the state, and which sends, by its superior court, the blasphemer of the Redeemer of men, or of his holy religion, to the prisonhouse, as a bad member of society, may by others be held up as immoral and infidel; but with a good conscience I cannot do so.* I will not try it. Who would believe me? It must be the stranger just landing upon our shores that could credit the representation, and he would do it but for a little time.— Matter of fact would soon teach him another and sounder lesson.

ment.

* A blasphemer was indicted in 1810, and tried and convicted before Justice Spencer, at the June term, 1811, of the Court of Oyer and Terminer for Washington county. Judgment, $500 fine and three months imprisonThe judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, Aug. 1811. To those who have not access to the report, the following extract may be interesting. It affirms the christian character of the state of New-York. The title of the Report is :

"Blasphemy against GoD, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of CHRIST or the Holy Scriptures are offences punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings.'

"Wendell, for the prisoner, contended, that the offence was not punishable by the law of this state. The constitntion allows a free toleration to all religions and all kinds of worship. There are no statutes concerning religion, except those relative to the Sabbath, and to suppress immorality. The prisoner may have been a Jew, a Mahomedan, or a Socinian; and if so, he had a right, by the constitution, to declare his opinion.

"Gold, contra, contended, that the common law of England, as it stood in 1776, was adopted by the constitution, and made part of the law of the state. Blasphemy, as defined by Blackstone, is the denying the being or providence of GOD; contumelious reproaches of CHRIST; profane scoffing at the holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt or ridicule.

While the constitution of this state has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principle ingrafted on the body of our common law, that christianity is part of the laws of the state, untouched and unimpaired.

"KENT, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. ... The single question is, whether this be a public offence by the law of the land. The language was blasphemous not only in a popular, but in a legal sense; for blasphemy, according to the most precise definitions, consists in maliciously reviling God, or religion, and this was reviling christianity through its author. Such words, uttered with such a disposition, were an offence at common law. The reviling is still an offence, because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offences have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society.

"And why should not the language contained in the indictment be still an offence with us? There is nothing in our manners or institutions which has prevented the application or the necessity of this part of the common law. We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all that moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of