observations that I owe to the cause of truth and to my own blameless character. Yes, my friend, I appeal to yourself, to our intimate intercourse of near twenty years, when I repeat this claim of character. It cannot be denied me in any country; and your letter itself, with all its expostulating severity, is a proof of the sentiment in you which justifies my appeal.

The engraving in question is gone forth, and unfortunately cannot be recalled. If I had less delicacy than I really have towards you and the other catholic Christians whom you consider as insulted by the prostration of their emblems which you therein discover, I might content myself with stating, what is the fact, that this engraving and the picture from which it was taken were made in England while I was in America; and that I knew nothing of its composition till it was sent over to me not only engraved, but printed and prepared for publication. My portion therefore in the crime, if it is a crime, is only the act of what our lawyers term an accomplice after the fact. But my af. fectionate regard for an offended brother will not suffer me to meet his complaint with so short an answer. I must discuss the subject, and reply to the whole charge as though it were all my own; premising, as I have al. ready done, that I am sorry there is occasion for it, and regret that the engraving was ever made.

How much our religious opinions depend on the place of our birth! Had you and I been born in the same place, there is no doubt but we should have been of the same religion. Had that

place been Constantinople we must have been mussulmen. But now the mussulmen call us infidels; we pity their weakness and call them infidels in our turn. I was born in a place where catholic Christians are not known but by report; and the discipline of our sect taught us to consider them not indeed as infidels, but as a species of idolaters. It was believed by us, though erroneously, that they worshipped images. We now find that they employed them only as instruments of worship, not as the object. But there is no wonder that to the vulgar apprehension of our people it should appear as we were taught to believe; and that those nations who bow the knee before these emblems of deity, and address their prayers to them, should be considered as really worshipping them. This idea was perhaps corroborated by their prayers being uttered in an unknown tongue.

The decalogue of Moses had inspired us with an abhorrence for images, and for those who bow down to them and worship them; and hence arose our un. happy aversion to the catholics. We were told that their churches were full of pictures, statues, and other visible representations, not only of the blessed virgin, of all the apostles and many of the saints, but of every person in the holy trinity. Our fathers had protested against that great section of the christain family which calls itself the mother church, not merely on account of the sale of indulgences, against which Luther had led the revolt, but likewise on account of its making these pretended images of the inimageable God.

The sect of puritans, in which I was born and educated, and to which I still adhere for the same reason that you adhere to the catholics, a conviction that they are right, were the class of refor. mers, who placed themselves at the greatest remove from the mother church, and retained the least respect for her emblems and the other ceremonials of her worship. They could suffer no bishops, no mitres, crosiers, cru. cifixes, or censers. They made no processions, carried no lighted candles through the streets at noon day; neither did they leave them burning in their churches through the night, when no human eye was there to see them; having entirely lost sight of this part of the institutions of Zoro. aster, Isis, and Ceres. They They would not allow their prayers to be written in any language, not even in Latin, though they did not understand it. But they chose to utter their supplications extempore, like their other discourses, to communicate their own ideas, to express their wants and offer their confessions directly to the invisible God; through a mediator indeed, but without holding him in their hand, or having him fixed in effigy on a cross before their eyes. They had no organs in their churches, no instrumental music in their worship, which they held to be always profane.

These people made use of no cross but the mystical one of mortifying their sins; and if they had been called upon to join in a crusade to the holy land, they

must have marched without a standard. They would have fought indeed with as much brave, ry as saint Louis or the Lion

Richard; but when they had reconquered the tomb of Christ they would have trampled on the cross with as fervent a zeal an they would upon the crescent. They were not conversant with what we call the fine arts; they spoke to the ear, but not to the eye; and having no reverence for images or emblems, they despised those that had, though they were doubtless wrong in so doing.

I mention these things, my wor. thy friend, not with the least idea of levity or evasion; but to prove to you how totally you have mistaken my meaning and my motive; to show by what chain of circumstances, mostly foreign to our own merits of demerits, our habits of opinion, our cast of character are formed; to show how natural it is that a man of my origin and education, my course of study and the views I must have taken of the morals of nations, their causes and tendencies, should attribute much of the active errors that afflict the human race to the use of em blems, and to the fatal facility with which they are mistaken for realities by the great vulgar of mankind; how the best of Chris tians of one sect may consider the christian emblems of another sect, as prejudices of a dangerous tendency, and honestly wish to see them destroyed; and all this without the least hostility to their fundamental doctrines, or suspicion of giving offence.

I never supposed that those Hollanders who, to obtain leave to carry on commerce in Japan, trampled on the cross, as a proof that they did not belong to the same nation with the Portuguese who had done so much mischief

in that island, really meant to renounce their religion as Chris tians, when they trod upon its catholic emblem. The act might be reprehensible, as being done for lucre; but it must appear extremely different in the eyes of different sects of Christians. To a catholic, who identifies the cross with the gospel, our only hope of salvation, it must appear a horrid crime; but to a protestant we may easily conceive it might appear of little 'moment, and by no means as a renuncia. tion of the gospel.

You have now furnished in your own person an additional example, and a most striking one, of identifying the symbol with the substance. In your letter to me, you treat the cross and the gospel as the same thing. Had I been sufficiently aware of the force of that habit of combina. tion among the catholics, especially in a mind of those acute perceptions and strong sensibilities which I know to belong to yours, I should surely have sup. pressed the engraving.

You must perceive by this time, that you have mistaken my principles and feelings in another point of view. You suppose I should be greatly offended to see the symbols of liberty, so dear to me, trampled under foot before my eyes." Not at all my friend. Leave to me and my country the great realities of lib. erty, and I freely give you up its emblems. There was no time in the American revolution, though I was then young and enthusiastic, when you might not have cut down every liberty pole and burn all the red caps in the United States, and I would have looked on with tranquillity, per.

haps have thanked you for your trouble. My habits of feeling and reasoning, already account. ed for, had accustomed me to regard these trappings rather as detrimental than advantageous to the cause they are meant to support. These images we never greatly multiplied in this coun. try. I have seen more liberty caps at one sitting of the Jaco bin club in Paris, than were ever seen in all America.

You will say perhaps that it is the difference of national character which makes the distinction. This is doubtless true; but what has been the cause of this difference in the character of our two nations? Has not the universal use of emblems in one, and the almost universal disuse of them in the other, had as great if not a greater effect than all other causes, in producing such difference? I do not say that our national character is better than yours; far from it. I speak frankly, I think you undervalue the French character. I have a high esteem for that nation. They are an amiable, intelligent, generous, hospitable, unsuspicious people. I say noth ing of their government, whether regal, revolutionary, or imperial. In private friendship they are as disinterested and unshaken, at least, as any people I have seen, Of this I could cite numerous examples, both within my own experience and that of others; though it would establish my position in my own mind if I were able to mention none but you.

It would indeed be paying too high a compliment to any nation on earth to cite Gregoire as a sample of its moral and so

If all catholics

cial character. had been like you, the world at this day would all be catholics. And I may say, I hope without offence, that if all pagans had been like you, the world had all been pagans; there might have been no need of catholics, no pretext for the sect of puritans.

This is an amicable discussion between you and me. The suavity of your manner does honor to the fortitude with which you defend your principles; though it is not easy to perceive against what opponent you are defend. ing them.

Your letter expatiates in a wide field and embraces many subjects. But really, my friend, the greater part of it has nothing more to do with me than one of Cicero's letters to Atticus. You begin by supposing that I have renounced christianity my. self, and that I attempt to overturn the system by ridicule and insult. Neither of which is true; for neither of which have you the least color of proof. No, my honest accuser, the proof is not in the book. Review the work with all the acumen of your discernment, and you must, you will recall the hasty accusation. I defy you and all the critics of the English language to point out a passage, if taken in its natural, unavoidable meaning, which militates against the genuine principles, practice, faith, and hope of the christian system, as inculcated in the gospels and explained by the apostles whose writings accompany the gospels in the volume of the new testa

ment.

On the contrary, I believe, and you have compelled me on this occasion to express my belief, that the Columbiad, taken

in all its parts of text and notes and preface, is more favorable to sound and rigid morals, more friendly to virtue, more clear and unequivocal in pointing out the road to national dignity and individual happiness, more energetic in its denunciations of ty. ranny and oppression in every shape, injustice and wickedness in all their forms, and consequently more consonant to what you acknowledge to be the spir. it of the gospel, than all the writings of all that list of christian authors of the three last ages, whom you have cited as the glo. ry of christendom, and strung them on the alphabet, from Ad. dison down to Winkelman. Un. derstand me right, my just and generous friend, I judge not my poem as a work of genius. I cannot judge it nor class it nor compare it in that

respect, be

cause it is my own. But I know it as a moral work; I can judge and dare pronounce upon its tendency, its beneficial effect upon every candid mind; and I am confident you will yet join me in opinion. But let me repeat my prayer that you will not mistake the spirit of this obser vation. It is not from vanity that I speak; my book is not a work of genius; the maxims in it are not my own; they are yours, they are those of good men that have gone before us both; they are drawn from the gospel, from history, from the unlettered volume of moral nature, from the experience and the inexperience of unhappy man in his various struggles after happiness; from all his errors and all his objects in the social state. My only merit lies in putting them together with fidelity. My work is only

a transcript of the tablet of my mind imprest with these images as they pass before it.

You will see that I have noth. ing to do with the unbelievers, who have attacked the christian system either before the French revolution, or during or since that monumental period. I am not one of them. You say I resemble them not in any thing else; you will now add that I resemble them not in this.

So far as you have discovered a cause of the failure of that revolution in the renunciation of the christian faith by those who held, in stormy quick succession, the reins of your government, I thank you for the discovery. I was in want of more causes than I had yet perceived, to account for the unhappy catastrophe of that gigantic struggle of all the virtues against all the vices that political society has known. You have discovered a cause; but there is such a thing in logic as the cause of a cause. I have thought, but perhaps it is an er. ror, that the reason why the minds of the French people took the turn they did, on the breaking out of the revolution, was to be found in the complicated ceremonials of their worship, and what you yourself would term the non-essentials of their religion.

The reasonable limits of a let ter will not allow me to do justice to this idea. To give it the proper development would require five times the volume that I shall give to the present communication. The inuumerable varieties of pomp and circumstance which the discipline of the church had inculcated and enjoined, became so incorporated

with the vital principles of faith and practice; and these exteriors were overloaded with abuses to such a degree, that to discriminate and take them down, without injuring the system, requir ed a nicer eye than the people can possess, a steadier hand than can comport with the hurried movement of a great revolu. tion.

The scaffolding of your church, permit me to say it, had so enclosed, perforated, overlooked and underpropt the building, that we could not be surprised, though sorely grieved, to see the reformer lay his hand, like a blind Samson, to the great substantial pillars, heave and overturn the whole encumbered edifice together, and bury him. self in the ruins. Why did they make a goddess of reason? Why erect a statue of liberty? a mass of dead matter for a living energetic principle! Have the cour age, my good friend, to answer these questions. You know it was for the same cause that the people of Moses, made their golden calf. The calf Apis had from time immemorial become a god in Egypt. The people were in the habit of seeing their divine protector in that substantial boval form, with two horns, four legs and a tail; and this habit was so interwoven in the texture of their mind as to become a part of the intellectual man. The privations incident to a whole moving nation subjected them to many calamities. No human hand could relieve them; they felt a necessity of seeking aid from a supernatural agent, but no satisfaction in praying to an invisible God. They had never thought of such a being;