torture their prisoners, and murder women and infants who fall into their hands. Civilized nations will perhaps find it hard to believe this reprefentation; but every part of it can be fupported by the most unquestionable facts, and it is rendered credible not only by the circumstance that civil wars are carried on commonly with a rancour and animofity greater than those between independent nations, but by the expreflions of hatred and contempt which have been used with respect to the Americans, by almost every speaker and writer in England. What effect could fuch language have on the minds of the foldiery, but to steel them against all impreffions of pity and tenderness, as we find was really the cafe, till they were reftrained in fome degree, by the fear of retaliation upon their people in our hands.

At laft, after four years of real, and near two years of profeffed and declared independence, it pleafed God to incline the heart of the king of France to give relief to the oppreffed, by entering into a treaty with the United States, on the most liberal and disinterefted principles. No exclufive privileges are there ftipulated for the French nation, but the fecure, open and equal intercourse to which all other nations are invited. This acknowledgment and support from one of the moft powerful monarchs in Europe, it may eafily be fuppofed gave a new turn to our affairs, and a new dignity to our caufe. The terms of this treaty, fo favorable to us, as well as honorable to our ally, cannot fail to add the bond of gratitude to that of justice, and make our adherence to it inviolable.

Not long after this treaty was figned, the court and parliament of Great-Britain fent out commiffioners to make an offer of terms, which we readily confess were not only as good, but better, than what three years before would have been chearfully accepted. But the ground was now wholly changed. We were offered freedom from taxes, and even a fpecies of independence itself, upon the easy terms of breaking our faith fo lately pledged, and uniting our force with that of Great-Britain; and both would doubtlefs have been immediately employed in taking vengeance on France for the affiftance

the had lent to us in our diftrefs. Yet even here, the whole was to be fubject to the revision of parliament; that is to say, any part of the agreement might be approved or rejected as to the wifdom of that affembly fhould feem meet.

These last proposals from Great-Britain, deserve very particular notice. They are a clear dereliction of the first caufe of quarrel, and an ample confeffion that the demands of America were juft; while the time and circumftances of their being made, fhew that they could not be accepted with any regard either to justice, gratitude, or policy. Could we be guilty of a direct breach of faith, when the ink was hardly dry by which our ratification of the treaty was marked? Could we inftantly forget those favors which had been fo earnestly folicited, as well as generously bestowed? Could we, who had not entered into a league offenfive and defenfive with France, except for the present struggle in our own behalf, because we did not wish to be involved in the wars of Europe, throw ourselves into the arms of an hoftile nation, and promise to make peace or war with her, against our benefactors?

Upon the whole, fince the American colonies were, from their extent and fituation, ripe for a feparation from Great-Britain, and the nature of things feemed to demand it; fince their growing power, added to that of GreatBritain, would give her fuch a dominion of the fea, as must be dangerous to the liberty and commerce of other nations; fince, by her own acts of oppreffion, fhe has alienated the minds of the Americans, and compelled them to establish independent governments, which have now taken place; and fince these governments, which are diftinct though confederated, wholly fettled upon republican principles, and fit only for agriculture and commerce, cannot be an object of jealousy to other powers, but by free and open intercourfe with them, a general benefit to all; it is to be hoped that the revolution which they have effected, will meet with univerfal approbation.

Ff

1

IN

SIR,

N your paper of Saturday laft, you have given us the new Constitution of Georgia, in which I find the following refolution," No clergyman of any denomination fhall be a member of the General Affembly." I would be very well fatisfied that fome of the gentlemen who have made that an effential article of this conftitution, or who have inferted and approve it in other conftitutions, would be pleased to explain a little, the principles, as well as to ascertain the meaning of it.

Perhaps we understand pretty generally, what is meant by a clergyman, viz. a perfon regularly called and fet apart to the miniftry of the gofpel, and authorised to preach and adminster the facraments of the Chriftian religion. Now fuffer me to afk this queftion; Before any man among us was ordained a minifter, was he not a citizen of the United States, and if being in Georgia, a citizen of the state of Georgia? Had he not then a right to be elected a member of the affembly, if qualified in point of property? How then has he loft, or why is he deprived of this right? Is it by offence or difqualification? Is it a fin against the public to become a minifter? Does it merit that the person who is guilty of it should be immediately deprived of

one of his most important rights as a citizen? Is not this inAlicting a penalty which always fuppofes an offence? Is a minifter then difqualified for the office of a fenator or reprefentative? Does this calling and profeffion render him stupid or ignorant? I am inclined to form a very high ✔opinion of the natural understanding of the freemen and freeholders of the state of Georgia, as well as of their improvement and culture by education, and yet I am not able to conceive, but that fome of thofe equally qualified, may enter into the clerical order: and then it must not be unfitness, but some other reason that produces the exclufion. Perhaps it may be thought that they are excluded from civil authority, that they may be more fully and conftantly employed in their fpiritual functions. If this had been the ground of it, how much more properly would it have appeared, as an order of an ecclefiaftical body, with refpect to their own members. In that cafe I should not only have forgiven, but approved and justified it; but in the way in which it now ftands, it is evidently a punishment by lofs of privilege, inflicted on those who go into the office of the ministry; for which, perhaps, the gentlemen of Georgia may have good reasons, though I have not been able to discover them.

But befides the uncertainty of the principle on which this refolution is founded, there feems to me much uncertainty as to the meaning of it. How are we to determine who is or is not a clergyman? Is he only a clergyman who has received ordination from thofe who have derived the right by an uninterrupted fucceffion from the apoftles? Or is he also a clergyman, who is fet apart by the impofition of hands of a body of other clergyman, by joint authority? Or is he also a clergyman who is fet apart by the church members of his own fociety, without any impofition of hands at all? Or is he also a clergyman who has exhorted in a methodist fociety, or spoken in a quaker meeting, or any other religious affembly met for public worship? There are ftill greater difficulties behind :-Is the clerical character indelible? There are fome who have been ordained, who occafionally perform fome clerical functions, but have no paftoral charge at all. There are