be the most dangerous man to be placed at the head of the government it is possible to conceive. There is no foreseeing what he would do, or would not do. Not a few, even of the Whigs, feel that he is an unsafe man; even the manufacturers themselves support him with fear and trembling; the noblest of all the Whigs has denounced him on more occasions than one, and now only "damns him with faint praise."

Mr. Frelinghuysen is quite a different man; and, while agreeing with Mr. Clay in all the obnoxious measures to which Mr. Clay himself stands pledged, he represents certain other elements of the Whig party, from which still more evil, if possible, is to be apprehended. Mr. Frelinghuysen is not only a Whig in the worst sense of the term, but he is also the very impersonation of narrow-minded, ignorant, conceited bigotry, - a man who boldly attacks religious liberty, demands the unhallowed union of Church and State, and contends that the government should legally recognize the religion of the majority, and declare whatever goes counter to that to be contra bonos mores. He concentrates in himself the whole spirit of "Native Americanism" and "No-popery," which displayed itself so brilliantly in the recent burning of the Catholic dwellings, seminaries, and churches, in the city of Philadelphia.*

* We found this charge on Mr. Frelinghuysen's speech in Congress on the Sunday-Mail question, and on a book, now lying before us, entitled, "An Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government,” (New York: Wiley & Putnam, 1838,) which, we presume, it will not be denied was written by him. This work is exceedingly declamatory in its character, and remarkably deficient in clear, distinct, and definite statements; but no man can read it without feeling that its author would withhold all political rights, whether to vote or to be voted for, from all persons except members of what are called Evangelical sects. "Has it not," it says, "become a cant among us, that as electors we have nothing to do with men's religious sentiments; no right even to inquire about them? Twenty gods, or no god, or the God that made the worlds, is quite indifferent; Papists and Protestants are all one; Socinians, Jews, and Evangelical believers, are all one; yes, and the tattooed cannibal of the South Sea, were he to honor our asylum of liberty by seeking a lot in its blessings, would enter at once into the same

We see personified in the Whig candidates modern. Feudalism, political profligacy, and canting, fanatical religious bigotry. Their success would be fraught with

family circle of undistinguished and indistinguishable unity; free alike to live among us, and to rise above our heads; for the doctrine is, that whoever is entitled to sit in the shade of the constitutional tower has a right also to scale its walls." The meaning of this, vaguely as it is expressed, it is not difficult to divine. It is "Native Americanism" and "Evangelicalism." The author, it is true, does not formally advocate a union of Church and State, nay, he, in words, expresses his dissent from such union; but he expressly contends for a "political religion," which of course must be a test of political rights, and that this political religion must be the religion of the majority. He transfers, boldly and avowedly, to religious matters, the doctrine, that the majority must govern, and that the minority must submit. It is true he attempts to make a distinction between what he calls ecclesiastical Christianity, and the ethics of Christianity, but it is a distinction which can amount to nothing; for the ethics of a religious denomination are founded on its dogmas, and, in enacting the ethics, you do necessarily, by implication at least, enact the dogmas themselves. Enact what the majority define to be Christian ethics, and you necessarily enact the Theology, Christology, and Anthropology of the majority, for these are the foundation and source of their ethics. The practical effect of Mr. Frelinghuysen's doctrine would be, to establish the religion of the majority as the law of the land, and to declare every man destitute alike of civic virtue and of moral virtue, who should dissent from it, and presume to worship God after the dictates of his own conscience.

We foresaw, many years ago, that the attempt would be made to transfer the doctrine, the majority must rule, to religion and morals, and thus to revive the practice of boring the ears and tongues of Dissenters, banishing Baptists, and hanging Quakers; and this has been with us a strong motive for waging the uncompromising war which we have waged for many years against this doctrine. Once let this doctrine of the right of the majority to rule become universal in regard to political matters, and it will inevitably be transferred to religious matters, and the minority must yield up all their religious rights to the will of the majority, as Mr. Frelinghuysen contends they should.

The great principle with us is religious liberty. The government is to confine itself strictly within the sphere of temporals, and leave spirituals exclusively to the Church and individual conscience. It has no right to discriminate between one denomination and another, or to give one the least preeminence over another. This is the Christian doctrine; this is the settled doctrine of this country, and which makes the glory of our country, for ours is the only country on earth which has ever adopted it. It has cost ages of struggle and sacrifice to establish this doctrine, and shall we now basely abandon it? Shall we give our support to a party which

the most serious danger to our political institutions, to social equality, and to religious freedom. All is hazarded. As matters now stand, all that is dear to our hearts, as freemen and as Christians, is involved in the approaching contest. We of the Republican party have committed many faults; we have on too many occasions proved ourselves unworthy of the sacred cause intrusted to our keeping; yet the all-beneficent Providence has not wholly cast us off, but graciously gives us one more opportunity to atone for past delinquencies, and to win new honors. The holy cause of political, social, and religious freedom is once more committed to our charge. The sacred deposit is placed in our hands, and at our hands will the Supreme Judge demand it. Every man of us must feel the sacredness of the trust, and remember that "THE LORD SEETH." There must be no cowards, no traitors, no laggards. A high and solemn duty rests on each one of us to rebuke political profligacy, and religious bigotry and fanaticism; to do all that man in honor and honesty may do to save this country, this chosen land of Providence, to the freedom of the human race, to make it the "home of virtue, an asylum to the oppressed, and a name and a praise in the whole earth."

Nor is the external policy involved in the approaching contest less important than the domestic. No good can be realized on this continent, unless we succeed in maintaining, in all respects, in the face of all other nations, entire and absolute national independence. It is our interest, as our duty, to cultivate peace with all nations, but peace only on terms compatible with na

brings forward, for the second office in the gift of the people, the very leader of the bigots and fanatics who would wrest it from us? God forbid! Let us rally around the banner of Religious LibERTY, and signally rebuke the traitor to his God and his country, who would establish a political tyranny over faith and worship. If we do not thus rally, we may expect ere long to see the churches of all the denominations, which the majority may decree to be non-evangelical, smouldering in their ruins. St. Michael's and St. Augustine's, in Philadelphia, throw a strong light on the fate that awaits every house of worship not dedicated to the faith of the majority for the time being.

tional independence and national honor. We had trusted that Mr. Clay, however faulty might be his internal policy, would nevertheless prove himself, in his relations with foreign governments, a true American patriot; but his recent letter on the annexation of Texas to the Union proves that we can no more rely on his patriotism than on his republicanism. The base betrayal of the true interests of his country, the dastardly crouching to the red cross of England, and infamous leaguing with a band of fanatics at home, who have officially declared that the union of these States ought to be dissolved, and that they are prepared to accomplish their objects over the ruins of the American Church, of which that letter affords the damning proof, deserve not only the utter detestation of every American heart, but the most signal rebuke from the whole Union, a rebuke which he and his supporters will feel, ay, and not soon forget.

We have no room for the discussion of the Texas question, but happily that question has already been amply discussed by greater and better men than we, and whose voice will have authority where ours could not gain a hearing. We cannot, however, refrain from expressing our regret that slavery has been allowed to play so conspicuous a part in the discussion. We want Texas annexed to the Union, but for reasons wholly foreign to the question of slavery. We want it as the key to our southwestern frontier; because we cannot, with a due regard to our means of national defence, suffer it to pass actually or virtually into the hands of Great Britain or of France; because we want it for the benefit of our coasting trade, as a market for our northern manufactures, and as the means of preserving to ourselves the market of the great valley of the Mississippi, and of opening to us the rich markets of Mexico; because the Texans are our brothers, and wish to be received as members of our great family of freemen. We want it, also, to preserve the proper balance between the Atlantic States and the interior, which the rapid growth of the great West will, in a few years, without the annexation of Texas, wholly destroy. Here are

our reasons, at least some of our reasons, for favoring annexation, and these have no connection with slavery. For ourselves, we feel very little interest in the slave question, in itself considered. The danger to our Union, to the sacred cause of human rights, is not now in negro slavery, but in the principles and measures of the Abolitionists, which, if carried out, would prove a far greater calamity than slavery is or can be, even allowing it to be all that the Abolitionists allege. The remedy they propose would prove infinitely worse than the disease. Still, we say, very frankly, that we see no beauty or comeliness in slavery that we should desire it, and we assure our Southern brethren that we will help them adopt no measure for the sake of perpetuating it. It is their affair, and they must take the responsibility of it.

But, while we say this, we say also that we will resist, even unto blood, if need be, any and every effort to abolish slavery over the ruins of the Constitution and the sacred institutions of religion, or, what is no better, through the direct or indirect intervention of a foreign power. We are an independent nation, and the supreme judge for ourselves of the wisdom or justice of our institutions and practices. We suffer not Great Britain, nor any foreign government, to teach us officially what is or is not our duty. No foreign government shall be suffered to intermeddle with our concerns, even so far as to aid us in correcting what we ourselves may believe to be wrong and in need of redress. In regard to foreign nations, our country is infallible, and all her institutions are sacred.

We here express what we understand to be the purport of Mr. Calhoun's patriotic letter to the British minister, for which he has received so much and such unmerited abuse. We read that letter with a glow of patriotic pride; we felt thankful that we had at length one minister of state, who dared speak the language of national independence, and rebuke the insolent foreign government which had presumed to send its minister. here to read us a moral lecture. In relation to foreigners, we are ONE PEOPLE, and acknowledge no distinction