bility of the human mind, in science,
in ethics, in government, &c. Those who advocated reformation of
institutions, _pari passu_ with the progress of science, maintained that
no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of
reform, on the other hand, denied improvement, and advocated steady
adherence to the principles, practices, and institutions of our fathers,
which they represented as the consummation of wisdom, and acme of
excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance. Although in
the passage of your answer alluded to, you expressly disclaim the wish
to influence the freedom of inquiry, you predict that that will produce
nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles,
institutions, and systems of education received from their ancestors.
I do not consider this as your deliberate opinion. You possess yourself
too much science, not to see how much is still ahead of you, unexplained
and unexplored. Your own consciousness must place you as far before
our ancestors, as in the rear of our posterity. I consider it as an
expression lent to the prejudices of your friends; and although I
happened to cite it from you, the whole letter shows I had them only
in view. In truth, my dear Sir, we were far from considering you as
the author of all the measures we blamed. They were placed under the
protection of your name, but we were satisfied they wanted much of your
approbation. We ascribed them to their real authors, the Pickerings, the
Wolcotts, the Tracys, the Sedgwicks, _et id genus omne_, with whom we
supposed you in a state of _duresse_. I well remember a conversation
with you in the morning of the day on which you nominated to the Senate
a substitute for Pickering, in which you expressed a just impatience
under 'the legacy of Secretaries which General Washington had left you,'
and whom you seemed, therefore, to consider as under public protection.
Many other incidents showed how differently you would have acted with
less impassioned advisers; and subsequent events have proved that your
minds were not together. You would do me great injustice, therefore, by
taking to yourself what was intended for men who were then your secret,
as they are now your open enemies. Should you write on the subject, as
you propose, I am sure we shall see you place yourself farther from them
than from us.

As to myself, I shall take no part in any discussions. I leave others to
judge of what