LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE. 
m 
'ture of Jool. and difability to hold the faid office. And 
of much the fame nature with thefe is the liatute 7 Jac. I. 
c. 2. which permits no perfons to be naturalized or re- 
flored in blood, but fuch as undergo a like teft; which 
teft, having been removed in 1753, in favour of the Jews, 
was the next feffion of parliament reftored again with fome 
precipitation. 
But, though the diffenters have not been able to pro¬ 
cure a direct repeal of the corporation and teft afts, their 
condition has been extremely ameliorated (if the incon¬ 
veniences which they complain of have not indeed been 
totally removed) by the annual indemnity-bills, which, fince 
the year 1743, have conlfantly palled, in favour of all of¬ 
fences againft thefe ftatutes. Each bill of indemnity par¬ 
dons all paft offences, if the teft is taken before a certain 
day; and then another indemnity-ait fucceeds, covering 
afreffi offenders from the laft-mentioned day ; lo that the 
original teft and corporation acts, the exiftence of which 
is confidered by both lides to be of fuch extreme import¬ 
ance, (which by one is complained of as fo intolerable a 
grievance, and by the other cherilhed as fuch an impreg¬ 
nable bulwark of fafety,) have really had no fort of ope¬ 
ration, nor been once carried into effeit, for more than fe- 
venty years. From one of the greateft evils which grew 
out of the corporation and teft aits, the diffenters have 
been relieved by the decifion of a court of iuftice. They 
ufed, for a long time, to be nominated to corporate offices, 
becaufe it was known they could not qualify to execute 
them ; and by-laws, inflifting penalties on thofe who re- 
fufed to ferve, were exprefsly made to enrich corporations 
at their expenfe. The produce of thefe unjuft exactions 
ferved, or nearly ferved, to build the manfion-houfe of 
the city of London. In 1736, it appears that no lefs a 
fum than 20,700b had been railed from lines paid by per¬ 
fons to be excufed lerving the office of Iheriff; and out 
of that money it was refolved to ereft the manfion-houfe, 
the firft ftone of which was laid in 1739. At length, this 
fyftem of oppreffion was overthrown. An aft ion was 
brought by the chamberlain of London againft Allen 
Evans, elq. a diffenter, for the penalty of 600b for refufing 
to ferve the office of Iheriff of the city of London ; but 
the houfe of lords, to whofe tribunal it was carried in the 
laft refort, determined, unanimoujly , in 1767, that diffenters 
who could not confcientioully take the lhcrament, in obe¬ 
dience to the tell-laws, were excufed from ferving corpo¬ 
rate offices. Upon that occalion, lord Mansfield did him-, 
felf the higheft honour, by his defence of religious liberty. 
Speaking of the revocation of the edift of Nantes, as in¬ 
troductory to perfections in France, his lordlhip faid, 
there was no occafion for that meafure; “the jefuits need¬ 
ed only to have advifed a plan fnnilar to what is contend¬ 
ed for in the prefent cafe ; make a law to render them 
incapable of office ; make another to punilh them for not 
ferving. If they accept, punilh them, (for it is admitted 
on all hands, that the defendant, in the caufe before your 
lordfhips, is profecutablefor taking the office upon him;) 
if they accept, punilh them ; if they refufe, punilh them; 
if they fay Yes, punilh them ; if they fay No, punilh 
them. My lords, this is a moft exquifite dilemma, from 
which there is no efcaping; it is a trap a man cannot get 
out of; it is as bad a perfecution as that of Procruftes : 
if they are too Short, ilretch them; if they are too long, 
lop them.” Since that period, the diffenters have fuffered 
little or no praftical oppreffion. A feries of amnefties has 
made them quite regardleis of the penalties of taking of¬ 
fice. Several corporations are in their hands; and the de¬ 
cifion in Evans’s cafe has eftablifned, that they are not pu- 
mlhable for declining the performance of duties to which 
they cannot cpnicientioufiy fubmit. 
As to papifts , what has been faid of the proteftant 
diffenters would hold equally ftrcng for a general Sole ra¬ 
tion of them,, provided their reparation was founded only 
upon difference of opinion in religion, and their princi¬ 
ples did not alfo extend to a fubverfion of civil govern¬ 
ment. If once they could be brought to renounce the 
Vol. XII. No, 85.5, 
fupretnacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their fe- 
ven facraments; their purgatory, and auricular confeffion ; 
their worfhip of relics and images ; nay, even their tran- 
fubftantiation. But, while they acknowledge a foreign 
power fuperior to the fovereignty of the kingdom, they 
cannot complain, if the laws of that kingdom will not 
treat them upon the footing of good fubjects, and admit 
them into civil offices of importance. 
As to the expediency of tells in any cafe, it has not 
been doubted, nor is there reafon to doubt yet, but that 
an eftabli filed religion is neceffary, in conjunction with 
civil government, to preferve the peace of fociety; and 
therefore in every well-regulated ftate an ellablilhed reli¬ 
gion nuift be l’upported, not becaufe it is the duty of the 
civil magi (Irate to conduct his fubjefts to future happi- 
nefs, but becaufe he cannot without fuch an eftablilh- 
ment preferve among them prefent tranquillity. The efta- 
blifliment which mull belt anfwer this purpofe, is that 
which, teaching the great and unchangeable duties of mo¬ 
rality, is moft acceptable in its government and forms of 
worlhip to the majority of the people ; and therefore, in 
giving a legal eftablilhment to one conftitution of the 
church in preference to all others, it is only this.circum- 
ftance, and not the comparative purity of the rival 
churches, viewed, merely as ecclefiaftical corporations, to 
which it is the bufinefs of the legillature to pay attention. 
At the time when the teJi-aH. palled the two houfes of 
parliament, the ellablilhed church of England was cer¬ 
tainly more acceptable to the great body of the people 
and to all ranks in the ftate, than any one of the fefts, 
whether catholic or proteftant, which diffented from her; 
and therefore it was the duty of the legillature to preferve 
to that church all her privileges and immunities, and to 
prevent thofe hoftiie feftaries from doing her injury in 
the dilcharge of any civil office with which they might be 
entrulted. It was with this view that the tejl-ati was 
formed ; and it is with the fame view that the legillature 
has hitherto rejefted every petition for its repeal. In do¬ 
ing fo, it deprives no man of his rights, far lefs of rights 
which confcience calls upon him to maintain at every ha¬ 
zard ; for the rights of individuals to hold civil offices are 
not inherent, but derived from, the legillature, which of 
courfe mull be the judge upon what terms they are to be 
held. The legillature of England has excluded from 
many offices, civil and military, every man who will not 
give fecurity, that in the dilcharge of his public duty he 
will fupport the church ellablilhed by law; and, as the 
teft of his intention, it requires him, before he enters upon 
his office, to renounce the doctrine of tranfubilantiation, 
and receive the facrament of the Lord’s (upper in fome 
public church, according to the liturgy of the church of 
England. Whether this be the moft proper teft that could 
have been enafted, may perhaps be queftioned ; but that, in 
a country abounding with feftaries of various denomina¬ 
tions, who agree in nothing but venomous hoftility to the 
religious eftablilhment, fome teft is neceffary, feems incon¬ 
trovertible, if it be the bufinefs of the legillature to pre¬ 
ferve the public peace. 
At this moment, however, we are invited to lay aficis 
all tells; and to admit papifts into both houfes of parlia¬ 
ment, into confiderable rank in the navy and army, and, 
in Ihqrt, into every office of ftate with the exception of 
lord,chancellor (and vice-chancellor we fuppole) and 
mailer of the roils, commander-in-chief of the army, lord- 
high-admiral, and lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Such are 
the intended enactments of Mr. Grattan’s bill, now before 
the houl’e of commons. 
It would be very improper in us to anticipate what 
may be the fate of a meafure at prefent under the imme¬ 
diate consideration ofthe iegiflature, or what modifications 
that bill may undergo before (if ever) it (hall pafs into a 
law. Our remarks therefore infill be upon the general 
quefiion of what is called “ catholic emancipation,” which 
has been lately agitated with no littl.e warmth. 
.To t'iie exereile of religious worffiip ffiould.be given 
7 L the 
