LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE. 591 
to-the flames, If was the creed of thofe, who at one ex- 
piofion would have facrificed the three eftates of the realm. 
St was the creed of thofe infurgents, who in the reign of 
Charles I. went far towards obliterating the name of Eng¬ 
lishmen in the kingdom of Ireland ; and who againlt 
proteftants exereifed cruelties, which an eminent hilforian 
aflerts “ would fnock the leaf: delicate humanity.” It 
■was the creed of the fecond James , who, under the fem- 
blance of mildnefs and of equaiity in privileges to all 
his fubjeits, (the very plea now urged by the advocates 
for Romaniftsj) difpenfed with laws, imprifoned bifhops, 
and filled the higheft departments with men of his own 
perfuafion. It was'the creed of thofe, who, in the year 
173^, occafioned thirty thoufand protellants to withdraw 
from Saltzburgh 5 and who, in 1725, inflicted punilhments 
of a barbarous nature on the proteftant magiftrates and 
people of Thorn. (Hiftorical Regilter, vol. x. and xvii.) 
It was the creed of thofe, who, but fifteen years before the 
reign of his prefent majelty, within this kingdom encou¬ 
raged a war, which had for its objefl the total overthrow 
of the proteftant government, and the utter exciufion of 
the proteftant fovereign then exifting, on whofe head a 
price was let by the foreign enemy whole caufe they fa¬ 
voured. It was the creed of thofe, who within our own 
memory, within the Ihort period of eleven years paft, in 
Ireland inftigated a rebellion, which a writer of that 
country declares to have been “eminently deftru&ive 
and which he affirms “ maffacred, without mercy, all pro¬ 
teftants, men, women, and children.” 
5. We are now brought to the fummary claufe alluded 
to in a former part ot this article, which at one ftroke 
would fweep away the whole body of Itatutes enabled for 
fecuring his majefty’s prerogative in ecclefiaftical concerns ; 
and at one blow would demclifh the fyftem eftablithed on 
the king’s fupremacy in the external circumltances of the 
church. The “ petitioners humbly pray for a total repeal 
of every teft, oath, declaration, or proviiion, which has the 
e fie ft of fubjedting them to any penalty or dilability 
whatfoever, on account of their religious principles.” 
In this requeft, whether the want of moderation, or the 
want of reafon, be the greater, it is difficult to determine. 
The requeft is immoderate, becaufe in faff it goes to no¬ 
thing lefs, than to an entire change of the Britilli conltitu- 
tion in all its laws introduced for the fupport of the protef¬ 
tant religion. And, in truth, effefting that entire change 
is the chief objedl in view. It would indeed be laft in 
accomplilhment; but'undoubtedly it is firft in contem¬ 
plation. We muft be infatuated and blind if we did not 
difcover the end propofed. The method mod conducive 
to final fuccefs is the acquifition of power, particularly of 
legifiative power. That therefore is their aim. And 
wifely fo. For they well know, that the day which (hall 
fee them enter the houfe of commons in a legifiative ca¬ 
pacity as profelfed catholics, will be the day from which 
to date the degradation of the proteftant religion in the 
Britilh empire. “Grant me but one ftep, and we fiiall 
conquer,” faid the Theban general to bis foldiers. Mutatis 
mutandis, fuch is the language and fuch the perfuafion of 
the catholics : “ Give us but one ftep in the houle of 
commons: equality in England, afcendancy in Ireland, 
will certainly follow.” 
The requeft made in the fummary claufe is unreajonable. 
For, it is in contradiction to the plain dictate of common 
fenfe. What is that dictate ? It is this : if you would 
admit any perfon into your confidence, and confign to 
him the direction of a-n important bufinefs, on the right- 
management of which your welfare materially depends; 
you Ihould previoufly require of him fome kind of fecu- 
rity for his being faithful in the difcharge of his duty and 
true to your intereft. This is the principle on which in¬ 
dividuals proceed in the weighty negotiations of common 
life. And under whatever forms or names it may be mo¬ 
dified, whether of tells, oaths, declarations, or provifions, 
it is, after all, the principle into which may be refolved 
the feveral meafures, adopted by ancient and modern 
Hates, for the purpofe of enfuring complete and unquali¬ 
fied obedience to the laws. 
It we were to form our judgment from the catholic peti¬ 
tion only, we might be led to imagine the introduction of 
tells and oaths was, comparatively (peaking, novel in po¬ 
litics, and functioned by law under no other government 
than that of the Britilli empire. An appeal to hiitory 
will give us more ample information, and fuggelt to us 
more correCt ideas. Let us refer to the ufages of anti¬ 
quity. Let us, firft, recollect the oaths which were taken 
by the young men of Greece, by the archons, by the 
fenators, by the helialtic judges, at Athens. At an early 
age, the Athenians fwore to defend the facred rites and 
holy inliitutions of their country. On admillion into of¬ 
fice, the archons, fenators, and judges, bound .themfelves 
by oath to obferve the laws, and be directed by them in 
their decifions. What do we learn from thefe fads? In 
the fidl we fee an inftance of folemu engagement imme¬ 
diately applicable to the religion of the Hate. From the 
three others we colled, that ancient legilhtors did not 
conceive there was any infringement on natural right in 
preferibing conditions to thole who were to be intruded 
with the exercil* of public power. What was the prac¬ 
tice at Rome ? The lenators performed a ritual ceremony, 
which in itfelf amounted to a facramental teft. During 
the commonwealth, the magiftrste, by whom the fenare 
was called, commenced with offering facririce. And by 
a decree of Auguftus, every fenator, before-he took his 
feat, was with frankincenfe and wine to make (Application 
at the altar of that fuppofed deity in whofe temple the 
fenate was convened. Let us look to modern timrs. 
The proceedings of the national aflembly in France were 
not only marked with lavage ferocity, but alfo betrayed 
confummate ignorance of human nature: yet atnidft all 
their atrocities and all their phrenfies there was lenie 
enough to difcern, that fidelity to the exifting (late was 
to be lecured by the obligation of an oath, impofed on 
perfons filling certain offices which would create influence. 
How do our brethren in America provide ? “ The fena¬ 
tors, and reprefentatives, and the members of the feveral 
f:.ue-legiilatures,‘ and all executive and judicial officers, 
both of the United States and of the feveral flutes, fiiall be 
bound by oath or affirmation to fupport the conftitution. 
Such are the exprefs words of the laft claufe in the 6th 
article of the American conftitution. But here it will 
be urged, the fame claufe proceeds with faying, “No 
religious tell fiiall ever be required as a qualification 
to any office or public trull under the United States.” 
Granted. The remark, however, is not appolite. For, 
the queftion 011 the cafe before us is not this; “ Whether 
America introduces or excludes a religious teft ?” The 
queftions are thsfe; “ Does America bind her fenators, 
reprefentatives, and magiftrates, by oath to fupport the 
whole of the conjlitution?" Or, “ Does America allow 
her fenators, reprefentatives, and magi ft rates, to fay, We 
will fwear to fupport the conftitution in fame parts, 
which we think proper; but we 'will not fwear to 
fupport the conftitution in other parts, which we think 
improper?” The oath leaves no pretext for exception to 
this or that branch ■, it extends its meaning and obliga¬ 
tion to the whole of the conftitution. And," in the requi- 
lition of that .otality in folernn engagement, America 
proceeds as Great Britain proceeds. For, both alike ex- 
pefl fecurity from the perfon, who is to be commiftioned, 
that he will maintain ail the laws of the legilh.'nre, what¬ 
ever may be their charadter or defcription. If in fram¬ 
ing its conftitution America has thought it prudent to 
omit religion, it was free to do fo. If cuir ancellors 
judged it l-dntary that cur coniiitution (hould embrace 
religion, they were free to incorporate religion in oar laws. 
Each country is competent to fetcie its own conftitution. 
Having fettled it, according to the ideas of propriety re¬ 
latively entertained by each, they are lcverally compe- 
s teat 
