the spirit of a partizan, who makes or exasperates hostility, rather than with that of a patriot, anxious, at this time, to extinguish the first spark of civil discord; or of a philanthropist, anxious at all times, to maintain peace on earth and good will among men.-The argument seems cold casuistry; the style betrays pique and irritation. The one must be refuted; and with respect to a little peevishness of epithet in the other, whoever notices it least, will answer it best, and best maintain his own superiority.

1. The objection against the use of the terms "all my abili ties and influence," and "as much as lies in my ability," is founded on a sophism that runs like a flaw through the whole composition. Two senses of a phrase are taken, the most opposite that can be attributed to it :-one the most loose, and another the most limited; one the most strict and philosophical, another the most vague and indefinite; and then the author holds them out, saying, of these two you must take one. He keeps swinging between the extremes of signification, and always shoots past the plain and accepted meaning which lies before him in common use and daily life. His dilemma is always fallacious from its partial enumeration. These phrases in the test are not addressed to rhetoricians who bask in moonshine, or to philosophers who strain at gnats of objections, but to the common sense of common men. They are taken as they are understood, only in a popular acceptation, at what may be called their exchangeable value in the market of the world: The societies neither promise, like the Disciples, to forsake all other pursuits, to suspend all other duties, to make a personal abandonment which must of itself prove public ruin, and destroy that credit and influence which we wish to possess for the purposes of the test: nor, on the other extreme, do they make any rhetorical flourish. They simply and sincerely promise, that by their own exertions, and by any influence they may have on others, they will co-operate

4

in attaining a particular end, according to their different talents and opportunities, and as far as is compatible with other necessary duties, a condition so plainly implied that it is needless to express it. If hereafter there should be no exertion on their part, or if their actions do not correspond with their words, the public, whom they have attested to the consistency of their conduct, must be their judge; and the condemnation of that public is the penalty they must suffer. The test is a standard of measurement which they give to the public, in order to facilitate this judgment. Without such a test, “every one may indeed use as little exertion as he pleases," because there is none to whom he stands pledged, not even to himself; whereas this test forms not only a public record which obliges him to exertion, if he has any regard to public opinion, but it is a record on the soul, an external conscience which stimu. lates to duty, and fixes and embodies fugitive resolution."All our abilities" is a phrase neither taken in its loosest nor in its strictest sense, and there is room enough to rest safely between the horns of this dilemma. It is taken by the people in a popular sense, and they refer the derivative sense, and the philosophic sense, to the college or the cloister.

2. In the same manner, the author of this bilious publication extracts every sense out of the word "impartial,” except the obvious one. This term is evidently suggested by, and is solely referrable to, that religious persuasion which is at present most partially excluded from civil rights, as the word "adequate" relates to a representation in Parliament, justly proportioned to the end in view-the happiness of the whole people. "Impartial" is a plain word, expressive of a practical truth, that no government can satisfy our wishes which is not equitable, free from regard to party or persuasion, equal in its distributions, alike to all; and he who interprets the term in any far-fetched sense, or involves any speculative questions in its meaning, is only catching at a star and stumbling over

straws. The test turns its attention, merely, in the term made use of, to that monstrous partiality which excommunicates and exiles a whole people, without one overt act on their part to justify such oppression; and were this prominent partiality done away, other speculative questions, like those alluded to, might come under political discussion, which need not now be answered, as they are not now in contemplation. Even on the supposition of their being agitated at present, I cannot think the term "impartial" could ever be found inapplicable; but it is enough to repeat, that the word is here plainly applied to the Roman Catholics, who have found in government nothing but grievance, and in law, nothing but penalty. He says "that we are bound to one object exclusively of every other pursuit"-a most palpable mis-statement, as I have proved before.

3. The test pledges those who take it to endeavor as much as in them lies, "to forward a brotherhood of affection, an identity of interests, a communion of rights, and an union of power among Irishmen of all religious persuasions." The verb, to forward, which is connected with all this portion of the test, has been wholly overlooked by this gentleman, and if attended to must comprehend and conciliate all parties. The end in view is a reform impartial and adequate. The four articles common affection, common interests, common rights and common exertion, (the true meaning of "union of power," not that which the author strains from it,) are the means immediately to be put in train for attaining this end, the four wheels which are to carry us progressively to the goal, to perfect equality of rights, interests, franchises and privileges; resisting any ascendancy of party in the common-weal, is declared to be a measure necessary to and implied in an adequate representation. If that object be desirable to-morrow, the means must be put in forwardness to-day; but many things prove, and among the rest the stile and sentiments of this paper, that

we are still far from having a brotherhood of affection, that an interested attachment to sects takes place of social union, and that a part is in the consideration, of many, greater than the whole. Under this impression (not only distant from the goal, but the wheels broken) we lament, that a system of legal and constitutional equality is at present impracticable, that some plan of penurious policy will take its place; yet this test engages us never to lose sight of the complete redemption of the nation, and as we value the end, to forward the means ། with unremitting activity. Did complete enfranchisement take place this instant, there could not happen for a long time an equ.ality of political power, the acquisition of which must in its pature, depend on the gradual acquisition of property, and therefore be gradual itself. As the Catholic landlord influences his Pro>testant tenantry, the Protestant landlords must still have influence over theirs, proportioned to the overplus of property in their hands at present; and during this interval, the mental subjection complained of, tho' by no means justly, must dişappear. But it is laughable to hear this gentleman forming his ratios between the political power of the Catholics and Presbyterians, as if the latter had a share in the government to give away; as it their clergy had contrived to erase the word Protestant, and put Presbyterian ascendancy in its place; as if they were not themselves fed by royal bounty as if there was national government; as if the people had any control over established legislators, established judges, and established clergy. Whatever the Presbyterian clergy may sigh for, the laity are pretty unanimous in wishing for the sovereignty, of , the people, not of any party; the ascendancy of christianity, not of any church: but what should be condemned is that hauteur which this gentleman and others assume in speaking of the Catholics, when there is little difference between them, when the nation is unrepresented, and when every daw is

truly penal which usurps a right, and confirms the usurpation. We must all knock at, the door of our excellent, copstitution, and if we are to gain admission to the rights of man, why should not they?—We have no constitution to give or grant, but must strive to get one. By ourselves we strove in vain, and we must now strive all together.

Though they should change their minds before they · have obtained it ;" these words must mean, that though before the attainment of a reform, we should perceive the danger of a communion of rights, yet by the test we should still be bound to procure it. Not at all.The test binds to two things, adequate reform, and communion of rights; and should it appear that the latter would be destructive of the former, as it would in that case be impossible to procure them conjointly, one must necessarily be relinquished; which should give way, the end or the means, is plain, and in this case the society is not only justifiable but bound to change its mind, as well as the prosecution of their plan in some of its parts.

4. The test, it is said, obliges men always to retain the same opinion. I deny the assertion. It is merely to make conduct conformable to this profession of principles. I voluntarily took the test, because the truths contained in it appear to me so indubitable that the whole frame of my mind must be changed before I change my opinion. This change is by no means impossible, but it is so highly improbable, that acting as every man must do on high probability, I do not hesi tate to pledge myself to my country, that my conduct shall coincide with my declarations; and if so improbable a thing should happen as a change of opinion, I should not hesitate to declare openly that alteration, and throw myself on the verdict of my country, whom I have attested as witness, and whom I appeal to as judge. I should in like manner engage to continue a christian, though it is possible my future belief in that doctrine may be shaken. When the National Assem