bly of France even swear that they will support the constitution as established in 90 and 91, are they obliged for ever to retain the same opinion of that constitution as they do at present. The test is solely meant to bind a man from altering his conduct when he does not change his opinion, to prevent him paltering with his conscience, and prevent his tergiversation. If a man really, and bona fide changes his opinion, no test, nor oath could be binding; and if his conduct be the same when his principles are changed, he must sin to his conscience, and is perjured in that case, not for breaking his oath, but for keeping it. No oath could be taken without an exception of this kind, for he who swears that he will always be of the same opinion, swears to an impossibility. If our declaration continues without disavowal on our part, and our conduct contradicts it, we stand falsified to the public: if our principles change, and our actions do not change along with them, we are condemned by our conscience. 5. The stile of this test is said to be declamatory, full of point and antithesis. I cannot discover through the whole one sentence that is not substantial; one figure of rhetoric, one pointed stroke, or one contrast of words and sentiments which creates an antithesis. To assert indeed that two numerous societies" with the best views and the noblest purposes," would voluntarily and deliberately form, take, tender, and adhere to an ensnaring' oath, "the composition of a jesuiti cal, rhetorical, or enthusiastic mind, leading to intolerance and spiritual pride, and naturally engendering petulance and rage, low intrigue, and disingenuous artifice," is not merely a verbal antithesis. It is an antithesis of the heart. It isbut let me restrain myself. He is my countryman-perhaps my friend. How can I make use of the weapons of invective, when in the opposite ranks I think I see a brother?—The test is sufficiently definite and precise for the common acceptance of many sensible and ingenuous men; and the numbers that have taken and are daily taking it, sufficiently prove that is so. It is not in the power of words to satisfy a lawyer or a logician. One multiplies words, and the other splits meaning, until a plain head is bewildered, and a candid heart is disgusted. The style of the test is a trifle.-Are the sentiments just?--Is its spirit honest ? 6. The United Irishmen would certainly vote for immediate and universal enfranchisement to the Catholics; but if prejudices be still so strong as to make total emancipation impracticable, and that all the people of Ireland cannot as yet enjoy by law, what they are entitled to by nature, by merit, and by sufferings; the societies will still congratulate their Catholic brethren that their load has been lightened, that their deliverance is only protracted, and they will felicitate themselves, in having been, as they will be, in the misfortunes of their countrymen, faithful allies; in their prosperity, if it should arrive, rejoicing friends. They, indeed, would make no terms with such a system of proscription; nor enter into any composition with an evil principle, abhorring as they do, that manichean policy which gives equal sway to the divine genius of the constitution and to the demon of destruction. Far from temporizing expedients, or from allowing penal law to debauch the spirit of that constitution, they would eject the incongruous and contradictory phrase from its very language. Far from huckstering the rights of man, or forestalling the bounties of God, they would like that divine word which said, let there be light, and chaos became order; proclaim, let there be liberty throughout the land, and the present confusion would be peace. No. Not a perchance of persecution should remain, not a suggestion to intolerance, not a torpid statute which might find in the breast of any bigot heat and venom. If this people really be as they are described, let open war be made on them: raze their habita. tions and sow salt around them; but if they be misrepresent ed, let no awkward and bungling compromise be made with such ruinous error, nor let the public mind and capacity be kept a sterile swamp, as long as foreign influence and interest may think proper to retard its cultivation. Had this brotherhood of affection, sameness of interest, union of rights and of exertion been proposed and prosecuted 50 years ago, the present would be a prouder day for Ireland; but still its adoption now may anticipate half a century the consummation of civil and political religious freedom.-Our eyes may still see our country thrice blest before they close for ever. Much progress in the conversion of the Protestant mind to sound political justice, and public morality, has been made in a very short time, and the objections offered to comprehending the Catholics in the constitution, are such as strike most at first sight, but the effect of all reasoning and consideration on the subject, has been to lessen the first impression. 7. The test is not an oath, nor are the terms convertible. It is not an oath, because neither they who take it, nor the public, to whom it is addressed, understand it as an oath. No man can be entrapped' by giving a simple exposition of the principles which he maintained before his entrance into the society, and which if he does not maintain, he is unfit to be a member. There is always a medium between the extremes of this gentleman, and he would push us through the river while the bridge is just beside us. This test is a serious, manly manifestation to our country and to the world, of our political principles and our intended practice. -It is the essence of an oath to refer immediately to the divinity. In the one, we invocate the vengeance of God as the penalty. In the other, we resign ourselves to the judgment of the public. The breach of the one is perjury. That of the other, notorious political inconsistency. The one has the "seal of religion impressed on it. The other is a permanent symbol, a civil bond of attachment to each other, and to a common cause, done in a solemn manner, and with a meaning and effect beyond the obligation of a mere promise. There is plainly a gradation and scale of obligation, or we could not think that God would punish more severely the breach of an oath than that of a promise. There may be a promise-a protestation-verbal-written-a test-and an oath the strictest tie of all. 434 1 It is said, that the test will bind an upright man as strict ly as his oath, and so will his bare promise; but it is not the less true, that in general opinion, a test of this kind is as much a superior obligation to a promise, as it is inferior to an oath; and in forming societies, we must take the world generally, not individually. A test without having either the sanctions, or incurring the penalties of an oath, 'takes a much stronger hold of the mind and memory, than mere nominal subscription, often for forgotten, sometimes contradicted. It belts in a society better, and gives it greater energy. Instead of a mind unassimilated, aggregate, beaten out to a large surface, without strength or cohesion, it compresses into a solid mass. Without it, there was, as there would be, volition without, and zeal without, activity. I am very sensible that strong attractions generate strong antipathies; but may not too much nicety and fastidiousness of conduct, or of criticism, have worse effects, by cutting the mind off from the active, living mass, wrapping it up in a sort of sullen insulation, and changing to a pillar of salt, what was a pillar of society. The gentleman concludes, and pins the web of sophistry by confounding the effects of religious creeds and confessions, imposed by human authority, usurping the rights of God, with an engagement purely civil, voluntarily entered into between man and man; and by suborning the principles of Protestant Dissenters to give evidence against their present most honorable conduct as men and citizens.... I conclude by saying, that the author of this paper de serves much greater credit for his courage, than his prudence; and I think much the same of him as of Isadas, to whom the Ephori decreed a crown in honor of the valor he had displayed, but imposed on him a heavy fine, for having fought without either shield or buckler. FEBRUARY 21, 1792. STRICTURE, NO. II. ON THE TEST OF THE UNITED IRISHMEN. Orkon paraitesai, ei men oion te, eis a pan; ei de me, ek ton enonton. Avoid an oath, if possible, altogether; if not, as far as you can. THIS test is an instrument, calculated to affect the sentiments and conduct of the nation on a very important question. Its structure and tendency should therefore be freely and minutely examined; and though it may be impossible to criticise it without some reference to the mind which conceived it, and the hands which put it in motion, it must nevertheless be discussed. Truth must never be sacrificed out of tenderness to error. It has accordingly been taken to pieces. It has been demonstrated, that if understood in a literal sense, it is absurd, immoral, and ineffective. This sense is therefore not only given up by its advocates, but eagerly disclaimed. Nay, an attempt to give it this construction has been styled captious and absurd. This is what the writer of the strictures expected and waited for. He wished to know whether this interpretation would be abandoned, before he proceeded to complete his plan. He has now ascertained, that the most zealous friends of this engagement, relinquish the grammati cal signification; and that he may, without interruption, attempt to show, that in its rhetorical sense, it is nugatory and fallacious. The rhetorical sense of an oath is such a ludicrous idea, |