TO employ the pitiful invention of tyrants to support the freedom of republics——to introduce laws into the commonwealths of America, that have been long reprobated by wise and good men in the mo­narchies of Europe—to revive the exploded doctrine and practice of tests—marks such an extreme degree of folly, that one would imagine men of common understandings would endeavour to palliate the enormity of the act by the abolition of it, as soon as the cause which gave rise to it had ceased to exist. Who, that had not consulted the statutes of Pennsyl­vania, would believe that in a country, that had been for upwards of a century the seat of liberty, science and religion, a law should exist, that deprived nearly one half of its inha­bitants of the privileges of citizens; and this too in the se­cond year after the peace, which confirmed the liberties and independence of America?

Before I proceed to make any remarks upon this law, I beg leave to insert the following copy of the test.

By the act of October 1, 1779, all male white inhabitants of the state, who had not taken the test required by the act of June 13, 1777, in due time, were required to take the [Page 4] foregoing oath or affirmation within certain limited times, viz. in Cumberland, Bedford, Northumberland and Westmore­land, on or before the first day of December next ensuing; in Lancaster, York, Berks and Northampton, within thirty-five days after the passing of said act; and in the city of Phi­ladelphia, and in the counties of Philadelphia, Bucks and Chester, within twenty days after the passing thereof—other­wise to be incapable of electing or being elected into, or hold­ing any office or place of trust within the government, serving on juries, or keeping schools, except in private houses.— After the times above specified, they were for ever excluded from taking the oath or affirmation, and were deprived of the privileges and benefits of a citizen who complied with the said act.

The first objection that I shall make to this law is, that it is contrary to the principles of free government. Liberty consists in being governed by laws made by ourselves, or by rulers chosen by ourselves. This is the true definition of liberty. The men who are disfranchised by this law are, therefore, in a state of slavery. Representation and taxation should go hand in hand. If this is not true, the late glorious revolution was a rebellion.

2d. This law (if, after what follows, it deserves the name of a law) is contrary to the constitution of the state. A con­stitution is the palladium of the liberty of a free country. It is the rule of legislators, as laws are the rule of the people whom they govern. Every part of a constitution should be sacred, and hence the constitution of Pennsylvania requires, that every member of the Assembly, before he takes his seat, should subscribe the following oath: ‘I do swear or affirm, that, as a member of this Assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities.’

But what says the test law? It is certainly an "abridge­ment" of the privileges of nearly one half the inhabitants of the state. It is contrary to the 7th and 8th articles of the bill of rights, and to the 6th and 17th sections of the con­stitution, which declare ‘That all elections ought to be free, and that all freemen having a sufficient common interest, [Page 5] and attachment to the state, have a right to elect officers, and to be elected into office. That every member of so­ciety hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield her personal service when necessary, or an equi­valent thereto’ (which the non-jurors have done by their double taxes and militia fines) ‘But no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal represen­tatives.’

‘Every freeman of the full age of twenty-one years, hav­ing resided in this state for the space of one whole year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector.’

‘Representation in proportion to the number of taxable inhabitants is the only principle which can at all times se­cure liberty, and make the voice of a majority of the people the law of the land.’

But further—the constitution says, ‘In all prosecutions for criminal offences, a man hath a right to be heard by himself and his council, to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the country, without the unanimous consent of which jury he cannot be found guilty.’—Bill of rights, article 9th.

Now, if a man cannot be convicted of the most trifling offence, except by a jury of twelve men, why should he be deprived of his liberty by an act of the legislature? This summary mode of inflicting punishments is contrary to all our ideas of a free government. I am persuaded, that if nine out of ten of the non-jurors in Pennsylvania were to be tried by a jury of twelve of those men, who passed the law of October 1, 1778, or who approved of it in the Council of Censors, or who now continue it in force, by refusing to re­vise it, that they would be pronounced not guilty, and restor­ed to the rights of citizenship. Hence arises the safety and the inestimable value of that mode of trial. I honor the Censors for that construction of the constitution, which ren­ders Judges and Magistrates independent of the power of the Assembly, and amenable only to a tribunal of twelve men.— But is the character of a Judge or a Magistrate of more consequence than the freedom of two-fifths of a state?— [Page 6] Shall juries determine in the one case, and the Assembly in the other?—I cannot conceive of an idea more repugnant to the principles and honor of the late revolution, than an As­sembly taking away the liberties of several thousand citizens, without the formality of a fair and impartial trial. Had these men committed any crime? No. Had they created insurrec­tions in any part of the state? No. Why then should we in­flict the heaviest of all punishments upon them—not banish­ment—not death—but SLAVERY.

Exclusive of the natural prejudices which many people have against oaths of abjuration and allegiance in the time of war, there are two objections to the present test, which ef­fectually prevented its being taken by many people. It is an oath requiring activity in support of the independence of America. This could not be taken by those sects of christians who hold war to be unlawful, at a time when arms were the only means of supporting our independence. And 2dly. the oath had a retrospect to past actions. This was both impolitic and tyrannical. There was a progress in the minds of most men upon the subject of the late controversy. Some were roused into resistance by the apprehensions of di­stant danger, while others did not decide in our favor, till they were undeceived by witnessing British perfidy and barbarity. Now this law cut off all such recruits to the American standard, many of whom, in our sister states, have been the most de­termined and active foes to Great-Britain. But again—the law imposed restraints upon the consciences of those whose wishes were favorable to the cause of America from the be­ginning. Could the whig, whom fear, or the citizen, whom age, or sickness, or poverty, detained in the route or society of the enemy, and who was compelled by contributions of provisions, manufactures or quarters, indirectly "to aid, as­sist and abet the king of Great-Britain, &c." subscribe this test? No; he could not. Why then should persons in this predicament be deprived of the privileges of citizens?

The limitation of the time given for taking this oath con­stitutes a material part of its folly and injustice. It was pass­ed in the middle year of the war, at a time when its duration and issue were uncertain. It was a stroke that severed one of the sinews of the slate. What should we think of part of a crew in a leaky ship, in the middle of the Atlantic, who, out of resentment to one half their ship's company for re­fusing to take their turn at the pump for one night, should swear, that at no time during the remaining part of the voyage they should take their turn at the pump, even though [Page 7] they repented of their negligence, and shewed a disposition afterwards to share in the toils or danger of the voyage? Certainly we should blame such conduct. But just so has the state of Pennsylvania acted towards a great body of her citizens during the late war.

The present test law was passed at a time when news­papers, the vehicles of our laws, had a partial circulation thro' the state. ^* It was passed too at a time when there were but few Magistrates, and those so remotely situated, that it was in some cases difficult, and in most expensive, to gain access to them. From these two causes, I am persuaded, there are several thousand non-jurors in Pennsylvania, among whom are may valuable whigs. I could mention some of these, who are officers in the militia, and who have never declined duty or danger in the service of their country.

3d. The test law is highly impolitic. Montesquieu (whose writings are oracular in all free countries) says, that "men who enjoy more, or who possess less liberty than the rest of a community, are always the enemies of the liberty of that community."

It is easy to conceive what must be the sentiments of the non-jurors, by asking ourselves what our feelings would be in their situation. If they are not the enemies of our go­vernment—if they do not with hold their contributions to the commerce and agriculture of the state—if they do not sicken at its prosperity, and rejoice in its misfortunes—if they do not refuse to pay taxes—in a word, if they do not hate their usurpers and masters—it is because a great majority of them are under the influence of principles, which render them as much the objects of affection and admiration to wise and good men, as they are the subjects of hatred and oppression of our government.

It is incumbent upon a free people, to guard against the contagion of slavery. Sights of distress, unrelieved, always harden the heart. Slaves living among freemen will gradu­ally lessen the horrors of slavery, and the charms of liberty. [Page 8] Besides, who knows how long these people may endure their situation with patience?

Lord Chatham repealed the American stamp-act, by de­claring that "three millions of people, reduced to a state of slavery in America, would be fit instruments for enslaving the whole of the British empire." Two-fifths of the inhabitants of Pennsylvania may soon acquire such a majority, by the in­fluence of their arts or their wealth, as to enslave the rest of the state. It has been thought, that the present race of Bri­tish kings have been made more arbitrary, by transferring the habits of government acquired in Hanover to the British empire. The same men who rule slaves, should never make a law for freemen. The absolute masters of the lives and properties of the non-jurors, are dangerous legislators in a free country.

Friends and Fellow-citizens, think what you are doing, when you instruct your rulers to continue the present test-law. The power of the state will not divide, so as to gratify you all. Most of you will probably never rise beyond the surface of private life. Why, then, should you risque your own liberty, without the least chance of deriving any advan­tage from taking away the liberties of other people? Extend liberty to your neighbours, as you wish to preserve your own. Liberty differs from almost every thing else that is precious, in this, that the more your neighbours possess of it, the more you will enjoy yourselves.

From the constitution of Pennsylvania, which admits fo­reigners to a vote after one year's residence, the continu­ance of the test law is big with evils of a most alarming na­ture. The government, in a few years, must necessarily fall into other hands. Men with European ideas of govern­ment will soon occupy the seats of our present rulers. The British farmer, who paid his proportion of taxes to carry on the late war against us, and even the British officer, who assisted in desolating our country, will in a little while, by means of the votes of their countrymen, supplant the Ame­rican patriot and soldier, who purchased our freedom with their fortunes or scars.

Rome was undone by strangers getting her government into their hands, and introducing foreign prejudices, customs and vices among them. If our constitution cannot be alter­ed, let us remedy that defect in it, by admitting the non-jurors to a share in the government, in order to balance the undue and dangerous weight of foreigners. The non-jurors are attached to our soil by birth, education and property, [Page 9] and (if they can be permitted) are willing to add to these ties, the more sacred tie of an oath or affirmation of alle­giance. These men can have no interest unconnected with our own. Born under the protection of the same laws with ourselves, educated in the same schools, and connected with us by the ancient ties of friendship and business, they are our natural friends and fellow-citizens. Our liberties, and the constitution of the state, will therefore be safe in their hands.

By the ninth section of the test law, a non-juror cannot serve on juries. This is an evil likewise, which has produced great mischief and danger to the state. It throws an un­equal share of the burden of government upon the jurors. It delays, and thereby increases, the expences of Courts, both to individuals and the state. It moreover renders property less secure, and the decisions of jurors less satisfactory, by obliging the Sheriffs, in some instances, to drag jurymen into courts, who are not qualified, by knowledge or proper­ty, to decide upon the liberties or property of their neigh­bours.

But there are other considerations which should have great weight with us, in persuading us to revise our test-law. The Court of Britain is unfriendly to us. Her power and interest in foreign Courts are employed to traduce our cha­racter and forms of government. The Monarchs of Europe are collecting anecdotes of our country, by means of their emissaries, in order to check the emigrations of their subjects, by holding up the miseries and distraction of our republics. Nor is this all. There is such a thing as emulation without jealousy, and contention without strife. Our sister states have manifested both towards us ever since the declaration of independence. They are bending their whole force to rival and supplant us in trade, sea-ports, and inland navigation. Several of them have already become respectable from their union. They bring the minds of their citizens to a focus in all their laws. It is only by healing our divisions, that we shall disappoint our foreign enemies, and it is only by mak­ing every member of the state equally free and happy, that we shall recover our ancient pre-eminence, as a state, in agri­culture, commerce, wealth and happiness.

Once more. The public debt contracted by the late war is still unfunded. Whether it will be funded upon a conti­nental impost, or upon state taxes, is still uncertain. But can it be expected that the non-jurors will pay their proportion of taxes, which amounts to two-thirds of the whole, [...] [Page 10] either way, while they are unrepresented in our legislature? It is true, there is a compelling power in government—But tax-gatherers themselves have contracted so much of the spirit of the peace, that they revolt at the idea of seizing pro­perty for taxes. Besides, every one knows how easy it is to delay for years the payment of taxes, without refusing them; and yet these delays materially affect the credit and interest of the state.

Again. The exigencies of the state have been said to re­quire paper money. To introduce this money into general circulation, and to support its credit, the concurrence of every member of the state, who handles money, is absolutely necessary. Now, the non-jurors compose a large proportion of the merchants, millers and traders of the state, who, it is well known, are that body of people who give money its greatest circulation. Can it be expected, that these men will receive this money? Can it be expected, that they will con­cur to relieve the distresses of men who enslave them, or keep up the credit of a government, in which they have no inte­rest? If they do—they must be more, or less, than men.

The duties of the war have nearly worn out the jurors. It is high time to call upon every citizen of the state, who is qualified by education or virtue, to bear his part of the drud­gery of government. While the jurors are serving their coun­try in the Assembly, upon juries, and in all the offices con­nected with the collection of taxes, the support of the poor, and the care of the public roads, the non-jurors are engaged in the pursuits of private interest, and amassing wealth, the weight of which can never, in their present circumstances, be thrown into the scale of government. It becomes us to consider what the consequences may be, of their throwing it into the scale that is opposed to our government.

Every body complains of the difficulty of borrowing mo­ney at the legal interest. The Bank has been accused of be­ing the cause of this difficulty, but without foundation; for the difficulty was the same as it is at present before the institution of the Bank. The true cause of this difficulty is to be sought for in the test-law. The principal part of the spe­cie of the state is in the hands of non-jurors; for they pos­sess two thirds, or perhaps more, of the productive property of Pennsylvania. Now, can it be expected that these men will lend money upon interest, when they have no share in our government, when they have no vote to protect them against the operation of a tender law, and no security against being precluded from recovering their debts by the ordinary course [Page 11] of justice? I am not surprized at some of these people hav­ing lately remitted their cash to Europe, and lodged it there, at an interest below the legal interest of our state.

Every view we can take of the test-law, serves only to in­crease our apprehensions from it to the liberties and prospe­rity of Pennsylvania.

I should like to believe that human nature was improving, from the lights which religion, science, and the principles of liberty, have diffused over the world. But I am afraid that mankind, in different ages, only change their vices and fol­lies. In vain do we boast of the toleration of all religious sects in our government, while we persecute for opinions in politics. The same spirit which excludes these sects from the privileges of citizens, would probably revive the days of Archbishop Laud among us, if religious tenets were equal obstacles to the power of the state, with the revision of the test-law.

But I will go further.—The principal part of the non-jurors are Quakers, Menonists, Swingfielders and Moravians, all of whom are principled against war. The test-law, in its present form, therefore, is an invasion of the rights of con­science, and a direct act of persecution for conscience sake. It is a violation of the second article of the Bill of Rights, which says— ‘Nor can any man, who acknowledges the be­ing of a God, be justly deprived of any civil right as a ci­tizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship.’

I know it has been said, that many of these people were tories during the war. If they were after the passing of the law, I should not have been surprized at it. For as they saw slavery before them in the journals of Pennsylvania, as well as in the records of the British Parliament, I do not wonder that they preferred foreign to domestic tyrants.

But I deny that this was the case. I believe that a greater proportion of active whigs are to be found among them, than of tories. A great majority of them were neutrals, and some of these so extremely ignorant of the nature of the controversy, and of the events of the war, as to enquire, when they heard of the victories or defeats of our Gene­rals, to which side they belonged." Compare the con­duct of our non-jurors with the conduct of the tories in our sister states. Have we ever heard of a single insurrection a­mong them? Did those of them, who remained in Philadel­phia in the year 1777 and 8, address the commanding offi­cers of the British army? What proportion of new levies [Page 12] did they draw from our populous state? While New-Jersey furnished them with six regiments, and North-Carolina lent them one third of their state, they were never able to muster more than 120 recruits in Pennsylvania. The spirit of the non-jurors was hostile to nothing but war. They opened their houses alike to the officers of the British and American armies. Their agriculture fed our army, their taxes were at all times three-fourths of the whole contributions of Penn­sylvania, and their arts furnished a large proportion of those manufactures which cloathed our soldiers. In a temple so glorious as the fabric of liberty, erected by means of the late war, the most trifling service performed to the building should not be forgotten. If thanks are not due, certainly toleration is, to every man who ploughed a furrow, or shod a horse, for the benefit of the American army.

How dishonorable to Pennsylvania, after comparing the conduct of our non-jurors with the conduct of the tories in our sister states, that Pennsylvania is the only state in the uni­on that has not revised or repealed her test-laws! Even in North and South-Carolina, where many of the tories car­ried arms, the whigs have shewed the magnanimity of con­quest, as well as the spirit of liberty and wise government, by admitting every man to equal privileges in their states.

The Quakers were the original inhabitants of Pennsylva­nia. They encountered all the hardships of settling on bare creation. They discovered a new art of subduing savages, by the integrity of their intercourse with them. To their wisdom, industry and benevolence, Pennsylvania, for half a century, owed all her fame and happiness. Look at the char­ter composed by the founder of the province, and examine the laws that were passed by the Quakers, while they possess­ed all the power of Pennsylvania. In neither of them is a single article or section to be found, which abridges any man of the rights of conscience. The power and offices of the province were open alike to men of every nation and sect, with themselves. When Massachusetts-Bay refused to per­mit a crew of distressed Irish emigrants even to land up­on her shores, Pennsylvania opened her arms to receive them. When a body of Germans met with unexpected dis­appointments, after landing in New-York, the Quakers gave them protection, and thus afforded encouragement for thou­sands of their countrymen to follow them to this land of li­berty. Humanity would drop a tear, if the successors or de­scendants of these men should be found to be among the most violent in opposing the revision of the test-law, and thereby [Page 13] of restoring the Quakers to the dignity and happiness of free­men—But further,—suppose we should discover a great pro­portion of those people, who are opposed to the revision of the test-law, to have alternately sworn allegiance to King George, and the state of Pennsylvania, according as the arms of the one or the other prevailed during the late war. I am able to produce a list of the names of these people, and of the days on which they were transferred, backwards and for­wards, to their different masters. Do you think, my friends, to cancel your guilt in these transactions, by persecuting the non-jurors? They certainly acted an honest part, compared with the part you have acted. They deceived neither party. America never counted them among the number of the mili­tia, nor did General Howe ever transmit their names to the Secretary of State, as converts from rebellion to royalty.

I cannot help introducing a remark upon the test-law of Pennsylvania, in which it differs from the test-laws of Great-Britain and Ireland. By the former, the door of office and power stands constantly open to the dissenters from the esta­blished Church. By the latter, all the privileges of freemen are offered to the Catholics, upon their abjuring the doctrines of the Church of Rome. All the powers and arts of govern­ment have been employed to force these tests upon the con­science. Here there was a mixture of mistaken benevolence with tyranny. But the test-law of Pennsylvania holds out nothing but unmixed tyranny and persecution. It bars the door for ever against repentance and conversion. It proclaims perpetual war against uniformity in government, and thus renders the standard of discord the true arms of the state.

There is another comparison of the test-law, which places it, if possible, in a more odious light. It is with the law for abolishing slavery, passed March 1, 1780.

The spirit and letter of the constitution are preserved by this law. It does not admit free Negroes, it is true, to the privilege of voting, but then it exempts them from taxes A free Negroe is in a safer and more honorable situation in Pennsylvania, than a Quaker who has not submitted to the test-law. This fact should excite the more distress and shame, when we recollect, that it was the example and publications of the people called Quakers, that disseminated those prin­ciples of equal liberty and humanity thro' the state, which at last produced that excellent law for the gradual abolition of slavery.

I know it has been urged, that if the non-jurors are re­stored to their rights, they will combine, and restore the [Page 14] state back to Great-Britain. The men who urge this objec­tion to the revision of the test-law certainly do not believe it. The passive principles of the non-jurors forbid it.—Can it be possible, that societies, whom neither the threats nor per­swasions of the principal officers of the British army in the year 1777, after they had conquered the city of Philadelphia, could prevail upon to contribute a single act of friendship to them, or of hostility against the Americans, can be prevail­ed upon to disturb the peace of a settled government, in order to bring about a re-union with Great-Britain? Com­mon sense revolts at the idea.

Equally absurd and groundless is the fear, that the non-jurors will repeal the law for puting an end to proprietary influence in Pennsylvania. Who began and continued the controversies with the late Proprietaries about quitrents?— The Quakers. Who opposed them in all those incroach­ments and exactions, which have lately been pointed out in one of the reports of the Council of Censors?—The Qua­kers. Who attempted to rescue the state from the dominion of the proprietary family in the year 1764, and to place it under the protection of the Crown?—The Quakers. Is it possible, that these people can so far forget their antient pre­judices and principles, as to revive a power which they so long reprobated, checked and opposed? I would as soon be­lieve that Hannibal lived and died in friendship with the Romans.

I was sorry to hear an argument against the revision of the test-law made use of in the Assembly, in September last, which was exploded in our controversy with Great-Britain. We were told, "that the non-jurors were virtually repre­sented." This mode of representation was proved, in the years 1773 and 1774, to be virtual nonsense. What is there to prevent a non-juror from being doubly taxed?—Nothing. Who can plead his cause in the Assembly?—No one. He holds his property—nay more, the remains of his liberty, and even his life, at the mercy of the legislature.

But, as an apology for the continuance of the test-law, we are told, that the non-jurors do not wish to have it revised or repealed. If this be true, the state of Pennsylvania is in the last stage of political indisposition. A physician always puts on a serious countenance, when a diseased limb loses its power of feeling. The whole body, when this is the case, is in danger. If two-fifths of the state are reconciled to sla­very, the remaining three-fifths hold their liberty by a preca­rious tenure. But I deny that the non-jurors are satisfied [Page 15] with their present situation. They complain loudly since the peace, and express the utmost anxiety to enjoy the pri­vileges of freemen. Their patient submission to the test-law during the war, arose from their disinclination to share in government, while it was compelled to employ its forces in a business that was foreign to their principles.

There is one more motive, I cannot call it an argument, in favor of the continuance of the present test-law. It has been said that the jurors, by defending the state with arms, have acquired an exclusive right to the power of it. In an­swer to this, I might only say, that dominion founded in arms, or rather in oaths, (for the most violent of the jurors never bore arms, except on muster-days) is as absurd as do­minion founded in grace. But I beg leave to ask the people who urge this motive for continuing the test-law, whether any one of them ever performed a tour of duty, or rendered any essential service to the state, without being paid for it?— and whether the money which paid them did not come chief­ly from the pockets of the non-jurors?—Yes. Ask the tax-gatherers, and they will tell you that two-thirds of all the effective taxes that have been collected since the year 1779 have come from the non-jurors.—They will tell you further, that they have been collected with the least murmuring and the most punctuality from these people. Now, if money con­stitutes the sinews of war, then the non-jurors have sustained a material part of the weight of the late revolution in the state of Pennsylvania. To their industry and arts, the state owed a great part of the supplies which supported the continental army for several years; and to their taxes, chiefly, she owes the pre-eminence which she enjoys over her sister states in the Continental Treasury. But again,—if this motive is admit­ted, and the power of the state is to be founded in whiggism, or arms, then a preference should certainly be given to those men, who have done and suffered most for the state. These men, every one must acknowledge, are the officers and sol­diers of the Pennsylvania line. No class of citizens, I am sure, will reprobate this idea more sincerely than those officers and soldiers themselves. To their immortal honor let it be recorded, that they are almost to a man strenuous advocates for equal liberty to every member of the state. They have long ago forgiven and forgotten the insults of the disaffected, and the neutrality of the non-jurors. This conduct will con­vey their names with infinitely more honor to posterity, than all the insignia of the order of Cincinnatus.

[Page 16]In small communities, unanimity is in some instances ne­cessary. But in a state so populous as Pennsylvania, it was not to be expected. If we look into the histories of revolu­tions in other countries, we shall find none of them conduct­ed with so much unanimity as the late revolution in Pennsyl­vania. Gustavus Vasa recovered the throne of Sweden with a handful of men, recruited in a single day in the province of Dalcarlia. Not more than one fourth part of the inhabitants of England took part in the civil war between King Charles and his parliament. Even King William was brought to En­gland by a small body of men, and afterwards placed upon the throne by a majority of only four votes. The men who were opposed to his accession were not precluded, by any vi­olent or unnatural law, from a share in the government. ^* The consequences of this moderation were soon felt by the whole nation. The Jacobites lent their money to the crown, and became in every respect such faithful and peaceable sub­jects, that Bishop Burnet was forced to acknowledge, that "the Whigs brought King William to the throne, but the Tories kept him there."

In our ideas of tyranny, we are too apt to suppose that it can be derived only from monarchy or aristocracy. But histo­ry shews us, that parties often enslave each other. There can be no safety in a state to any man, where there is a body of tyrants, and a body of slaves. Political liberty is the result of the combined wills of every member of a community. Every species of democracy, not founded in this principle, is a mock commonwealth, and must in a little while end in anarchy and tyranny. Harrington, ^† Milton, Needham, and all the best writers in favor of republican forms of govern­ment, mention many arguments, from reason and history, in support of this assertion.

[Page 17]I shall dismiss the defence of the claims of the non-jurors with the following observations:

An industrious man, with frugality, who pays his taxes punctually, is at all times a valuable member of a republic.

A man who manufactures and sells more than he con­sumes, adds to the wealth and prosperity of his country.

A man with good morals, who peaceably submits to such laws of his country as are not against the dictates of his conscience, let his political and religious principles be ever so erroneous, is a better citizen than a man of dissolute morals, with the purest principles in religion, and the freest in government.

The non-jurors in Pennsylvania are in general an in­dustrious, frugal, temperate body of people. Whatever their political principles may be, they are for the most part genuine republicans in dress and manners. If they have erred—nay more, if they have sinned during the late war, we shall consult the freedom and prosperity of the state by forgiving them. If we are wise, we shall do more—we shall protect and cherish them, as the surest resources of the wealth and independence of the state.

If the enemies to the revision of the test-law believe in the divine authority of the scriptures, I would beg leave to recommend to their serious consideration those passages in the old testament, which contain such terrible accounts of the judgments of God against oppressors. But if these examples are supposed not to apply in modern times, let [Page 18] them consult the writings of our Saviour and his Apo­stles. In every page of these, they will find principles and precepts repugnant to the spirit of the test-law.— Where is the man that can lay his hand on his heart, and say, that, by depriving the non-jurors of the right of suffrage, "he does to others, as he would have them, in like circumstances, do to him?"—The words of our Saviour, in his sermon upon the mount, are calculated to beget forgiveness, by motives of the most interesting na­ture. "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."—Mat. vi. 14.

If there are any men who persevere in enforcing obe­dience to the test law, after this quotation, I have only to recommend to them not to repeat the Lord's Prayer, in their addresses to their Maker. It will be an insult upon the Majesty of Heaven, to ask for the forgiveness of any one sin, while they refuse to forgive their less offend­ing brethren.

I pass over the disputes, delays and frauds, which the test-law has introduced at elections in most of the coun­ties of the state. I take no notice likewise of the differ­ent interpretations which have been given of this law by different parties, in their decisions upon controverted elec­tions. These things have for several years excited di­stress, shame, and the most painful apprehensions in the breasts of every lover of Pennsylvania. TAXES, and a peaceable submission to all such laws as are not contrary to the dictates of conscience, should always be considered as the morality of citizenship. To connect the right of suffrage with a certificate of an oath, or the records of a Magistrate's office, without appealing to the Assessors books, is as absurd, as it would be for a man to plead his title to the kingdom of Heaven, by producing at the Supreme Tribunal nothing but a register of his baptism.

It must afford the liveliest pleasure to a truly good man, to contemplate the effects of the late peace upon the human mind. The British and American soldier now meet as friends, and talk over with pleasure the scenes of distress and danger, in which they opposed each other in [Page 19] the field. The British and American merchant exchange commodoties with each other, and mutually contribute towards each other's wealth and happiness. The British and American sailor now hail each other on the deserts of the ocean, and kindly relieve each other's wants and distresses. The inflexible whig, and the once obstinate tory, now meet in the same legislature in the southern and eastern states—transact business in the same committees— and vie with each other in their exertions to support the interests and independence of their respective states. Even the Indian savage meets the American Commissioner at the same Council fire, smokes with him the same pipe, and buries his hatchet, with the resentment of his former ene­my, in the same grave. In a word—we every where hear the echo of the song of the Angels at the birth of our Saviour, "Peace on earth, and good will to man." Every thing breathes reconciliation and brotherly love—except the test law of Pennsylvania.

I cannot help adding a thought here, which I am sure will have weight with all good men.

The present feeble and partial operation of the gospel in the world renders wars not only unavoidable, but law­ful and necessary. But if we believe in the prophesies of the Old and New Testaments, we must look for a time, when the instruments of war shall be converted into the implements of husbandry, and when the pacific principles of the gospel shall so far change the tempers and manners of mankind, that even the beasts of prey shall learn from the human species to put off their savage natures, and to live in harmony with each other.

In what manner this revolution (so long and so devoutly expected) shall be brought about in the moral world, we know not,—but most probably it will be by natural means, and by causes of a progressive operation. Who knows whether those sects of Christians, who so uniformly and steadily bear a testimony against war, may not be intend­ed by divine Providence as the receptacles of those peace­ful principles, which are finally to prevail over the whole [Page 20] earth? Who knows, whether Heaven has not intended the progress of these principles to be gradual? Christia­nity, we know, was once propagated gradually from the little province of Judea, by a few fishermen, over every civilized part of the globe. The seeds of the reformation were sowed in England by Wickliffe, in the year 1362, nearly two hundred years before they spread themselves through every part of the nation. But we have an exam­ple of the progressive operation of just principles within the compass of our own knowledge, that applies directly to the case in question. It is scarcely forty years, since a few men in Pennsylvania, who were branded as enthusi­asts, first bore a testimony against the slavery of the Ne­groes. These principles spread gradually, and in the course of a few years were adopted as part of the system of doctrines of the people called Quakers. From them, and by their industry, they have been propagated, by na­tural means, through all the middle and eastern states of America. Pennsylvania has done homage to them in her sovereign and legislative capacity. The slaves of the southern states feel a pleasure, when the name of Penn­sylvania sounds in their ears; and even the native African has learned to except our state, from the execrations he pronounces against Christian tyrants and man-thieves. These principles of equal liberty have not stopped in Penn­sylvania. They are travelling along the Chesapeake, and have found advocates on the banks of Ashley and Cooper rivers, in South-Carolina. In a few years they will pro­bably have their full operation upon the minds of our southern brethren, and produce laws for the abolition of slavery similar to our own. Now, may not the pacific principles of the Quakers be propagated in the same manner, and with the same success, as their principles with respect to the slavery of the Negroes? In order to favor the propagation and operation of these pacific prin­ciples, it certainly becomes us to admit these people, in the time of peace, to a share in our government. War is the business of savages. It begets vice and debt in all [Page 21] civilized nations. It is agreeable to monarchs, because they derive their glory and an encrease of power from it. But PEACE is the business and interest of republics. It favors liberty, promotes industry, and is the parent of all political happiness. I do not wish to consider the Atlan­tic Ocean as the barrier of our benevolence, when we wish for perpetual peace, but I maintain that the love and spirit of peace are absolutely necessary for the safety and prosperity of the United States. Those men will make the wisest legislators for America, who oppose mi­stakes by negociation, and decide disputes by arbitration. In the present feeble state of the confederation, I conceive there is nothing left to us, to render the union of the states perpetual, but to call into our aid, in every way that we can, the pacific principles of the Christian reli­gion.

Freemen of Pennsylvania, consider what you are do­ing. The nations of Europe are watching to see, whe­ther, by adopting republican forms of government, we have added to, or diminished, the happiness of man­kind. The next seven years, more than the last seven years, will determine their conduct, whether it will be best to assert their freedom, or to prefer a less evil to a greater, by submitting to the tyranny of monarchical government. The fate and liberty of the world, per­haps, are now suspended by our example. If we trample on the first principles of just government—if we violate the most sacred parts of our constitutions—if we enforce laws that are impolitic and inhuman—we strengthen the chains of slavery in Europe—we defeat the schemes of those benefactors of mankind, who are now striving, by their writings, to shake the thrones of tyranny, and thus check the last efforts of mankind, to restore human na­ture to her natural and original dignity.

I beg pardon, if, in the course of these considerations, I have said any thing, that has offended those members of the legislature who enacted the present test-law, or who, by refusing to revise it in the two last sessions of the [Page 22] Assembly, have continued it in force. The law was passed at a time when clouds and darkness covered the state. The last year was devoted by the constitution to enquiries, that were calculated to awaken jealousies, and inflame the passions. It is now sunshine, and the passions of the state are again hushed into repose. Let an act of amnesty then be passed in our minds, of all the errors that have been committed in government by parties and individuals. Let reconciliation, more refreshing than the dew of Her­mon, descend upon our mountains, and let brotherly love, more fragrant than the ointment that was poured upon Aaron's head, flow down upon the skirts of the state, and let us all once more embrace each other as friends and members of the same political family.

I shall conclude with the following observation:

If neither a regard to the principles of free government, nor to our constitution—if neither policy nor humanity— if neither interest, nor a regard to the honor or safety of the state—if the terrors of divine judgments recorded in the old, and the precepts of benevolence and mercy de­livered in the new testament—have no effect upon us in producing a revision of the test law—if a monopoly of the power of the state is a more desirable object with any body or sect of our citizens, than the preservation of its liberties—I beg leave to suggest to these people, that their schemes of ambition will certainly be disappointed; for the test law must necessarily in a few years lose its ef­fect. The sons of non-jurors, with the addition of the sons of the moderate part of the jurors, increase in the ratio of three to one above the sons of the present ruling party. These will, in a few years, produce a new chan­nel for the power of the state. But if human nature is the same in Pennsylvania, as it is in the other states, the test-law will probably repeal itself in a much shorter time. However steady the lust for power or offices may be in the leaders of a party, the party themselves will not long be actuated by that principle. Parties, like individuals, when left to themselves, soften, after the gratification of re­sentment, [Page 23] into moderation and gentleness. The inter­course and good offices produced among our citizens by means of commerce will naturally spread more and more every day, and thus revive ancient friendships and con­nections among us. The same men, who last year voted for Assemblymen to oppose the revision of the test-law, may probably reject them for continuing that law at the ensuing election.

I do not wish to see such frequent changes of our rulers, much less do I wish to see those irremediable evils and ir­reconcilable animosities take place in Pennsylvania, which must succeed the dissolution of the law in the manner that has been mentioned. I can scarcely conceive of a more agreeable sight, than an Assembly preferring what is just to what is popular—restoring the constitution of the state to its original and true meaning in all its parts—burying in oblivion every cause of strife—combining the strength and affections of the state into a focus—and, lastly, con­senting to divide the power and offices of the state equal­ly among all societies.

Should the present Assembly yield to the voice of na­ture, reason and religion, and open the doors of freedom in Pennsylvania to all her children, by revising the test-law, they will acquire a pre-eminence for wisdom over all their predecessors, and render their fame as extensive, and their names as immortal, as it is now in their power to render the happiness and prosperity of Pennsylvania.