elections of political agents, and functionaries of all grades
—at the ballot box—by the people! If, then, a test of qual-
ification for office be then and there applied, which is forbid-
den by their Constitution and compact of Government, is not
that compact, that Constitution violated by the highest au-
thority, by the parties to it, themselves ? And is not this a
grosser and greater violation, than if the same thing were
done or attempted to be done by some one or more of their
temporary political agents, whose power and authority is
merely derivative and limited?

Any attempt to apply such tests by the functionaries of
Government, the mere agents of the people, would be but
nugatory and vain; but applied by the people themselves,
the actual sovereigns, it becomes operative and effective !
Will it be pretended, an attempt to violate a sacred principle,
which attempt is ineffectual and nugatory, is more of a vio-
lation of that principle, than the violation of it, by a power
sufficiently potent to give efficacy to their purpose, and tram-
ple the principle in the dust? Did the fathers of the repub-
lic, when they framed the Constitution and amended it, and
twice inserted the prohibitory clauses before quoted, mean to
"palter in a double sense?"—and whilst they prohibited the
application of these tests by the mere agents of the parties
to the compact, leave the actual parties themselves free and
unrestrained to apply them as, and when, and where, and to
whom, they pleased? It would be almost sacrilege to think
or say so. Did they mean to be understood as saying that no
person should ever be required by the judge or other agent,
whose duty it may be to administer the proper oaths of fidel-
ity, &c., required on induction into office, to abjure or em-
brace a particular religious creed or not;—but that such re-
ligious test might lawfully be applied at the election of the
officer by themselves and their successors? Or did they not
rather mean totally and for ever to repudiate, denounce, and
blot from the face of this fair country every thing like big-
otry, intolerance and religious proscription; and substitute
for their children, and their children's children, in the place
of the gall and bitterness of mutual hatred, mutual ill-will,
and bloody strife,—the sublime, heaven-descended principles,
of entire freedom of conscience, and universal fraternity and
love,—perennial fountains of peace and happiness to all—
softening and binding together all hearts, and prompting to
mutual good offices, at all times and places, in the palace
or in the cottage,—in the field or on the flood?"

But it has been argued, that the obligations of these oaths
taken by the order do not require the proscription of any per-

20