On t’other side; If the reformation of religion be founded upon rebellion against the King, without whose consent, by the nature of our constitution, no law can pass.  If this reformation be introduced by only one of the three estates, I mean the Commons, and not by one half even of those Commons; and this by the assistance of a rebellious army:  Again, if this reformation were carried on by the exclusion of nobles both lay and spiritual (who constitute the two other parts of the three estates) by the murder of their King, and by abolishing the whole system of government; the Catholics cannot see why the successors of those schismatics, who are universally accused by all parties except themselves, and a few infamous abettors, for still retaining the same principles in religion and government, under which their predecessors acted; should pretend to a better share of civil or military trust, profit and power than the Catholics, who during all that period of twenty years, were continually persecuted with utmost severity, merely on account of their loyalty and constant adherence to kingly power.

We now come to those arguments for repealing the Sacramental Test, which equally affect the Catholics, and their brethren the Dissenters.

First, We agree with our fellow Dissenters; that “persecution merely for conscience’ sake, is against the genius of the Gospel."[5] And so likewise is “any law for depriving men of their natural and civil rights which they claim as men.”  We are also ready enough to allow that “the smallest negative discouragements for uniformity’s sake are so many persecutions.”  Because, it cannot be denied, that the scratch of a pin is in some degree a real wound, as much as a stab through the heart.  In like manner, an incapacity by law for any man to be made a judge, a colonel, or justice of the peace, “merely on a point of conscience, is a negative discouragement,” and consequently a real persecution:  For, in this case, the author of the pamphlet quoted in the margin[6] puts a very pertinent and powerful question:  That, “If God be the sole lord of the conscience, why should the rights of conscience be subject to human jurisdiction?” Now to apply this to the Catholics:  The belief of transubstantiation “is a matter purely of religion and conscience, which doth not affect the political interest of society as such.  Therefore, Why should the rights of conscience, whereof God is the sole lord, be subject to human jurisdiction?” And why should God be deprived of this right over a Catholic’s conscience any more than over that of any other Dissenter?

[Footnote 5:  Vid.  Reasons for the Repeal of the Sacramental Test. [Note in edit. 1738.]]

[Footnote 6:  Idem.]