October 16, 1776

Colonial Pennsylvania is remembered as a place for religious freedom, but during the debate around the new constitution for the commonwealth in 1776, some critics thought the Convention was too free when it came to religion. The test or oath required to serve in political office was not distinctly Christian, but rather professed belief in “one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the Good, and Punisher of the Wicked.” In a letter to the printers of the Pennsylvania Journal, “I. S.” complained about “this surprising test, which is quite new on this continent.” This pseudonymous writer asked if the framers of the constitution thought “there were not Christians enough in Pennsylvania to fill the offices of State.” Although the oath opened the opportunity for public service to people of other Judeo-Christian backgrounds, “I. S.” claimed that the Convention had “mangled” the oath “on purpose, that those who do not believe the Christian religion, may avail themselves of some such evasion or equivocation.” The concern for this writer and other Pennsylvanians was that, despite the mention of “the Rewarder of the Good, and Punisher of the Wicked,” immoral people would be allowed to swear this oath and serve in politics, bringing the commonwealth to ruin.

The Pennsylvania Journal; and the Weekly Advertiser
Printed by William and Thomas Bradford

Messrs. BRADFORDS,

You will oblige a friend to true Religion, our great American Cause and Pennsylvania, if you will insert in your next Paper, the old Test or Qualification, established by law in this State, and which is exactly the same by the best information I have received, with the Test or Qualification established in every State, except this on, the Continent; also the new Test and the Questions inclosed.

Old Test in Pennsylvania, and now established in other States of America.

“I A. B. profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, his eternal Son, and in the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed for ever-more; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be given by Divine Inspiration.”

New Test established, instead of the foregoing, in Pennsylvania, by the tenth section of the frame of government formed by our late Convention:

“I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the Good, and Punisher of the Wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.”

The words next immediately following this surprising test, which is quite new on this continent, are, “And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.”

QUESTIONS.

Were the members of the Convention, Christians? Why did they leave out the word “holy” next before the word “Scriptures” and also the “profession of faith in the Christian religion,” when they had the antient and approved form before their eyes?

Did they think, there were not Christians enough in Pennsylvania to fill the offices of State, who were willing to take the test of that antient and approved form? If it be said, that the making the foregoing “acknowledgement” required by the new frame of government, is a proof that the person who makes it is a Christian, then such person could not object against making a direct and plain “profession of faith in the Christian religion.”—Why then, is not this “profession of Faith” required in the new test, established by our late Convention in their new frame of government?

As this “profession of faith” so generally and for so many centuries established in the Christian world, has been publicly and totally rejected from our constitution by the late Convention, is it not therefore evident, that the Convention were of opinion, that the “acknowledgement” required by their test, would leave a door open to those who do not believe the Christian religion, by some evasion or equivocation to get into places of profit or trust, notwithstanding that “acknowledgement”?

Was not the antient and approved test mangled as it has been by the Convention, on purpose, that those who do not believe the Christian religion, may avail themselves of some such evasion or equivocation?

Does not the test, invented by the Convention, weaken the security of the Christian religion, by law established, and undermine it as artfully as they could, and as boldly as they dared to do?

Is it not manifest, that the design of this attack on our religion was to lessen our reverence for it, as the innovation made by the Convention was utterly unnecessary?

Is not this design also manifest, by the plan of government which the Convention first published, in which, there was no mention of the “Scriptures?” And from the slight mention of them in the plan now fixed, which they inserted to satisfy, and thought would satisfy the resentment of the People against them?

Is not this design also manifest, by the second section of the “Declaration of Rights,” settled by the Convention,—in which they say, “Nor can any man, who acknowledges the Being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen (that is as a member of this State) on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship?”

Is there not the grossest inconsistency in the proceedings of the Convention, if the aforementioned “acknowledgement” required by them in the “frame of government” means any thing more than the foregoing “acknowledgement” required by them in the “Declaration of Rights?

Is it not therefore evident, that they thought, there was some evasion or equivocation admissible in taking the “acknowledgement” required by the “frame of government,” that might reconcile it to the “acknowledgement” required by the “Declaration of Rights?”

Is it not evident, that they have in an extraordinary manner, and with expressions not used by them on any other occasion, endeavoured to prevent the Christian Religion from being established again in Pennsylvania, when they by the tenth section of their frame positively prohibited “any other religious test” from being “ever hereafter” required?

Did not the Convention borrow these words, which they afterwards added to their test, to wit “The rewarder of the good, and punisher of the wicked,” from a hint in the Evening Post, Sept. 12, of some reformed, who so far approved of omissions in creeds, as to omit the word “Creator”?

Is there any State on this continent that has treated the Christian religion with so much contempt as our Convention has done?

Will not the People of Pennsylvania be partakers in their guilt, if they suffer the new frame of government, which they have formed, so monstrous in this particular, and so ridiculously singular in others, to be carried into execution?

Do not the foregoing questions demand the most serious and immediate consideration of every sensible, virtuous, pious Pennsylvanian?

“In hoc Signo vinces.”
I. S.