Year: 1866

Civil war in country is an affair which
creates high national necessities. Some
writer's have gone so far as to say that the
necessities Of nations in times Of war furnish
the laws for their prosecution. Among the
inventions which resulted from the supposed
or real necessities Of our recent way was
what is commonly called the test oath, by
which, in addition to the usual obligation to
support the Constitution and perform official
duties, public officers were required to swear
that they had neither directly nor indirectly
participated in or in any manner aided in the
rebellion. This, for aught we haye to say to
the contrary, was judcious provision at the
time it was enacted, and subsequently to the
end Of the war.


But we have doubts Of its propriety now
that the necessity which called for it is
passed. And our doubts are greatly strength
ened by evidences that it is being used in
some instances to the prejudice of the public
service. Second, third, and even fourthrate
men in the Southern States are frequently
entrusted with important public duties merely
because frst-rate men in the same localities,
although now equally loyal to the govern
ment, cannot take this oath. The anti-re-
conciliationists roll it as sweet morsel Of
vengeance under their tongues upon the late
insurrectionists, merely, as one oftheir number
recently said in public speech, to let them
know that "there is a punishment after
death" 1t suits precisely that class of bigots
whom we find in most of our churches now
a-days, who are as busily employed in ex-
pelling members from the church as the
clergyman is in getting them in-Christians
of the Deacon SSIFrLEs species, who de-
youtly prayed for the salvation of "me and
my wife, my son JOHN and his wife-we four
and no more" But it smacks too much Of
hide-bound prescription of our fellow-men.
merely because they have, at former period,
been guilty of wrong-doing, to suit the spirit
of the age in time of peace.


If the purity or safety Of the Government
requires the application of such test, why
does not the purity or safety of Christian
churches, where it is supposed more ele-
waited moral standard is necessary, require it?
Suppose the enrolled members of oil the
churches in Washington, and all future can
didates for admission thereto, were required
to swear, as condition of enrolment as SOL
diers of the cross, that they have never at
any time in their lives taken usury, gambled,
used profane language, committed fornica-
ton, adultery, or fraud, bore false witness
against their neighbor, coveted anothers OK,
or ass, or his wife, and committed none of
the other improprieties, vices, or INSIDE
meanors forbidden by their rules and regula-
tions, would it strengthen or weaken the
cause Of Christian religion? Are any of these
proscriptive patriots willing to have a test
oath Of this sort applied to them as q condi-
tion precedent to their entrance into Heaven?
II these questions are, as they must be. an
swered in the negative, we then ask, in all
candor, whether the Christian religion, which
ought to furnish us the proper guide in such
cases, is not predicated upon the idea that
men are SHINING continually, and have no
chance Of being saved whatever, except
through Divine mercy and forgiveness And
is not such forgiveness conditioned upon our
forgiveness Of others? Do we need any better
than the Christian system for the preserya-
tion Of our Republic? 1t really seems to us
that very little reflection ION this line"
must convince the most jealous and illibcral
of our radical friends that it is polite to re-
lax the rigor of the rules made for the con.
dition of war as soon as possible. Badly as
any of our Southern brethren have acted.
they are nevertheless members of our great
political family, and must sooner or later be
awarded their seats at the family table.
What public good can be attained by ex-
cluding them from it any longer?