include every possible civil disability which
might arise. '
It was remarkable that whilst & witness was
disqualified under such a religious belief, that as
far as he had been able to learn no objection ha(
ever been taken to jurors on such a ground, and
in fact ajuror, or ajudge might be an infidel.
Mr. CHAMBERS desired to correct the gentle-
man from Baltimore county. So far as regards
a judge, the Constitution provides a test of belief
in a future state of rewards and punishments, for
all civil officers, and also for Jews.
Mr. RIDGELY resumed. He was then in error
in relation to a judge, but he could not be mis-
taken as regards a juror; and in fact ajudge of
loose morals, a mere nominal professor in such
religious belief, may sit as the arbiter of life and
death, whilst a citizen of undoubted character
of the opposite faith, may be rejected as a wit-
ness. He desired to give to Christians, the bene-
fit of the exemption, which the Constitution in-
terposes for the Jew. The Jew was protected in
his religious belief—his conscience was respected.
He could not swear upon a Testament, which he
disbelieved; he could not imprecate Deity upon a
religious belief which he rejected, and the Consti-
tution was altered to take this civil disability from
him. Citizens, many of whom believe in Christ and
his religion, are now under civil disability, because
in their conscience, they cannot believe in a future
state of rewards and punishments. Why not give
such the same constitutional religious protection ?
Will you deny to a Christian, what you have
granted to the Israelite? The effect of such dis-
crimation, will be to decide, that no man is a
Christian, who rejects future rewards and pun-
ishments as a religious belief.
The gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr. Spen-
cer,)—not now in his seat—had objected, that
the amendment, if adopted, might admit ministers
of the Gospel to seats in the Legislature. Such
was no part of his purpose, he could not consent
to change the existing constitutional provision in
that respect. His object was to protect a man's
religious opinions, and to remove a disability,
which the law imposed upon them; not to relieve
ministers of the gospel from their civil incapaci-
ty under the Constitution. To remove all doubt
upon the subject, it was his intention, to move a
further amendment to the article, in the follow-
ing line, bystriking out the word "profession," so
that the word "persuasion" only would remain.
It would then read, "or suffer any civil or politi-
cal disability on account of his religious persua-
sion." There ought, it appeared to him, in this
enlightened age, to be no hesitation, in conforming
the practical truth of the liberty of conscience,
proclaimed in the bill of rights, to its theory.
He was not willing that any human tribunal
should set up restraints upon the conscience of
men. Such was the theory of the bill of rights,
bat judicial exposition of the law had denied to
many citizens the free benefit of this Constitu-
tional guaranty. He was, therefore, for putting
this cherished prerogative beyond all doubt, by
the amendment he had proposed. He was pain-
ed to hear the gentleman from Calvert, (Mr.
27

Weems,) on yesterday, boldly assert in this
House, that every man, who disbelieved in a fu-
ture state of rewards and punishments, should be
driven from the witness stand, as unworthy of be-
lief. It was a harsh, and he would add, and an
intolerant sentiment; and he was especially sur-
prised that it should have been uttered by a rep-
resentative from Calvert, the daughter of old Si.
Mary's, on whose plains the banner of religious
and political liberty, was first unfurled, by the
tolerant Catholic, Calvert. He would say to that
gentleman, that hundreds of people entertaining
that disbelief, were to be found in Baltimore city
and county, who were among the most conscien-
tious, respectable and worthy citizens of that
community; men exemplary in every relation of
life; of irreproachable character, and worthy of
comparison with the best and purest of the or-
thodox faith His attention had been called to
this subject, in the early part of the session, by
one of his constituents—a gentleman wherever
known, universally respected for his high moral
worth, and spotless honor; who had passed many ,
years of his now advanced fife, in the service of
the State; had been for twenty years returned to
the Legislature by the people of that county, and
held many offices of public trust—and had gal-
lantly served his country during the war of 1812.
He (fid not design to open the subject of religion
ill this House, lie hoped the debate would not
take that direction, but he could not refrain from
saying, that in his opinion, the oath of that man.
who recognized the certainty of punishment in
this world, for acts done in the body, was equally
as reliable, if not more reliable, than the oath of
one, who repudiated all punishment by Divine au-
thority in this world, and deferred his fears of pun-
ishment for moral or religious guilt to another
world; with the contemplation of which, men were
little disposed to familiarize themselves. He con-
fessed, that it required some nerve for a man to
avow his disbelief in future rewards and punish-
ments in view of the general opinions of the
world, yet the very avowal of such an opinion
commended itself to him as indicating at least an
independence, which, in his judgment, went far
to attest its perfect honesty and sincerity. The
principle of this amendment is not new; it had
been introduced into some of the old Constitu-
tions, and he believed into all the new ones, al-
though the languages employed might differ. The
section under consideration without this amend-
ment, whilst it proclaims the largest religious
liberty and the right to worship according to the
dictates of conscience, exposes in fact, as the
price of that liberty, all who disbelieve in a fu-
ture state of rewards and punishments, to the ex-
isting civil disabilities, which the courts have de-
cided to attach to such disbelief, and which is
utterly incompatible, with the freedom of con-
science. He trusted that the House would not, in
this nineteenth century, by rejecting this amend-
ment, perpetuate so odious a religious discrimina-
tion upon the people of the State.
Mr. WEEMS said, that nothing could have
been further from his intention, in the re-
marks he had submitted yesterday, than to de-
nounce any sect or branch of the Christian