more cognate in the thirty-sixth article. It
would be more consistent if every thing relating
to the oath were put in the thirty-sixth article.
Ho would now offer his substitute.
Mr. RANDALL then offered the following as a
substitute for the amendment of Mr. DORSEY:
"Provided, That an oath may be legally administered
to any person who believes in a state of
future rewards and punishments, by a Supreme
Being, in this life or in the life to come."
Mr. R. said he did not think that this was the
proper place for the amendment. But he would
offer it again to the thirty-sixth section, and could
then move to strike it from this article, if it
should be adopted here.
Mr. McHENRY said he should vote against both
the substitute and the amendment, and he should
be constrained to vote against every amendment
which adds to the bulk of the bill of rights. When
our ancestors framed the present bill of rights,
they were in the midst of a severe struggle; and
the circumstances in which they acted, made
them careful so to construct it, as that its great
principles should be stamped on the minds of
those for whose benefit it was made. But
now, when the sovereignty of the people ;is
universally acknowledged, this minute elabora-
tion of their rights is unnecessary. It seemed to
him that a few brief and comprehensive articles
illustrating our position as contrasted with foreign
governments, and as to our internal relations,
and laying down the principles which should
regulate the conduct of the officers of the govern-
ment, who are the agents of the people, in their
official capacities, should be deemed sufficient.
When other matters are introduced, it should be
in the Constitution itself—the consideration of
which will come up hereafter. To insert these
provisions in the bill of rights, he thought would
be entirely superfluous.
Mr. CHAMBERS said, reluctant as he was to ob-
trude any remarks upon the House, he could not
give a silent vote en this subject. One of the
proposed amendments, opened aquestion of the
utmost concern—a question not new to him.
It would be recollected that originally, no
other than one professing to be a Christian, could
hold office. Some thirty years since, while he
was a member of the State Senate, a clamor was
raised against the Constitution, because it exclu-
ded Jews, Under pretence of admitting Jews,
the attempt was made to admit infidels. It failed,
and after a long struggle, the Constitution was so
far changed, as to admit a Jew to hold office,
who would profess his belief in a future state of
reward and punishments. It was no part of his
purpose now to renew the discussions in which
he, at that time, participated. A proposition is
now before the chair, which he deeply regretted
to seethe learned gentleman from Anne Arundel,
(Mr, Dorsey,) submit—the direct effect of which
would be, to demolish the partition which divided
the Christian and the unbeliever. Sir, (said Mr
C.) this is a Christian community—the Holy
Bible, as the revelation of God's will and word
is a part of the law of the land, adopted by the
common law of England, and with the other

parts of that law, received by us. Our statutes
enact penalties against blasphemy, and all our
laws proceed on the assumption that they are to
regulate a Christian", people.
We afford protection to all : to those who have
any religious worship, we secure the form of
worship which their conscience or tastes approve;
to those who have no sense of religion or of ob-
ligation to worship the Deity, we guarantee ex-
emption from coercion. But in the privilege of
holding office, the privilege of ruling in a Christ-
ian community, we have never allowed unbeliev-
ers to participate. Professed unbelievers were,
in this respect, on the other side of the wall or
partition, and while he had breath in his body
be would use it to protest against any and every
attempt to prostrate this partition. There might
be some few men deluded and most mistaken on
this subject, in his poor judgment—there might
be some amongst the acquaintances of the gentle-
man from Washington, (Mr. Fiery,) who might
for aught he knew, punctually discharge the du-
ties of some of the offices of the State, but it was
better, far better, that those few persons should
give place to others, than to demolish this time-
honored doctrine, which, in some sort, sanctifies
our system. Every general rule must, of neces-
sity, produce an individual instance not absolute-
ly within the expediency of the rule. Here the
general rule was, that our State being a Christian
community, our laws suited to the government
and conduct of Christian men, Christian rulers
and none others, ought to rule such a land and
people, and no power on earth could ever induce
him to turn his back upon the faith of his fore-
fathers. Educated in a Christian community,
they came to this continent to establish a Christ-
ian government here, and as such it has hitherto
been maintained.
Sir, said he, by God's blessing, I have been ed-
ucated in the Christian faith—the faith of the Bi-
ble—by God's grace. I hope to jive a Christian's
life and die the Christian's deaths—by God's mer-
cy I have been born in a Christian State and here
have passed my three score years and more and
so sure as my soul lives. I will peril the loss of
every temporal hope before I will act or aid in
any declaration that Maryland withdraws herself
from the Christian families of the earth.
Mr. RANDALL said this was a provision similar
to that which prevailed in England, where there
was an established church, and that country had
not been unchristianized, as the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) apprehended we were
about to be by adopting this amendment. As
there seemed to besome doubt as to the law which
governed this matter in England, he would read
one or two authorities on the subject. He then
read extracts from Greenleaf, Smith's leading
cases, and other law writers, sustaining him in
his position that a witness was competent who
believed in the existence of a Supreme Being
who would punish perjury whether that punish-
ment would be in this world or in the world to
come. If the principle had not proved dangerous in
England, he saw no reason to apprehend that its
operation would be dangerous here. In almost
all the States of the Union, and in England, laws