but until now I had supposed that no liberal
minded, enlightened Marylander can read it
without a deep sense of regret that such an en-
actment was to be found on our statute book.
The first section of the act of 1783, chapter six-
teen, the act alluded to, (and of which I am ap-
prehensive my friend approves or he would not
have referred to it, as sustaining the propriety of
our adopting his religious test,) subjects any per-
son, convicted by verdict or confession, of deny-
ing "our Saviour Jesus Christ, to be the Son of
God;" or "the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the
three persons; or the unity of the Godhead,"
shall for the first offence be bored through the
tongue and be fined twenty pounds sterling, and
if unable to pay the fine, suffer six months im-
prisonment without bail or mainprize; and for
the second offence "be stigmatized by burning in
the forehead by the letter B, and fined forty
pounds sterling; and if unable to pay the fine suf-
fer in like manner twelve months imprisonment;"
and "for the third offence, the offender being
convicted as aforesaid, shall suffer death, with-
out the benefit of the clergy."
He, (Mr. D.,) said, that from my earliest re-
collections on such subjects, he had always had a
hind of instinctive horror of profane legislation
in matters of religion where Church and State
are united. It is an unnatural and unholy alli-
ance from which no holy or pure issue can
spring. And if he could efface from his memory
all the massacres and cruelties inflicted under
color of religion and by authority of law in
England and other European nations where the
Onion of Church and State prevails, the reading of
the acts of Assembly of this State, of 1723, chap-
ter 16—which his friend from Kent referred to
to sustain a religious test, would have induced
him, (if influenced by no other motive,) to vote
against it. Could I vote for the amendment of
my friend from Kent, if our true Catholic Church
were the more numerous predominating religion
of Maryland, he should feel himself justified in
denying office to all persons who should refuse
to subscribe the doctrines of that church, in-
deed he should feel that he had sanctioned a prin-
ciple, which left him but little ground to com-
plain of the injustice and cruelty inflicted on
Christians, for religion's sake, by the barbarous
and infidel nations of the earth.
The thirty-third article in the old Constitution
was but the first and an imperfect effort to shake
off the principles resulting from the union of
Church and State, which till then, prevailed in
Maryland. It declared that Christians only ought
to be protected. It had, as he before remarked,
accomplished nothing.
[The hammer here fell—the gentleman's five
minutes having expired.]
Mr. RIDGELY remarked:
That he would say a few words in addition to
what had fallen from the gentleman from Anne
Arundel. If he (Mr. R.) understood the gentle-
man from Kent, the very ground upon which he
asked the House to adopt this qualification for
office was that its absence from the Constitution |
would constructively be a repudiation on the part
of the House, of the Christian religion, it having
formed a part of the original Constitution, and
any attempt on the part of the House, now to
strike it out from that Constitution, would be
qualifiedly or constructively a repudiation of the
Christian religion, and as the gentleman remarked
on a former occasion, would be un-christianizing
the good old Christian State of Maryland. He
proposed to call the attention of the House to the
fact that he had examined with care every con-
stitution in the United States, including that of
the United States Government, and he had not
been able to find in any single State, except in
North Carolina, (that State went so far as to dis-
qualify every body, except Protestants, and it
was only a few years ago that one of the brightest
jurisprudent of that State, Judge Gaston, he be-
ing a Roman Catholic, was able to hold office by
the modification of the Constitution,) a provision
disqualifying persons for opinions' sake. He
would ask were the citizens of the United States
less Christians than the citizens of Maryland?
Were the citizens, in other States less Christians
than the citizens of this State? Was there less
security for the protection of right and liberty in
any other State than in Maryland? The adoption
of a religious test is constructively the declaration
of a government creed! It is constructively a
declaration in the fundamental law, by the State
in its political capacity, of a government creed.
Every State in the United States (including the
New England States, where they were more
staid in this respect) had repudiated all these
qualifications. In furtherance of the argument
of the gentleman from Anne Arundel, in relation
to hypocrisy, and the various practices which it
superinduced, Mr. R. read the third clause of
the first article of the Constitution of Rhode Is-
land on this subject. The qualification that a
man must believe in the Christian religion was
no security that the party who made the declara-
tion believed in the Christian religion. In all
human probability, his whole life might fasify
the declaration he had made. Why should they
put themselves in a condition to adopt a feature
of government which was against the theory of
the liberty and unrestrained freedom of religious
opinion in all republican forms of government
The theory of our government was to allow
every man to form religious opinions according to
the dictates of his conscience, and to be entitled
to the privileges and advantages of government,
until that freedom became licentiousness, against
which they had already guarded by a provision
in the Constitution.
Mr. HOWARD was very glad to coincide with
the opinions of his colleague on this subject. He
[Mr. H.] had three objections to the proposition
of the gentleman from Kent—the first of which
was that it admitted a Jew to hold office, while
it did not admit other men who were not Jews,
but who thought the same thing. Take, for in-
stance, the case of a man not a Jew. He might
entertain the same religious doctrines precisely.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The Jews believe in the old
testament. |
