indirectly implies that we ignore the Christ-
ian religion. Such an argument answers
itself. And I do not think I could, with
any degree of propriety, attempt to detain
the House to respond to that theory or that
argument.
But I would call the attention of the
House lo the provision in the Constitution
of the United States, and upon that I desire
to submit aword or two of argument. Section
three or article six is as follows :
"The Senators and Representatives be-
fore mentioned, and the members of the several
State Legislature and all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United
States and of the several States shall be
board by oath or affirmation to support this
Constitution; but no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office, or
public trust, under the United States."
Judge Story says, the clause requiring an
oath of all State and national functionaries
to support the Constitution, was first carried
by a vote of six States to five, and was after-
wards unanimously approved. On the final
vote it was adopted by a vote of eight States
against one or two divided. The clause re-
specting religious tests was unanimously
adopted. Now, will any one pretend to ar-
gue that because the Constitution of the
United States did not spread upon its pages
that we were a Christian people; that be-
cause the Constitution of the United States
did not require, as a qualification for office,
that a party should take an oath or make a
declaration of belief in the Christian religion,
we are, therefore, any the less a Christ-
ian people? Is it not equally true in rela-
tion to the people of the United States at
large, as it is true in relation to the people
of the State of Maryland, that we are a
Christian people? I grant with the honor-
able gentleman that we are a Christiana people;
that we of Maryland are for the most
part a Christian people. But we are no less
a Christian people in our character as the
people of the United States. Yet the Con-
stitution of the United States requires no
declaration of belief in the Christian reli-
gion, no religions test whatever, through
framed by men who recognized the Chris-
tian religion, and who, in every step
made in the struggles of our revo-
lutionary fathers, as distinctly recognized
the favor and pro tec ion of God, as
they recognized that God in the light of
the Christian religion. Those men, expe-
rienced wise worthy, time honored, Christ-
ian man in framing and establishing a form
of government which was intended for men
of every variety of opinion, of every shade
of religious belief, regarded it as wise and
proper, and just, and equitable, to steer clear
of any difficulty upon that subject, of all
others perhaps the most delicate and most
vital.
25 |
And is there anything in the declaration
of a belief in the Christian religion that adds
to the qualifications or fitness of a party for
office? Will the requirement of a declara-
tion of belief in the Christian religion deter
a bad man from making such a declaration?
Will it deter a man who is not a Christian
from making the declaration in view of his
opportunity to obtain an office? What practical
purpose, therefore, will it serve? The
only purpose it can serve is to give character
to us as a Christian people; to recognize
our veneration for that system of religion.
And is that needed? It can serve no prac-
tical purpose, because it can add nothing to
the fitness of a party to hold office, and will
not deter an unworthy man from making the
declaration in order to obtain office. And
then I would ask, how many make a de-
claration of their belief in the Christian re-
ligion, who act out the very reverse; who
even in the very act of making the declara-
tion not unfrequently give to the world the
strongest proof that they are practically of
any ether faith.
I shall therefore vote for the amendment
suggested by my friend from Somerset (Mr.
Jones), and which I have submitted to this
Convention. There are portions of the
' amendment read by the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr Stirling), which as a
separate and independent proposition I shall
take pleasure voting for. But those por-
tions are not germain to, or in legitimate
connection with, this proposition, and I
trust will not be pressed upon us now in this
connection.
Mr. STIRLING. I merely read it for informa-
tion; I do not desire the vote taken on it
now.
Mr. RIDGELY. The idea that the gentle-
man is induced to offer this proposition,
only for the purpose of admitting one class
of people to the exclusion of other classes, is
a reason with me for not voting for it. He
is willing to enlarge the rule and admit a
respectable and important class of people, a
very worthy class of citizens, but not more
so than the Universalists and Unitarians,
who expressly deny our Christian religion.
Mr. STIRLING. Can the gentleman find a
Universalists or a Unitarian in this State who
dees not profess to be a Christian, who does
not repudiate as an insult the charge that he
is not a Christian, and hold that such a charge
is but an instance of bigotry on the part of
those who make it?
Mr RIDGELY. I have known them to be
ruled out of a court of justice.
Mr. STIRLING. Not because they were not
Christians, but on account of their not be-
lieving in a future state of rewards and
punishments.
Mr. RIDGELY. The very fact that: men
are divided upon the subject of the Christian
religion is a reason why we should not |
