sion, because I cannot express myself in half
as good words as he did, in the position he
took against the qualification proposed by
Judge Chambers. He said:
"If there was any principle in the reli-
gions test proposed, its operation should be
universal; it should admit of no exceptions
He belonged to the same church with his friend
from Kent, and was he trusted, as sincerely
anxious for the universal propagation of the
Christian religion as he was. They only
differed, he thought, in the means of accom-
plishing it. He regarded religion as an in-
ward, a spiritual work, reserved by the
Deity to himself, and to his own agents spe-
cially selected for that purpose; of which
profane legislation or legislators formed no
part (He used the word "profane" in no
offensive sense, but as contra-distinguished
from clerical or ecclesiastical) He had al-
ways thought civil or profane legislation
was to control our temporal concerns, to
make good citizens, not to make good Chris-
tians. By legislative restrictions, persecu-
tions, pains, penalties and forfeitures you
may make formalities and hypocrites; but
not Christians. Profane legislation is an
outward work, a conformity to which is
enforced by outward means, by force
Christianity is a spiritual and inward work.
incapable of creation or extension by outward
force or violence, emanating from mere will.
"This declaration of a belief in the
Christian religion has not, as far as my
knowledge and observation extend, ever ex-
cluded a man from office, who was unworthy
of it; hypocrisy and falsehood enable him
easily to surmount the barrier—whilst the
upright, conscientious man, who deserves
the office, would be excluded. It is unjust
and impolitic on another ground: you
alienate from your government the affections
of all those who are not Christians; you
hold out to them the strongest temptations
to disloyally."
Endorsing as I do the sentiments of Judge
Dorsey expressed on that occasion, and
adopting them as my own, I shall vote in
favor of the proposition of the gentleman
from Baltimore county, (Mr. Ridgely )
Mr. CLARKE. I desire to offer an amend-
ment to the amendment submitted by the
gentleman from Baltimore county, (Mr
Ridgely), and which I think will meet the
views of all gentlemen. There are a great
many persons in this State who desire to
have in this Constitution a recognition of
the Christian religion, provided it does not
clash with the rights of other parties. The
Christian religion being the religion of the
State, there are a great many gentlemen
who desire, if they ever take office, to pro-
fess their belief in it, provided it does not
clash with the rights of other people, and
does not at all stand in the way of others
assuming the responsibilities of office in the |
State. I move to amend the amendment, so
that the last clause of this article shall read—
" And a declaration of belief in the Christian
religion or in the existence of God and
in a future state of rewards and punishments."
The amendment of the gentleman from
Baltimore county is to strike out the de-
claration of belief in the Christian religion,
and to require only a declaration of belief
in the existence of God and a future state of
rewards and punishents. My amendment
proposes to allow a party to mane a declara-
tion of belief in the Christian religion, if he
chooses; or if he does not desire to do that,
he fan make the declaration proposed by
the gentleman from Baltimore county, and
say—" I declare my belief in the existence
of God, and in a future state of rewards and
punishments." It covers all cases; it per-
mits any one to declare his belief in the
Christian religion, but does not make that
the sole test. If he does not desire to take
that, then he has the alternative of declaring
his belief in the existence of God, and a fu-
ture state of rewards and punishments. In-
stead of confining the declaration simply to
that propose? by the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore county, I propose to
give the party an option I think, there-
fore, my amendment will meet the views of
all sides.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset The sole objec-
tion I have to the amendment of the gentle-
man from Prince George's, (Mr. Clarke) in-
stead of the amendment of the gentleman
from , Baltimore county, (Mr Ridgely ) is that
it creates two classes, establishes two tests,
and is after all an invidious distinction. I
agree most fully with the views of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Stirling)
in reference to the fact that it is fur the sov-
ereign people of the State to limit and pre-
scribe the qulaifications of office, and say
upon what terms they will admit persons to
hold office in this State. It is not a matter
of right on the part of any man to hold of-
fice; it is only a matter of expediency. Still,
I submit whether it is expedient to keep up
this distinction of two classes instead of ex-
cluding every religions test but the declara-
tion of belief in the existence of God, and a
future state of rewards and punishments.
There can be no question that the over-
whelming majority of the people of Mary-
land are professors of a belief in the Chris-
tian religion. Those who dissent from that
belief are few. Now, is it worth while,
when we are abolishing so many distinctions,
to seemingly keep up two classes, by requir-
ing two tests? Why pace upon our
statute hooka two tests—the one a declara-
tion of belief in the Christian religion, the
other a declaration of belief in the existence
of God and a future state of rewards and
punishments? Those who sign the one will |
