be an overwhelming majority; those who
sign the other, if they sign it at all will
constitute a minority, perhaps an invidious
minority, the sole object of which will be to
afford the opportunity to some demagogue
to say that they deny the Christian religion,
because they do not sign that declaration.
I think if we intend to open the door, and
admit all who are embraced in the amendment
of the gentleman from Baltimore
county, we should not keep up the two
tests. I think, acting in our official ca-
pacity here, upon the liberal principles
which prevail at this time it is better to ad-
here to the language employed by the gen-
tleman from Baltimore county. As he has
veil said—who Is to decide whether a man
is a believer in the Christian religion or not?
That question is creating more and more
difficulty every day, as can be seen from the
theological controversies arising everywhere,
especially in Great Britain, where the State
controls the creed of the church In Eng-
land, one of their bishops has published a
hook which those who differ from him de-
nounce as infidel; they say he is not a be-
liever in the Christian religion that he is
not fit to be a bishop. Yet he is a bishop
of the Church of England, so recognized by
the State, though be differs from others in be-
lief. I think that for the sake of uniformity
it is better to have but one test. and that the
teat proposed by the gentleman from Balti-
more county.
Mr BOND. I see no substantial difference
between the amendment of the gentleman
from Baltimore county, (Mr Ridgely,) and
the amendment the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke.) They both arrive
at the same result; they both allow men to
hold office who declare their belief in the
Christian religion, and men who declare
only their belief in the existence of God
and a future state of rewards and punishments
They both arrive at the same conclusion
at last, the only difference between
the two propositions being that one leaves
out the declaration of belief in the Christian
religion.
My friend from Somerset, (Mr. Jones,)
talks about making an individuals distinction
between men who are willing to declare
their belief in the Christian religion, and
men who are willing only to declare their
belief in the existence of God and a future
state of rewards and punishments. Now, I
see no invidious distinction at all. It there
are men who do not believe in the Christian
religion, is it invidious to say that they do
not believe in it? And why should we
strike out of this article the declaration of
belief in the Christian religion? Is there
anything in the Christian religion to be
ashamed of, that we should strike it out al-
together from qualifications for office?
When we put upon an equal footing those |
who declare a belief in the Christian reli-
gion—which is admitted on all hands to be
the religion of the great majority of the peo-
ple of this State—and those who are unwil-
ling to declare their belief in the Christian
religion. bat only to say that they believe
in God and a future state of rewards and
punishments, have we not done enough for
that class of people? And why should we
go to the further length of striking out of
the article the words, " belief in the Chris-
tian religion ? '
I am willing to vote for either proposi-
tion, for it does appear to me that they both
arrive at the same conclusion; they both
admit to office the same classes or persons,
and there is nothing to my mind invidious
in either proposition towards the one or the
other class, Still as I see no particular
reason why the language of the article
should be changed, I shall vote for the
proposition of the gentleman from Prince
George's, (Mr. Clarke.)
Mr. TODD. I agree with the sentiments
expressed by the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, (Mr. Bond.) I see no necessity or
propriety in striking out of this article of
the Declaration of Rights the words, "be-
lief in the Christian religion." But I do
think there is very great propriety in retaining
that phrase. As has been remarked
by other gentlemen upon this floor, we are
a Christian people generally; and I think
we should be careful in our action here, not
to do anything that will be construed in
the sense of ignoring the Christian religion.
I hope, therefore the amendment of the
gentleman from Prince George's (Mr Clarke)
will prevail, and that this Convention, while
it extends to other classes of citizens the
right to hold office, will not do any act that
will be construed into a want of recognition
that religion which is the prevailing re-
ligion of this State.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, I have but one
word more to say. I do not wish to be un-
derstood at all as discouraging in any way
whatever a profession of belief in the Chris-
tian religion. That is my hope; that is my
creed; and humble and unworthy a member
as I may be of the Christian church, I am con-
nected with a branch of the Christian church
that holds to its creed as rigidly perhaps as
any other of the denominations into which
the Christian church is divided. But I mean
to say this, that a written name ait the foot
of such a declaration amounts, as Judge Dor-
sey said, to very little, and he had never
known it to keep a man from accepting of-
fice. I think the best profession of a belief
in the Christian religion which a man can
afford to those who know him and with
whom he is associated, is to do justly, love
mercy and walk humbly before his God,
That is a profession of the Christian religion
which I most heartily commend to all men, |
