the Christian religion."91 It still gave
freedom only to "those professing the
Christian belief"92 and all public offi-
cials had to be Christian.
Catholics were unanimously apprecia-
tive. One priest wrote, "The toleration
here granted by the Bill of Rights has
put all on the same footing and has
been a great service to us." Bishop John
Carroll said, "If we have the wisdom
and temper to preserve [freedom of
religion], America may come to exhibit
a proof to the world, that general and
equal toleration, by giving a free circu-
lation to fair argument, is the most
effectual method to bring all denomina-
tion of Christians to a unity of faith."93
Nevertheless, Quakers, Dunkers and
Mennonites were denied the right to
appear as witnesses in capital criminal
cases,94 and not until 1826 would Jews
be permitted to hold public office.95
Certain influential clergymen of the day
viewed requests to the legislature to en-
act laws aiding Christian teachers as
the first steps to a return of Establish-
ment.96 The danger of de facto estab-
lishment was expressed strongly by Rev-
erend Patrick Allison, the first pastor of
the First Presbyterian Church in Balti-
more, who stated, "All possible descrip-
91 Article 33.
92 Ibid. Of the first thirteen state constitu-
tions, only two (Virginia and Rhode Island)
granted full religious freedom. Maryland was
one of two (the other, Delaware) to insist on
Christianity and one of three (the others, New
York and South Carolina) to exclude min-
isters from public office. cobb, supra note
78 at 501.
93 Quoted in antieau, downey &
roberts, supra note 77 at 58-59.
94 werline, supra note 52 at 157.
95 M. andrews, history of maryland
450 (1926).
96 antieau, downey & roberts, supra
note 77 at 173. See W. marnell, the first
amendment 139-41 (1964).
|
tions of Christians are equally entitled
to the countenance and favour of gov-
ernment." The legislature could not
confer on one church "the smallest pref-
erence or distinction, which was with-
held from, or denied to, any of the
rest."97
Moreover, Reverend Allison was an
outspoken opponent of legislation for
public support-of-religion laws, which
he viewed as intended to finance the
Episcopal Church alone. Although
there was no general aid to religion in
Maryland during the immediate post-
Revolutionary period, the State did
finance isolated churches and church-
related schools.98 (During the 1776-
1789 period many states thought it
proper to aid the cause of religion and
religious education by authorizing
churches to conduct lotteries; since this
practice was not available to citizens,
such legislative favor also constituted a
form of government aid to religion and
church-related education.)99
97 antieau, downey & roberts, supra,
36.
98 Id. at 67-68. Thus in 1784 the State
gave Washington College — an Episcopal insti-
tution — £1250 and other financial aid, and
in 1788 the legislature appropriated £742 for
the building of a church in Annapolis. There
is further evidence of grants to other institu-
tions of learning which had strongly religious
orientations, if not denominationally con-
trolled. Id. at 68. Also, in 1791 the legis-
lature advanced £200 for a church building
in St. Anne's Parish in Annapolis. Journal of
the House, Dec. 27, 1791. See also, mar-
nell, supra note 96 at 110.
For the most recent case dealing with the
church-state problem and summarizing the
differing views, see Horace Mann League v.
Bd. of Pub. Works, 242 Md. 645, 220
A.2d 51 (1966), in which the Court of Ap-
peals of Maryland held that state grants to
three of four local colleges were unconstitu-
tional.
99 Id. at 74.
27
|
