v.^n^O^A'^^l/r.A^C^y^ 
 
 ^^yt^^^^p^t^^K^^' 
 
 'mm^. 
 
 « A ./^' K/ 
 
 :«», 
 
 
 \<^i^C\'^"y/^^., 
 
 
 m'A^Mm^j 
 
 W:m,^' 
 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 
 
 # 
 
 [FORCE COLLECTION.] ^ 
 
 ^-f ;IV\16 
 
 ^UNITED STATED OF AMERICA. | 
 
 
 0^^^^ftAfi^^A'5i 
 
 
 '^tim^ 
 
 "im^. 
 
 
 ):f^^^Kmmmm 
 
 A A A . 'a O, .•* 
 
 ^^'.::"«««««eft ,'-■' 
 
 
 fmf> 
 
 
 WtrfG^wOJ 
 

 A" "^ "> A /. ~ 
 
 
 ^^^-'■^mhr.r^ 
 
 .^hm 
 
 
 >^<C!?/^^^' 
 
 
 
 ii^ 
 
 
 
 i^^^mnj^i^' 
 
 5.«??SSs>'«*SR^^^ 
 
 
 rA^^^n*:^^/ 
 
 slS^^SSSlii^il 
 
 '"■''«^-aAa«. 
 
 B;t^^^mm 
 
 i/f^/ii^/^AA 
 
or 
 
 \)(^-..Vif^ 
 
 ^mmm m^mAm%w^ 
 
 12? THE 
 
 House of Delegates of MaT^lai\A> 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Bill to coftfii-m An Aetf ^titl<^ an An Act to extenti to Sll 
 t)ie cjfiz^ns ot" Maryland the same civil rights ami 
 
 leljgious privileges that are enjoyed 
 t under the constitution of 
 
 I iheU.Stateso 
 
 
 m 
 
 HAGBRS-TOWI^: 
 :?BINTBD BY ^V. ». BELl, 
 

Ov 
 
 To tlve EaitoY oi Wat To\'e\\ liiglvt— 
 
 SIR—- It lias become so fashionable in these days 
 of wordy war for onr declaimers and orators, even 
 those of the most distinguished order, to play repor- 
 ters to themselves, to hand out their own productions 
 to the world, sometimes to criticise them and some- 
 times even to play the part of self-putfers in regard 
 to them, that surely the smaller fry, the ignoble 
 crowd of inferior speakers, who are born but for im- 
 itation, and who, by long continued gazing upon the 
 models set up before them for that purpose, have 
 grown blind to their defects, wonld seem to need no 
 other apology for acts which do, it must be confess- 
 ed, wear on their very face a ridiculous, conceited 
 air, than that which is to be fonnd in the influence of 
 great examples, daily and hourly placed before their 
 eyes in the political world. If but too frequently 
 they are illy rewarded for their pains, if but too of- 
 ten they fall flat in their attempts, if but too often 
 they meet with contempt or ridicule where they had 
 hoped for admiration, they can fold up their arms in 
 perfect contentment and console themselves by the 
 l^eflection, that at least they have manifested in their 
 acts one of the characteristics of great minds, that 
 they have fallen in great attempts, in doing that 
 which the great daily practise. 
 
 In truth, there seems to be no siifiicient reason 
 why we should deny to declaimers the same dear 
 privilege which men in every rank and in every con- 
 dition in society frequently exercise ; the inestima- 
 ble privilege of bestowing a little self-praise, and of 
 occasionally thrusting their own works or their own 
 
( ^i ) 
 
 productions upon the world, as having a right to 
 challenge for themselves some degree of its admira- 
 tion and applause. The Poet cries *^ Fresh fish 
 from Helicon, whoHl luyT^ The Physician occa- 
 sionally tells us that he has lounged away one or two 
 winters within the walls of an university. The Mer- 
 chant, even in country towns, as inconsiderable as 
 our own, vapours away at an amusing rate about the 
 price and quality of his goods ; and the Tradesman 
 takes care to let us know that he executes his work 
 in a neat and masterly manner. AVhy then may not 
 the public speaker, without alarming the self-conceit 
 of others, play his part also upon the stage of vani- 
 ty ? It is true, that in general, men are somewhat 
 better qualified for playing the part of self-critics, 
 than that of self-reporters, if I may so speak. It 
 has been very properly observed by a modern author, 
 that literary men in criticising their own works, 
 have in general an immense advantage over others, 
 for it is quite certain, that they have read what they 
 criticise -, and it might be supposed that the same ad- 
 vantage would result from self-reporting, a terra 
 which I must be permitted to use for the occasion, as 
 the reporter must in general know what he himself 
 has said. 
 
 The complaint has, however, become very gener- 
 al in these our days against such reporters-: That 
 they so load the original with dress which did not 
 primarily belong to it, so flounce it and furbelow it, 
 that it is difficult, and in some instances almost im- 
 possible to recognize it when buried in this adventi- 
 tious apparel. In such cases the world should have 
 some little regard for the feelings of a parent, and 
 should pardon his delicate efforts to clothe the na- 
 kedness of his offspring before he sends it into the 
 world. Although this practice of self-reporting has 
 grown to such a height, and although it carries with 
 it such commanding examples and weighty names as 
 "Would suffice to bear down any ordinary opposition. 
 
in 
 
 aud would render any apology for conforming to i« 
 unnecessary, let me in a few words assign the rea- 
 sons for my determination to furnish yon, at your re- 
 quest, Avith the substantial part of tlie Remarks 
 made by myself during the late session of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of Maryland, upon the Bill for the 
 removal of that clause of our Constitution prescrib- 
 ing a Religious Test to be administered in order to 
 the enjoyment of civil offices. If the occasion had 
 wholly passed by — if the question had been finally 
 settled which called them forth, then there wouM 
 have been little to plead for the tender of them, save 
 the gratification of an innocent vanity, or if we would 
 use the modest phrases of modern times, of the ear- 
 nest and irrepressible desires of a few friends. 
 
 But the occasion is a present and abiding one 5 
 they are now as applicable as they were when deli- 
 vered. If they ever carried aught of conviction 
 and power, in order to the removal of what cannot 
 but be deemed a stain on our Constitution, they ought 
 still to have the same efficacy until it be wiped away. 
 This controversy has indeed grown grey-headed, but 
 the friends of the Bill lately rejected, have no rea- 
 son to despair of its ultimate success, so soon as the 
 efforts of intelligent men throughout the state shall 
 have unfolded the real tendency and design of that 
 Bill. Like one of the fabled giants of antiquity, it 
 has gathered new strength from each overthrow ; 
 and the time is not far distant in the perspective, 
 when it will, in its turn, prostrate its opponents. — 
 The people of this state, in some sections of it, have 
 been taught to believe, that this is a question of pre- 
 dominance between Christianity and Judaism — that 
 the Christian Religion itself is in danger — that all its 
 legal props are about to betaken away ; every object 
 of the highest sanctity in our land made liable to be 
 ti'ampled under foot by the reviling infidel ; and they 
 have sometimes even been menaced with an inunda- 
 tion of infidels of every hue and of all casts, and 
 
( 6) 
 
 with Synagogues, Mosques and Pagodas starting up 
 around them on all sides on the ruins of Christian 
 Temples. They are yet to be told in many sections 
 of our state, that this Camel Bill which was to swal- 
 low up all our christian institutions, is simply a bill 
 proposing to give to the citizens of our state a right 
 of electing whom they may please ; that it is a bill 
 founded wholly upon the mild and benignant doctrines 
 of their Gospel, which teach them to yield to every 
 man his due, to give to every citizen having the ne- 
 cessary civic qualifications, the civil and political 
 rights which those qualifications entitle him to, with- 
 out diving into his heart and setting up in bar to the 
 enjoyment of those rights, religious opinions and 
 practices which are matters wholly between himself 
 and the God whose creature he is. They are yet to 
 Jbe told, that this is a Bill which refers them to the 
 operations of God in the natural world ,• and which 
 calls upon them to contrast their Creator's actions 
 and their Creator's doctrines with their own. He 
 sends his rain upon the just & upon the unjust. He la- 
 vishes the goods of this life even upon unnatural and 
 disobedient subjects. We refuse civil and political 
 rights even to good, faithful and obedient subjects. 
 
 Had the question been proposed to the people o^ 
 this state in its nakedness, such as it is, I should blush 
 for my native state, but for the belief that this clause 
 would have been long since expunged from our Con- 
 stitution — If they had been asked, Are you afraid to 
 trust yourselves ? Are you afraid to take into your 
 own hands the right of electing whom you may 
 please ? They would have regarded the bare doubt 
 implied in the question, as a libel upon their under- 
 standings. And yet it is undeniably true, that in re- 
 gard to this question the people in some parts of our 
 state have been self-fearers — They have been start- 
 ing at bug-bears and shadows, which, when nearer 
 approached and when released from the obscurity in 
 which they were involved; they discover to be but 
 
(7) 
 
 tlieir own sIiadoAvs. "Upon tliose vihom I have had 
 the honor of representing, I cannot with propriety 
 charge any such misapprehensions ; and there is rea- 
 son to rejoice in the knowledge, that whilst our fel- 
 low citizens in other sections of the state have discov- 
 ered on this snhject an unusual and unaccountable 
 degree of excitement and irritation, and start at the 
 mention of a Test Bill as an hydrophobiast at the 
 sight of Avater, the citizens of this county have al- 
 ways regarded it with the mildness and temperance 
 which becomes discreet and reflecting men. For 
 their opinions I have already undertaken to give a 
 pledge, and that pledge, 1 am assured, they will re- 
 deem. To thcni however, I would wish to submit 
 my views for their approbation, for which I would 
 fain hope and with which I should not be* lightly 
 pleased. The Delegate should never fear to render 
 an account of his stewardship ; nay, he should rather 
 render it unasked, and although he should not ruu 
 the insect race after popularity, still should he not 
 despise it when it may follow him in the discharge 
 of duty. In submitting these remarks, I have found 
 it impossible to recall the language of the moment. 
 That energy of feeling which prompted it has pass- 
 ed aAvay. The substantial part of them I am ena- 
 bled to furnish from brief notes or memoranda, 
 made both before and after their delivery, to w hicU 
 I have confined myself, taking care not to advance 
 any arguments which do not appear from these me- 
 moranda to have been substantially made. In sketch- 
 ing out and filling up these, I have experienced all 
 tliose difficulties which speakers must ever feel when 
 attempting to enclose the warm, energetic and con- 
 cise language of the declaimer, in the strait jacket 
 of cold and formal writing. Language is noAv the 
 only vehicle of thoughts then much more forcibly 
 expressed by a look or a gesture -, and hence the 
 opening remarks have swelled to suoh a size as to 
 CT)mpel the abandonment of my original intention^ to 
 
Incorporate a lew remarks elicited by tlie debate ia 
 opposition ; these have been wholly omitted with 
 the exception of the last observations herein contain- 
 ed. In the public's hands they are left, to submit 
 to the fate they merit, whether good or ill. 
 Yours, Respectfully, 
 
 JOHN V. L. M'MAHON. 
 Cumberland, 1821-. 
 
mmmikm^i« 
 
 Me. Speaker — 
 
 If my esteemed friend, the gentle» 
 man who last addressed you, has had cause to trem- 
 ble for his temerity in approaching with youth and 
 inexperience, a question at whose feet the stores of 
 hoary-headed experience and the dictates of learn- 
 ing and wisdom have so often been laid in this House 
 and elsewhere, with how much fear and trembling, 
 with how much humility should I, upon whom these 
 incumbrances hang doubly heavy, approach and 
 present my little but heart-bestowed offering. Still, 
 although fearing that my views may be lost in the 
 lustre of those heretofore presented, that I can add 
 nothing to the mass of information relative to this 
 subject at present before the public, that 1 cannot 
 impart to others the convictions which have been 
 forced upon my mind by these views, and although 
 those are waiting near me who would bear away to 
 public view and submit to the painful inspection of 
 cold-hearted criticism, my necessarily imperfect re» 
 marks, still will I oifer them, still will I urge them 
 upon this House. On this occasion men may impute 
 to me the hasty mind, the weak head or the falter- 
 ing tongue, but never the faint heart. If, sir, my 
 remarks could carry with them into the world, that 
 zeal and energy which give rise to them and which 
 alone give them aught of life and power that they 
 may possess, it would be more gratifyijiig to him 
 who off*ers them. 
 In attempting to enter upon (he discussions whi<ih 
 
(10 ) 
 
 grow out of this question, I find myself beset on all 
 sides by objections >vhlch I cannot designate by arty 
 more appropriate term than that of ** threshold ob- 
 jections;" objections which lie at the door of this 
 subject, and which would fain shUt it in from view 
 and preclude us from entrance to it. 
 
 Amongst these the most prominent, that whose in* 
 flucBce I most fear, and that which in truth deserves 
 the most consideration, is — "That in determining 
 this question we are but blind agents ; that however 
 extensive and uncontroled our powers as delegates 
 may be on questions of a different cast, yet this is 
 an occasion on which our law requires us blindly 
 to obey the impulse given by the will of our con- 
 stituents, without in any degree consulting our in- 
 dividual opinions or wishes ; That this question has 
 been submitted for decision to the proper tribunal, 
 the citizens of your state, and has been determin- 
 ed in the negative almost by acclamation." This 
 objection says then to those who would combat an 
 opinion deemed to have been so strongly and decid* 
 edly expressed by the citizens of Maryland : In vain 
 will you appeal to the reason — in vain will you en- 
 deavor to enlist the feelings of those who represent 
 the people thus decided in their opinions. On this 
 subject their mouths are sealed — their hearts and 
 minds padlocked — hearing they must not hear, see- 
 ing they must not see. 
 
 This is an objection which, in common with some 
 others hereafter to be noticed, has been bandied out 
 from mouth to mouth, and the use of which in the 
 course of this debate we may reasonably anticipate. 
 Itis well therefore, to meet it in a timely manner. If 
 we are indeed, as it Would have us to believe,themere 
 machines of the people ; if we dare not now exercise 
 the faculties which alone have entitled us to a place 
 in this ho\ise ; and if those behind the scenes and in 
 whose hands we are as clay in the potter's hands, 
 have given the direction to our motions, hopeless in- 
 
(11 ) 
 
 ileed would be the attempt to give them a different 
 direction. But, sir, let us examine this proposition 
 in all its parts j let us enquire how far, on occasions 
 such as the present, our constituents are authorized 
 to give us imperative instructions ? and how far we 
 ought to regard ourselves as hound to obey them ? 
 and yet further, how has the public will been ex- 
 pressed ? what evidences have we before us of tliat 
 expression ? and on which side do they lie ? It is at 
 present wholly unnecessary to travel into tlie gener- 
 al question of the right of the constituent to instruct, 
 and of the duty of the representative to obey the 
 instruction given, inasmuch as we may safely con- 
 cede the right of instruction,with certain limitations, 
 on such occasions as the present. 
 
 It may not, however, be amiss in passing it by to 
 remark : that every member of the House is clothed 
 with a two-fold representative character : that he 
 represents two interests which, it is to be hoped, will 
 always be found consistent and compatible with each 
 other, but which have not equal claims upon his con- 
 sideration, the one being an interest which must al- 
 ways bow the head to the other. Although chosen 
 as the representatives of several counties, in one re- 
 spect we are all alike ; we are all the representatives 
 of the state of Maryland. This is our highest and 
 it should be our proudest title. Although in com- 
 mon parlance the representatives of a siugle couuty, 
 we are not therefore to promote the interests and 
 gratify thfe feelings of those by whom we have been 
 immediately deputed, to the utter disregard of those 
 of the inhabitants of other sections of the state. On 
 ordinary occasions we should hoJd the will of our 
 constituents and their interests in subservience to the 
 general interests, and thus bounded, if rational, they 
 should in most cases be indulged. 
 
 Sir, at (he present time, I am, as I think, willing 
 to go as far for the sake of concession and for the 
 purpose of strengthening what I may have to say, as 
 
(12) 
 
 any, the most strenuous opponent of the bill before 
 you. Let it be conceded that the people have, on 
 this question, a right to require pledges of candidates 
 for their favor, and to instruct those whom they have 
 elected — Why have they this power ? It is, Mr. 
 Speaker, because we are at this moment to he re- 
 garded as in convention for the purpose of amende 
 ing the constitution of our state. In providing a 
 mode of amending or remodeling that constitution, 
 the framers of it seem to have had in view a double 
 object. It would not have deserved the name of a 
 constitution, it could not have been more regarded as 
 clothed with sanctity and entitled to reverence than 
 laws of every-day enactment, had it not been placed 
 beyond the reach of ordinary legislation. Framed, 
 as it had been, with the utmost care and caution, it 
 was proper that some mode of amendment should be 
 adopted which would be likely to call forth the same 
 care and caution in every act of modification or al- 
 teration. The question then occurred, how is this 
 object to be effected without incurring all the delays 
 and difficulties incident to the call of a convention ? 
 By our present constitution many institutions and 
 doctrines were placed beyond the scope of the pow- 
 ers of ordinary legislation, which had no intrinsic 
 claim to such — many trivial and unimportant regu- 
 lations had been classed with standard political prin- 
 ciples. Its framers had reason to believe, what ex- 
 perience has since taught us, that frequent amend- 
 ments would become necessary, more especially in 
 these unimportant, and therefore it behoved them to 
 cast about them for some mode of amendment of it, 
 referring the power to the same source, but less dil- 
 atory and less costly than that by call of a conven- 
 tion. By the adoption of the present mode they have 
 contrived to blend the powers of ordinary with those 
 of a special delegation in relation to acts alterative 
 or amendatory of the constitution. 
 TJiis mode; when analysed^ is separable ijito threo 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 distinct operations. The passage of the first, or in- 
 itiatory act, if I may so speak — the puhlication of 
 that act — and the act of final passage or ratification. 
 In what light are these several operations to be view- 
 ed ? In relation to all matters coming ^\ithin the pale 
 of the powers of ordinary legislation, every law 
 which the General Assembly of Maryland may pass, 
 is regarded as an absolute expression of the opinions 
 and wishes of a majority of its citizens— It is theip 
 wish and their will, expressed through the proper 
 organs of communication* 
 
 In the first passage, however, of an act amenda- 
 tory of the constitution, of the mere initiatory act, 
 which is merely designed to throw the question be- 
 fore the people in order to decision by them, the 
 Delegates are not permitted to express a positive 
 and absolute opinion as to their constituents' desires 
 or views. The. constitution tells them, "This is a 
 matter too important to admit of surmises as to the 
 people's will-You indeed come directly from auiongst 
 them, filled with their opinions and glowiug Avith 
 their feelings 5 and therefore Diuch respect is to he 
 paid to your representations : but they can only be 
 received as prima/acie evidence of the will of those 
 whom you represent — To your constituents will we 
 refer it to ascertain whether you have been mistaken 
 or deceived 5 whether the opinion which you have 
 expressed is the opinion which they entertain" — and 
 by their succeeding Delegates they can specially de- 
 clare if they have aught to say against the recep- 
 tion of the first act as evidencing their opinions as 
 to the propriety of the proposed alteration. Accus- 
 tomed to technicalities, the Hoiise will pardon me 
 when I would borrow one from a profession abound- 
 ing in them ; and when I would liken the passage of 
 the present act by the last House of Delegates to a 
 rulenisi, laid upon, to a rule requiring them to come 
 forward and express their opinions in a decided and 
 unequivocal manner : or that otherwise that act wiU 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 he received by the next General Assembly as an ab« 
 solute expression of them : It calls upon thehi to 
 come forward and shew cause against its passage 5 
 and that they may know the provisions of the alter- 
 ative or amendatory act, it is sent out to them by 
 publication. 
 
 This law, sir, has been thus submitted ; by that 
 submission the people of this state have been called 
 upon to say if their opinions and desires have been 
 misrepresented, and if so, they have been and are 
 now required to proclaim it in this House. We are 
 now sitting in convention, that the people of Mary- 
 land may shew cans©, if any they have, why this 
 bill should not pass. 
 
 This view renders the question at present before 
 us, a very different one from tUat which presents it- 
 self on the passage of an ordinary law. By the pas- 
 sage of this act by the late House of Delegates, the 
 burthen of proof has been thrown wholly on the one 
 side. It4s not necessary or proper for the advo- 
 cates of this bill to cast about them for some evi- 
 dences of the people's will : it does not become them 
 even to enquire. — They are seen glaring in the bill 
 jtself. Sir, the people's will has already been stamp-» 
 ed upon it ^ and we are bound to receive it as current 
 unless they falsify it, unless they allege it to be a 
 counterfeit stamp. 
 
 Have they done so ? Do they so now ? Who are 
 ihey who would shew cause for them against the 
 passage of this bill ? Where are the credentials of 
 their special delegation ? They are, as I think, to 
 he found only in some distinct and unequivocal ex- 
 pression of opinion by the people directly to the 
 contrary. If they have deemed it proper in any 
 section of this state to require pledges of candidates 
 for their favor, that if elected they will use their 
 endeavors to prevent the passage of this bill ; and if 
 such pledges have been given when required, let 
 those who have given Ihcn^ advance ^nd oifer their 
 
( 15) 
 
 objections ; they have their credentials. If any 
 members of this House, either for the purpose of 
 furthering their interests, or through an honest con* 
 viction of the impropriety of passing the present 
 bill, did voluntarily and unasked, tender to those 
 whose favor they were seeking a pledge of opposi- 
 tion to this bill, before they were clothed with ihe 
 representative character, and whilst they yet stood 
 in the precarious condition of candidates ; such an 
 expression of their opinions must be regarded as 
 one of the inducements to their election ^ let them 
 advance and offer their objections ; they have their 
 credentials. Are there any present comipg as de- 
 legates from counties in which, by public assembla- 
 ges or in some other equally unequivocal manner, a 
 majority of their constituents have manifested their 
 decided opposition to the passage of this bill ; let 
 such approach and offer their objections ^ they have 
 their credentials. 
 
 Are there any amongst us who, in imitation of the 
 Priestess of Dodona, who was wont to go out and 
 listen to the rustling of the wind amongst the kaves 
 of the sacred tree, and thence to infer the will of 
 deity ; are there any who have gone out and have 
 listened to the rustling of noisy clamor amongst the 
 people, who have thence inferred the will, and who 
 now approach, bearing that clamor as an evidence 
 of it ? Let none such approach to offer their objec- 
 tions ; they have not their credentials. If such cla- 
 mor were to be received as evidence of the people's 
 will, then would it ever be in the power of a few 
 noisy, interested or unthinking men, to drown the 
 voices of prudence, reflection and wisdom. Sir, 
 this is not that kind of expressioja of their wills 
 which our constitution calls upon them to tender on 
 the passage of such bills as the present. It must be 
 an expression made understandingly — If i may so 
 speak, it must be made soberly and temperately. — 
 J^'^Kperience will justify me in the assertion. iM\ ihfi 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 noisy and clamorous in every community are not 
 those who give the tone to public opinion ; that they 
 are ever ready to be the whippers-in of the more 
 reflecting ; and, sir, had an expression of the pub- 
 lic sentiment been called for and given in some un- 
 equivocal manner, many of the loudest amongst the 
 first confounded by the opposition and awed by the 
 prudence of the latter, would probably have been 
 found thereafter yelling as loudly in favor of this 
 bill as tliey now are against it. 
 
 Let it not be said, that as no such temperate and 
 deliberate expression of their opinions has been 
 made, we must receive those clamors as the best 
 evidence of them which can now be had. Sir, there 
 is better and higher evidence in the act before you. 
 It has the people's stamp upon, and clamors will not 
 falsify it. Are there any who would approach us 
 with surmises and mere suppositions as to the vdW of 
 their constituents ? For the same reasons would we 
 say, Let none such approach ; they have not their 
 credentials. 
 
 But, sir, there are pledges on both sides of this 
 question i if we have no such credentials as those 
 above described, to authorise us to protest against 
 the passage of this bill, we have no option ; we stand 
 pledged to our constitution to ratify it. The peo- 
 ple have been silent; their opposing voice is not dis- 
 tinctly heard in this House ; and such silence we are 
 bound to regard as an assent. Array then the for- 
 ces — Let those thus authorised to oppose this bill 
 secede from those not thus authorised, and it will 
 be found that the opposition has dwindled to a speck. 
 Yet the friends of this bill cannot wish or ask, that 
 the mouth should be closed or the exercise of the 
 judgment occluded as to its merits. This view has 
 not been taken for that purpose. It has only been 
 taken for the purpose of removing those vague no- 
 tions as to pledges, which, if indulged, portend de- 
 feat to this bill. It is that the members of this 
 
(IT ) 
 
 House may not bow down to the Moloch of this day, 
 that ephemeral, butterfly popularity, which is ever 
 whispering in their ears, what will your constitu- 
 entssay^ and which makes them start back even from 
 the brink of a good action, as from the brink of a pre- 
 cipice,- — It is that they may go out with the answer 
 in their mouths to all ihe invectives of tliose consti- 
 tuents, Your late Delegates had expressed your sen- 
 timents upon this bill, and I am bound to receive it 
 as evidence of them, until some deliberate opinion 
 to the contrary had been expressed by you and com- 
 municated to me. 
 
 Our mouths then are not sealed upon this subject, 
 and we may approach another of the objections 
 which would shut us out from the consideration of 
 the main question — It has been objected to the re- 
 peal proposed by this act, in common with all other 
 repealing acts of the same description, that alter- 
 ations of our constitution have been too frequent in 
 latter days — that this frequency and the facility of a- 
 mendment of it have given rise to a spirit of innova- 
 tion throughout the community which has too often 
 caused our citizens to lose sight of the sanctity of 
 constitutional provisions — that hence the latter have 
 ceased to be regarded, as entitled to any higher 
 respect than the most ordinary enactments, and that 
 it is now proper to repress this innovating spirit, to 
 stay in its progress, ere it tramples under foot our 
 most precious political institutions and maxims. It 
 is said that every such alteration, unless it be made 
 for the removal of some gross and crying inconveni- 
 ence or injustice, actual and practical injury, should 
 be pertinaciously resisted ; and that they ought not to 
 be listened to, who would have us to work such alte- 
 ration merely for the purpose of giving imaginary 
 beauty or theoretical consistence to our constitution. 
 This objection, if applied to the bill before us, sup- 
 poses two things — It regards the provisions of our 
 constitution which this bill designs to take away, as 
 C 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 fiiniisliing conclusive evidence — '^That in the opii> 
 ion of the franiers of that constitution. Religious 
 Tests were proper, and ought to be adopted in order 
 to admission to civil offices^ — that men ought to be ex- 
 cluded from civil rights, because of their adherence 
 to particular religious opinions — that the christian 
 religion ought not only to be established, but that 
 christians alone ought to be placed in the seats of ci- 
 vil power — and that the present test is an effectual 
 mode of ascertaining the existence of christian prin- 
 ciples and characters." 
 
 It supposes yet further, «*That although it may 
 not altogether comport with those liberal and expan- 
 ded political principles which regard religion as a 
 matter between man and his God, as indeed better 
 qualifying, yet in the present depraved state of hu- 
 man nature, not to be regarded as absolutely neces- 
 sary to the enjoyment of mere civil rights j still this 
 provision of our constitution works no actual wrong 
 orinjustice, and that therefore it ought not to be re- 
 moved merely for the purpose of giving a greater 
 degree of theoretical beauty to our constitution." 
 These are all premises which, it is thought, no friend 
 to this bill and no dispassionate man can admit. 
 
 Sir, the friends of this bill approach with as much 
 reverence the ark of the constitution as its enemies. 
 Equally strong is their desire, that many of its pro- 
 visions, as enbalming the most precious political doc- 
 trines, adapted to all ages and to all climes, should 
 always be regarded with the utmost reverence. But 
 they cannot believe that their sanctity will be height- 
 ened, or that they will be more effectually shielded 
 from the attack of innovation, by tlirowing their 
 mantle over our institutions and doctrines, less wor- 
 thy of regard, and which of themselves furnish 
 cause of exception. They would rather look upon 
 such exceptionable doctrines and institutions as weeds 
 which defile the fair garden of the constitution, and 
 which do but cloud the beauty of the brightest How- 
 
( i^ ) 
 
 ers it bears. The plucking up of the former they 
 "would regard as having a tendency to enhance the 
 beauty and brightness of the latter. They regard, 
 sir, the present age as a proud age — as the age of 
 constitutionsin which man, in imitation of the Author 
 of his being, who is seen daily working around him 
 according to rules prescribed to himself, is also seen 
 laying down rules and maxims for his own govern- 
 ment in the political world ; and as laying aside some 
 of these as in a sanctuary into which the feet of or- 
 dinary legislation never can intrude, and which none 
 can approach but those specially delegated. They 
 admit it to be right and proper, that there should be 
 some parts of every system of human government, 
 some rules of governing, which having been estab- 
 lished by the people, after the maturest and most 
 cautious deliberation, should not be liable to change, 
 except after a call of like attention and reflection on 
 their part on the change proposed ; otherwise they 
 would be the sport and play thing of every succes- 
 sion of delegates. 
 
 Sir, if we look throughout our state and through 
 this House, we will find that there have sprung up 
 amongst us twe sects, holding directly opposite opin- 
 ions in relation to the propriety of amending our 
 constitution. In regarding it, one cannot but be re- 
 minded of the controversies which have so often 
 agitated the literary world in relation to the rela- 
 tive merits of ancient and modern writers, in which 
 the one party deemed every thing hallowed that 
 came from the pen of antiquity, and all else unde- 
 serving of applause ; whilst the other, running di- 
 rectly to the other extreme, condemned indiscrimi- 
 nately because of antiquity, and admired as indiscri- 
 minately because of novelty. Such is the conduct of 
 these sects in regard to our constitution. The one 
 looks upon that constitution as a perfect grey beard, 
 and its followers would treat it as the Thibetians arc 
 said to act in relation to their Grand Lama j they 
 
(20 ) 
 
 would take it, although a mere work of mortality, 
 hang it up as an object of adoration, cast a veil over 
 it to shut in all its imperfections from their view, 
 pronounce it spotless, and fall down before it and 
 worship it as faultless and perfect. The followers of 
 the other maintain, that for ages past mankind has 
 been continually on the advance in all respects ; and 
 that the science of human government and the know- 
 ledge of the principles of civil and political liberty, 
 have been progressing in common with all things 
 else 5 they contend that at the time of the formation 
 of our present constitution, the world was yet,in some 
 respects, a novice in relation to the proper construc- 
 tion of republican- governments — that our ancestors 
 had not the benefit of those lights of experience 
 which we of this day enjoy, from having witnessed 
 the operation of our government and the govern- 
 ments of the sister states around us for nearly half 
 a century past ; and that although this constitution, 
 wliich they have framed, is the best which the wis- 
 dom and experience of their days could furnish, it 
 still lags far behind the more improved and more 
 accurate notions of modern times. They allege that 
 it was adapted to a state of things which no longer 
 exists ; that the original equality or proportions of 
 population in the several counties have not been pre- 
 served — that population has changed its residence, 
 and that it is now full time that we should tear this 
 constitution to pieces, leave not one stone upon an- 
 other, and build up a new one, upon more enlarged 
 principles and adapted to the existing state of things. 
 In relation to these adverse sects, the old maxim 
 happily illustrated and enforced by the fables of an- 
 tiquity, prescribes the course proper to be pursued— 
 '' keep the middle waif^ — we should imitate in re- 
 gard to them the conduct of a celebrated philosopher 
 of antiquity, who, fmding many ethical sects around 
 him maintaining doctrines directly opposed to each 
 other in relation to morals, each holding much that 
 
( 21) 
 
 was good, blended with much that was cxceptioiia- 
 ble, undertook to select from each what he deemed 
 worthy of approbation, classified them, and made 
 them the doctrines of a sect at the head of which he 
 placed himself as the founder, and which he styled 
 <' the eclectic sect,^^ because its tenets were selected 
 from those of all other sects. So, sir, would I num- 
 ber myself amongst the followers of '' the eclectic 
 constitutional sect ',^' and I must be indulged this 
 day in promulging a few of the doctrines which 
 might reasonably be ascribed to such a sect in regard 
 to amendments of the constitution, that I may apply 
 them to the bill before us. 
 
 They teach us, that our constitution is not only 
 entitled to a peculiar degree of regard as such, and 
 because placed beyond the reach of ordinary legis- 
 lation, but they also point us to the exigencies of the 
 times in which, and the peculiar circumstances un- 
 der which it was framed, as all tending to enhance 
 that regard. They shew us that it was formed at a 
 moment when all our citizens, who were not of too 
 loyal a cast, had but one mind and one soul under a 
 sense of the common danger which pressed upon 
 them ', at a moment when all private and selfish con- 
 siderations w^ere in a great degree swallowed up in 
 zeal and energy in the public cause ; at a moment 
 when by the collisions of the times, more \igor and 
 activity of mind was called forth, and a higher de- 
 gree of political wisdom evinced, than has since been 
 displayed in our legislative halls or elsewhere in our 
 state, in the long, and for the most part, the sleepy 
 interval which has since elapsed. Tbey teach us 
 that a constitution thus framed must be taken to be 
 the result of more wisdom and of a higher regard 
 for the public welfare, apart from sectional jealou- 
 sies, than we could expect to call into exercise in 
 these less trying, less dangerous days — these days of 
 internal dissention and causeless local jealousies.—' 
 They teach us yet further, that every year and every 
 
(22) 
 
 day's siiccessfiil operation of this constitution, with- 
 out working inconvenience or injustice, should but 
 the more hallow it in our affections. 
 
 On the other hand, they would teach us, that this 
 constitution, although framed under all these advan- 
 tageous circumstances, is yet the mere work of mor- 
 tality; and that as all human productions, it must 
 have as its inseparable incidents, imperfection and 
 crroj'.— They would remind those who cry out a- 
 gainst amendment of it, that they aim at being wi- 
 ser than that instrument itself which pre-supposes 
 error or imperfection as residing in it, and provides 
 for its removal. They would deride those who ex- 
 press a wish that we had an unchangeable constitu- 
 tion, until they can point out some mode by which 
 man, for whose government it is intended, can also 
 be rendered an unchangeable being-— They would 
 regard the antiquity of all provisions of an arbitra- 
 ry or indifferent character, found in that instrument, 
 and involving only questions of expediency and not 
 of right or justice, as furnishing in most cases acon^ 
 elusive reason for the continuance of them ; but they 
 would remind us at the same time that antiquity ne- 
 ver sanctifies error or throws the cloak of protec-< 
 tion and immunity over wrong and injustice ; and that 
 which was wrong & unjust in its inception will never 
 become right and proper by lapse of time, although 
 mortals had daily practised it and had interwoven it 
 with their every institution. But the most impor- 
 tant truth which they would inculcate is, that when 
 it is objected to a proposed alteration of the consti- 
 tution, that it is to be made in the face of calm and 
 deliberate opinions to the contrary, expressed by its 
 enlightened and revered framers, they should do 
 something more than adduce the mere instrument 
 itself 5 that instrument, to say the most of it, evi- 
 dences nothing more than the existence of such au 
 opinion under the then circumstances, and they must 
 go yet further and show that no change of cir- 
 
, ( 23 ) 
 
 ciimstances has occurred to justify a correspOndenil 
 change of opinion : and that in fact at the Tery time 
 of enactment of the clause in question they had ful- 
 ly in view the incompatibility of it, with their de- 
 clarations elsewhere contained in the same instru- 
 ment, and with the enlightened principles which 
 they themselves have promulged, and saw clearly all 
 the individual inconveniences it would work, all the 
 oppressive consequences which would flow from its 
 operation, and that with all these things fully before 
 their eyes, they yet deemed it proper to incorporate 
 the provision in question with our constitution. 
 
 These, sir, are all doctrines to which the mind of 
 every man must yield assent. If we apply them to the 
 case before us, what then becomes of the constitu- 
 tional objection ? 
 
 Let us for a moment admit that the opinion of the 
 framers of that instrument does stand foot to foot 
 and face to face, against the proposed repeal i still 
 if gentlemen of this House will but listen, and caa 
 but satisfy themselves — "That the exclusion of mea 
 from civil offices because of the maintenance of par- 
 ticular religious opinions having no immediate con- 
 nection with human government, is an unnecessary 
 restriction upon the right of election residing in the 
 people, and an unjust denial of political rights." — 
 They cannot, they must not, shelter themselves be- 
 hind the musty opinions of antiquity. If they do, 
 reason will pursue them and pluck them from their 
 hiding-place. Hoary-headed wrong is, therefore, 
 not the less wrong. This view will, I trust, serve 
 to remove some unaccountable squeamishness which 
 is evinced by some amongst us in regard to the re- 
 moval of a provision of our constitution which they 
 themselves deem and which they admit to be of op- 
 pressive and iniquitous operation. There are in 
 this House, sir, who in conversation with me, have 
 frankly admitted, that were they now called upon to 
 frame a new constitution for the state of Maryland/ 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 they would most strenuously oppose every attempt 
 to incorporate with it such a provision as this bill 
 proposes to remove ; they would look upon it as un- 
 suited to the age, and as unworthy of christians and 
 freemen. But, say they, it is a part of a saered in- 
 strument on which we dare not lay our hands.—* 
 There are, it is true, many provisions in the present 
 constitution which, were I called upon for a like 
 purpose, I would unhesitatingly exclude from one 
 now to be framed, and which yet I would desire to 
 retain in that which we now have. But it is only in 
 relation to provisions of an arbitrary and indifferent 
 character, involving only questions of expediency, 
 that I could thus act. Never could I attempt to 
 plead prescription and antiquity for manifest injus- 
 tice. If we would not now incorporate it with our 
 constitution, we dare not now continue it without 
 subjecting ourselves to the same imputation of work- 
 ing wrong and oppression which could be made as to 
 those who originally introduced it. Nay, sir, great- 
 er is our criminality, as with them all the wrong 
 which it might work lay hid in futurity, was of 
 doubtful occurrence or at least but matter of antici- 
 pation ; with us it is illustrated by all the past and 
 by all that is passing. If ever there were a case in 
 which the iniquities of the fathers rest and abide 
 upon their children, this is that case. 
 
 But the concession — ** That their opinions do 
 inaintain the propriety of religious tests under ex- 
 isting circumstances,^^ has been made only for con- 
 cession's sake ; and I must now beg leave to retract 
 it. From a careful view of the acts of those illus- 
 trious men, of their feelings and principles, as shewn 
 in their actings out and in their declarations, existing 
 upon the face of this constitution and declaration of 
 i'ights. From a survey of the state of religious tests 
 during the proprietary government, and from a 
 slight knowledge of the character of the times in 
 which these instruments were framed, is the asser- 
 
(25 ) 
 
 tion fearlessly hazarded — That "were they in our 
 steads this day, could they rise from their graves 
 and sit in judgment upon their own acts, another sun 
 would not dawn upon this article of our constitution. 
 
 Sir, when we look to the circumstances under which 
 the country we now inhabit, was colonized, when we 
 remember the causes which peopled this once howl- 
 ing wilderness, are we not struck with the unexpect- 
 ed contrast between the occurrences of that day, which 
 gave a population to these shores, and the occurren- 
 ces of the few last years ? Are we not ready to laugh 
 or weep at inconsistent, dove-tailed human nature, 
 when this contrast shews us the descendants of those 
 very men who were driven from the abodes of civi- 
 lization and all the smiling enjoyments of society, to 
 tenant, with the less savage beasts of these shores, by 
 ruthless persecution for religious opinions, in their 
 turn commencing and most pertinaciousJy adhering 
 to the same system of civil persecution which, altho' 
 it at present only extends civil disabilities because of 
 religious opinions, to the right of holding oilices, may 
 yet Avith equal propriety be extended to the depriva- 
 tion of every civil and political right. The children 
 of the scourged are seen taking up the same whip 
 with Avhich their ancestors were scourged, and in their 
 turn becoming scourgers. 
 
 At the time of the emigration of the iirst colonists 
 of Maryland, England, the mother country, exhibit- 
 ed tlie strange spectacle of two contending religious 
 sects, perfect antipodes to each other in religious ce- 
 remonies, and in many of tbeir most important doc- 
 trines, nourishing the most deadly mutual hatred of 
 the observances of ^ach other, and yet alike pros- 
 trate before the arm of a hierarchy which maintain- 
 ed the middle ground in point of ceremony and doe- 
 trine between the prostrate sects- Scarcely resem- 
 bling each other in any other particidar, save that of 
 being alike the objects of an untiring persecution— 
 the follower's of these sects were ?een living at the 
 I) 
 
same inomcnt, early in the 17th century, from the 
 arm of civil power. The Puritan was seen seeking 
 the northern parts of these United States, whilst the 
 Catholic found for himself a home in its southern 
 parts, but more especially in the present territory of 
 the State of Maryland. 
 
 It is hut too natural and too usual for mankind, in- 
 stead of learning humanity and moderation from hav- 
 ing experienced, in their own persons, the ill effects of 
 inhumanity and intolerance, to discover in their con- 
 duct towards others, whilst they are yet smarting un- 
 der the w rongs and injuries inflicted upon them, a 
 spice of the same spirit which had caused the infliction 
 of those injuries. Although such conduct might notin 
 the abstract have been regarded as rational, we could 
 not have been surprised or shocked to any great de- 
 gree, had we discovered the Catholic of Maryland, 
 when once securely sheltered in this province, level- 
 ing at the heads of churchmen the same civil penalties 
 which had been denounced against the profession of 
 his religion in the mother country. Such conduct 
 would have been much more excusable at that day 
 than it is at this ; and it is highly probable that it 
 would have been matter of history, had not the arm 
 of the mother country extended itself even over this 
 remote province. Be the cause what it may, in all 
 the early legislative acts of the province, a spirit of 
 religious toleration was evinced, such as was not to be 
 expected from the temper and character of the age^ 
 an age in which tolerance was just reviving, after a 
 sleep of many centuries. In an act of the Provin- 
 cial Legislature, passed during the year 1649, we find 
 the colonists promulgating the wise and liberal doc- 
 trine, '' That the enforcing of the conscience hath 
 frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence 
 in those commonwealths where it hath been practis- 
 ed," and by the same act and other subsequent acts 
 affirmatory of it, we find them extending equal civil 
 rights to christians of aU denominations — ft very 
 
(27) 
 
 great stretch of toleration for that day.— No exclu- 
 sive support or estahlishment of any religious sect 
 took place nutil the year 1692, when this state \vas 
 iirst partitioned into parishes and a tax imposed on 
 each taxable for the support of the Church of Eng- 
 land. At this time the proprietary powers were in 
 the hands of William and Mary, the Sovereigns of 
 England, by whom they had been seized in 1688, on 
 the downfall of the Catholic dynasty in the mother 
 country — still it was conceived that enough was not 
 done for the security of the Protestant succession to 
 the English Throne, the plausible excuse in those 
 days for religious intolerance. Several laws were 
 subsequently passed prescribing religious tests in or- 
 der to the exclusion of the Catholic, which were how- 
 ever, all swallowed up in the Draconian law of 1716. 
 By this law religious tests were prescribed, which 
 continued to exi^t until the downfall of the Provin- 
 cial Government. 
 
 Permit me, sir, to call your attention and the at- 
 tention of this House to the provisions of this act, as 
 displaying the character and extent of religious tests 
 in Maryland, before and at the time of adoption of 
 her present constitution. Such a view seems to me 
 to furnish some reasons why the present religious test 
 has crept into our constitution, wholly distinct from 
 a belief on the part of its framers that it was intrin- 
 sically proper, and which will fully account for its 
 insertion without requiring us to swallow the notion, 
 *^that our ancestors did regard a connection of civil 
 government with religion, by religious tests, as ab- 
 stractly right and proper" — a notion which their acts 
 and declarations elsewhere wholly discountenance. 
 
 Before the passage of this act the lord proprietary, 
 himself a Catholic, and a descendant of an ancient 
 Catholic family, had been restored by the English 
 King to his proprietary rights ; but the enjoyment 
 of them was clogged by the provisions of the above 
 cited act; passed during the year of his re^toratioa 
 
(38 ) 
 
 to them and requiring the administration of the tests 
 therein prescribed, in order to the security of the 
 eminent dominion of the Protestant dynasty then on 
 the English Throne. This law required, ''That in 
 order to the enjoyment of any otfice or place of trust, 
 the persons claiming the enjoyment of it should first 
 take the oath of allegiance to the English King," 
 should solemnly renounce the king-killing doctrine, 
 as it was termed in those days, or the doctrine "That 
 Princes excommunicated or deposed by the see of 
 Home may be deposed or murdered by their subjects^" 
 and also the doctrine, "That any foreign potentate 
 or prelate hath any supremacy or even authority, 
 spiritual or temporal, within the British Dominions?" 
 that they should take the oath of abjuration of the 
 pretender, and that they should make and subscribe 
 a declaration of their disbelief of the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation. Hence it is obvious that the sole 
 intent of the act of 1716, and the acts passed previ- 
 ously thereto, and prescribing religious tests, was to 
 exclude from the civil olRces of the state the Catho- 
 lics of Maryland, who constituted a large and highly 
 respectable portion of the citizens of the province, 
 and who, it was to be feared, might bring into office 
 with them some predilections for the deposed King 
 James and his children, the pretenders, which might 
 lead them to forget the allegiance due to the Protes- 
 tant family then on the English Throne : and might 
 induce them to lend their official powers in regaining 
 their lost dignities. From that family if restored, 
 they had every reason to expect the re-establishment 
 of the Catholic religion. 
 
 Does not a knowledge of these facts seem to give 
 a very different aspect to this clause of our constitu- 
 tion ? Does not it seem a concession by a dominant 
 to a prostrate religious sect, in making which, the 
 interests or rights of others, were not had in view, 
 rather than an enactment willingly made, and made 
 under an earnest conviction that none but christians 
 
( -^9 ) 
 
 ought to be placed, even by the people, in seats of 
 power or trust ? At the moment of formatioii of our 
 constitution, when a common sense of danger and a 
 community of interests united all men who cherish- 
 ed any degree of regard for the ultimate success of our 
 revolutionary struggle, and when the inlabitants of 
 the province of Maryland were about forever to take 
 leave of the dynasty, for whose security the act of 
 1716, and all previous laws of a like character, hud 
 been passed, it might have been expected that reli- 
 gious tests would have expired in this state with the 
 political causes which gave rise to them — It w as not 
 because our ancestors thought differently, that this 
 clause found its way into our constitution. In all hu- 
 man laws it is generally found that the remedies which 
 they furnish, although required in many cases which 
 are of possible or probable occurrence, are yet in 
 terms and by express language extended only to those 
 cases of inconvenience or injury, which are daily ex- 
 perienced or are daily staring us in the face; whilst 
 to those which may occur and which equally demand 
 legislative interposition, they are not applied simply 
 because they are not of daily oecarrence and because 
 the necessity of legislative interposition is not equal- 
 ly obvious or striking. How many are the instances 
 in which it is necessary, by judicial construction, to 
 extend the operation of an act beyond its express let- 
 ter to cases not enumerated, but coming fully within 
 the mischief designed to be remedied ? How many 
 are the instances in which application is made to us 
 and has been made to every preceding Legislature, 
 to relieve against the consequences of a like over- 
 sight? Men seldom act from possible or probable 
 cases ; always on those of present existence — they see 
 only the injury which is before them, and are blind 
 to that which may arise. 
 
 Hence the clause which this bill proposes to re- 
 peal. When the framers of our coustitution looked 
 around them, that they might see the extent of civil 
 
(30 ) 
 
 i?3isquaIificatioiis flowing from the maintenance of tg- 
 ligious opinions, they saw the whole force and ope- 
 ration of the then existing act of 1716, exhausted on 
 the Catholics of Maryland. Under that act, all per- 
 sons who would take the required oaths, and who 
 would make the required abjuration and declaration, 
 were they christians or otherwise, were alike admis- 
 sible to places of power or trust ; the only discrimi- 
 nation which they perceived to be made by our laws 
 was that between christian and christian , between 
 Protestant and Catholic ^ and this they found flow- 
 ing from political reasons which died in this state 
 with the dominion of the British king. What then 
 is the purport of the language of this clause ? The 
 odious discriminations, says it in effect, which have 
 heretofore existed between christians of different de- 
 nominations for specious political reasons, shall now 
 cease to exist ; we are brethren of the same christian 
 family, and it is proper that the tomahawk of civil 
 disqualiflcation which has heretofore been wielded 
 against some of us, should now be forever buried. 
 Therefore, all persons who will declare their belief 
 in the christian religion, shall, by the will of the 
 people, enjoy any of the offices of profit or trust in 
 this state. By this extension of civil rights, they had 
 tcompletely covered all the cases of political disqua- 
 lification then before their eyes. At that time, the 
 population of Maryland was almost exclusively, nay, 
 I may say entirely christian, and none but christians 
 seemed to languish under the operation of religious 
 tests. 
 
 Sir, this clause of our constitution was then re- 
 garded but as a treaty of amity between contending 
 christian sects ; and as well might you infer from a 
 common treaty of amity between nations, a determi- 
 nation not to admit at anytime afterwards, other na- 
 tions not parties to that treaty, whether nations then 
 in existence or afterwards to arise, to any friendly 
 intercourse with themselves, as infer from this clause 
 
( 31) 
 
 of our constitution a determination on the part of 
 our ancestors to exclude all but christians from ci- 
 vil communion with them. The case had not tliea 
 occurred which now presents itself to us — At that 
 moment the bright destinies of our country were all 
 hidden in the womb of time — At that moment it 
 could scarcely have entered into the mind of man to 
 conceive, that the small seed which was then cast 
 into the earth, should after the lapse of so short si 
 time, have become a great tree, upon whose boughs 
 the choicest civil and political blessings should be 
 resting, and under whose shade men of all nations, 
 of all tongues, and of all religions, should be seen 
 taking refuge from the scorching rays of civil and 
 religious oppression. Now, sir, the case is a chang- 
 ed one ; a new evil has arisen. That which was 
 originally but a friendly concession from christian to 
 christian, a mere treaty of amity between them, has 
 become, by change of circumstances, a treaty of of- 
 fence as it regards other citizens, not christians, 
 \vhich it was never designed to be. New parties 
 have presented themselves in this state, who claim 
 admission to the privileges secured by that treaty, 
 and who present with that claim the same vouchers 
 of its propriety which have entitled the christians 
 of your state to the enjoyment of offices. 
 
 It is then denied that tliis clause of our constltu-^ 
 tion, although now operating to the exclusion of ci- 
 tizens not christians, was ever designed to erect a 
 permanent barrier between the latter and those not 
 professing their belief in the christian religion, or 
 that it was designed to have a permanent negative 
 operation. It is contended that its affirmative ope- 
 ration, its operation in throwing open the doors of 
 office to all christians, w as the only operation of it 
 which our ancestors had in view when they introdu- 
 ced it 5 and that its negative operation in excluding 
 others has resulted from the growing up in our state 
 of a new class of ?iti.zen«j >yhosc existence w'as not 
 
( 32 ) 
 
 then contemplated, or to say the least of it, was but 
 the result of a compromise hi which their rights were 
 for a moment disregarded ; and it is further con- 
 tended (hat they themselves have furnished prhici- 
 ple?; And doctrines which call for their admission to 
 ejjUiil political rights when a proper occasion pre- 
 sented itself for making that call. 
 
 Sir, this view of the question is very much strength- 
 ened by reference to other clauses of the constitu- 
 tion and of the declaration of rights, in which, after 
 the promulgation of general doctrines in relation to 
 civil rights undeniably belonging to all men, be they 
 Christians or Jews, Greeks or Turks, believers or 
 unbelievers, and even to the worshippers of stocks 
 and stones, we iind the framers of these instruments 
 applying them in the same restricted manner — we 
 find ihem^n these confining them in their operation 
 to christians alone, whilst the Avorks of God and his 
 Gospel, the undeviating practice of our government, 
 and the very language of the framers themselves, 
 do yet require us unhesitatingly to cede the enjoy- 
 ment of those rights to all men. Let me instance 
 one of those cases: In the 33d article of our decla- 
 ration of rights is presented the broad and liberal 
 doctrine, *'That it is the duty of every man to wor- 
 ship God in such manner as he deems most accepta- 
 ble to him." Now, sir, what is the proper, nay ne- 
 cessary application of this doctrine ? It surely is not 
 " that the christian alone may worship God in 
 the manner he deems acceptable to him." Such an 
 application would fly in the face of God's own doc- 
 trines and commands ; in the face of the express 
 language of the article itself, which says — '' that all 
 men," not merely all christians, but *' all men may 
 worship in the manner they deem most acceptable 
 to God." It is, *' that the christian may repair to 
 his temple, the Jew to his synagogue, the Moslem 
 to his mosque, nay even the Idolater to his statues, and 
 there worship according to their own lights, leaving 
 
( S3 ) 
 
 the aeceptauce and degree of merit of their offering 
 with their Creator, to whom it is tendered." Yet, 
 sir, what is the application which is made of it in 
 the conclusion of the same article ? It is the same 
 absurd and unchristian application of which we have 
 spoken, if we were to regard it as an exclusive ap- 
 plication. Hear but its language — As such is their 
 duty, says this article, therefore all persons profess- 
 ing the christian religion are equally entitled to 
 protection in their religious libertij. Is this indeed 
 the doctrine of our government — That none but the 
 christian is entitled to religious liberty ? that none 
 but the christian dare lift up his voice to God in our 
 land ? Yet further, can it for a moment be believ- 
 ed, that the liberal and intelligent men to whom we 
 owe this constitution and this declaration of rights, 
 could ever have designed to give it that limited and 
 exclusive application ? The answer is 'No' — and ev- 
 ery man in this Hou^e and this State must echo it 
 back. What ! that in this boasted land of civil and 
 religious liberty, the christian alone dares worship 
 God — the very supposition ought to call up a blush 
 upon the face of every Marylander. 
 
 How then are we to account for this language ? It 
 is to be done in that obvious way in which I have al- 
 ready endeavored to account for the existence of that 
 provision of our constitution prescribing religious 
 tests. After setting forth the general doctrine, they 
 have contented themselves with applying that doe- 
 trine to the case before them, leaving it to after a- 
 ges to enlarge its application as circumstances miglit 
 demand. Thus they tell us generally : That men 
 may worship God in the manner most acceptable to 
 him. When they came to appJy it, they looked a- 
 round them & found the whole population composed 
 of different christian sects — some of tliese they found 
 exclusively entitled to the seats of powerv.and trust ; 
 others bending under the load of penalties and civil 
 disqualifications; because of the peculiar tenets of 
 
( s^ ) 
 
 the sect to which they adhered. This shall not he, 
 said they,— all christians of whatever denomination 
 they may be, shall have the privilege of worshipping 
 God according to the dictates of their own consci- 
 ence, but they never intended thereby to declare 
 that none but christians should enjoy this privilege. 
 So also in the ease before us, with the same objects 
 before their eyes — they have in some manner abol- 
 ished all political distinctions between christians, at 
 the same time not designing to deny, by barely af- 
 firming that christians are entitled to certain politi- 
 cal privileges, that others, not christians, arising 
 ^vitJiinthe state, may not also claim and enjoy them. 
 
 These very ancestors have in fact driven in the 
 entering wedge, which is forever to sever religious 
 opinions from civil qualifications ; and they have 
 placed the mallet in our hands, if I may use a vul- 
 gar figure, with which, when occasion demands, we 
 of after days can drive it in still further, even to com- 
 plete severance. That mallet is to be found in the 
 very doctrine above cited — that which teaches us, 
 ** that it is not only the right, but the duty of all men 
 to worship God in the manner deemed most accepta- 
 ble to him" — and which therefore, teaches most con- 
 clusively that other civic qualifications existing, men 
 are never to be excluded from the enjoyment of ci- 
 vil or political rights, because of the performance of 
 \vhat is by our constitution itself pronounced a duty. 
 It tells us that it is not merely the right but the diitij 
 of the Jew to worship God after the Mosaic law, if 
 lie deem that mode of worship most pleasing to him : 
 and that if even the poor, purblind idolater should 
 conceive that God is present in the stocks and stones 
 "which are the objects of his adoration, it is his duUj 
 to fall down and worship them.— -Eiach worships ac- 
 cording to his lights and convictions, and such wor- 
 ship is accepted of God — Shall then frail man frown 
 upon it ? 
 
 Sir, has it ever occurred to the noisy and clamor- 
 
( 35) 
 
 ous objectors against the bill before you, that it is 
 but designed to remove disqualilications imposed by 
 law upon many citizens of your state, forcing that 
 which your constitution itself pronounced^ be their 
 dut^-, and which it therefore^ requires them to do? 
 That it is but to take away the charge which may 
 at present, with great justice, be advanced against 
 your constitution, that it blows liot and cold with 
 one breath? That it points out duties to men, and 
 then imposes penalties for performing those duties ? 
 Thus do I sustain the declaration : that in making 
 the change proposed by this bill, we are not disre- 
 garding the respected opinions of the framers of our 
 constitution. Thus do I prove that we are but call- 
 ed this day to do that, which, could tlie graves yield 
 their dead, they themselves would most strenuously 
 urge upon us. 
 
 But Sir, in order to render this constitutional ob- 
 jection, as I have chosen to term it, an available one, 
 there is another small supposition to be made, which 
 however happens to be too gross to be swallowed.—. 
 The most inveterate and unyielding adherents of that 
 constitution dare not pretend to claim for it, that which 
 some Englishmen who seem to have been disposed to 
 hug their chains, at the termination of the 17th cen- 
 tury claimed for their King,a divine right, not in any 
 degree to be impaired or restricted. None, 1 think 
 will be more disposed to vindicate the tyranny of the 
 constitution than regal tyranny. It is necessary 
 therefore to get rid of this proposition for amend- 
 ment, by denying that this test, although admitted in 
 the abstract to be unjust and improper, does yet in 
 fact, work any wrong or inconvenience, or at least 
 any so considerable as to justify the proposed repeal. 
 Now if this test does not in fact, produce any indivi- 
 dual injury or oppression deserving of consideration, 
 the lenity of its operation must be owing to one of 
 two supposable causes. Either the disqualification 
 wi'ouglit by this test must be inconsiderable and unim- 
 
(36 ) 
 
 portant in its nature and effects, or it must be so be- 
 cause of the small number of citizens upon whom it 
 actually ^erates. 
 
 It has iTOeed been sometimes said: Why! these ci- 
 tizens have every thing which can render life esti- 
 mable— -they are permitted to live, to worship God 
 after their own manner — they may pursue at their 
 pleasure any of the various avocations in life — they 
 may sit under their own fig tree and eat of their own 
 vine and none to make them afraid — what more do 
 they desire? Why, merely that they may not be your 
 mere tenants at will in the enjoyment of these bles- 
 sings, that their voice may at least be heard in com- 
 mon with that of their fellow-citizens in that gov- 
 ernment which gives and takes them away. Admit 
 that they enjoy all these, what have they more than 
 many subjec(s of the most despotic monarch on earth. 
 In all countries there are some few green spots upon 
 which the withering eye of the despot has never rest- 
 ed, and where all those blessings might be enjoyed, 
 which fall to the lot of unbelievers amongst us. But 
 both here and there and wherever they have no ac- 
 tive participation in the government,their privileges 
 are rather regarded as permissions than rights ; but 
 do gentlemen who talk thus, reflect upon the nature 
 and extent of the disqualification? Is it inconsidera- 
 ble to a man of feeling to have the mark of Cain set 
 upon him ? Is it inconsiderable to such man of like 
 fashion with ourselves, glowing with the conscious- 
 ness that he possesses every mental and moral quali- 
 fication to entitle him to the esteem and confidence 
 of his fellow-citizens, to be told that all these to the 
 contrary ; so unworthy is he of them, that his fellow- 
 citizens shall not even be permitted to bestow them, 
 upon them ? Is it nothing to such man to be told, 
 *'You may indeed enjoy civil liberty — you may exist 
 here — you may play the brute here — you may cat, 
 drink and sleep here ; these are aH passive rights 
 which we will permit you to enjoy for the same rea- 
 
( -37 ) 
 
 son that Uncle Toby restored liberty to the jRy, be- 
 cause there is room enough for you without incom- 
 moding us. But we wish you distinctly to understand 
 you are the creatures of our will: you exist here 
 hy our permission ; if you find aught cheering and 
 inspiriting in the influence and operation of our gov- 
 ernment, you owe it all to our mere good will and 
 pleasure ; and we who give, can at any time take a- 
 w^ay. As for you, you are politically dead ; we knoVv 
 you but as one of the passive and unresisting, be- 
 cause impotent governed." Is it nothing to such 
 man to know that the same ignominious mark which 
 he himself bears, he must impart to his innocent, un- 
 offending offspring — to know, when he sees them 
 springing up around him with every power to in- 
 struct, and with every quality to adorn, glowing with 
 that honorable and laudable ambition by which all 
 men are or ought to be actuated, and which would 
 impel them to climb the steep of virtuous fame, that 
 notwithstanding all this they will be checked at its 
 very base by the rude arm of our constitution, which 
 tells them that they must not even strive io ascend ? 
 It has been said that 'tis hard to climb ambii^'on's 
 steep, but harder yet the late of him who is toh- he 
 must not dare to climb it ; this part of its operation 
 is the unkindest cut of all. 
 
 Sir, when men talk about the inconsiderable na- 
 ture of the privileges denied by this test, they forget 
 the obvious distinction between the actual exercise of 
 a right and the power of exercising it at pleasure. — • 
 The condition of the freeman and the slave is in ma- 
 ny respects alike — many of the former earn their 
 daily subsistence by the same unsparing toil wliicli is 
 allotted to the latter ; yet the one v?^ould rejoice o^ er 
 his brown bread, whilst the otlier would sigh even o- 
 ver dainties. It is opinion, mere opinion which alone 
 gives enjoyment to and takes away contentment fioni 
 every situation in life ; those are happy avI>o believe 
 themselves to be so ; those arc free who believe them- 
 
(S8 ) 
 
 selves to be so. In the actual enjoyment of offices 
 there is to many men not much to allure or to grati- 
 fy ; the trust is so often betrayed and, the honor so 
 often tarnished that in these days there are found 
 some who v/illingly exclude themselves from the en- 
 joyment of them. Yet how vast the difference be- 
 tween a voluntary and an involuntary exclusion ? — 
 The denial of every enjoyment does but enhance it 
 in the estimation of those denied. It is of this that 
 those excluded by your constitution have reason to 
 complain: — not that they do not enjoy offices of pro- 
 fit or trust, but that they are deemed wholly unwor- 
 thy of enjoying them. If the disqualification be not 
 inconsiderable in its nature, neither is it so because of 
 the small number of those upon whom it is to ope- 
 rate. It is a new doctrine in political or individual 
 morality which it was reserved to this age to bring 
 forth — that an injury is not to be redressed until it 
 swells to a certain size — that the groans of those who 
 are affected by it are to be disregarded until they 
 come in deafening clamor upon the ear. Sir, if this 
 be indeed a doctrine of modern times, it would put 
 us upon the same kind of inquiry to which one of an- 
 tiquity was driven, when told that age gave excel- 
 lence to writings as to wine. We would have to in- 
 quire, How widely diffused must the .injury be?— » 
 How many the persons upon whom it operates ? How 
 Kiany sighs, and tears, and groans, are necessary to 
 give weight to the complaint, and to entitle it to the 
 consideration of the injuring individual or govern- 
 ment? Where are the scales in which we are to 
 weigh it? There is but one case in which an objec- 
 tion of this kind is of any avail, and that case bears 
 no resemblance to this. It is often said, and proper- 
 ly said too, in reply to objections urged against gen- 
 eral laws in their operation, jiroductive of particu- 
 lar inconveniences, *' that such objections furnish no 
 sufficient reason for their repeal, inasmuch as it is 
 wholly impossible for human ingenuity to devise any 
 
( 39) 
 
 general rules adapted to all cases, which ^vill not be 
 found to result in injury in some of them, and as this 
 is an imperfection necessarily incident to the gener- 
 ality of every rule, until the particular inconvenien- 
 ces become so weighty as wholly to bear down the 
 general resulting advantages." The case betbre us 
 however is not a case in which such reply can be 
 made. — If this objection is to operate as a prelimi- 
 nary objection, then it must admit everything which, 
 we allege, will be rendered manifest by entering in- 
 to an examination of the merits of the main ques- 
 tion ; it must admit that this test, when regarded in 
 the abstract, is unjust and oppressive. What then is 
 the general good which is to result from tlie conti- 
 nuance of it and which is to counterbalance the par- 
 ticular injuries which it produces ? We are answ er- 
 ed *'it consists in checking that spirit of innovatioii 
 upon the constitution which is too prevalent at this 
 day, by preserving it inviolate in all its parts." The 
 folly of the notion, that its sanctity is increased by 
 the preservation of exceptionable parts, has already 
 been commented on and seems to be too manifest to 
 require further exposition ; is the good and pure ren- 
 dered more so by mingling with the corrupt and im= 
 pure? Will the foot of profanity approach with 
 more awe and reverence this holy of holies, if it be 
 defiled by things unholy? 
 
 Sir, it is the very continuance of these exception- 
 able parts which renders the people of your state in 
 many sections of it so clamorous against your pre- 
 sent constitution. They judge, as mankind in gen- 
 eral judge, of the whole instrument from some of 
 these its prominent parts. The good is passed by 
 unnoticed and the evil is held up to public view as a 
 fair specimen of the whole. If ye would check the 
 spirit of innovation ye must do it by taking away 
 such clauses as the present which do but whet its ap- 
 petite and invite its attack ; — And those who would 
 tell that it is proper to disregard particular injuries 
 
(40 ) 
 
 because tlic complaint of them comes from persons 
 too inconsiderable or too few in numbers to surmount 
 the general clamor, would do well to remember that 
 the very Lord of the universe sees not a sparrow fall 
 to the ground without noting it. Such is the exam- 
 ple which human governments should set before 
 their eyes. They should not see the sparrow, the 
 initst inconsiderable object in the community, suppli- 
 catirig their assistance and relief without turning the 
 ear to hear and stretching forth the hand to redress. 
 
 There is yet another point of view in which this 
 objection ought to be placed, and which gives yet 
 greater magnitude to the injurious operation of this 
 test. It is perhaps less to be reprobated because of 
 its present action than for its repelling and forbid- 
 ding aspect. It may indeed be properly regarded as 
 a flaming sword, placed at the end of our constitu- 
 tion, turning on all sides, w hich forbids the approach 
 to our shores of many enterprising, useful and weal- 
 thy men. Bigotry itself will not deny that there are 
 many such to be found even amongst those who would 
 not subscribe a declaration of belief in the christian 
 religion. Many such have been found, many such 
 are known even at this day amongst that despised 
 and persecuted people, the children of Abraham. — > 
 To all such this test says ''Approach not this people 5 
 dwell not amongst them — they draw near unto poli- 
 tical liberty with their mouths, but their hearts are 
 far from it — to their laws ye will be unknown except 
 as the mere creatures of obedience." 
 
 To me, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be nothing in 
 these preliminary objections which ought to shut us 
 out from a decision of the merits of this bill. Yet 
 in truth they are the most forcible which can be 
 urged against the proposed repeal, and they caused 
 us to lurry longer in the threshold than we shall per- 
 haps in the main edifice. This subject is one which 
 has but lately engaged my attention ; yet that brief 
 atteation has sufficed to conviace me so f^v as my 
 
(41 ) 
 
 knowledge of the long continued controversy grow- 
 ing out of it extends, that the merits of this or of 
 any preceding bill designed to be more particular in 
 its operation, have not as yet been fully disclosed » 
 I would not arrogate to myself the power of discov- 
 ering arguments and persuasions hid from the ken 
 of other men ; but the views which I would present, 
 are offered as the fruits of an unwearied industry, 
 which has stooped to gather what the hasty tread of 
 other men has passed by. 
 
 It is well known to this House, that this subject 
 has been agitated here and in the state for some 
 years past; that in some instances the assent of the 
 delegates of Maryland has been asked to what were 
 properly termed "Jew Bills," in others to bills of a 
 general nature, proposing the entire taking away of 
 the test. To me it does seem that there are no ar- 
 guments justifying a partial, which do not also de- 
 mand a total repeal of it ; yet both upon those bills 
 which were properly termed " Jew Bills,^^ and up- 
 on such as the present j which we may term '• Test 
 Bills," the attention of the public has been wholly 
 turned away from the general propriety of religi- 
 ous tests, to the particular operation of the one now 
 under our consideration, upon certain of our citi- 
 zens. — Our attention has been primarily directed to 
 the history and character of the Jews as a people, 
 by the partisans of both sides, for the purpose of 
 evincing the propriety or impropriety of the propos- 
 ed repeal. 
 
 On the one hand the origin of the Jewish nation 
 has been pointed out io us — we are told, ** that they 
 were originally the peculiar objects of God's care 
 and kindness ; that they were preserved by him as 
 a burning light amongst the nations ; that whilst all 
 other people lay buried in the grossest spiritual ig- 
 norance and superstition, they were the depositaries 
 of his gospel until he should come, who would res- 
 tore all thing.?.'' True it is, sav such observer?, 
 F 
 
ihat tlicy iiave been abandoned for a season ; that the 
 brightness of their temporal and spiritual glory has 
 long been abandoned ^ that their temple has indeed 
 h^en prostrated ; that their holy city has indeed be- 
 come the abode of the howling beast of the desert. 
 Yet their glory is but clouded, and the cloud will 
 soon pass away 5 the face that is now averted will 
 soon be turned upon them clothed with all its accus- 
 tomed kindness, and we who are now witnessing the 
 daily developments of returning mercy towards this 
 long lost people should minister unto the designs of 
 Providence, by taking them by the hand as political 
 brethren and clothing them with the same civil rights 
 which we ourselves enjoy. 
 
 On the other hand, from a like mistaken notion, 
 ^' that human governments administered by frail and 
 short sighted mortals should conform in their opera- 
 dons to the judgments of an all-seeing God," whose 
 aim and design in inflicting them, we ourselves can- 
 not comprehend, but can only reverence. The his- 
 tory of the same people has been referred to by the 
 opponents of this and of all preceding bills of an an- 
 alogous character, to justify their exclusion from 
 political power. Our attention has sometimes been 
 directed to their conduct as a nation and as individu- 
 als, even whilst they dwelt under the shadow of di- 
 vine mercy. All their murmurings, their rebellions, 
 their long-continued and often repeated acts of dis- 
 obedience, whilst they were yet the indulged chil- 
 dren of his care, have all been conjured up in judg- 
 ment against their claim of political privileges by 
 many who are every day guilty of like disobedience 
 and like rebellion against the Author of their being. 
 We are pointed to their present nationless situation, 
 if I may so speak — we are shewn them a by-word 
 amongst all nations; and, sir, there are some a- 
 mongst us of rather the weaker vessels of the chris- 
 tian church, it must be confessed, who, unable to 
 'Hvince any of that mild and forgiving spirit which 
 
( *^ ) 
 
 would induce ihem to ask blessiuj^s even upon the 
 head of an enemy, or to illustrate their adherence 
 to the christian doctrines in any other way ; there 
 are some such who would fain have us to visit upon 
 the heads of the Jews of this day, after a lapse of 
 eighteen centuries, the acts of their progenitors, 
 whom the Saviour forgave, although the a ery ac- 
 tors. Yes, sir, we who are every day crucifying 
 him anew by our acts, as much as though we had 
 been at the foot of the cross, we charge them with 
 being the descendants of his crucifiers. 
 
 Sir, discussions of this kind have no connexion 
 with this question. — When we can attain to the at- 
 tributes of Deity, fathom all his purposes, and in- 
 terpret all his acts, then perhaps we may set up his 
 decrees as patterns for our imitation. But as well 
 might we, because by those decrees whole countries 
 have been devastated, whole nations slaughtered and 
 the very infant slain at the breast ; as well might we, 
 fancying ourselves clothed with the power, mount 
 the white horse of destruction, and go forth alike 
 indiscriminately to slay and to devastate, as plead 
 his unsearchable decrees in relation to this people as 
 a reason why we also should deal hardly with them. 
 The course which the arguments on this bill have 
 taken forcibly illustrates the truth of the observa- 
 tion which I have already made: that mankind with 
 general principles before their eyes to direct them, 
 do but too often reason and act from particular ca- 
 ses. Such reasoning is often proper and conclusivcy 
 but it does not cover the whole question. In this in- 
 stance, however, the attention of the public has been 
 directed to the Jews as constituting a numerous and 
 respectable people, excluded by the operation of this 
 test 5 yet it has been directed in an improper man- 
 ner. Their history has been referred to — but for 
 what ? Sir, if this were a question of sympathy, 
 there is, I should suppose, enough in their history to 
 elicit it fyom all presents They could be pointed 
 
(4'i ) 
 
 out to you as scouted from land to land, as driven 
 from home to home, by a relentless spirit of perse- 
 cution which seemed but to whet its appetite by the 
 gratification of it. In my native wilds, the hunter 
 who is accustomed to look upon the objects of his 
 pursuit as his fair and legitimate prey, will some- 
 times pause and gaze with compassion upon the ago- 
 nies of the stricken deer, and will sometimes drop 
 the murderous weapon. But, sir, Israel has been 
 the stricken deer, upon whom her hunters have ne- 
 ver had compassion. Still this is ground into which, 
 however willing, I must not enter. If we do tra- 
 vel from the general principle into particular cases 
 coming within its operation, all that we can enquire 
 is, whether the particular cases are such as ought to 
 come within its operation, and such as call for it. — > 
 To illustrate the general principle upon which this 
 and other bills more special in their provisions have 
 rested, is, that civil governments have no immediate 
 connection with any particular religious opinions ; 
 and that all religious tests bringing about such a con- 
 nection, ought to be repealed. For the purpose of 
 shewing how wholly improper it is to make civil 
 governments the mere governments of a particular 
 religious sect, it may be proper to refer to its parti- 
 cular operations — it may be proper to point our at- 
 tention to the Jews, as to a highly respectable class 
 of citizens, with every thing that could qualify them 
 for the administration of human government, ex- 
 cluded because of opinions which do not in the least 
 derogate from those qualifications ; but not in the 
 manner in which it has been done — what their an- 
 cestors were, is to us a matter utterly unimportant 5 
 what the Jews of this day are, it is alone important 
 for us to know. 
 
 The operation of the act before us, if passed, will 
 be to throw open the doors of ofilce to Jews amongst 
 others. Therefore, the question may be asked. Are 
 they unworthy of this high political right ? Arc they 
 
( ^5) 
 
 destitute of those qualifications which would enable 
 them to discharge the duties incident to the offices of 
 this state ? Or admitting these questions to be decid- 
 ed in the negative, is there any danger to be appre- 
 hended from referring these questions to the people 
 or their officers for their determination ? It has 
 sometimes been said, that there is that in the char- 
 acter, the customs, the religious ceremonies, the re- 
 collections and the anticipations of the Jcavs, Avhicli 
 ought to disqualify them for the enjoyment of poli- 
 tical rights in any country. These, we are told, con- 
 stitute a barrier of separation which has severed 
 from their origin as a nation, and which will during 
 their continuance as such, forever sever them from 
 those amongst whom they dwell. Since the mo- 
 ment of their dispersion by the hand of Providence, 
 where'er they roam, where'er they be, they drag at 
 each remove a lengthening chain which binds them 
 to the home whence they have been driven. They 
 cherish, say such objectors, the delightful recollec- 
 tion that they were once God's chosen people, seated 
 above all nations in point of power and privilege ; 
 and they dwell with extacy upon the hope of an ap- 
 proaching day when they will resume ihe same proud 
 seat. These reflections and imaginations, it is al- 
 leged, are constantly indulged ; and they beget and 
 nourish in them throughout the whole earth a degree 
 of disregard and contempt for the laws, institutions, 
 customs & welfare of every other people. "Hence," 
 some have unkindly said, '* they have been found in 
 all ages since their dispersion, to be the leaches of 
 the world, draining its blood at every pore, preying 
 upon its necessities and acting as the pandars to its 
 vices." 
 
 Sir, what does the history of this day tell you in 
 relation to this people? Does it confirm this state- 
 ment? Does it shew them to you all relfish, all in- 
 terested, all regardless of the public welfare, all 
 dead to the throb of patriotism, all avaricious, all 
 
(46 ) 
 
 usurers and money changers ? Does it not rathei 
 show you many amongst them, in those nations of 
 Europe, and in those states of the union, where they 
 are admitted to an equal participation in civil and 
 political rights, numbered amongst the useful, intel- 
 ligent, enterprising and patriotic citizens of the com- 
 munity to which they belong ? There are even in this 
 house, in the hands of an honorable member present; 
 abundant evidences of the truth of this assertion, 
 without travelling beyond it or beyond the instances 
 furnished us in our own country. These shew you 
 the highest marks of regard and esteem lavished up- 
 on them even by the hands of christians — these shew 
 you several striking manifestations of public respect, 
 tendered by the hands of your own citizens, to those 
 very men who are this day by your constitution pro- 
 nounced unworthy of holding the meanest office in 
 your state. They bid proud defiance to its declara- 
 tions, and throw the lie direct in its teeth. 
 
 Were there no other act of the sons of Abraham 
 on record, than that which the clamor of applause 
 has just borne to our ears, it were enough to redeem 
 from the stigmas of our constitution and to cast the 
 mantle of political privilege over a whole people.— 
 Is it not yet ringing in our ears that one of these al- 
 leged selfish, interested, usurious men, has just ex- 
 pended a moderate fortune in redeeming from the 
 process of christian laws, and from the hands of 
 christian officers, a christian temple, not that he 
 mighl make it the receipt of custom, the seat of mo- 
 ney changers, or a?i edifice of commerce, but that 
 he, the Jew, whom some christians would term **the 
 infidel dog," and whom such laws as ours would op- 
 press, might enjoy the unspeakable pleasure of res- 
 toring it to the christian sect, from whose hands it 
 had been torn ? And yet this man, in the estimation 
 of this constitution, would be so debased and grovel- 
 ing that he dare not lift up his eyes even to the office 
 of a constable of a hundred. If ten menj righteous 
 
(47) 
 
 men, would have redeemed Sodom and Gomorraili, 
 I repeat it, that one such act should work political 
 redemption for a whole people. 
 
 Let us, however, for a moment go hand in hand 
 with this objection to its utmost limit ; let us con- 
 cede all that it demands, and we find upon closer en- 
 quiry, that instead of operating as an objection, it 
 furnishes the strongest possible reason for breaking 
 down the barriers which our own laws have erected 
 to separate us from this people. It is this wall of 
 separation which we ourselves have built up, which 
 more than aught else continues to sever us, although 
 citizens of one commonwealth. Those who urge 
 this objection, if they look more closely into their 
 conduct, will find that they are imitating the great 
 father of evil, who first tempts to sin, then damns for 
 sinning. They will find that they are setting up as 
 an excuse for the denial of rights due to every or- 
 derly citizen, feelings and principles which, even if 
 their existence were admitted, must be acknowledg- 
 ed to be in a great degree superinduced by that very 
 denial. Sir, it is as though your laws had ordered 
 an individual to be excluded from society, and to be 
 cast into the company of lepers; and then, when by 
 your act he had taken the infection and had become 
 leprous, you would plead his disease brought about by 
 your acts in justification of your continued determi- 
 nation to exclude him. If these people are indeed 
 infected with a political leprosy, which ought to shut 
 them out from political communication with you, to 
 you and to your laws do they owe it. Take away 
 but the infection, remove the barriers which have 
 heretofore shut them out from a pure air and a free 
 walk, and ye will restore them to a state of healthy 
 contentment and respectability. 
 
 Look back to the transactions of the last fourteen 
 or fifteen centuries ,• nay do but direct your attention 
 to the events of this century, refined and purified, as 
 it is said to be, by ^Hhe mild lights of philosophy and 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 religion,'^ and do they not show you some other 
 causes for that repelling spirit, that shrinking into 
 self, tliat cold abstraction from other men which is 
 pleaded as manifesting an utter indifference as it re- 
 gards the prosperity of other men or other nations, 
 and that they ever regard themselves as homeless 
 and will never amalgamate with the people amongst 
 whom they dwell ? Do we forget the events of the 
 crusading aera, in which the Turk and the JeAV were 
 alike hunted down by the fury of a christian popu- 
 lace ? Do we not remember that there is scarcely a 
 country in Europe whence they have not been re- 
 peatedly banished ? Without travelling into the 
 events furnished by the histories of other nations, 
 have we forgotten those glaring in the chronicles of 
 England, our mother country? Has that intolerant 
 age been forgotten, when in intendment of the Eng- 
 lish law the goods and the very life of a Jew were 
 at the free disposal of the lord in whose manor he 
 was found ? when English kings amused themselves 
 with the infliction of novel penalties and tortures, 
 such as that of drawing their teeth in order to the 
 acquisition of their wealth ? when to them every dis- 
 pensation of Providence, in the form of disease or 
 plague, was imputed and secret, unwitnessed mock- 
 eries of, and blasphemies against the christian reli- 
 gion and its author ? Nor are such acts mere mat- 
 ters of history — Have not our own days shewn us 
 some such even in enlightened and liberalized Ger- 
 many ? And although they cannot indeed complain 
 of any personal injuries received at our hands, they 
 owe it rather to the temper of the people of this 
 state, than to the spirit of our laws. 
 
 The laws of your state, Mr. Speaker, have a na- 
 tural tendency, by deadening all honorable ambition, 
 by barring the doors of offices and an honorable 
 profession against them, to extinguish that lofty, in- 
 dependent spirit with which a consciousness of self- 
 importance and a knowledge that our voice is heard 
 
( ^9) 
 
 in tlie government under which we live, never fail 
 to inspire us. Your laws, by excluding them from 
 the enjoyment of purely political rights, which at 
 first blush, seem to belong to every man as a mem- 
 ber of society, will not permit them however high 
 their regard might otherwise be for your state and 
 its citizens, and however strong their desire to ad- 
 vance its interests, to cherish such regards and de- 
 sires or to consider them as otherwise than political- 
 ly dead amongst you. Your laws make them stran- 
 gers in their own land, and then complain that they 
 are such. Sir — 
 
 The flesh will quiver where the pincers tear. 
 The blood will follow where tlie knife is driven. 
 
 If your acts and your laws have had a tendency to 
 originate and nourish a selfish, unsocial and unfeel- 
 ing spirit, could you have reason to complain, even 
 if it were admitted that in some instances they have 
 been followed by the result which they were calcu- 
 lated to produce ? If they have been repulsive, it is 
 but reaction upon a like repelling spirit, first mani- 
 fested on your part. I have deemed it proper to an- 
 swer this objection thus fully, inasmuch as Jewish 
 history, Jewish customs, and every thing connected 
 with them which could divert the attention of the 
 public from the main question, have been summon- 
 ed up for that purpose. They have been made the 
 masking battery, behind which the enemies of this 
 bill would conceal its merits from the eye of vulgar 
 prejudice. I have admitted it for the moment to be 
 a substantial objection, in order that it might be fair- 
 ly met and shewn to be founded on false premises. 
 
 But if these premises were correct, still the ob- 
 jection which they sustain is one which ought either 
 to be urged, and which ought to prevail to the deni- 
 al of every right of citizenship, or which ought not 
 in any degree to prevail. If they are indeed the be- 
 ings whom this objection supposes them to be, then 
 perhaps it might be proper to cede to them, whilst 
 G 
 
(50 ) 
 
 within oiiv territory, the bare rights of an alien, pro* 
 lection of person and property. But, sir, we give 
 tliein other rights of citizenship, equally dear and 
 equally important with this — and why not yield this 
 also 2 We (ax them, we require them to perform 
 military duties, we give them the right of voting-— 
 and can there be any assignable reason worthy of 
 consideration, why the privilege of being voted for 
 or appointed to offices, should not accompany these I 
 Is it not a monstrous anomaly to sever the right of 
 electing from the right of being elected to office, 
 solely because of religious opinions ? Surely if there 
 be danger in the latter, there is little less in the first. 
 There is another part of this objection which only 
 serves more strikingly to illustrate its frivolous na- 
 ture — This their unextinguishable national charac- 
 ter, built up by peculiar laws, customs and observ- 
 ances, which they have preserved even to this day, 
 will (it is urged upon us) ever prevent them from de- 
 siring or accepting offices of honor or profit in our 
 state^-and why therefore repeal this part of our con- 
 stitution for the purpose of tendering privileges to 
 tliose who will never avail themselves of them ? — 
 Does it therefore follow that we are bound to cede 
 a right or to acknowledge its existence, are exone- 
 rated from that obligation or may even deny that it 
 exists, because those for whose benefit that right 
 arises, may not deem it proper to assert or exei'cise 
 it ? Sir, w hen we witness a fellow-creature resolute- 
 ly bent uj)on self-destruction, upon throwing away 
 that life which God has given him a right to enjoy, a:5 
 well might we anticipate the act by taking away his 
 life ourselves, and then justify the act by saying, 
 *' that the murdered individual had indeed a right to 
 the enjoyment of his life, but it was a right which 
 he was determined to cast away, and therefore we 
 were justified in taking it from him." If this were 
 one of those rights which arise only upon demand, 
 then indeed there would be some semblance of rea« 
 son in withholding it until demand made. 
 
(51) 
 
 The attempts to give a false coloring to this ques- 
 tion, have not been made in a corner ; I hold in my 
 band a series of remarks upon the bill before you, 
 which some kind gentleman, who is too modest ot 
 reveal his name, has addressed to the members of 
 this house. This ^yriter, if we are to judge from 
 the tenor of his remarks, seems very much disposed 
 to regard us as lost or wandering sheep, whom he 
 as the shepherd would fain bring back to the fold. 
 But why this gentleman should have imagined him- 
 self called upon by duty, to place himself at our head, 
 to march before us as a second Moses, to direct us 
 on our way, and to illumine our path, any but the 
 writer himself would find it difficult to conceive. — 
 Perhaps he may have remembered the memorable 
 doctrine, '*that the foolish things of (his world are 
 often chosen to confound the wise;" and may thence 
 have been inspirited to the present essay in the hope 
 that these,his crude & weak observations ,mighthave 
 a like influence in confounding and putting to rout 
 all those enlarged and liberal political doctrines, 
 which are or ought to be, embalmed in (he constitu- 
 tion of every free people. When these remarks 
 were placed in my hands by a gentleman of this house, 
 I did not stop to cHquire for the credentials wliicU 
 gave to the author so bold and dictatorial a tone ; 
 but immediately addressed myself wiUi earnestness 
 to them in the expectation of finding some objections 
 to this bill, where my short-sighted vision, after the 
 most minute inquiry, had failed to discover any. — 
 Alas ! it proved like most other hunmn expectations 5 
 shadows that dance before us to invite our grasp, 
 but always elude our embraces. After having toiled 
 through them without meeting that which was the 
 object of my pursuit, a substantial or even plausible 
 reason why this bill should not pass — I could not but 
 recal to my recollection the beautiful illustration of 
 tlie vanity of pursuit after pleasure, furnished m by 
 a modern poet — 
 
( fi2 ) 
 
 Where every touch that woos its stay. 
 Has brushed its biigluest hues away— 
 
 and apply it to the result of my labors.— Coming to 
 our hands with a pompous note of preparation, a- 
 bounding with figures and sesquipedalian >\ords, it 
 was natural for us to expect something excellent and 
 forcible in the way of argument or persuasion, cloth- 
 ed in such gorgeous apparel — but alas! we soon 
 found that every touch which wooed their stay, and 
 would have submitted them to a closer examination, 
 did but brush their brightest hues away. All that I 
 have been able to learn from them is, that there are 
 a variety of religions in this world, and that some of 
 them observe certain ceremonies and hold certain 
 doctrines, and others, other ceremonies and doc- 
 trines ;— and all this might serve very well to show 
 that in their religious worship, until these essential 
 differences are removed, these religious sects can ne- 
 ver mingle or amalgamate. But what possible con- 
 nection this can have with the question before us, 
 the teacher may have been able to discover, but I as 
 one of the taught, cannot readily perceive. This 
 writer seems disposed to argue this question as if ci- 
 vil governments were nothing more than religious 
 dynasties, and as if the question now were, *' whe- 
 ther we should place Christianity or Judaism on the 
 throne?" For the present, therefore, we shall pass 
 by /ijs remarks, having already bestowed upon them 
 much more attention than they could claim from in- 
 trinsic merit, reserving to ourselves the right of 
 hereafter showing that by a monstrous obliquity of 
 judgment, this writer has actually imputed to the 
 non-establishment of tlie christian religion, by the 
 eivil powers, many consequences which can easily be 
 shewn to have floAvn solely from the civil establish- 
 ment of it. 
 
 I would now approach the main question which 
 this bill presents, disencumbered of all these pre- 
 liminary or particular objections. The material 
 
( 53) 
 
 enactment of this bill is — ** That no religious test 
 shall ever he required as a qualijlcation to any of- 
 jice or place of public trust tiuder the stale of Ma- 
 ryfand." That no such test ought to be required 
 for such purpose, is the proposition which I am now 
 to sustain. There are, sir, two modes of viewing this 
 question: the one of which looks exclusively to the 
 arguments adduced in support of the propriety of 
 religious tests to be administered in order to tlie en- 
 joyment of civil offices ; whilst the other would take 
 into consideration and weigh the arguments and per- 
 suasions on either side. It is not absolutely necessa- 
 ry for the friends of this bill to travel into the ar- 
 guments which lie around them, demonstraling the 
 impropriety of connecting particular religious opin*^ 
 ions with the right of holding offices. They might 
 admit all that the most strenuous advocates for the 
 continuance of this test can allege — they might ad- 
 mit that none but christians ought to till the seats 
 of power and office in this state; and yet, with all 
 these admissions, they could just as strenuously con- 
 tend for the utter and perpetual abolition of religious 
 tests, fas these declarations are termed.) as being in 
 no degree calculated to produce the desired effect 
 or to test the existence of the christian character. 
 Yet for the sake of the weaker consciences, it may- 
 be proper to present this question under both as- 
 pects ; and I would claim the indulgence of the house, 
 whilst I endeavor to present this double view. 
 
 If there be any propriety in this or any other re- 
 ligious test, it must be because it evinces the existence 
 of feelings and principles, which do peculiarly fit 
 men for the performance of civil and social duties, or 
 because they are essentially necessary to the perfor- 
 mance of those duties in the country or state in which 
 the religion established by the test prevails. I^ct it 
 be admitted then in relation to the christian religion 
 which this test and such tests us may be expected to 
 exist in our state would render essentially necessary 
 
{5i ) 
 
 to qualify for office, that it presents us more dis- 
 tinct views of our public and private, of our relative 
 and individual duties, of our duties as a creature, of 
 our duties as a member of society. Let it be admit- 
 ted that it furnishes more powerful incentives to the 
 performance of sueh duties than are any where to 
 be found in the cold doctrines of morality or the dark 
 or glimmering views presented by other religions. — • 
 Let it be admitted that what in the latter in relation 
 to the consequences of human actions is seen but 
 ^klarkly through a glass," is in the former present- 
 ed under a noon-day blaze. Let it be admitted that 
 it shews us distinctly in the perspective, a state of 
 future rewards and punishments assigned for the per- 
 formance of deeds done in the body, and at the same 
 time the eye of an all-seeing being upon us, noting 
 and registering our deeds in order to our future dis- 
 position. Let it be admitted that it places human 
 governments upon more elevated ground, by teaching 
 lis that they proceed from God, and that those who 
 are in authority over us are but his trustees and the 
 depositaries of his power. Still after making all 
 these admissions I object to the manner of testing, I 
 object to the nature of the test proposed to be taken 
 away and of all religious tests, as being in fact, no 
 tests at all, and as taking away the question from the 
 proper tribunal. 
 
 All religious tests impose a penalty upon those not 
 professing a belief of the doctrines of the religion or 
 relgious denomination, to which it is designed to con- 
 fine the enjoyment of offices. The test incorporated 
 with your constitution imposes a penalty on all per- 
 sons not declaring or willing to declare their belief 
 in the christian religion. Let not gentlemen start at 
 the mention of the word ^Penalty.' A denial of 
 rights otherwise due to an individual is as much a 
 penalty as the positive infliction of punishments by 
 way of fine, imprisonment or corporal chastisement. 
 In fact all of these are nothing more than denials of 
 
(55 ) 
 
 our right to personal immunity and the exclusive en- 
 joyment of our personal* property. It will be re- 
 membered that this and other religious tests never 
 present themselves for operation until the office or 
 place of profit or trust has been actually bestowed. 
 It is not until our fellow-citizens or those to whom 
 they have confided the power of appointing to offices 
 have absolutely elected or appointed us to office— 
 that this and other religious tests intervene, place 
 themselves between us and the official chair, present 
 to us on the one hand all the allurements of official 
 dignity and profit, and on the other all the mortifi- 
 cation and humiliation of a stripped and degraded 
 officer: and call upon us to chuse or to refuse by 
 putting to us the question of torture, which we our- 
 selves are required to answer, and by which com- 
 pulsory answer we are either to entitle ourselves to 
 the enjoyment of all the former, or subject ourselves 
 to all the latter. Do not such tests appear strange- 
 ly inconsistent with the benignant doctrines of our 
 constitution, and with the mild practices of our law I 
 Not only do they tell us, but reason ako tells us that 
 there is something peculiarly harsh in requiring in- 
 dividuals to furnish testimony against themselves 5 a 
 harshness which should discountenance the right to 
 require it|in: civil cases, and which should wholly 
 banish it from all cases of penalty or punishment, 
 such as the present. Let me instance one or two 
 cases which may serve to render more manifest the 
 odiousness of such a procedure. — Let us suppose that 
 during our present session, a bill had been offered to 
 our consideration proposing to make any act whatso- 
 ever criminal ; that such bill after having specified 
 the penalty or punishment to be imposed for the com- 
 mission of the offence created by the act, should go 
 yet further, and provideihat the several county courts 
 and magistrates within our state should have power 
 to compel all persons presented for the offence, to 
 answer ou oath, whether they had or had not com- 
 
( 56) 
 
 iiiittcd the oftence charged upon them. Is there a 
 man amongst us whose indignation would not be kin- 
 dled to a flame by the bare offer of such a bill in this 
 house ? 
 
 Still the case is not strong enough to correspond 
 to the one before us. Let us suppose jet further, 
 that the bill thus offered did not only propose to in- 
 vest the courts and magistrates with the power of 
 examining on oath, those presented for any offence 
 against the act, as to their innocence or guilt, but 
 also to authorise them on mere surmises, and with- 
 out any presentment before them, or any cause for 
 suspicion, to cause any individual whatsoever, to be 
 arrested and brought before them, and compel him 
 to answer, whether he had committed any offences 
 against that act. Shocking as such an act would 
 seem, it involves in it no more cruelty, no more dis- 
 regard of human feelings, no more contempt of con- 
 stitutional right, than this very test. It proposes to 
 exclude all persons not believing in the christian re- 
 ligion from the enjoyment of all offices of profit or 
 trust within the state of Maryland ; and how does it 
 ascertain the existence of this belief ? Why, by press- 
 ing into its service the conscience of the elected or 
 appointed officer himself — by compelling him to ren- 
 der an answer which is eitlier to exempt him from, 
 or to subject him to this heavy penalty ; and all this 
 is to be done without the least foundation for the sup- 
 position that he does not believe in the christian re- 
 ligion. Sir, when welistento the detailsof the bar- 
 barities practised in Spanish inquisitions, we are 
 sometimes ready to leap for joy, because we dwell 
 in a country where such acts are unpractised and un- 
 permitted. Yet what do they more than wc? They 
 do but suspect without cause, and arrest and bring 
 before them all on whom their causeless suspicion 
 lights. They do but place the arrested individual 
 on the rack, and amidst the agonies of his torture 
 attempt to wrest from him coufessions of his guilt. 
 
t 57) 
 
 Does not your test thus operate ? Does it not cause- 
 lessly suspect all of disbelief? Does it not place all 
 the officers of your state on a moral rack as painful 
 and as torturing to the generous mind as the former ? 
 Does it not place interest on the one hand and truth 
 on the other, and hold forth every inducement to dis- 
 regard the latter and to keep an eye single to the 
 former. 
 
 Thus its last tendency, Mr. Speaker, furnishes an- 
 other reason equally strong, why the individual him- 
 self should not be appealed to for proof of his belief 
 in the christian religion, and why religious tests are 
 improper. 1 have said, that for the individual's 
 sake and from a regard to his feelings, this and all 
 other tests should be forever excluded. I say yet 
 further, that it is equally due to a regard for the 
 public interests — All human laws do, or ought pro- 
 perly to appreciate human nature. We are taught 
 to pray, *' lead us not into temptation,^^ and human 
 laws should listen to our prayer, and present none. 
 From a regard to this weakness, the laws of a civil- 
 ized people never appeal to an accused individual 
 for proofs of his criminality. They will not permit 
 him to testify on his own behalf, or to purge himself 
 of the crime with which he is charged by his own 
 declarations. This wise precept is, however, lost 
 sight of in this test ; it appeals to the individual 
 himself — it presents him honor or profit on the one 
 hand, disgrace and degradation on the other— it 
 makes his acquittal or conviction rest upon his own 
 tongue — it casts stumbling-blocks in the way of his 
 honesty and suborns him to false declarations. — Not 
 only does ii make his declarations tendered under 
 such seducing circumstances, evidence ; but it also 
 makes them conclusive evidence of his belief in the 
 christian religion. No proof, however high or how- 
 ever strong, can be received to rebut the declaration 
 of belief, or to exclude him from office. Let him 
 hwi make the required declaration, and although the 
 
(58 ) 
 
 evidence of his disbelief were so strong as to put it 
 beyond even the possibility of a doubt, although he 
 liad been through life a contemner of the christian 
 gospel, both by his language and by his acts — aye, 
 sir, although whilst the pen was in his hand with 
 which he was to subscribe the declaration of belief, 
 he would tell you, and this house, and the world, 
 that lie believed not a jot or tittle of that Gospel : 
 you could not therefore, put him back from his seat 
 of office,- you could not disbelieve his declaration; 
 your constitution would compel you to pronounce 
 him a christian, and as such to place him in the offi- 
 cial chair. Wliat then is this declaration required 
 by our constitution? What are all declarations en- 
 joined by religious tests, but the gnat which the un- 
 principled and abandoned infidel readily swallows, 
 and the camel, at which the honest man only, the 
 man who may indeed err, but who errs sincerely, 
 would choak ? What but the stumbling-block over 
 which virtuous citizens fall, whilst scoundrels leap 
 over it with ease into office. 
 
 But, sir, if the manner of testing were admitted 
 to be proper, permit me yet further to ask, what is 
 the nature of this and all other religious tests, and 
 what kind of belief does the administration of them 
 evince ? If these tests seek for any thing; if they are 
 of any avail, they must seek to discover the exist- 
 ence of the heart-felt belief; not that belief which 
 dwells upon the tongue, but that deep and abiding 
 conviction of the divine origin of the christian sys- 
 tem, of the purity and excellence of its doctrines, 
 and of the force of its commands and persuasions, 
 which might be expected to influence the believer in 
 liis life and actions. This is the only kind of belief 
 which could in any wise eficct the character of his 
 official acts, or which could better qualify him for 
 the discharge of his official duties. Now, sir, what 
 species of belief is sufficient to fulfil to the utmost 
 the requisitions of your constitution, or of any reli- 
 
(59 ) 
 
 gioiis test elsewhere to be found ? I answer, the be- 
 lief which the cold-hearted moralist may profess, 
 the belief which the very inlidel may profess. The 
 administration of your test and of all other religi- 
 ous tests, does but evince the existence of a cold, bar- 
 ren and speculative belief — a, belief which hears no 
 fruit — the belief of him who heareth and goeth his 
 way and doeth it not — the belief of him who says, 
 *'go thy way for the present, I will hear thee at a 
 more convenient season" — the belief of him of old, 
 who exclaimed, " almost thou persuadest me to be a 
 christian." If I am rightly informed, it has been 
 said in some counties of your state, " repeal but this 
 clause of your constitution, and there is nothing to 
 exclude the devil himself from admission to your 
 offices." If this test were all that excluded, there is 
 nothing even now, I say it with awe, to prevent the 
 devils and the damned in hell from taking a seat in 
 this house. We are told, *'that the devils them- 
 selves believe and tremble 5" and though it were a 
 belief extorted by the agony and anguish of the mo- 
 ment, still it is a belief, and as such would satis- 
 fy the requisitions of your constitution. 
 
 Sir, these cold and unmeaning declarations do but 
 take away the question from the proper trihunal. — 
 Say what you will of their efficacy, say what you 
 will of their necessity, in order to the sustention of 
 any religion, you will find that all efficacy, all heal- 
 ing and preserving power resides exclusively in the 
 character of the people of your state. So long as 
 they continue a christian people, admitting even for 
 a moment that the christian religion had aught to 
 fear from human efforts, there is no reason to fear 
 that those efforts will ever be directed against it — 
 There will be no danger in leaving it with them or 
 with those who are elected by and responsible to 
 them, to determine whether your religion has any 
 thing to fear from any candidate fqr their favor. — 
 Their selection will furnish some better evidence of 
 
( 60) 
 
 a belief in the christian religion, than is to be found 
 in these mealy-mouthed declarations. They can bet- 
 ter tell you than these, who are worthy and who un- 
 worthy of office. They witness the individual in his 
 ingoings and his outcomings — they see him at home 
 and abroad — his conduct in the discharge of public 
 and private duties is daily before their eyes — if he 
 be the christian — if he be the estimable and deserv- 
 ing citizen, they see it stamped in his acts; you learn 
 it from his professions. They may indeed be some^ 
 times deceived. Unworthy men may sometimes ob- 
 trude themselves into honorable and highly respon- 
 sible offices — but can gentlemen devise any mode 
 which will utterly exclude such individuals from of- 
 fice ? or do they see any thing in tests — such as these, 
 at all calculated to repel them ? Cast about you on 
 all sides and you will find no better test of qualifica- 
 tion for office than election by the people or those to 
 whom the people have confided that power. Yes, 
 Sir, we may heap Pelion upon Ossa, test upon test, 
 and we will find at last, that the only test which is 
 effectual is the opinion of the people. It will be 
 found to draw all to it — if it be wholesome and pure, 
 it will not fail to fill the offices of your state with 
 men of respectability and virtue — if it be foul and 
 impure, all your laws and tests will never operate 
 as correctives — ye must go to the source of it, ye 
 must drive into the heart and there work a radical 
 change. God help the man and the people who fear 
 themselves, who dare not trust themselves ? The 
 history and experience of all past ages laughs at this 
 test and tells you that when the people of any gov- 
 ernment are pure, their laws and customs are so ; 
 but when they become impure, they taint with their 
 impurity all that is connected with them or operates 
 upon them. 
 
 Permit mc now to retract the admission which I 
 have made of the propriety of connecting religious 
 opinions of any particular c^st with the right to en- 
 
( 61) 
 
 joy civil ofllces, merely for the purpose of shewing 
 that these tests hoth from their nature and their 
 manner of discovery, are in no wise calculated to 
 ascertain the existence of such religious character* 
 I would now take the other view of the question, 
 which seems to me most conclusively to evidence 
 their utter inconsistency with the nature and intent 
 of civil government, with the character and mode of 
 operation of the religion they purport to estahlish, 
 and their most pernicious influence upon the latter 
 in stripping of its unearthly sanctity. The disqua- 
 lification which is imposed hy this test for the non- 
 profession of the christian religion, is of a double 
 character — It operates as such not only upon the in- 
 dividual elected or appointed to office, whom it may 
 exclude, but also upon the people by whom or by 
 whose agents he has been thus elected or appointed. 
 As has already been observed, this test never inter- 
 venes, it never has any operation until the individu- 
 al has actually been elected or appointed to office.— 
 The eftect of this and of all other religious tests is, 
 therefore, to disfranchise him whom the people 
 have clothed with a franchise, to declare him un- 
 worthy whom the people by themselves or their 
 agents, have pronounced worthy of office ; to re- 
 fuse to entrust the interests of the people to the 
 keeping of him whom they or their agents have 
 selected as a competent guardian. It seems tru- 
 ly surprising, that the people of this state have not 
 taken this view of the question, or if they have 
 taken it, that they have not, by acclamation, de- 
 manded the abolition of this test. Take away this 
 test, and whom have they to fear but themselves? 
 In whose hands are they but their own ? Sir, I will 
 venture to assert, without the fear of contradiction, 
 that this question has not been understood by the peo- 
 ple of this state. Chimeras of all kinds have been 
 conjured up to alarm them. In some parts of your 
 state they have even imagined that the effect af 
 
(62 ) 
 
 this bill will be, not merely to make all men eli- 
 gible to office, without distinction, because of religi- 
 ous opinions, but absolutely to elect them. They 
 seem to have expected, that on the instant of its pas- 
 sage, this house would be swarming with Jews, 
 Turks and infidel delegates of every description. 
 
 I lay it down as a general rule, applicable to all re- 
 strictions upon the right of choice of officers resid- 
 ing in the people or their agents in a republican gov- 
 ernment — "'that all such restrictions are odious; 
 that they ought to be sparingly imposed; and when 
 imposed^ that they ought to be strictly construed.^^ 
 In advancing this doctrine, I am enabled by the oc- 
 currences of the last week, to entrench myself be- 
 hind strong authority. The purport of the opinion 
 of the late distinguished Mr. Pinkney, read in this 
 house a few days since, in order to the application 
 of it to another case, must yet be fresh in the memo- 
 ry of every member of this house. That opinion I 
 would not indeed adopt to its full extent, and I must 
 admit, that in the application of general doctrines 
 to the case in which that opinion was sought and 
 given, there is a little of that philippizing spirit ma- 
 nifested, which would accommodate its opinions to 
 the wishes of those seeking them. Still it deserves 
 in some measure to be received as oracular, although 
 it may manifest some of that fallibility which was 
 imputed to oracles of olden times. I would not say 
 with that opinion, that restrictions such as those, ex- 
 cluding from the enjoyment of two offices of profit 
 under the state of Maryland by the same person, 
 and at the same moment or even such as the present, 
 although they may be odious, are therefore, by mere 
 construction to be rendered absolute nullities in point 
 of operation. Bui I would say, that they ought not 
 to be carried by construction beyond the express let- 
 ter ; and that unless absolutely necessary, they ought 
 to be repealed, not by implication or construction, 
 but by the express act of this house. In all estab- 
 
( 63) 
 
 lisliec! governments, some restrictions upon the right 
 of choice or appointment to offices have heen impos- 
 ed, and in some instances properly. In alJ states the 
 people have been unwilling to give an uncontrolled 
 rein to their will or the will of their agents. To 
 render such restrictions proper, they ought always to 
 be consonant to the nature of human governments. 
 By our constitution, as originally formed, several 
 restrictions of this kind were imposed, some of 
 which it may always be proper to retain — some of 
 which have been already taken away, and one more 
 of which, the one now before us for consideration, 
 will, I hope, soon go the way of all flesh. 
 
 When gentlemen talk so loudly about the impro- 
 priety of removing any of those barriers and fences 
 with which the framers of our constitution have 
 thi)ught proper to surround the offices of our state, 
 they forget that their precautions on this score have 
 not been altogether approved of by our predecessors, 
 and that in latter days a whole class of restrictions 
 by much the most prominent amongst those found 
 in that instrument, have all been swept away at one 
 fell stroke. — Those revered men held, that no indi- 
 vidual could feel a sufficient interest in the govern- 
 ment, or in the advancement of the public welfare, 
 imless he possessed real or personal property with- 
 in the state, varying in amount according to the im- 
 portance and responsibilities of the office : and they 
 therefore required a properly qualification for the 
 enjoyment of almost every office within the state. 
 In 1809 and 1810 the delegates of Maryland deem- 
 ed these restrictions idle and libellous upon human 
 nature, or implying that nothing but pecuniary in- 
 terest could stimulate to the performance of duty, 
 and they were therefore all removed at one instant. 
 Is it then high treason at this day to doubt the pro- 
 priety of other restrictions found in that instrument, 
 even if we could deem them to be even noiv deser- 
 ving of the approbation of those who have inserted 
 
{64 ) 
 
 them? A small suppositiofti, the fallacy of which I 
 have already endeavored to expose. The hand of 
 violence has already been upon those restrictions and 
 it is now loo late to call it sacrilege. Some yet ex» 
 ist as to age and residence within the state or county , 
 for which elected or appointed : but these do but 
 require civil qualifications which are properly con- 
 nected with civil offices and conform to their na- 
 ture. It may be right and proper to exclude, by a 
 general rule, all not having resided a certain time 
 ■within the state or county for which they are elect- 
 ed, inasmuch as in general before that time they 
 cannot be deemed to have acquired a sufficient know- 
 ledge of the condition and interests of the state or 
 county, or of the duties incident to offices. 
 
 But there is no such conformity in the case before 
 us. Religious opinions may indeed better qualify, 
 but they are not absolutely necessary in order to the 
 discharge of civil duties. Men may discharge, and 
 often do discharge, the social and relative duties ip, 
 a jiroper manner from many other motives than re- 
 ligious motives. There is not, I would suppose, a 
 man in this house who would have the hardihood to 
 deny, that men may be good and affectionate fath- 
 ers, tender-hearted husbands, enterprising and use- 
 ful citizens, and even zealous patriots, without being 
 practical christians. There are a thousand impell- 
 ing causes to the performance of duty, which may 
 indeed be different in their degree, in order, and in 
 their force, which, notwithstanding all, tend to pro- 
 duce the same result. One man may discharge hii 
 public and private duties, because he regards himself 
 as always in the presence of his God and accounta- 
 ble to him for every act which he does in a public or 
 private capacity. Another, who is wholly blind to 
 these considerations, may have continually in view 
 the approbation of his fellow-citizens, and the ap- 
 plause of the world ; and for the purpose of obtain- 
 ing that, may be stimulated to the performance of 
 
( 63) 
 
 the very same duty discharged by the other from a 
 higher motive. Another may iind every thing a- 
 round him to endear him to the country in which he 
 dwells. There maybe no bush, or stream, or grove, 
 around him, which does not tell him some tale of in- 
 fancy and early innocence ; scarcely a dwelling 
 which does not contain some friend. There may be 
 vast possessions about him, the fruit of his or her 
 ancestor's industry. There may be lisping, prattling 
 infants at his feet who would stimulate him to cher- 
 ish and advance his country as it will in time become 
 theirs. In addition to all these impelling motives 
 may be named those furnished by the suggestions of 
 that internal monitor, the conscience, which is not pe- 
 culiar to any clime or any country, and which inde- 
 pendently of all revelation, points out alike to the 
 christian and to the Jew, the believer and the infidel,, 
 the path of right, and would fain exclude them from 
 the road of wrong. 
 
 It is not contended that these motives impelling 
 men to the performance of duty are alike equal ia 
 their purity, or that they will alike entitle the act 
 to which they give rise, to acceptance and favor with 
 the Supreme Being. It may indeed be true, that the 
 right motive alone sanctifies the act in his eyes. But 
 with motives independently of acts, human govern- 
 ments have nothing to do. Scrutiny into these is 
 reserved to him who searcheth the hearts and try- 
 eth the reins of men. In the intendment of human 
 laws, if the act performed be right and legal, it is 
 unnecessary to inquire into the motives. So in rela- 
 tion to offices ; if men do discharge their official du- 
 ties, it is to us and to this our constitution, a matter 
 of the utmost indifference whether it has been per- 
 formed from one motive or another, or from any mo- 
 tive at all. Nor would I liere deny that a belief in the 
 christian religion, not such a one however, as is evin- 
 ced by this cold, unmeaning test, but a practical be- 
 lief; does indeed better qualify for the discharge of 
 
{ 66) 
 
 every dutj, individual, relative or social — It may 
 point out to us more distinctly what our duty is — It 
 may impel us to the discharge of it by motives of a 
 higher order, and having much more eiScacy. But, 
 sir, the question before us is not one of better quali- 
 fication, but of disqualification ; not one of prefer- 
 ence, but of exclusion. It is not whether the right 
 of one believing in the christian religion ought to be 
 preferred, but whether the right of one not believ- 
 ing ought to be utterly excluded. To enable any 
 one in this house confidently to deny, that any but 
 believers in the christian religion can properly and 
 faithfully ilischarge the duties of a citizen, either in 
 a private or in an official capacity, it is first necessa- 
 ry that he should forget all past, all heathen histo- 
 ry ; it is first necessary that he should forget all the 
 events passing in the heathen world, even in this our 
 day. You must throw him back into a state of 
 worse than Gothic ignorance. 
 
 Before I can ;^ield my assent to such a doctrine, I 
 must first forget the history of him who leaped into 
 the gulf, that he might save his country, or of him 
 who sought death upon the enemy's spear for a like 
 purpose. I must forget the history of him, who to 
 satisfy the ofi'ended laws of his country, violated by 
 a son, although clothed with the power of dispens- 
 ing with her, yet gave his own person to the law in 
 partial sufferenee of its penalties — I must forget 
 the history of him, who could voluntarily exile him- 
 self in old age from all the enjoyments of his native 
 country, that she might forever enjoy the benefit of a 
 code of laws which had been the work of all his earlier 
 years. — I must forget the history of him, who through 
 a long life, and in many seducing situations, was yet 
 so regardful of the cardinal maxim of the christian 
 gospel itself, '*do unto others as ye would they should 
 do unto you," that his name in all after ages has 
 ever been connected with the epithet of ''just."— « 
 I must forget the history of him; who could abandon 
 
(67 ) 
 
 a plougli, clothe himself with the power, and rohe 
 himself with the splendor of royalty at his coun- 
 try's call, and at the same call lay them down to re- 
 sume his coarse garments and rustic occupations.—^ 
 I must forget the history of him, who, although sur- 
 rounded with all royalty's flatterers and summer- 
 flies, was yet ready to weep that one day had passed 
 by unnoted by the performance of a (rood action, 
 and cried out '' I have lost a day." Aye, these and 
 a thousand such histories, such as these, must you 
 and 1 forget, ere we could hazard the assertion, that 
 none but christians can perform the duties of citi- 
 zens. 
 
 Perhaps some may be ready to exclaim — **A11 this 
 may be true in the general -, but you forget that Ma- 
 ryland is a christian state, that the christian religion 
 is here established by law ; and although as applied 
 to a mere civil community, these doctrines are ap- 
 propriate and just : yet when applied to a christian 
 community, such as this, they are wholly inappro- 
 priate." The term, **christian community," or one 
 of the same import, has been frequently used by the 
 enemies of this bill, and more especially by the 
 mammoth opponent upon whose "remarks" I have 
 already commented ; and it may be well to inquire 
 in what sense this term is accurate in relation to the 
 state of Maryland. — Do gentlemen thereby intend 
 to assert, that the government of Maryland is a 
 mere hierarchy? a government of the saints upon 
 earth, and designed solely for the protection of chris- 
 tians? Would they have us to regard it as a mere 
 christian association? Do they wish to claim for it, 
 proceeding as it does from mere man, the same 
 high and exalted character which belonged to the 
 Jewish government, as imparted by God to a chosen 
 and peculiar people ? The notion is so preposterous 
 that I cannot suppose it to be entertained by them. — 
 Or would they call this a christian community, be- 
 cause cJiri^tiaiis are hero ensured the free and un- 
 
( 68) 
 
 molested exercise of their religion, are here pro- 
 tected in their worship and their religious feelings, 
 here sheltered from insult by the laws of the land? 
 It is true that in the latter sense this is a christian 
 community. It is true, that in this sense Christiani- 
 ty is a part of the law of the land. All the common 
 law, profane scoffing at the christian gospel ; all en- 
 deavors to turn it into ridicule, and all revilings a- 
 gainst, and contumelious reproaches of our Saviour, 
 are regarded as offences punishable by fire and im- 
 prisonment. 
 
 Acts have been passed both in England and in our 
 state, to extend the civil establishment of the chris- 
 tian religion yet further, but the good sense of the 
 age has reprobated and repealed them in our land. 
 The English law, to which I have allusion, passed 
 during the reign of William, does indeed extend ci- 
 vil interference beyond protection from contumely 
 and insult, even to deliberate and advised speaking, 
 and has actually converted into a temporal offence a 
 denial of some of the essential doctrines of the chris? 
 tian church. Yet still in this act some little respect 
 was paid to the rights of conscience, inasmuch as 
 such denial wa& only constituted an offence when 
 made by those educated in, or professing the chris- 
 tian religion, and was still open to other religious 
 sects, if done in a respectful and truth-inquiring 
 manner. It remained for our act of blood, passed 
 in the year 1723, and which was the last in succes- 
 sion of a series of similar acts, not only to close the 
 mouth of contumely and reproach, but even of can- 
 dor and sincerity. It remained for it to seal up the 
 christian religion by the aid of temporal power ; to 
 close by civil penalties the mouth of the serious and 
 earnest inquirer after the <ruth of its doctrines, or 
 of the honest though mistaken disbeliever of them, 
 whilst the very author of that religion, instead of sup- 
 pressing, had invited and challenged inquiry, and had 
 bid defiance to disbelief. Until this moment I was, 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 sir, under the impression tliat this black-letter, dra- 
 conian act continued, as many others of like charac- 
 ter, to stigmatize our statute book even to this day, 
 as a monument of the folly or wickedness of our an- 
 cestors ; but I am just informed, that within the last 
 two years this portion of the black-letter absurdity 
 and barbarity of our statutes has been wiped away 
 to the eternal honor of this age. By this detestable 
 act the denial of the divinity of Christ, or of the 
 doctrine of trinity or of Christ's atonement, although 
 made in the most serious manner and not in mere 
 scoffing, although made according to the lights and 
 convictions of conscience and in honesty of inten- 
 tion, although made even in an act of worship by 
 the Jew or the unbeliever, who might perhaps at 
 that moment be engaged in imploring God in mercy 
 to shed around us that light under which he conceiv- 
 ed himself to be dwellings even such sincere and 
 God-forgiven denial was made punishable by death 
 for the third offence. '^Let it then sleep in the shade 
 where cold and unhonored its relics are laid.^^ — » 
 Christianity now rests for its estahlishment amongst 
 us solely on the wise and merciful doctrines of the 
 common law. 
 
 These doctrines, sir, are purely those of a civil 
 government and are characterised by much wisdom. 
 When they w ould seal the mouth of the reviler and 
 the scoffer, they do not io the least infringe the rights 
 of conscience. Never yet did men of this cast seek 
 for truth — never yet was bare reviling or contumely 
 calculated to promote its discovery. Having the sin* 
 gle tendency of irritating or wounding the feelings 
 of those to whom the object reproached is dear, they 
 should ever be frowned upon and punished by civil 
 governments. The doctrines of the common law 
 should, as I think, go yet further, and punish with- 
 out discrimination all revilings against any religion 
 whatsoever, as attended only with pernicious conse- 
 quences. So far i§ this a christian community, that 
 
( ^0 ) 
 
 ehristians may here woi'ship iminolested, and their 
 religion is here protected from mere reproach but 
 not further. I object to this test because it would 
 carry Uie civil establishment of religion yet further, 
 and to a degree not warranted by the character or 
 legitimate designs of civil government, and not re- 
 quired, or rather deprecated by the religion to which 
 it is applied. I object to it because it has a direct 
 tendency in common with all other religious tests, to 
 revive the almost exploded connexion between church 
 and state, under whose double tyranny Europe lan- 
 guished for so many centuries, because it goes to es- 
 tablish a hierarchy in our land, because it makes the 
 christian church, what it was never designed to be, 
 by its divine author, a church militant. 
 
 If this or any religious test can be sustained in ar- 
 gument, its advocates must rest its defence upon one 
 of two designs : — Either it must be designed to ope- 
 rate indirectly in propagating the religion or religi- 
 ous opinions which it would make the sole passport 
 to civil offices ; or it must have in view their protec- 
 tion and preservation from overthrow by the arm of 
 civil power. Those who contend for the propriety 
 of religious tests are here placed upon the horns of 
 a dilemma. They must admit one or the other of 
 these designs to furnish the only plausible or assign- 
 able reason for the introduction or continuance of re- 
 ligious tests. The fi rst of these designs is, however, 
 a mere supposed one, and one which every cliristian 
 and every rational man must instantly disclaim. It 
 is not to be denied, that the allurements of official 
 power and official profit may, and indeed often do, 
 seduce men from the ranks of other religions, but 
 have never yet won souls ; and the same seductions 
 which would draw them over to the forces of a pre- 
 vailing religion, would upon a change of circum- 
 stances, have equal efficacy in restoring them to the 
 ranks which they have deserted. If men are to be 
 drawn from the forces of heresy or infidelity, to those 
 
( 71) 
 
 of orthodoxy, tliey can be made sincere adherents 
 only by a heart-felt conviction of the intrinsic ex- 
 cellence of the cause they are about to espouse. 
 
 The only remaining ground of defence is their 
 l^ropriety & efficacy in protecting the religion which 
 they make the passport to office. Enough has been 
 said, as I think, to evince to this house their utter 
 inefficacy in producing the desired effect. It re- 
 mains to point out their impropriety. — To render 
 them proper, it is incumbent upon their advocates to 
 prove several things. It is not sufficient for them to 
 shew, that in the abstract, civil governments are 
 moving within the sphere of their powers and du- 
 ties, when they undertake to make religious opinions 
 of any cast prerequisites to the enjoyment of civil 
 offices. It is not sufficient to shew that it is right 
 and proper to prescribe religious tests. They must 
 go yet further, and demonstrate that an occasion 
 has presented itself justifying and requiring the pre- 
 scription of them — that the religion in whose hands 
 they would exclusively entrust civil power, requires 
 civil protection, and that such protection cannot be 
 adequately yielded without the grant of such exclu- 
 sive civil power. All these propositions must be sus- 
 tained, otherwise religious tests are defenceless.— 
 Their advocates must admit that every restriction 
 upon the right of electing, residing in the people or 
 upon the eligibility of the subject, which is found in 
 the constitution of a free people, is odious, is an in- 
 fringement of the rights which belong to the elec- 
 tors and the elected, as members of society, and can 
 only be justified by the calls of some higher right 
 or some imperious necessity. Governments may, it 
 is said, prescribe religious tests, if they deem it pro- 
 per — Admit it for a moment ; and does it therefore 
 follow that because they have tlie power, they ought 
 to exercise it ? that because they may prescribe, they 
 ought to prescribe religious tests ? If they are to be 
 blind and to exercise no discretion in the use of theiv 
 
(73 ) 
 
 power, then such a doctrine may be proper, othet*- 
 ivise not. Pursue the same train of reasoning and 
 it will conduct you to the conclusion that every re- 
 striction, however unnecessary, however unrequir- 
 ed, is yet right and proper. You may bring back all 
 the old restrictions as to property qualifications -, you 
 inay, by the same reasoning, exclude all poor men 
 from the offices of your state ; you may give them 
 exclusively to professional men. If then the reli- 
 gion which they design to protect and sustain, be ad- 
 mitted to be sufficiently powerful for its own protec- 
 tion, and in no wise to require for such purpose the 
 exclusive right to wield the civil powers of your 
 state, then, although you were admitted to have the 
 power of prescribing religious tests, you are still 
 not justified in prescribing them or continuing them, 
 because they are not necessary or required, and are 
 in contravention of acknowledged civil rights. 
 
 Sir, my reflections upon this subject have induced 
 me to deny 'Hhe abstract right and propriety of pre- 
 scrihing religions tests^^ — They have induced me to 
 deny their necessity, & let me briefly state the reasons 
 which have conducted me to this conclusion. Religion 
 and civil government are essentially different in their 
 nature and modes of operation — The one is the law 
 of God, the other the law of man, and hence their 
 striking differences. Human governments look but 
 to the outward man — they sit in judgment but upon 
 the action — If the action be proper and legal they 
 can go no further — if they punish but for the secret, 
 unexecuted thought, the judgment of the world ne- 
 ver fails to pronounce the act odious and tyrannical. 
 But religion deals only with the inward man — it calls 
 into judgment for every secret thought. Thoughts 
 and intents are solely the subjects upon which it ope- 
 rates, and it dives into the heart and drags them 
 thence for inspection. Human governments regard 
 man solely as a member of society, and all their o- 
 perations have for their sole object the performance 
 
( 73) 
 
 of social duties, of the duties of a citizen. Religion 
 regards man solely as the creature of an all-wise and 
 all-bountiful Being to whom he is indebted for life 
 and all that renders life estimable, and to whom in 
 return for his protection and beneficence he owes obe- 
 dience^ submission, veneration and thanksgiving. — 
 In a word, the empire of human laws is ''actions," 
 of religion is intents^ — the former is the empire of 
 matter, the latter of mind. This view of their cha- 
 racteristical differences shews us in a very clear man- 
 ner how grossly human laws err when they wander 
 beyond the region of ac( ions into that of mere feel- 
 ing, thought or belief unaccompanied by acts. — 
 Hence it is that mankind have always regarded with 
 the utmost abhorrence and have always denounced 
 with the most unsparing severity, all the acts of hu- 
 man governments calling men into judgment for se- 
 cret, unexecuted thoughts. 
 
 Such a view serves also to show us how idle and 
 worse than idle are all the attempts of human gov- 
 ernments to inculcate religious doctrines or to sustain 
 or to overthrow them. If they take root at all, they 
 spring in a soil over which human laws have no con- 
 trol, in the heart over which God alone has domi- 
 nion. Here by the decree of Providence they can- 
 not come. When then men talk of giving a protec- 
 tion to religious doctrines, of cherishing religious 
 feelings or of extirpating them by human laws, they 
 are speaking of what is in the very nature of things 
 an absurdity and an impossibility. Sir, the only 
 sense in which human governments can be said to 
 protect religion is by preserving secure and unmo- 
 lested the persons and property of those who profess 
 it or believe in it. They cannot protect religion, they 
 can only protect its followers. The christian religion 
 in the days of Heathenism, when its followers as its 
 author had not a home in which to shelter themselves, 
 when they w^ere driven to deserts and caves for pro- 
 tection, when they were cast to wild beasts to be de- 
 K 
 
( ^i ) 
 
 voured, when tliey were torn or sawed asunder of 
 roasted hy the slow fire, was as strong, as powerful, 
 as well fenced about and protected as it is at this day, 
 in Maryland, where this test exists and where chris- 
 tians or nominal christians are exclusively robed with 
 civil authority. Yes, Sir, when it was oppressed and 
 trodden down by the great scarlet beast of infidelity, 
 it was as powerful, nay, even more so than it is now 
 amongst you. It has intrinsically nothing to fear 
 from your operations, it can gain nothing from your 
 assistance. Your laws must therefore be content to 
 regard man solely as a member of a civil associa- 
 tion, for all human governments rightly considered 
 are nothing more — they are in fact merely associa- 
 tions of individuals, who in order to secure for th© 
 protection of their rights the combined assistance 
 and strength of all those with whom they are about 
 to associate, have each consented to yield up a cer- 
 tain portion of their natural rights ; and all the pow- 
 ers of human governments arc composed entirely of 
 those portions of natural power, ceded or presumed 
 to be ceded by each member of society. The whole 
 control of human governments over their subjects is 
 based upon a presumed assent given by those sub- 
 jects to the exercise of such control 5 and as in a 
 state of nature no such control over religious opin- 
 ions exists any where, it cannot by possibility exist 
 any where in a state of society. Individuals can on- 
 ly cede to governments the powers which they have, 
 and the latter can only exercise ihe powers which 
 individuals have or may be presumed to have ceded 
 to them. Civil governments must, therefore, of ne- 
 cessity abstain from interference with religious opin- 
 ions until they produce a neglect of civil duties or 
 violations of civil right. 
 
 In yielding protection to religion in the only sense 
 in which they can be said to yield it, they must yield 
 it indiscriminately ; they must regard it as wholly 
 nvithout their jurisdiction 5 they must not iniermed^ 
 
die with its followers as such, either for good or 
 evil, until it leads Ihcin into some breach of civil du- 
 ties. Our declaration of rights, in its Sod section, 
 has recognized in very distinct terms the propriety 
 of these limitations of civil power. It explicitly de- 
 clares the right of all men to worship God in the 
 manner which they deem most acceptable to him, 
 and that they ought not to be molested by law in 
 their person or estate, because of their religious 
 persuasions, professions or practices, unless under 
 color of religion they disturb the good order, peace 
 or safety of the state — infringe the rights of morali- 
 ty or injure others in their natural, civil or religious 
 rights. This clause, if literally construed, does of 
 itself seal the death-warrant of all such religious tests 
 as this If thus construed, we cannot but regard the 
 inhibitions to molest in person or estate because of 
 religious opinions, as tantamount to a prohibition of 
 the deprivation of any civil or political riglits what- 
 soever for such cause. The word * 'estate" must be 
 taken to mean not merely property, but civil and 
 political estate or condition. And the protection 
 which is to be extended to the followers of any reli- 
 gious sect, is a protection given to them not as fol- 
 lowers of that sect but as citizens. As it relates to 
 the enjoyment of their religious opinions, the only 
 protection which can be properly given is a bare 
 protection from insult, a bare sufference of exist- 
 ence. It should be a calm, cold protection, extend- 
 ed by the hand of indifference — It should be such a 
 protection as would have been extended by the phi- 
 losophers of old, who held all religions equally use- 
 ful in a civil point of view — It should be a protec- 
 tion not professing to be in any degree founded upon 
 a conviction of the intrinsic excellence of the reli- 
 gion protected, but solely upon the knowledge that 
 its doctrines and external observances do not mili- 
 tate against the duties of a citizen. 
 Mr. Speaker, when human governments are tread- 
 
( ^6) 
 
 iiig upon the delicate and dangerous ground of civil 
 interference with religious opinions or institutions, 
 and when they would travel beyond the proper lim- 
 its of their authority into an inquiry into the intrin- 
 sic excellence of any religion existing under them, 
 and when they would carry their interference be« 
 yond a mere sufferance of existence to exclusive ci- 
 vil establishment, they would do well to remember 
 the wise and salutary doctrine of Gamaliel of old, 
 as it is found in the christian gospel, and as it was 
 applied to the christians theipselves for the very pur- 
 pose for which it is now about to be applied to the 
 Jews and other unbelievers. ** Let these people a- 
 lone," said he to his brethren the Jews, who were 
 then meditating the commencement of civil persecu- 
 tion against the christian religion and its followers, 
 in the hope of extirpating them — **Letthem alone," 
 said he, *' if their design be of men, your efforts are 
 unnecessary ; it wants a firm and stable foundation, 
 and it will fall to the ground without your exertions. 
 If it be of God, ye cannot gainsay or resist. Take 
 care lest in your interferences with them you be 
 found striving against God himself." Let the equal- 
 ly wise and liberal conduct which the Jew of old 
 prescribed to be pursued by his brethren, the Jews 
 of that day, in relation to christians and the chris- 
 tian religion, at that time just raising their heads 
 upon earth, be the very course which the christians 
 of this day, the christians of Maryland, will here- 
 after pursue in relation to the Jew or the infidel. 
 
 The tables have turned 5 the case to which this 
 doctrine is to be applied presents the parties whose 
 interests are involved in it, in a very different point 
 of view. That religion which was then a stone cut 
 out of the mountain, now fills a large portion of the 
 globe. The Jew who had then the power to oppress, 
 is now prostrate before the rod of civil persecution ; 
 hut from age to age it is the same wise and salutary 
 doctrine 5 and it is one which the christian of this 
 
(77) 
 
 state should blush to see banished from his practice 
 in relation to those very people who once applied it 
 to his own religion, then equally the object of scof- 
 fing, reviling and oppression. Let no one say, *'it;c 
 carry this doctrine in relation to this people as far 
 as it was extended by their ancestors to our religion, 
 and we have extended it as far as reason requires 
 us to carry it in giving them the uninterrupted en- 
 joyment of life, liberty and property.^^ They did 
 not indeed extend to christians or to followers of any 
 other religion, or to people of any other nation, any 
 degree of political privilege or liberty -, but they 
 ivent as far on the road of toleration as their gov- 
 ernment permitted them to go. Theirs was not as 
 ours, a mere human government ; theirs was in all 
 respects a hierarchy ; every civil institution, every 
 ritual observance, every religious doctrine, in fine, 
 every thing connected with them as a people came 
 alike from the hands of God, whom they regarded 
 even as the head of their civil government. Every 
 part of their civil and religious polity had been built 
 up by the hand of Providence as a barrier and wall 
 of separation between them and all other nations, 
 until he should come who would cause it to be swal- 
 lowed up in a religion embracing Jew and Gentile, 
 people of all nations and of all tongues. 
 
 AVhen we can plead for our civil polity the same 
 divine origin, it may be proper to exclude all but the 
 saints from civil government, but whilst it bears a- 
 bout it so many marks of mere mortality, and whilst 
 it professes to be nothing more than a mere bond of 
 union, mere articles of association between mortals, 
 we must be content to regard it as such. It is, there- 
 fore, that I would deny the assumption that we do in 
 practice amongst us carry this doctrine of Gama- 
 liel as far as reason demands ; it is, therefore, that 
 I deny the assumption that there is nothing like per- 
 secution in these tests. In what language have gen- 
 tlemen found so limited a signification given to the 
 
( .-8 ) 
 
 the word *• persecution?'' Is nothing to be termed 
 such but an actual imprisonment of, or violence 
 done to the body, or a deprivation of property ?-— 
 Nothing but that which operates upon the mere 
 matter of human nature ? I have always supposed^ 
 that every denial of a right due to any citizen be- 
 cause of opinions or beliefs which give no cause for 
 such denial, is persecution, whether that right be a 
 right to bodily safety, to property, to elect to office, 
 to hold offices, or any other natural or social right 
 whatever. A contrary doctrine is one, which, as I 
 would suppose, gentlemen would be ashamed or 
 afraid to avov^r in this state. Why, sir, for what 
 have we fought, and what did we establish, if it be 
 not the doctrine '*that men are not the mere pro- 
 perty of their governors — that government is creat- 
 ed for their benefit, and ought therefore to be sub- 
 ject to their control, and liable to be altered or cast 
 off at pleasure, and that for this purpose every citi- 
 zen of proper discretion has a right to have his voice 
 heard in the government under which he lives?" — 
 Then why not apply these doctrines to these citizens 
 as well as to others ? why not to citizen-Jews as well 
 as to citizen-christians ? are they not your citizens ? 
 do you not tax them as such ? do you not give them 
 the right of voting as such ? do they not hold pro- 
 perty among you as such ? If your government is 
 admitted to have the power of taking away civil or 
 political rights improperly, from any one citizen, it 
 may from all. If it can take away one class of such 
 rights, it can take away all. You may with equal 
 propriety take awa^ the right of voting, and leave 
 such citizens wholly defenceless at your feet. 
 
 Therefore are religious tests pronounced to be im- 
 propery and what has been said serves strongly to 
 manifest them wholly unnecessartj , Why would 
 you extend protection to religious systems beyond a 
 bare toleration ? Is it because they require it in or- 
 der to their sustention ? The very admission that they 
 
( 79) 
 
 require it stamps the lie upon tlie cliaracter wliicfi 
 they wear and proves them to have nothing of divini* 
 ty about them. If they do not require it, if they can 
 sustain themselves without it, why then yield it at the 
 expense of the civil, political or religious rights of 
 others ? Why furnish it when your very establish- 
 ment of such systems has a tendency to weaken them^ 
 to draw them away from the strong arms of God, 
 and to teach them to lean for support on frail, totter- 
 ing man ? 
 
 Sir, my convictions that religious tests are unne- 
 cessary and improper in the State of Maryland, arc 
 very much strengthened and become almost irresis- 
 tible, when I look to the origin of the religion to 
 whichjfor its security,they would give exclusively the 
 civil powers of your state — when I call to meroory 
 the conduct and the language of the author of that 
 religion throughout his earthly career — when I wit- 
 ness its progression to the present time, and its vari- 
 ous conditions in the course of that progression. — I 
 have not found that author seeking for the propaga- 
 tors and protectors of the system he was unfolding 
 to man, amongst the great and the wise and the weal- 
 thy and the powerful of earth. — I have not found 
 him in obedience to the vain and idle notions enter- 
 tained by the Jews of his day, seeking to rohe him- 
 self or his religion in temporal power or splendor.— 
 I have found him in the tents of the poor, illiterate 
 and despised fishermen, confiding to their yet unskil- 
 ful and powerless hands, the promulgation of his gos- 
 pel. He has said '*that his religion came without 
 hands and shall progress without hands, that is to say^ 
 without human aid." These tests say ''it requires and 
 ought to receive human aid." He has said "his king- 
 dom is not of this world." These tests say *'his 
 kingdom ought to be and shall be of this world."-— 
 He has said '*take not the high seats in synagogues 
 or the lordly places amongst men." These tests say 
 *^^take them and take them exclusively." He has 
 
(80 ) 
 
 said ^Hliat his religion shall go forward and prevail 
 against man." These tests say **we must take heed 
 lest it fall before men." Ought not christians in- 
 stead of advocating such tests rather denounce them 
 as false and as containing by implication a libel up- 
 on their religion ? Were the author of that religion 
 in this assembly this moment with the dove from hea- 
 ven on his head, he would tell you one and all ''ye 
 are stigmatizing my religion by the continuance of 
 these tests — ye are making it of man when I have 
 told you, when its own uncultured growth and in- 
 crease has told you, it is of God." 
 
 But if the civil establishment of religion, by tests 
 or in any other way were only unnecessary, although 
 that very fact is sufficient to justify or rather to re- 
 quire the downfall of such establishment, ii does not 
 more imperatively demand it than the consequences 
 of such establishment upon the religion established. 
 Not only have your excluded citizens reason to com- 
 plain of it, but your religion itself as loudly rebukes 
 you in the midst of such acts. It tells you that when 
 you touch it, when you incorporate it with your civil 
 institutions, when you seek to make it a civil institu- 
 tion, you taint it with human impurities, you with- 
 draw it from the arm of God, you throw it upon the 
 arm of man, you strip it of its divine, you clothe it 
 with an earthly character. 
 
 When was it sir, that the christian religion was the 
 most pure, when the most powerful ? Was it not in 
 the very day when all the princes of the earth rose 
 up against it, when persecuted its followers reviled 
 not, when trampled upon, they turned not in anger? 
 In what jera of the christian religion can you point 
 out to me such bright examples of piety, forti- 
 tude, self-denial, forbearance and every christian 
 virtue, as are furnished in the lives of the fathers of 
 your church, as they are termed, in that day when 
 they had nought to sustain them but a conviction of 
 the intrinsic excellence of their cause I In what age 
 
I SI) 
 
 can you point it out to me so well sustaining itself, so 
 vigorously advancing itself as in that age ? Sir, from 
 tlie very day on which Constantine saw Ihe cross in 
 the cloud, from the very day wliich first saw it recog- 
 nized by the civil powers, may you date tlic com- 
 mencement of all those corruptions which so degra- 
 ded and deformed your religion during many ages of 
 almost Heathenish superstition. You may witness 
 in the frightful history of tliis gloomy aUd protract- 
 ed period, and in the origin and progress of almost 
 every religious sect known to you, to exclusive civil 
 establishment, where that has taken place, the unse- 
 parable concomitants of such Establishment, pride, 
 arrogance, self-love and a contempt and prostration 
 of all other religious sects. AYhere have you found 
 gross corruptions or hideous immoralities but in es- 
 tablished churches ? Where have you found an in- 
 solent, haughty, domineering clergy but in establish- 
 ed churches? Where have you found a superstiti- 
 ous, enslaved and degraded people but in estab- 
 lished churches? Where have you found a sys- 
 tem which is in itself a system of humility, modera- 
 tion, temperance, forgiveness and philanthropy in its 
 practical operation, converted into a system of arro- 
 gance, ostentation, intemperance and persecution, 
 where but in established churches? 
 
 Most unfortunately for himself and to the down- 
 fall of all his positions, the sage ai'.v-bor of the re- 
 marks of which I have already spoken, has, in his 
 wisdom, referred to tJie history of revolutionary 
 France as shewing what christians and the christian 
 religion have to fear from the extension of civil pow- 
 er to any but believers. It is alas ! a most unfortu- 
 nate instance to which to refer, to illustrate the con- 
 sequences of a neglect to give a civil establishment 
 to the christian religion, an instance which above ail 
 others, most conclusively evidences the pernicious 
 tendency of such estabiisliment. 
 
 Why was it, sir, that during that unfortunate spra the 
 
(82 ) 
 
 doors of tlie cliristian temples were closed, their mi- 
 nisters driven in mass from the French Kingdom, the 
 whole christian system pronounced to be the fabrica- 
 tion of mere mortals, and even death itself declared 
 to he but an eternal sleep ? Was it because the chris- 
 tian had previously enjoyed no civil power in the 
 land ? Was it because he was without any other arm 
 to sustain than that of God, an^ other sword to wield 
 than that of conviction, any other persuasives than 
 those wliich were to be found in the intrinsic merit 
 of the religion he sustained, and in the heart-pierc- 
 ing efficacy of a holy life ? Or was it not rather be- 
 cause the christian religion had been clothed with 
 purple and fine linen and placed in the high seats of 
 power and dignity ? Was it not because its guardians 
 and ministers, lifted up above themselves and above 
 the meek and lowly character of their office, grown 
 blind to its duties by gazing upon the splendor of 
 their temporal station, and in the fancied strength of 
 human support,casting off their reliance upon divine 
 protection- — was it not that they thus infatuated, ex- 
 changed all the virtues which belonged to, and be- 
 came their spiritual office, for all the vices which too 
 often await the enjoyment of such temporal power 
 and rank ? 
 
 Unreflecting mortals always judge of a system 
 from the character of those who sustain and propa- 
 gate it ; and iC general such a mode of judging is 
 proper and satisfactory. More especially in religi- 
 ous matters do men find it extremely difficult to se- 
 parate the conduct of followers and propagators from 
 the characters of the religion adhered to. So did 
 revolutionary France judge ; and when looking back 
 through the history of the ruling church, she found 
 nothing but abuse of power and gratiiication of eve- 
 ry lustful appetite, exemplified in the conduct of the 
 prominent members of her hierarchy, in the bitter- 
 ness of her indignation against the corrupt charactei* 
 of her priesthood, she cursed and pr<>strated the syp- 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 iem to which it was nominally attaches. It is abso- 
 lutely necessary to the sustention of religion and the 
 preservation of it in its original purity, that its fol- 
 lowers should have continually before their eyes its 
 entire dependence upon God and the necessity of con- 
 tinually exemplifying its influences in their lives, in 
 order to its propagation All this they too often lose 
 sight of, when they find other props upon which to 
 rest it. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, if such tests as these are incon- 
 sistent with the character of human governments 
 generally, and even of pernicious tendency to the re- 
 ligion which they would protect, permit me to ask in 
 conclusion, if they do not appear doubly so, when 
 applied to the government under which we live? — 
 When 1 look to the contrast which it presents with 
 that of other nations, I cannot refrain from using my 
 own language, framed for a different object, but e- 
 qually illustrative of this : — 
 
 In thy wanderings through the wood. 
 Hearer, hast thou never viewed 
 Some dell of dark and dreary hue. 
 On which o'er-archiog branches threw 
 A shade unbroken, save by ray 
 Which here and there by winding way, 
 Through scarcely parting branches strays. 
 And steals to earth through leafy maze- 
 Hast thou not marked where'er it fell, 
 How every herb of that dark dell 
 Grew bright and fair beneath its glance; 
 Their brightness serving to enhance 
 The dull, drear tints of tliose which drew 
 No draught of light to vivify their hue. 
 
 Such, sir, is your country,— .the bright green spot 
 of the earth rendered but the more brilliant by the 
 dark, dreary shade around it : and why sir, let me 
 ask you and this House, why is it thus bright and 
 dazzling ? It is not to be found in the fact that we 
 have promulgated any new doctrines in relation to 
 civil, political or religious rights. It is not to be found 
 in the fact that we are in the actual enjoyment of ci- 
 
( 8-i ) 
 
 Til libeit^^ It is not that our persons are aetuallj^ 
 exempt from insult and our property unmolested by 
 the hand of unlicensed violence. 
 
 Tins is that of which, as I have elsewhere observ- 
 ed, the meanest citizen of Europe or Asia, in some 
 of its most oppressed and degraded sections, may 
 boast in common ^vith us. But the great and lead- 
 ing distinction between our country and others is, 
 that what with them is a mere matter of indulgence, 
 resting solely upon the personal virtues of those in 
 authority over them, or springing from the compa- 
 rative insignificance of the person exempt, is with 
 us a matter of right, in no degree dependent upon 
 such contingencies, and a right effectually protected 
 by the share which each of us have in the adminis- 
 tration of the government. It is not the actual en- 
 joyment of the rights of person or property that 
 constitutes what I would term '^civil liberty," but it 
 consists in the belief tlmt we enjoy such rights, and 
 in the knowledge that tlie power is resting in our 
 own hands, by which we can protect ourselves in the 
 enjoyment of them. It is political liberty alone 
 which renders our government of any value — it is 
 that alone which gives us what I would denominate 
 ** civil liberty." 
 
 All this ye have denied, or ye may with equal pro- 
 priety deny, to every citizen who will not declare 
 his belief in the christian religion. You have taken 
 away the right of holding offices, and ye may as pro- 
 perly take aw^ay the right of electing to offices. — 
 Where then is all that boasted civil liberty, which, 
 it is said, Jews and other unbelievers enjoy amongst 
 you ? It rests merely upon your good will and plea- 
 sure, a tenure which civil liberty ever did disclaim. 
 It deserves not the name of liberty, but simply that 
 of personal indulgence. You may not, it is true, 
 persecute them, in the more narrow sense of the 
 word, but what is there to inhibit you but your own 
 
( s^ ) 
 
 imrestfained dispositions ? AViiat secunly for them, 
 but that >vhieh they might find in any government? 
 
 It Avas the denial of that vei'y species of libeHy 
 which you yourselves arc refusing to your own citi- 
 zens by this test, which impelled your ancestors to 
 that spirited resistance, that gave you tlTis very con- 
 stitution. Their persons and their properly might, 
 with as much truth, have been pronounced secure as 
 those of the Jews and others amongst you at this 
 day — they enjoyed civil liberty by as durable a ten- 
 ure. What was the most prominent and material 
 part of the grievances of w hich they complained ? 
 It consisted in acts of legislation, in which they had 
 no participation. It was found in the attempt of llio 
 English Parliament to do for them what you at this 
 day are doing for the Jew s and unbelieving citizens 
 of your state, kindly saving them the trouble of giv- 
 ing their assent to laws passed in a legislative body, 
 to which they had not aclmission, but which w ere to 
 operate upon them. They did not think as gentle- 
 men of this day seem to think ; that actual enjoy- 
 ment for the moment and a right to enjoy arc syno- 
 nymous and convertible terms ; at least they cast off 
 the strong ties of parentage, and risked all the pri- 
 vations and dangers of an unequal war for the pur- 
 pose of changing the former into the latter. 
 
 Let me tell you, sir, in conclusion, that yours is 
 the only government in which Men have not deemed 
 it advisable to disguise and mask the deformity of 
 religious tests, by political reasons of some kind or 
 other, however fiimsy or transparent they may have 
 been. Yours is the only state in which they have 
 no political fig-leaf to hide their nakedness. Yours 
 is the only state, to its shame and disgrace be it con- 
 fessed, which has attempted to meddle with religi- 
 ous opinions, merely as such, in fixing the qualifica- 
 tions for civi! offices. You may upbraid the Eng- 
 lish government at your pleasure, for the extent and 
 
(86) 
 
 severity of the disqualifications she has levelled a- 
 gainst the Roman Catholic citizens of her kingdom, 
 but she lags far behind yours. In the plenitude of 
 her bloody restrictions, she was ever ashamed to a- 
 vow what some amongst us seem make a matter of 
 boast, she was ever ashamed to say, that she thus 
 disqualified them because of mere religious opinions. 
 She charged them with blending with these, politi- 
 cal doctrines and designs, incompatible with the du- 
 ties of a British citizen — She alleged that they ac- 
 knowledged the supremacy ot a foreign temporal 
 power, and she excluded them upon the same prin- 
 ciple that she excluded an aJien. 
 
 If I had not already trespassed so far upon your 
 indulgence, I could point you to the Armada, the " 
 gunpowder plot, and many occurrences of the reigns 
 of the Charleses and the Jameses, and of the first 
 jnonarchs of the Protestant succession, as furnishing 
 many plausible, if not weighty political reasons, for 
 the existence of such civil disqualifications. Your 
 own provincial government knew no other religious 
 tests than those which were introduced for the secu- 
 rity of the Protestant succession to the English 
 throne. It remained for your state government to 
 exhibit an unblushing interference with what is the 
 exclusive prerogative of God, a scrutiny into mere 
 religious opinions. 
 
 Sir, I can but too surely foretel the fate that a- 
 waits this bill ; I know but too well the result of the 
 late elections amongst you. But if its enemies should 
 be triumphant, it is a triumph over which they should 
 rather weep than rejoice. They may rest assured, 
 that the higher they exalt this idol of theirs, this 
 darling clause of our constitution, they are but lift- 
 ing it up to its fall — Its elevation will be as that of a 
 pigmy upon a pedestal, to use the expression of ano- 
 ther, which only serves to render the littleness of 
 the elevated object more conspicuous ^ it will but the 
 
( 87) 
 
 more attract to it that which it has every reason to 
 fear, the earnest and scrutinizing gaze of our citi- 
 zens ; and, sir, the shouts of the victor will not die 
 away hefore they are succeeded by the groans of the 
 vanquished. I have done. 
 
^Vftw>■^'^^A^^;^:^. 
 
 axoa.ooc:i 
 
 
 M.A.fl 'W'r^^' ;*.n 
 
 ¥mk 
 
 
 ^A'T^AAA^Hll' 
 
 '^4aA%' ,,„ 
 
 l«' ' ?^A^ 
 
 mtij^m^^s^m^ 
 
 \^l/^^'.m: 
 
 \^ A^l^f^^^f^ 
 
 *mfm^. 
 
 ^fvC,A^(, 
 
 '^/^•::^'^c.A'; 
 
 '/^iin^A^^' 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 ^ISS5&& 
 
 ^O^A.'Va A 
 
 
 ^i^^^^'