in this constitution: “Each individual in society has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws.” Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have, of course, a right to regulate it, by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office, respecting age, property, residence, &c. But if office, merely as such, were a right, which each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be indefensible. The acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate, is due to all, and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State. These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as qualifications for office, on the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right, but rests in the confidence and good will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to me too plain to be questioned, that the right of office is a matter of discretion, and option, and can never be claimed by any man, on the ground of obligation… . However clear the right be, (and I can hardly suppose any gentleman will dispute it) the expediency of retaining the declaration is a more difficult question. It is said not to be necessary, because in this Commonwealth, ninety-nine out of every hundred of the inhabitants profess to believe in the Christian religion. It is sufficiently certain, therefore, that persons of this description, and none others, will ordinarily be chosen to places of public trust. There is as much security, it is said, on this subject, as the necessity of the case requires. And as there is a sort of opprobrium—a marking out for observation and censorious remark, a single individual, or a very few individuals, who may not be able to make the declaration, it is an act, if not of injustice, yet of unkindness, and of unnecessary rigor to call on such individuals to make the declaration. There is, also, another class of objections which has been stated. It has been said that there are many very devout and serious persons—persons who esteem the Christian religion to be above all price—to whom, nevertheless, the terms of this declaration seem somewhat too strong and intense. They seem, to these persons, to require the declaration of that faith which is deemed essential to personal salvation; and therefore not at all fit to be adopted by those who profess a belief in Christianity, merely in a more popular and general sense. It certainly appears to me that this is a mistaken interpretation of the terms; that they imply only a general assent to the truth of the Christian revelation, and, at most, to the supernatural occurrences which establish its authenticity. There may, however, and there appears to be, conscience in this objection; and all conscience ought to be respected. I was not aware, before I attended the discussions in the committee, of the extent to which this objection prevailed… . For my own part, finding this declaration in the constitution, and hearing of no practical evil resulting from it, I should have been willing to retain it; unless considerable objection had been expressed to it. If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not consider it, however, essential to retain it, as there is another part of the constitution which recognizes in the fullest manner the benefits which civil society derives from those Christian institutions which cherish piety, morality and religion. I am conscious, that we should not strike out of the constitution all recognition of the Christian religion. I am desirous, in so solemn a transaction as the establishment of a constitution, that we should keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment to Christianity;—not, indeed, to any of its peculiar forms, but to its general principles.
MR. PRINCE… . There are, said Mr. P., two distinct rights belonging to man—UNALIENABLE and NATURAL—among those of the first class are the rights of conscience in all matters of religion. Now I hold that religion is a matter exclusively between God and the individual; and “the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason or conviction; and thus, I repeat it, this right is in its nature an unalienable right, because it depends on the evidence as it strikes his mind; and consequently the result is what is his duty towards his Creator.” And therefore, as man owes supreme allegiance to God, as the Creator, and as the undivided governor of the universe, he cannot absolve himself, nor can others absolve him from this supreme allegiance; and hence, on entering into a social compact, the rights he gives up, and the powers he delegates must be tributary to, and in subordination to this high and first allegiance—and among the first enumeration of rights and duties in the present constitution of the Commonwealth, this principle is recognized: “It is the duty and the right of all men (says the constitution) to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and preserver of the universe, and none shall be molested or restrained for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, nor for his religious professions or sentiments.” This is reasonable, wise and just. In forming or revising the social compact, let us then take heed, that we do not insert or retain any principle, which by possible construction may interfere with, or abridge such sacred, such inestimable rights by an inquiry into opinions for which man is only accountable to his God. Social duties are between man and man. Religious duties are between God and the individual. While we are solicitous to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”—take heed, I beseech you, that “you leave unto God, the things that are God’s.” Nor will the argument hold good that because during the forty years the test has been engrafted into and been in force under the present constitution, no extensive evils have presented themselves, and therefore it is inexpedient to expunge it from the constitution, lest it might be construed as an indirect abandonment of the cause of Christianity. On revising the constitution, every unnecessary point, even the most trivial, ought to be stricken out, and every possible evil guarded against. The American revolution fully recognizes this principle;—it was not the pressure of evils actually existing which induced the patriots of the revolution to resist the encroachments of Great Britain, but it was a dread of the consequences which they believed would result from submitting to the doctrines advanced by the mother country—hence, I repeat it, it is not from the multiplicity of cases which have occurred, whereby men of sterling integrity, pure morals and great strength of intellect may have been precluded from participating either in the advantages of office, or assisting in the public councils, but it is that by continuing this principle in the constitution you may preclude them… . I submit then the following positions, first, admitting the right, (which, however, I do not) of the citizens when forming a social compact to prescribe such terms as a majority may deem expedient and proper, yet I hold it to be unjust to introduce a principle into the compact which, while it provides that the individual shall afford his personal aid, and risk his life for the common defence and yield up all his property (if need be) for the maintenance of the government and its laws, yet virtually precludes him from participating in any of the advantages resulting from offices, or from any share in the administration of the government, because he differs on a subject with which society has but a doubtful right to interfere; although in point of morality and strength of intellect he shines as “a star of the first magnitude.” Secondly—I hold that this act of injustice toward the individual is neither politic nor expedient; first, because as before observed, it may deprive society of talent and moral excellence, which should always be secured and cherished as one of the best means of preserving the prosperity of the Commonwealth; and secondly, while it may thus exclude men possessing such useful and amiable qualification, yet it is no effectual safeguard whereby to keep out ambitious, unprincipled men from office, or a seat in the public councils. And, I moreover hold, that the cause of Christianity doth not require such a qualification to support it. This religion is founded on a rock and supported by a power which humanity cannot affect—it does not want the secular arm to defend it—its divine origin, and its own intrinsic merit, ever have been, and ever will be, its firmest support. What have the powers of the world to do with such a religion? Experience has demonstrated that when left to the umpire of reason and of argument, it has triumphed the most brilliantly over the attacks of infidelity. Inquisitions, test acts and fanaticism, with their gibbets—their racks—and their faggots, may produce martyrs and hypocrites, but such writers as Watson1 and Paley have displayed its true character by arguments, which have put infidelity in the entire back ground. And may I not add from experience that in those countries where there are religious tests, they have not been productive of any
