derived our origin, and where, in addition to a test act, the most solemn of the Christian ordinances are obliged to be adhered to as an additional qualification for office—there is either an almost total evasion, or the compliance is often made under circumstances which, while it gives pain to many a serious Christian, excites mirth in the breast of every infidel. I also believe the qualifications of candidates ought to be confided to the electors, who generally take them from the neighborhood, and will therefore be the best judges of their moral and mental powers, and should it unfortunately happen that an unfit citizen has been introduced into office—the electors, so long as virtue, patriotism and Christianity predominate, will avail themselves of the frequency of elections to obtain a remedy by a change of character; and that the evil will be much sooner remedied than if it is left to be done through the crucible of a test act. I moreover think, that while the scriptures seem to reprobate the presumption of demanding, and the fallacy of trusting, to mere professions of faith, they plainly point to the policy of preferring a trust in moral worth and excellence… . In making the aforegoing observations, I hope it will not be considered as in any manner intending to weaken the cause of Christianity or of aiding the cause of infidelity. I make them because I verily believe, in forming or revising the social compact, we ought wholly to exclude every principle which by possible construction may interfere with the consciences of men, thereby leaving them and their religious opinions where alone they ought to be left, “to Him who searcheth the heart and knows our inmost thoughts.”2 Whether the individual has or has not formed a correct religious opinion is nothing to us, as civilians.
“For modes of faith, let graceless zealots fight,
His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right.”3
Indeed, sir, I think that so far from injuring of the Christian cause, I am aiding it—when doubting men are left to the freedom of their own wills, they will be the more apt to listen to the arguments in support of Christianity than when shackled by test acts, or any other interference of the civil government… . Believing then sir, as I verily do, that to retain any religious test, however liberal, is neither required for the safety of religion, nor for the safety of the Commonwealth; that it is unjust in principle—fallacious as to the effect to be produced—pernicious in its consequences—and an unwarrantable assumption of the unalienable rights of a citizen, and also that it is repugnant to one of the most essential moral precepts of Christianity which inculcates, “that whatsoever I would that men should do unto me, this I ought to do unto them”; I hope the principle to which I have alluded will be left out of the constitution, now that we are called to revise it… .
… MR. TUCKERMAN of Chelsea observed that he supposed the question now before the committee to be, whether the religious test in the constitution of 1780, shall be retained, or whether the resolutions now proposed by the select committee shall be adopted. He observed that, at the hazard of being accused of bigotry, and narrowness of mind, he must take the ground of defence of the constitution on this subject, as it now stands. He said that, in reflecting upon the test, he had not anticipated the suggestion of any doubt concerning the right, should this Convention have the disposition, to retain it. The constitution declares every man to be eligible to all the high offices of the State, on the condition of certain prescribed qualifications. Yet if there was any probability that any people of color would be elected to fill either of these offices, he presumed that no doubt would be felt, either as to the right, or the propriety, of their exclusion. There would, without doubt, be a provision in the constitution for their exclusion; or, it would be required, that these offices should be holden only by the white inhabitants of the Commonwealth. And if, as is without doubt a fact, ninety-nine out of a hundred of the people of this Commonwealth are in their faith Christians, it seems to be as unquestionable as any one of the rights of a people, to require that their rulers shall, in their faith, be Christians… . He would say no more on the subject of the right. He thought that, on no good ground, it could be contested. The great questions then on the subject regard the expediency of abolishing the existing test, and the propriety of the substitution proposed in the resolution. On the question of giving up the test, he remarked, that an argument for its abolition was, that the State would thus obtain, in its high and important offices, the talents of a few men, who do not believe the Christian religion. He replied, that during forty years in which this test has stood in our constitution, we have never wanted men, in sufficient abundance, for all the offices in which it is required. And that no apprehension can be felt, whether we shall continue to have candidates enough, who will not shrink from the test, for every department of government which they can be called to fill. The test is so very broad, that it excludes no one of all the denominations of Christians. He remarked, that we should be exposed to much confusion and error on this subject, if we should consider the test now required, as having any relation to the very objectionable tests which have sometimes been required. The test established by the English constitution, for example, required a belief of the thirty-nine articles of the church of England. He would resist, with all the energy of the small powers that he possessed, any definition in the constitution, of what Christianity is, as a faith to be required of those who may be elected to office; and had he not heard the suggestion of the honorable chairman of the select committee, that there were gentlemen in that committee who thought that a solemn declaration of belief of the Christian religion could be made by those only, who were assured also of an eternal interest in the promises of our religion, he should have thought that every man, who had been convinced by evidence of the truth of this religion, and who felt the divine authority of its doctrines and precepts, would conscientiously have made this declaration. He respected the opinions of gentlemen, who gave this construction to the language of the test; though he could not think the language to be fairly susceptible of this import. As he understood the declaration, it implied only that belief, which is a security to the people, that their rulers receive the great fundamental principles, which are the best security of good laws, and of a good administration of government. He said that, in his view, the most beautiful feature of those parts of our present constitution, which concern religion, is, that it recognizes Christianity as the religion of the State, in the great principles in which its various sects agree; leaving unnoticed those in which they differ. Any man therefore, he thought, who believes that Christianity is a divine revelation, can make the declaration now required, and comprehend in that declaration, all that it is intended to embrace.
On the question of the propriety of abolishing the test, he said, his objections were still more solemn. Either the religion of Jesus Christ is from God or it is not. Either we are accountable to God for all our means and opportunities of advancing the interests of this religion, or we are not. If our religion be from God, and if it be our duty, by all means which are consistent with its spirit, to promote its progress, it is a question on which we ought to pause, whether we shall open the door of office indiscriminately to those who believe, and to those who reject, this revelation of God’s will. We all know the descending influence of example. If men should be elevated to high and responsible stations, who are enemies of Christianity, may we not look with some apprehension to the consequences? Sir, if this test had not been established in 1780, I am not certain that I should now have been disposed to advocate it; I might have felt a sufficient security in the election of Christian magistrates without it. But it has now become associated with the sentiments, and habits, and feelings of forty years; and if you now remove it, you declare to the people, and they will not misunderstand the declaration,—that you do not deem it to be of importance that our magistrates should be Christians. Changes which affect long established associations should be made very cautiously. The gentleman from Boston cites to us the words of our Lord, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; I hope that we shall feel the importance of the precept. But my New Testament does not add, “leave to God the things that are God’s.” I am told to render to God the things that are God’s. And, sir, we owe it to God, to Christ, and to our own souls, to do what we may for the extension and security of our faith as Christians; and to give our influence, whatever it may be, to the election of magistrates, who will make laws, and administer justice, in the spirit of Christianity. On these grounds I am opposed to the resolutions of the committee; and wish that the test, from which no inconvenience has yet been experienced, may be retained in the constitution… .
