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… .
… MR. AUSTIN… . He did not agree with the chairman of the select committee who reported the resolution, that we had a right to demand this qualification. On the contrary he held that we had no right to demand it—that every one who contributes to the expenses of government and bears his share of the public burthens, has a right to be a candidate for popular favor. This was the general rule. He admitted there were exceptions. We have the right to demand the qualifications of age, property and residence, because they are necessary to insure the proper performance of the duties of the office. But this qualification related to opinions which do not bear upon the duties of government and are not connected with the public safety. This was the distinction—if we pass this line there is no place to stop. No one would say that a belief in Christianity was indispensable in legislators. If the laws would not be well made—if the government could not be carried on—if society would be in danger without a declaration of belief in the doctrines of Christianity, then this would be within the exceptions to the general rule. But it is argued that although it is not necessary for the preservation of civil society, it is necessary to show our respect for the institutions of Christianity. The first is a legitimate purpose, the other an unlawful one. If it was agreed that it was proper that all those who held public offices should believe in the Christian religion, he was willing to say that he held in little respect the judgment of any one who in the present enlightened state of society, and with the present means of information, should not be satisfied with the evidences of Christianity, and still less the integrity of any one who should disbelieve without examination. But this was merely his opinion as an individual. And who should judge the people—it is their right—let them judge—give them means of information. But place him who believes, and him who sneers at religion, side by side as candidates for office, and let the people decide between them. They may be trusted to decide correctly. This is the theory of our government. He proceeded to the question of expediency. Has the test a good tendency? The test was relied upon as a security, and the people have sometimes been imposed upon, because they supposed that the government would look to the object. But the test was evaded, and the laws brought into contempt. The Christian religion needs not oaths and tests to protect it any more than it does force. Its empire will be maintained and extended by neither the one nor the other, but the only aid which can be given to secure its triumph, is the diffusion of knowledge. It was argued that the test being a part of the present constitution, it ought not to be taken out. By taking it from the constitution we no more violate the principles adopted by the framers of this instrument, than they violated principles previously established. In 1631, it was ordained that no one should be a freeman, and have the right of voting, who was not a church member. This he contended was the true theory if we would have a religious test. We should go to the source—stand at the ballot box, and as each individual came with his vote in his left hand, require him to hold up his right, and swear to his belief in the Christian religion. This was the system of our ancestors, but it was afterwards abolished, and in 1651 they adopted a stricter rule of exclusion. They required that the voter should not only be a member of the church, but should believe in the Christian religion, as it was proclaimed by the orthodox writers of the day. At the time the constitution was adopted, by a belief in the Christian religion was meant an adherence to the orthodox church of the day. This interpretation would exclude very many whom at the present day gentlemen would not exclude. By taking out this provision of the constitution, we adopt the spirit of those who framed that instrument. It was not very discreditable to them, if, after forty years’ experience of the test, it should be found inapplicable to our present condition, and he did not think that in rejecting it we should show any disrespect to them or to religion itself. We only say it is unnecessary to mix the affairs of church and state… .