Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages
for information, have objected against that clause in
the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under the United States. They have been afraid that
this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen,
the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution,
and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty.
We are almost the only people in the world, who have
a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature.
In our country every man has a right to worship God in
that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he
be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties
or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in
other words, he is no subject to persecution.

[Volume 4, Page 640]

But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is,
far different. Systems of religious error have been
adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of
tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors.
When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and
the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way
to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their
religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way
persecution became general throughout Europe. It was
the universal opinion that one religion must be established
by law; and that all who differed in their religious opinions,
must suffer the vengeance of persecution. In pursuance
of this opinion, when popery was abolished in England,
and the Church of England was established in its
stead, severe penalities were inflicted upon all who dissented
from the established church. In the time of the civil
wars, in the reign of Charles I., the presbyterians got the
upper hand, and inflicted legal penalties upon all who differed
from them in their sentiments respecting religious
doctrines and discipline. When Charles II, was restored,
the Church of England was likewise restored, and the
presbyterians and other dissenters were laid under legal
penalties and incapacities. It was in this reign, that a religious
test was established as a qualification for office; that
is, a law was made requiring all officers civil and military
(among other things) to receive the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of
England, written [within?] six months after their admission
to office under the penalty of 500£ and disability to hold
the office. And by another statute of the same reign, no
person was capable of being elected to any office relating
to the government of any city or corporation, unless,
within a twelvemonth before, he had received the sacrament
according to the rites of the Church of England. The
pretence for making these severe laws, by which all but
churchmen were made incapable of any office civil or military,
was to exclude the papists; but the real design was to
exclude the protestant dissenters. From this account of
test-laws, there arises an unfavorable presumption against
them. But if we consider the nature of them and the effects
which they are calculated to produce, we shall find
that they are useless, tyrannical, and peculiarly unfit for
the people of this country.

A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be
made, relating to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament
according to certain rites and forms, or declaring
one's belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining
whether his religious opinions are such, that he is
admissable to a publick office. A test in favour of any one
denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd
in the United States. If it were in favour of either
congregationalists, presbyterians, episcopalions, baptists,
or quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths
of the American citizens for any publick office; and thus
degrade them from the rank of freemen. There need no
argument to prove that the majority of our citizens would
never submit to this indignity.

If any test-act were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable
would be one, requiring all persons appointed to
office to declare at the time of their admission, their belief
in the being of a God, and in the divine authority of the
scriptures. In favour of such a test, it may be said, that one
who believes these great truths, will not be so likely to violate
his obligations to his country, as one who disbelieves
them; we may have greater confidence in his integrity. But
I answer: His making a declaration of such a belief is no
security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled
man, who believes neither the word nor the being of God;
and to be governed merely by selfish motives; how easy is
it for him to dissemble! how easy is it for him to make a
public declaration of his belief in the creed which the law
prescribes; and excuse himself by calling it a mere formality.
This is the case with the test-laws and creeds in England.
The most abandoned characters partake of the sacrament,
in order to qualify themselves for public employments.
The clergy are obliged by law to administer the ordinance
unto them, and thus prostitute the most sacred
office of religion, for it is a civil right in the party to receive
the sacrament. In that country, subscribing to the
thirty-nine articles is a test for administration into holy orders.
And it is a fact, that many of the clergy do this, when
at the same time they totally disbelieve several of the doctrines
contained in them. In short, test-laws are utterly ineffectual:
they are no security at all; because men of loose
principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If
they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of
principle, who will rather suffer an injury, than act contrary
to the dictates of their consciences. If we mean to
have those appointed to public offices, who are sincere
friends to religion, we, the people who appoint them, must
take care to choose such characters; and not rely upon
such cob-web barriers as test-laws are.

But to come to the true principle by which this question
ought to be determined: The business of a civil government
is to protect the citizen in his rights, to defend the
community from hostile powers, and to promote the general
welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle
with the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself
as a good citizen, I am accountable, not to man, but to
God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the
manner in which I worship the supreme being. If such
had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they
had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and
nurse of error, with her bloody axe and flaming hand,
would never have turned so great a part of the world into
a field of blood.

But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would
not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to
interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit
and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the
open practice of these is of evil example and detriment.
For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against
drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed
atheism. But in this state, we have never thought it expedient
to adopt a test-law; and yet I sincerely believe we
have as great a proportion of religion and morality, as they
have in England, where every person who holds a public
office, must either be a saint by law, or a hypocrite by
practice. A test-law is the parent of hypocrisy, and the offspring
of error and the spirit of persecution. Legislatures [Volume 4, Page 641]
have no right to set up an inquisition, and examine into
the private opinions of men. Test-laws are useless and ineffectual,
unjust and tyrannical; therefore the Convention
have done wisely in excluding this engine of persecution,
and providing that no religious test shall ever be required.