Nearly all the branches of the Christian Church were then represented in America. New England was settled by Congregationalists; Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, by Episcopalians; New York, by Dutch Reformed, followed by Episcopalians; Rhode Island, by Baptists; Pennsylvania, by Quakers; Maryland, by Roman Catholics; while Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, German Reformed, French Huguenots, Moravians, Mennonites, etc., were scattered through several colonies. In some States there was an established church; in others the mixed system of toleration prevailed. The Baptists and Quakers, who were victims of persecution and nurslings of adversity, professed full religious freedom as an article of their creed. All colonies, with the effectual aid of the churches and clergy, had taken part in the achievement of national independence, and had an equal claim to the protection of their rights and institutions by the national government.

The framers of the Constitution, therefore, had no right and no intention to interfere with the religion of the citizens of any State, or to discriminate between denominations; their only just and wise course was to leave the subject of religion with the several States, to put all churches on an equal footing before the national law, and to secure to them equal protection. Liberty of all is the best guarantee of the liberty of each.

North America was predestined from the very beginning for the largest religious and civil freedom, however imperfectly it was understood by the first settlers. It offered a hospitable home to emigrants of all nations and creeds. The great statesmen of the Philadelphia Convention recognized this providential destiny, and adapted the Constitution to it. They could not do otherwise. To assume the control of religion in any shape, except by way of protection, would have been an act of usurpation, and been stoutly resisted by all the States.

Thus Congress was led by Providence to establish a new system, which differed from that of Europe and the Colonies, and set an example to the several States for imitation.

г

1

THE ACTION OF THE STATE CONVENTIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

The conventions of the several States, which were held in 1787 and 1788 for the ratification of the Federal Constitution, reflect the conflicting sentiments then entertained on the question of religious tests. At present nobody doubts the wisdom of that clause in the Constitution which removes such tests. No provisions of the Constitution of the United States are more familiar to us," says a learned American historian,' " and more clearly express the universal sentiment of the American people, or are in more perfect harmony with the historic consciousness of the nation, than those which forbid the national government to establish any form of religion or to prescribe any religious test as a qualification for office held under its authority. Almost every other general principle of government embodied in that instrument has been discussed and argued about, and its application in particular cases resisted and questioned, until the intention of those who framed it seems lost in the Serbonian bog of controversy; yet no one has ever denied the rightfulness of the principle of religious liberty laid down in the Constitution."

But before the adoption of that instrument there was a wide difference of opinion on this, as well as on other articles. The exclusion of religious tests from qualification for public office under the general government was opposed in those States which required such tests, under the apprehension that without them the federal government might pass into the hands of Roman Catholics, Jews, and infidels. Even the Pope of Rome, said a delegate from North Carolina, might become President of the United States! On the other hand, several States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments guaranteeing religious freedom and other fundamental rights.

The opposition to the abolition of religious tests was strongest in Massachusetts, where Congregationalism was 1 Dr. Charles Stillé, 'Religious Tests in Provincial Pennsylvania." A paper read before the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, November 9, 1885.

the established church. Major Lusk, a delegate to the convention of that State, "shuddered at the idea that Romanists and pagans might be introduced into office, and that Popery and the Inquisition may be established in America." But the Rev. Mr. Backus, in answer to this objection, remarked: "Nothing is more evident, both in reason and the Holy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and, therefore, no man or men can impose any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Imposing of religious tests has been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world. Some serious minds discover a concern lest if all religious tests should be excluded the Congress would hereafter establish Popery or some other tyrannical way of worship. But it is most certain that no such way of worship can be established without any religious tests.' The same clergyman spoke strongly against slavery, which "grows more and more odious in the world," and expressed the hope that, though it was not struck with apoplexy by the proposed Constitution, it would die with consumption by the prohibition of the importation of slaves after a certain date (1808). The Rev. Mr. Shute was equally pronounced in his defence of the clause. "To establish a religious test," he said," as a qualification for offices would be attended with injurious consequences to some individuals, and with no advantage to the whole. Unprincipled and dishonest men will not hesitate to subscribe to any thing. Honest men alone, however well qualified to serve the public, would be excluded by the test, and their country be deprived of the benefit of their abilities. In this great and extensive empire there is, and will be, a great variety of sentiments in religion among its inhabitants. . Whatever answer bigotry may suggest, the dictates of candor and equity will be: no religious tests. . . . I believe that there are worthy characters among men of every denomination-among Quakers, Baptists, the Church of England, 2 Ibid., II. 148 sq.

3

1 Elliot's "Debates," vol. II. 148.

3 Ibid., II. 118 sq.

the Papists, and even among those who have no other guide in the way of virtue and heaven than the dictates of natural religion. The Apostle Peter tells us that God is no respecter of persons, but, in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him. And I know of no reason why men of such a character, in a community of whatever denomination in religion, cæteris paribus, with other suitable qualifications, should not be acceptable to the people, and why they may not be employed by them with safety and advantage in the important offices of government." The Rev. Mr. Payson spoke in the same strain, and insisted that "human tribunals for the consciences of men are impious encroachments upon the prerogatives of God." It is very evident that these Congregational ministers of the gospel represented the true American spirit in the convention, rather than Major Lusk and Colonel Jones, who favored religious tests. The Convention of Massachusetts ratified the Constitution, February 7, 1788, by a majority of 19 (187 to 168), with proposition of 9 alternatives and provisions which, however, do not include religious liberty, unless it be implied in the first proposition: "That it be explicitly understood that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."

1

In the Convention of North Carolina, held July, 1788, the same fear was expressed, that, without some religious tests, Jews, infidels, and Papists might get into offices of trust, but Mr. Iredell said, that " under the color of religious tests the utmost cruelties have been exercised," and that America has set an example "of moderation and general religious liberty. Happily no sect here is superior to another. long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions with which other countries have been torn." Among the twenty amendments proposed by North Carolina as a “declaration of rights," and put on record, the last is this, which literally agrees with one proposed by Virginia :

1 Ibid., ii. 120.

As

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and, therefore, all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." 1

North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution till November 21, 1789.

In Virginia the exclusion of religious tests was regarded by the advanced liberal party as quite insufficient, and a more explicit guarantee against the establishment of a religion was demanded. In that State the Church of England had been disestablished, and full liberty secured to all forms of belief, by an act of October, 1785, two years before the framing of the Federal Constitution."

This act was brought about by the combined influence of the dissenters (Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, etc.), who formed at that time two thirds of the population, and the political school of Jefferson, who was of Episcopalian descent, but had early imbibed the Voltaireian philosophy of toleration, and during his residence in Paris (1784-1789) had intimately associated with the leaders of French infidelity. He composed the Declaration of Independence (1776), but had nothing to do with the framing of the Federal Constitution (being then absent in France). He was opposed to centralization, both as Secretary of State, in Washington's first cabinet, and, with more moderation, as President. He founded the Anti-Federalist party and the State Rights theory, which afterwards logically developed into the Nullifica1 Elliot, vol. iv. 242, 244. Comp. p. 192, and iii. 659.

"That act, after fully setting forth strong arguments against state-churchism and intolerance, declares: "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." Collection of the Laws of Virginia by W. W. Hening," vol. xii. p. 84 (Richmond, 1823). Ten years before, in 1776, the oppressive acts against dissenters had been repealed.