|
Oliver
Ellsworth Letter No. 7, published in the Connecticut
Courant and The American Mercury.
This
was the seventh letter of a series of letters published
anonymously under the name "a Landholder." This letter
strongly supports the constitutional prohibition against
religious tests. The series of letters was published
between November 1787 and March 1788. This letter is
a well-structured piece clearly echoing the concerns
of many of that time for the potential results of a
religious test, should one have been included in the
Constitution. Ellsworth's argument is further strengthened
by his reliance upon the test laws of England showing
that such laws are "utterly ineffectual." In fact, Ellsworth
feels that religious test laws would prevent some of
the best men from serving in public office because of
their refusal to yield their beliefs to those required
under the religious test, while admitting men with "loose
morals" who would swear to the religious test merely
for an opportunity to get into public office. Thus,
these religious tests are of no security at all, and
were wisely left out of the United States Constitution.
RJ&L
Religious Institutions Group
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 not
subject to persecution. . . .
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 admissible
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, episcopalians, 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. . . .
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
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 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.
Connecticut
Courant (Dec. 17, 1787), in Essays on the Constitution of
the United States, at 168-71 (Paul Leicester Ford ed. 1892).
|
