Part 2. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (5)

When the Federal Constitution was submitted for ratification to the private conventions, the article on the abolition of restrictions on holding public offices due to religious differences met with considerable opposition, especially in those states where such restrictions existed. Many objected that by virtue of such an article even the Roman Pope could become President of the United States, and a pamphlet even appeared supporting this objection.[1] Particularly heated debates occurred at the convention in North Carolina. Convention member Abbott said: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought to be dangerous and impolitic. It is supposed that if religious tests are not required, then pagans, deists and Mahometans may obtain offices among us, and that senators and representatives may be all pagans.”[2] Iredell replied to him, pointing to the sad results of religious tests in all ages, saying: “America has given humanity the example of thinking more modestly and soundly, that a man may be in religious feelings different from us without being a bad member of society… But it is objected that the people of America may elect representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted to offices. But how is it possible to exclude any class of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom for which we ourselves have fought so earnestly… This morning I happened to meet a pamphlet in which the author points to the great danger that the Roman Pope might be elected president. I confess this has never occurred to me before; but if the author had read all the rules conditioning the election of president, his fears might perhaps be calmed. Only a native or someone who has lived in America fourteen years can be elected president. I do not know all the rules for the election of a pope, but I think he must be taken from the college of cardinals; and probably there are many preliminary stages necessary to attain this dignity. That American native would have to have too extraordinary good fortune who, after living fourteen years in his country, went to Europe, entered a Roman order, received elevation to cardinal, then to pope, and finally was so long in the confidence of his country that he was elected president. It would be even more extraordinary if he refused the papacy for our presidency. Sir, it is impossible to treat such fears with a certain degree of seriousness… This country has already had the honor of presenting an example of civil liberty, and I hope that it will equally have the honor of showing the rest of the world the path to religious liberty as well. God grant that both continue to the end of time.”[3] Governor Johnson said: “when I heard the fears expressed that the Roman Pope might be president of the United States, I was greatly surprised. In such a case one might say also that the king of England or France, or the Turkish sultan could be elected to this office. It would be an entirely similar argument… There is also fear that Jews, Mahometans, pagans and so on might be elected to high offices in the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans or others not professing the Christian religion can never be elected to the office of president or other high office, except in one of two cases; first, this might happen if the people of America entirely abandon the Christian religion. If this should unfortunately happen, the people will elect such men as they themselves are. Another case is if persons of such a kind, regardless of their religion, acquire the trust and respect of the American people through their good conduct and deeds of virtue, then they may be elected.”[4] Member Caldwell said: “Here an invitation is given to Jews and pagans of every kind to come and settle among us. In the future this may threaten danger to the character of the United States. I think that for political reasons, gentlemen composing this constitution should not give such an invitation to Jews and pagans.” Spencer said: “Religious tests have always been the cause of persecution in all countries. Persons with a strict conscience will not accept the oath required by religious tests and will therefore be excluded from offices, although they might be as capable of fulfilling them as any member of society.”[5] Spaight, having been a representative at the Federal Convention, said: “No test is required. All men of equal ability and honesty may equally be elected to offices. Civil coercion may make men wicked, but never religious. A test would allow the dominant sect to persecute the rest.”[6] But Wilson expressed a wish that “the constitution exclude papal priests from office.”[7] Lancaster said: “Regarding religious test, if the article which excludes it only provides what had already existed in the states, I would not object to it… For my part, in examining the rules conditioning the election of president, I do not suppose that a pope could occupy the presidential chair. But we must remember that we are drafting government for millions who do not yet exist. I do not have the gift of foresight. I do not know how it will act during four or five hundred years. But it is quite true that Papists might occupy this chair, and Mahometans might hold it. I see nothing against this. In each state of the union there are, I think, limitations; so there should be in this system.”[8]

Similar debates took place in other states. At the Massachusetts convention, member Singletary declared that the constitution overthrew all privileges, “since it had no provision that government people must have any religion”; he hoped to see Christians in offices, “meanwhile according to the constitution a Papist or unbeliever is equally subject to election.”[9] Many convention members said that such a provision “was a departure from the principles of our ancestors, who came here to preserve their religion; since it admits deists, atheists and so forth into common government.” To such objections, the venerable Daniel Shute, a member of the convention, replied with an extensive speech which appears remarkable from the lips of a clergyman from the hitherto most intolerant colony and shows a great step in public consciousness toward recognition of the rights of religious conscience. He said: “The establishment of a religious test as a condition of qualification to offices in the proposed Federal Convention seems to me would lead to harmful consequences for certain persons without any benefit to all… In this great and extensive country there is and will be great diversity of feeling in religion among its inhabitants. On the proposal of a religious test, I think one should ask: who should be excluded from national trust? Whatever answer bigotry might suggest, by the dictates of honesty and equality, I think it will be—none. Far from limiting my goodwill and trust to people of my own confession in religion, I suppose and think, sir, that worthy people are found among the adherents of every confession, among Quakers, Baptists, of the English Church, Papists, and even among those who have no other guide on the path to virtue and heaven except natural religion. I am therefore forced to think that the proposed plan of government is in this regard wisely constructed; that as all have equal right to the blessings of the government under which they live and which they support, so none should be excluded from office because they are of a particular confession in religion. Probably it is supposed that the eyes of the people will be on the faithful of the earth; and, in view of their own safety, it will elect as its rulers people of known abilities, known honesty and good moral character. The Apostle Peter tells us that God does not show partiality, but in every nation receives those who fear Him and do what is right. And I know no reason why people of such character, to whatever confession of religion they might belong, caeteris paribus, with other suitable qualities, should not be accepted by the people, and why he could not use them with safety and advantage in important positions of government. The exclusion of religious test in the proposed constitution therefore clearly seems to me to merit recognition,” concluded the speaker.[10] In the same spirit spoke Major General Lincoln. But Colonel Jones “thought that rulers should believe in God or Christ,” and that, whatever abuse religious tests might suffer in England, he still thought that if “our public people were those who have good standing in the church, this would be good for the United States.”[11] Major Lusk concluded his argument about the abolition of religious test with the words that he “shudders at the mere thought that Roman Catholics, Papists and pagans might occupy office, and that Papacy and Inquisition might be established in America.”[12] The venerable Backus said: “I now ask permission to offer some thoughts on certain points in the constitution proposed to us, and will begin with the exclusion of religious test. Many seem very troubled about it; but nothing is more evident, both in reason and in Holy Scripture, than that religion is always a matter between God and individual persons; and therefore no one can establish a religious test without violating the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. Priests first seized this power under the Christian name, and then Constantine approved this practice when he adopted the profession of Christianity as the spring of state policy. And examine the history of all peoples from that day to this, and it will be clear that the establishment of religious tests was the greatest spring of tyranny in the world. And I rejoice to see how so many gentlemen now yield their rights of conscience in this great and important matter. Some serious-minded people see danger in the fact that if all religious tests are excluded, Congress might thereafter establish Papacy or some other tyrannical form of worship; but one can be fully assured that no such form of worship can be established and without any religious test.”[13] The same article was discussed, though more briefly, at the conventions of Virginia and Connecticut and in the legislative assembly of South Carolina, and after the final ratification of the constitution the principle of this article appeared to receive universal recognition.[14]

In discussing the Federal Constitution at the private conventions, the remarkable fact was revealed that the general constitution in the religious question took a different point of view compared with the private constitutions of individual states. The latter, as we saw above, decisively proclaimed freedom of religious conscience, separation of religion from the state, but retained religious tests for holding public offices. Meanwhile, the Federal Constitution abolished religious tests and passed in silence the general question of the relationship of the state to religion. Moreover, Congress not merely passed this question in silence, but directly rejected its positive resolution. In discussing the relationship of religion to the state, member Pinckney proposed to introduce into the Constitution of the United States an ordinance by which “the legislative assembly of the United States shall not make any law on the subject of religion.” This proposal fully corresponded to the spirit of the ordinances of private constitutions regarding religion and aimed at the complete exclusion of religion from the jurisdiction of the Union state. But Congress rejected it and adopted the proposal of the same member on the abolition of religious tests.[15]

Thus Congress in essence eliminated only the external sharp mark of inequality of different confessions before the state, but avoided giving a complete renunciation of interference in religious matters, that is, in other words, did not dare to fully separate the state from religion. Given the existing state of the constitution, Congress did not lose the power to make legislative ordinances in the field of religion; it could establish a state religion, and in view of the supposed possibility of the Roman Pope becoming president, such a state religion could even become the hated Roman Catholic Church. Such a gap in the Federal Constitution was noticed by many private conventions, which were even disturbed to recognize it in this form, and accompanied their ratification with the expression of desire for appropriate amendment to the constitution. The conventions of New York, New Hampshire and Virginia, having recognized the constitution, insisted on the necessity of an amendment to it concerning the complete separation of religion from the state. The convention of North Carolina in the first session refused to recognize the constitution altogether, and subsequently accompanied its ratification with the expression of desire for appropriate correction. The same did the convention of Rhode Island.[16] The New York Convention recommended such an amendment: “no religious sect or community should be preferred or established by law in preference to others.”[17] Virginia, North Carolina and Rhode Island also proposed that “no separate religious sect or community be preferred by law in preference to others.”[18] The Maryland Convention expressed as desirable such an ordinance that “no national religion be established by law.”[19] New Hampshire recommended such an amendment: “Congress shall not make any laws concerning religion, or infringe on the rights of conscience.”[20] As these declarations of private conventions, so too many internal public and political causes led to the fact that Congress resolved to introduce an amendment to the constitution concerning the complete separation of religion from the state, and this amendment, approved in 1791, appeared in the following form: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[21]