In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1. The Test Oath The question of religion in its connections with civil go vernment was first discussed in the convention on December 4. At issue was the test oath—a declaration of belief in the Christian religion—required of all elective officials. The select committee on this chapter of the constitution called for abolition of the oath.Daniel Webster, the chairman, opened the debate with a justification of the change on grounds of expediency rather than of right. The thirty-eight-year-old Webster, though a native of Massachusetts, had not yet embarked on his distinguished political career in that state. He had moved to Boston to practice law in 1816,having served for several years in Washington as a New Hampshire Congressman. He apparently held no firm convictions on the question before the convention. The speakers who f ollowed him did, however, James Prince, of Boston, condemned the test oath on the pr inciples of religious liberty. Joseph Tuckerman, a Unitarian minister who later became famous for his ministry to the poor of Boston , held that a Christian people had a right to demand Christian rulers. James T. Austin, a prominent Boston attorney, Republican, and legislator, concisely and cogently defended the resolution. Mr. Webst er . It is obvious that the principal alteration,proposed by the first resolution, is the omission of the declaration of belief in the Christian religion, as a qualification for office, in the cases of the governor, lieutenant governor, counsellors and members of the L egislature. I shall content From Journal of Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of Delegates, Chosen to Revise the Constitution of Massachusetts (Boston, 1853),pp. 160–67 , 169–7 1,173–7 4. 20 The Massachusetts Convention myself on this occasion with stating, shortly and generally, the sentiments of the select committee as I understand them on the subject of this resolution .Two questions naturally present themselves.In the first place; have the people a right, if in their judgment the secur ity of their gov ernment and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualifi cation or condition of offi ce? On this question , a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a r ight. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the f ree gift of the people. They may grant, or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms, and with what conditions, they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office.This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to hav e a right to that, which others may withhold f rom him, at pleasure. There are certain rights, no doubt, which the whole people—or the government as representing the whole people—owe to each individual, in return for that obedience, and personal service, and proportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to the government . These rights are stated with suffi cient accuracy in the tenth ar ticle of the bill of r ights in this constitution: “Each individual in societ y has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws. ” Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have, of course, a right to regulate it, by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office, respecting age, property, residence, &c. But if office, merely as such, were a right, which each individual under the social compact was entitled toclaim, all these qualifications would be indefensible.The acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation.The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate, is due to all, and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age , property, or residence in the S tate...

Share