RELIGIOUS TESTS, PART TWO

I have previously posted defenses of the "no religious test" clause of Article VI of the Constitution, all from Part One of The Debates. Here are a few from Part Two.

Virginia Convention
June 1788
The Debate, Part Two, pp. 752-53

Zachariah Johnson, "of the Middle Rank," Favors Ratification Without Previous Amemdments
June 25, 1788

We are also told, that religion is not secured - that religious tests are not required. - You will find that the exclusion of tests, will strongly tend to establish religious freedom. If tests were required - and if the Church of England or any other were established, I might be excluded from any office under the Government, because my conscience might not permit me to take the test required. The diversity of opinions and variety of sects in the United States, have justly been reckoned a great security with respect to religious liberty.

North Carolina Convention
July 1788
The Debate, Part Two, pp. 902-907

Henry Abbot and James Iredell Debate the Ban on Religious Tests: Could Not the Pope Be President?
July 30, 1788

Mr. Iredell— ... I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils the most pernicious consequences to society. ... Under the colour of religious tests the utmost cruelties have been exercised. ... The consequence of intolerant spirit has been, that each church has in turn set if up against every other, and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably; that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society.

[SNIP]

This article is calculated to secure universal relgious liberty, by putting all sects on a level, the only way to prevent persecution.

North Carolina Convention
July 1788
The Debate, Part Two, pp. 909-909

Rev. David Caldwell and Samuel Spencer Continue the Debate on Religious Toleration
July 30, 1788

Mr. Spencer was an advocate for securing every unalienable right, and that of worshipping God according to the dictates of conscience in particular. He therefore thought that no one particular religion should be established. Religious tests, said he, have been the foundation of persecutions in all countries. ... But in this case as there is not a religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connexion with temporal authority, and no kind of oppression can take place.