It Would Have Marked A Want Of

The People Can Never Willfully Betray Their Own Interests: But They May Possibly Be Betrayed By The Representatives Of The People; And The Danger Will Be Evidently Greater Where The Whole Legislative Trust Is Lodged In The Hands Of One Body Of Men, Than Where The Concurrence Of Separate And Dissimilar Bodies Is Required In Every Public Act.

[religious Liberty Was] In Its Nature An Inalienable Right ... Because The Opinions Of Men, Depending Only Upon The Evidence Contemplated By Their Minds, Cannot Follow The Dictates Of Other Men.

Learned Institutions Ought To Be Favorite Objects With Every Free People. They Throw That Light Over The Public Mind Which Is The Best Security Against Crafty And Dangerous Encroachments On The Public Liberty.

The Better Proof Of Reverence For That Holy Name Would Be Not To Profane It By Making It A Topic Of Legislative Discussion.

The Invasion Of Private Rights Is Chiefly To Be Apprehended, Not From Acts Of Government Contrary To The Sense Of Its Constituents, But From Acts In Which The Government Is The Mere Instrument Of The Major Number Of The Constituents.