Introduction
|
Memorial and Remonstrance
digitized slide.
Click for larger view.
|
The Anglican hierarchy existing
in Virginia prior to the Revolution was abolished by an early
act of the Independent Legislature. In the year 1785, a bill was
introduced under the auspices of Mr. Henry, imposing a general
tax for the support of "Teachers of the Christian Religion."
It made a progress, threatening a majority in its favor. As an
expedient to defeat it, we proposed that it should be postponed
to another session, and printed in the meantime for public consideration.
Such an appeal in a case so important and so unforeseen could
not be resisted. With a view to arouse the people, it was thought
proper that a memorial should be drawn up, the task being assigned
to me, to be printed and circulated throughout the State for a
general signature. The experiment succeeded. The memorial was
so extensively signed by the various religious sects, including
a considerable portion of the old hierarchy, that the projected
innovation was crushed, and under the influence of the popular
sentiment thus called forth, the well-known Bill prepared by Mr.
Jefferson, for "Establishing Religious freedom," passed
into a law, as it now stands in our code of statutes.
— Madison: Letter to General
LaFayette, November 1826
June 20, 1785
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth,
having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order
of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill
establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,"
and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions
of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful
members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare
the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against
the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a
fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty
which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it,
can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or
violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to
the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right
of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is
in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because
the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated
by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It
is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men,
is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to
render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes
to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order
of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.
Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society,
he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe:
And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance
to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters
of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of
Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.
True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which
may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will
of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass
on the rights of the minority.
2. Because Religion be exempt
from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it
be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but
the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction
is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the
coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard
to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires
not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department
of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither
of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends
the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an
encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their
authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed
by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived
from them, and are slaves.
3. Because it is proper to
take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this
prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of
the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men
of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself
by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw
all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences
by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon
to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can
establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may
establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians,
in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which
can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property
for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform
to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. Because the Bill violates
the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which
is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency
of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are
by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be
considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing
no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of
their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining
an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according
to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves
a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which
we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom
to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which
has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence
against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must
an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by
subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle,
by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and
Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their
Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone
be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions
to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by
which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too
favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations
to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow
citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common
opposition to the measure.
5. Because the Bill implies
either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious
Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy.
The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory
opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the
second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
6. Because the establishment
proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian
Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian
Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on
the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it
is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only
without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition
from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but
long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary
care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a
Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and
been supported, before it was established by human policy. It
is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious
confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author;
and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its
friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its
own merits.
7. Because experience witnesseth
that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the
purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or
less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance
and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and
persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages
in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect,
point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.
Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers
depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them
predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have
greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
8. Because the establishment
in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government.
If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government
only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary
for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former.
If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how
can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government?
What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had
on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect
a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many
instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political
tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the
liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public
liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs
them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting
every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal
hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading
the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade
those of another.
9. Because the proposed establishment
is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum
to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion,
promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number
of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden
degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted,
it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal
rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend
to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in
its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only
in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the
career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel
scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on
our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty
and philanthropy in their due extent, may offer a more certain
repose from his Troubles.
10. Because it will have a
like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented
by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd
a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they
now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured
and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
11. Because it will destroy
that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws
to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects.
Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts
of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing
all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed
the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy,
wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease.
The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat
liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys
its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State.
If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes,
we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know
no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let
warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation.
The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian
forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed,
into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased.
What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public
quiet be armed with the force of a law?
12. Because the policy of the
Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity.
The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to
be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare
the number of those who have as yet received it with the number
still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how
small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen
the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers
to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it;
and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness,
in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of
Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious
progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity
would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments
of error.
13. Because attempts to enforce
by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of
Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken
the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which
is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the
case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be
the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government,
on its general authority?
14. Because a measure of such
singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without
the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens,
and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice
of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence
secured. The people of the respective counties are indeed requested
to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to
the next Session of Assembly." But the representatives or
of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither
of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous
principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will
still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter
will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
15. Because finally, "the
equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion
according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same
tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it
is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it
cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration
of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia,
as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated
with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either the,
we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure
of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority,
they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they
are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred:
Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the
press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive
and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us
of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent
and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority
to enact into the law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers
say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such
authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against
so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance;
earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver
of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed,
may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which
would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed
to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which
may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise,
and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and
the happiness of the Commonwealth.
Downloaded from Chronology of U.S. Historical
Documents of the University
of Oklahoma Law Center.
