| Introduction
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
Memorial and
Remonstrance
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 considerd 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
co-ordinate 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 entagled 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 indispensible, 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 demoninations 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 eccelsiastical 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 maganimous
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 philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain
respose 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 disscord, 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 assauge 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 chairty," which of late
mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, 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 Vriginia, 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 re]dound to
their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the
prosperity and the happiness of the Commonweath.
James Madison, 1785 |
