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.
APStudent.com | www.apstudent.com