|
Madison,
Memorial & Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,
1785
(along
with Madison's reflections on the same in 1826)
James
Madison, in a letter to George Mason on July 14, 1826,
roughly 41 years after the Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments was published, explained
in his own words the historical significance of this
document:
RJ&L
Religious Institutions Group
During
the session of the General Assembly 1784-5 a bill
was introduced into the House of Delegates providing
for the legal support of Teachers of the Christian
Religion, and being patronized by the most popular
talents in the House, seemed likely to obtain a
majority of votes. In order to arrest its progress
it was insisted with success that the bill should
be postponed till the evening session, and in the
meantime be printed for public consideration. That
the sense of the people might be the better called
forth . . . Col. Geo. Mason, Col.
Geo. Nicholas also possessing much public weight
and some others thought it advisable that a remonstrance
against the bill should be prepared for general
circulation and signature and imposed on me the
task of drawing up such a paper. The draught having
received their sanction, a large number of printed
copies were distributed, and so extensively signed
by the people of every religious denomination that
at the ensuing session the projected measure was
entirely frustrated; and under the influence of
the public sentiment thus manifested the celebrated
bill "Establishing Religious Freedom" enacted into
a permanent barrier against Future attempts on the
rights of conscience as declared in the Great Charter
prefixed to the Constitution of the State.
Letter
from James Madison to George Mason (July 14, 1826), in
9 The Writings of James Madison, 1819-1836, at 249
(Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910).
The
Memorial and Remonstrance voices fifteen objections
to the bill, proposed by Mr. Patrick Henry, "Establishing
a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion."
The document closes in sincere prayer that the Almighty
God of the Universe will enlighten the understanding
of those in the legislature who would advance the bill
thereby frustrating the blessings of liberty and prosperity.
RJ&L
Religious Institutions Group
MEMORIAL
AND REMONSTRANCE AGAINST RELIGIOUS ASSESSMENTS
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 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 Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil
Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must
always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general
authority; much more must every man who becomes a member
of any particular 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
if 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 viceregents 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 may 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 freemen 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 that 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 offense against God, not against
man: To God, therefore, not to men, 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 intrusted 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-eminencies 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 said to 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 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 that
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 amongst its several sects. Torrents of blood
have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the
secular arm to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing
all difference in Religious opinions. 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 bonds 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 so 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 representation
must be made equal, before the voice either of 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 then, 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 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 Commonwealth.
James
Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
(1785), reprinted in 2 The Writings of James Madison, 1783-1787,
at 183 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1901).
|
