|
20
juni 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.
  
|
