|
Historic Document
James Madison's Memorial & Remonstrance 1785
Document Start
Return to Library
James Madison was not only a man of principle and foresight, but one who strove to live by his beliefs even when it was not the expedient thing to do. That determination helped guide the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to a successful end, and gave us our Bill of Rights.
Madison had been involved with Virginia politics from it's earliest ruminations over independence, helping to forge the Virginia Constitution of 1776, and serving in the colony's first independent General Assembly. Then his principles got in the way -- he refused to buy votes with whiskey and failed to be re-elected in 1777. Nonetheless he returned to the Assembly in 1778 without having sought the office, and then joined the Virginia delegation to the Continental Congress in 1780. Though Congress' youngest member at 29, and quiet in demeanor, he soon found himself looked to for leadership as the need to shape a permanent United States government loomed on the horizon.
Madison was at odds with the weak central government created by the Articles of Confederation, and he returned to the Virginia Assembly in 1784 where he continued to advocate the parallel needs for strong government and protection of individual rights under that government. One of his key concerns was that the established church doctrine that had ruled absolutely in Europe, and that was still intact to a lesser degree in some of the United States, be dissolved and replaced with religious liberty.
When a bill proposing an assessment for support of the Anglican Church in Virginia was raised in the Assembly, Madison predictably stood against it, delivering this memorable speech. The bill was defeated.
In his Memorial & Remonstrance speech, we can clearly hear the language Madison later used in drafting the First Amendment's religious liberty clause.
Got a favorite historical document? Use the
Library comment link
to let us know - we'll look into it.
James Madison's Memorial & Remonstrance 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,
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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 Leveling 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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 control
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.
|
Got a favorite historical document? Use the
Library comment link
to let us know - we'll look into it.
|
|