A Memorial and Remonstrance
James Madison
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 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, 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 and 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 philanthrophy 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 among
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 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 complete 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?
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 revelation11 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 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 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.
