The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America
By C. M. S.
Church Establishment Receives Its Death Wound in Virginia
NOTWITHSTANDING the broad principles laid down in the Bill of Rights passed by the Virginia Assembly, as pointed out in our article of last week, the real separation of church and state was not accomplished for a number of years. The first session of the Virginia Legislature, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was besieged by petitions both for and against religious liberty. It was in the following year that the famous memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover was presented to the legislature. This memorial is probably the strongest document prepared up to that time in reference to the question of the rights of conscience, and it seems evident from the manifest differences between this memorial and the one presented three years earlier to the house of burgesses, that there was a wide divergence of opinion in the Presbyterian Church itself upon this question. This is made more manifest by the position which this same church took several years later upon the question of the establishment of a national church or a national religion, and a general assessment for its support. The memorial of 1777 was prepared by men who understood the true doctrine of soul freedom. The document presented three years previous to this was prepared by those who had not yet learned the fundamental principles of religious liberty; and the position taken by the Presbyterian Church, as shown in the work done by that body in 1785, shows that the denomination was still far behind the principles enunciated in that memorable document. That the reader may see the position taken in 1777, the memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover is given herewith in full:— To the Honorable the General Assembly of Virginia: The memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover humbly represents, that your memorialists and the religious denomination with which we are connected, are most sincerely attached to the common interests of the American States, and are determined that our most fervent prayers and strenuous endeavors shall ever be united with our fellow subjects to repel the assaults of tyranny and to maintain our common rights. In our former memorial we have expressed our hearty approbation of the Declaration of Rights, which has been made and adopted as the basis of the laws and government of this State, and now we take the opportunity of testifying that nothing has inspired us with greater confidence in our legislature, than the late act of assembly declaring that equal liberty, as well religious as civil, shall be universally extended to the good people of this country; and that all the oppressive acts of Parliament respecting religion which have been formerly enacted in the mother country, shall henceforth be of no validity or force in this commonwealth; as also exempting dissenters from all levies, taxes, and impositions, whatsoever, toward supporting the Church of England as it now is or hereafter may be established. We would, therefore, have given our honorable legislature no further trouble on this subject, but we are sorry to find that there yet remains a variety of opinions touching the propriety of a general assessment, or whether every religious society shall be left to voluntary contributions for the maintenance of the ministers of the gospel who are of different persuasions. As this matter is deferred by our legislature to the discussion and final determination of a future assembly, when the opinions of the country in general shall be better known, we think it our indispensable duty again to repeat a part of the prayer of our former memorial, “that dissenters of every denomination may be exempted from all taxes for the support of any church whatsoever, further than what may be agreeable to the private choice or voluntary obligations of every individual; while the civil magistrates no otherwise interfere than to protect them all in the full and free exercise of their several modes of worship.” We then represented as the principal reason upon which this request is founded, that the only proper objects of civil governments are the happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence, the security of the life, liberty, and property of the citizens, and to restrain the vicious and encourage the virtuous by wholesome laws equally extending to every individual; and that the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can only be directed by reason and conviction, and is nowhere cognizable but at the tribunal of the Universal Judge. To illustrate and confirm these assertions, we beg leave to observe that to judge for ourselves, and to engage in the exercise of religion agreeable to the dictates of our own consciences, is an unalienable right, which upon the principles that the gospel was first propagated, and the reformation from popery carried on, can never be transferred to another. Neither does the church of Christ stand in need of a general assessment for its support; and most certain we are that it would be no advantage, but an injury to the society to which we belong; and as every good Christian believes that Christ has ordained a complete system of laws for the government of his kingdom, so we are persuaded that, by his providence, he will support it to its final consummation. In the fixed belief of this principle, that the kingdom of Christ, and the concerns of religion, are beyond the limits of civil control, we should act a dishonest, inconsistent part, were we to receive any emoluments from human establishments for the support of the gospel. These things being considered, we hope we shall be excused for remonstrating against a general assessment for any religious purpose. As the maxims have long been approved, that every servant is to obey his master, and that the hireling is accountable for his conduct to him from whom he receives his wages, in like manner, if the legislature has any rightful authority over the ministers of the gospel in the exercise of their sacred office, and it is their duty to levy a maintenance for them as such; then it will follow that they may revive the old establishment in its former extent, or ordain a new one for any sect they think proper. They are invested with a power not only to determine, but it is incumbent on them to declare, who shall preach, what they shall preach; to whom, when, or at what places they shall preach; or to impose any regulations and restrictions upon religious societies that they may judge expedient. These consequences are so plain as not to be denied; and they are so entirely subversive of religious liberty, that if they should take place in Virginia, we should be reduced to the melancholy necessity of saying, with the apostles in like cases, “Judge ye whether it is best to obey God or man,” and also of acting as they acted. Therefore, as it is contrary to our principles and interest; and, as we think,5subversive of religious liberty, we do again most earnestly entreat that our legislature would never extend any assessment for religious purposes to us, or to the congregations under our care. And your memorialists, as in duty bound, shall ever pray for, and demean themselves as peaceable subjects of civil government. Signed by order of the Presbytery. RICHARD SANKEY, Moderator. Timber Ridge, April 25, 1777. It will be noted from the foregoing that the man or men who constructed that document believed in “equal liberty, as well religious as civil,” for all “the good people of this country.” They were opposed to the “oppressive acts of parliament respecting religion,” from which they themselves had suffered in this country. They favored also “exempting dissenters from all levies, taxes, and impositions, whatsoever, toward supporting the Church of England as it now is or hereafter may be established.” They say, further, that they “are sorry to find that there yet remains a variety of opinions touching the propriety of a general assessment.” They even quote from a previous document this expression: “That dissenters of every denomination may be exempted from all taxes for the support of any church whatsoever.” It is well to note the position taken in that document in reference to the purpose of civil government, which they say is simply “the happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence, the security of the life, liberty, and property of the citizens, and to restrain the vicious and encourage the virtuous by wholesome laws equally extending to every individual.” Upon the matter of the general assessment, they say, further: “Neither does the church of Christ stand in need of a general assessment for its support; and most certain we are that it would be no advantage, but an injury to the society to which we belong.” Not content even with this statement, the authors of that memorial declare it to be their fixed belief “that the kingdom of Christ, and the concerns of religion, are beyond the limits of civil control,” and that “we should act a dishonest, inconsistent part, were we to receive any emoluments from human establishments for the support of the gospel.” Having made these clear and truthful declarations, they then declare what would be the result in case the legislature should adopt the plan of a general assessment for religious purposes. That result they declare would be a revival of the old establishment in its former extent, or the creation of a new one, and thus would ensue legislative control of all things pertaining to the religious exercises of the people. The positions therein taken are true, and the consequences therein outlined would be certain to follow. Nevertheless when the question came up some years later as to whether there should be a general assessment or not, the history of the times records the fact that the denomination which authorized the issuance of that famous memorial stands with the Episcopal, or established, church in praying for a general assessment. Concerning this, Madison wrote to Monroe:— The Episcopal people are generally for it, though I think the zeal of some of them has cooled. The laity of the other sects are generally unanimous on the other side. So are all the clergy except the Presbyterians, who seem as ready to set up an establishment which is to take them in as they were to pull down that which shut them out. I do not know a more shameful contrast than might be found in their memorials on the latter and former occasions. These memorials to which he refers are the one above quoted entire, and the petitions which they later sent in, in favor of a general assessment for the support of religion. Again Madison says: “The Presbyterian clergy have remonstrated against any narrow principles, but indirectly favor a more comprehensive establishment.” Had this proposed measure become a law, Christianity—“general Christianity”—would have become the established religion of the State of Virginia, as the measure was designed to compel all to support financially some form of the Christian religion. Against this proposed measure, Madison and Jefferson protested and labored earnestly and continuously. While the discussion was at its height, Madison proposed a direct appeal to the people over the matter, and drew up his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance,” arguing that on the basis of the bill of rights which had already been adopted by his State, religion could not come within the purview of government. This remonstrance was circulated widely among the people, and resulted in an overwhelming demonstration against the measure, notwithstanding the fact that such men as Patrick Henry and R. H. Lee championed it, and Washington and Marshall were said to favor its passage. Jefferson in his autobiography declares that the debates over this question in the Virginia Assembly were the severest struggles in which he had ever been engaged. The established church, fearing that should disestablishment come, it would be impossible for the church to maintain itself by voluntary contributions, used every possible effort to secure a continuance of the establishment; but when the fall of the establishment was assured, it was then willing to compromise with the other denominations upon the matter of a general assessment, which would put a tax upon every inhabitant of the State for the support of some church, the individual himself to choose which church should receive his portion of the religious tax. Howell, in his “Early Baptists of Virginia,” page 165, says, in speaking of the times when this compromise was proposed:— Meantime, a new theory of a state religious establishment was devised, and began, in private circles, to be warmly discussed. This theory had its origin with the Presbyterians, and was in their subsequent memorials tenaciously and elaborately advocated. It proposed, not the abrogation of the state religious establishment, the measure demanded by the Baptists, but that the state, instead of selecting one denomination, as the Episcopal, and establishing that as the religion of the state, and giving to that alone its support, should establish all the denominations—Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, as well as Episcopalians—and make them all equally and alike the religion of the state, and to be supported by the state. . . . Of this plan of reconciling and harmonizing all parties, Patrick Henry was the ablest and most eloquent advocate. But the time had come for a new order of things. The States had declared their independence of the mother country, and the people in the States were now declaring their independence of the tyrannical power that had lorded it over their consciences from the very beginning of Virginia’s history. It was in the year 1777 that Thomas Jefferson proposed his bill for the establishment of religious freedom in Virginia, the same year in which the Presbyterians presented their unanswerable memorial, but it was not until 1785 that this bill became a law. Between those dates the question of whether or not there should continue to be religious establishments in Virginia was fought out. Concerning this bill Jefferson says: “I prepared the act in 1777, but it was not reported to the assembly till 1779, and not passed until 1785, and then by the efforts of Mr. Madison.” After a statement of principles in the preamble, the act proceeds:— Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever; nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. Two years after the passage of this act, its provisions were extended to what was known as the Northwestern Territory, by the addition of this section:— No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory. By the terms of this complete act, religious liberty was established in Virginia upon the broadest possible basis. Religion itself was exalted to a place,6of honor which it had not before known in that State. Its compulsory support had deprived it of what is most essential to pure religion—that is, the loyal, conscientious support of the people. From being a thing of merchandise and an instrument of tyranny, it had come to be a matter of choice and an exponent of liberty. The next article will be a brief statement of the attitude of the State constitutions toward the question of religious liberty.