 | Old churches, ministers and families of Virginia. |  |
PRESIDENT MADISON'S RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.
In the neighbourhood of Orange Court-House, at Montpelier,
lived Mr. James Madison, once President of the United States, and
relative of Bishop Madison. Having been often asked concerning
his religious sentiments, I give the following, received from the Rev.
Dr. Balmaine, who married his near relative, and by whom Mr.
Madison himself was married. Mr. Madison was sent to Princeton
College,—perhaps through fear of the skeptical principles then so
prevalent at William and Mary. During his stay at Princeton a
great revival took place, and it was believed that he partook of its
spirit. On his return home he conducted family worship in his
father's house. He soon after offered for the Legislature, and it
was objected to him, by his opponents, that he was better suited to
the pulpit than to the legislative hall. His religious feeling, however,
seems to have been short-lived. His political associations
with those of infidel principles, of whom there were many in his
day, if they did not actually change his creed, yet subjected him
to the general suspicion of it. This was confirmed in the minds of
some by the active part he took in opposition to every thing like
the support of churches by the Legislature, in opposition to Patrick
Henry, Governor Page, Richard Henry Lee, and others. This,
however, ought not to have been sufficient to fix the charge upon
him, as George Mason and others, whose faith was not questioned,
agreed with him in this policy. A reference to a memorial against
any such act by Mr. Madison, at the request, it is affirmed, of some
non-Episcopalians, will show his character and views. It is by
far the ablest document which appears on that side of the question,
and establishes his character for good temper as well as decision.
It is drawn up on the supposition of the truth of Christianity. It
must indeed have done this in order to be acceptable to those by
whom it was solicited. Whatever may have been the private sentiments
of Mr. Madison on the subject of religion, he was never
known to declare any hostility to it. He always treated it with
respect, attended public worship in his neighbourhood, invited ministers
of religion to his house, had family prayers on such occasions,
—though he did not kneel himself at prayers. Episcopal ministers
often went there to see his aged and pious mother and administer
the Holy Communion to her. I was never at Mr. Madison's but
once, and then our conversation took such a turn—though not
designed on my part—as to call forth some expressions and arguments
strictly regulated by the Bible. At his death, some years after
this, his minister—the Rev. Mr. Jones—and some of his neighbours
openly expressed their conviction, that, from his conversation and
bearing during the latter years of his life, he must be considered as
receiving the Christian system to be divine. As to the purity of
his moral character, the amiableness of his disposition toward all,
his tender affection to his mother and wife, kindness to his neighbours,
and good treatment of his servants, there was never any
question.
Among the many orations called forth by the death of Mr.
Madison, there was one—now before me—by Mr. Philip Williams, of
Winchester, Virginia. From this I select the following passages:—
"His parents were both pious, and instilled into his youthful mind the
moral and religious principles which were the strong foundations of his
future greatness. His father died before he was elevated to the Presidency,
but his mother lived to see him advanced to that office, and enjoying all
of worldly honours that the fondest mother's heart could wish. He received
his classical education from Mr. Robertson, a Scotchman, who
resided in King and Queen, and the Rev. Mr. Martin, an Episcopal clergyman,
who lived for many years in his father's family. Under their instruction
he prepared himself for college, and entered at Princeton in 1769.
When he arrived at Princeton, he found that in his literary acquirements
he was behind many of his juniors, and, with praiseworthy emulation,
determined to learn twice as much each day as was usually acquired in
that time. He persevered in his determination until he graduated on the
last Wednesday in September, 1771. He continued at Princeton until
1772, from a desire to learn Hebrew and to extend his other studies under
the superintendence of Dr. Witherspoon, then President of the College, to
whom he was sincerely attached."
From his early training in pious principles, and from the testimony
of his minister and others as to his later years, Mr. Williams
expresses his conviction that Mr. Madison was an humble believer
in Christianity. Mr. Williams, though a zealous Episcopalian,
agrees with Madison in his opposition to the law advocated by Mr.
Henry for the support of religion, and quotes the following passages
with some others from his argument on the subject, introducing
them with this statement:—
"The free exercise of religion was protected by the Bill of Rights; but
there were many of our most distinguished men, who not only insisted
upon the right of the Legislature, but urged the expediency of compelling
every man to contribute to the support of some Church, but giving him
the liberty to prescribe to which Church it should be paid. At the preceding
session a bill for a general assessment `for the support of Christian
with the double view of enlightening the public mind and ascertaining
more accurately the public will, succeeded in passing a resolution that the
bill should be printed and submitted to the people, that it might be examined
by them, and passed or rejected at the ensuing Legislature as they
might dictate.
"Mr. Madison drew a memorial and remonstrance against the passing
this bill, characterized by his usual mildness, good sense, and close reasoning,
which was extensively circulated throughout the State, and doubtless
contributed in a great degree to defeat the measure.
"This memorial was by many attributed to the pen of George Mason.
While it admitted the divine origin of the Christian religion, and paid a
just tribute to the purity of its doctrines, it showed clearly the impolicy
and danger of any interference by the civil power with the subject of
religion.
"This able paper is so little known that I must trespass upon your
patience by some extracts from it:—
" `The bill implies either that the civil authority is a competent judge
of religious truth, or that it may employ religion as an engine of civil
policy. The first is an arrogant pretension, falsified by the extraordinary
opinions of rulers, in all ages and throughout the world; the second, an
unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. 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 power 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.
" `Experience testifies that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of
maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation.
" `The establishment in question is not necessary for the support of
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 more instances
have they been seen upholding the throne 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 property, by
neither invading the equal rights of any sect, nor suffering any sect to
invade those of another. It will destroy that moderation and harmony
which the forbearance of our law 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 differences in religious opinion. Time has at length
revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and vigorous policy,
whenever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The
it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence
in the health and prosperity of the State. If, with the salutary effect of
this system under our 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 mischief may not be
dreaded should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of
law!
" `The policy of the law 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 religion, 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 truth from
coming into the regions 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 encroachment of
error.
" `Finally, the equal rights of every citizen to the free exercise of his
religion, according to the dictates of his 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 with 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 annihilate 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 a law the bill under consideration.' "
| Old churches, ministers and families of Virginia. | |