Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty
January 16, 1786
A foundational declaration of law.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 announced the principle of religious liberty, but the Anglican Church was still the established church. In 1777 the liberals succeeded in repealing the statutes requiring church attendance and universal support of the established church, but it was not until 1779 that the church was disestablished. Even this was not satisfactory, and Jefferson prepared a bill for absolute religious freedom and equality. This complete divorcement of church and state was bitterly opposed not only by the Episcopal but by the Presbyterian and other dissenting churches as well. The proposal to make all Christian churches state religions on equal standing and support them by taxation found favor with such men as Patrick Henry, Washington, and other conservatives.
characterized the long struggle for religious freedom as “the severest contest
in which I have ever been engaged,” and it was not until 1785 that his bill,
sponsored in his absence by Mason, Madison, Taylor, George and W. C. Nicholas,
passed the House. In
January 1786 it was accepted by the Senate and became law.
“Thus,” wrote Madison, “in Virginia was extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind,” while Jefferson regarded it as one of his three memorable contributions to history. The Bill was translated into French and Italian, and aroused world-wide remark.
An Act for
establishing Religious Freedom.
I. WHEREAS Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it enacted by
the General Assembly,
that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship,
place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his
religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by
argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same
shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly, elected by the people for the
ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of
succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that
therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law;
yet as we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby
asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall
hereafter be passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act
will be an infringement of natural right.
 W. W. Hening, ed. Statutes at Large of Virginia, Vol. XII, p. 84 ff. See also, H. J. Eckenrode, Separation of Church and State in Virginia; C. F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia; R. B. Semple, Rise and Progress of Baptists in Virginia; F. W. Hirst, Jefferson, p. 130 ff.; G. Hunt, Madison; A. C. McLaughlin, et.al., Source Problems in United States History, No. iv.