I Am much concerned, lest an unfavourable construction should be put upon any word that may fall from me in the course of this de­bate, as reflecting upon the respectable members of the Church of England. I wish, Sir, to be [Page 4]understood as bearing the gentlemen of that Church, a very high respect. None that now exist have been the authors of that which we com­plain of: With the generosity of sentiment, that now prevails; with the same enlightened minds, I am persuaded they never would have been the authors.

I dissent from the Church of England, it is true, but, I trust, it is upon the most liberal grounds: When I oppose its establishment, I do not mean to oppose the Church itself. I would equally oppose the establishment of any other, though I admired its constitution ever so much. I firmly believe that this Petition arises from an unextinguishable love to the free and equal rights of mankind, and not from a dislike to one deno­mination of Christians, more than another. And Sir! while a love to Freedom and Equality is the grand sentiment that inspires all ranks of men, in this great contest; while you seel an un­conquerable Spirit of Freedom, animating you to all these measures; how can you find in your heart to blame those who risque their all, and stand with you in the foremost rank of zeal and danger, if they should only desire to se­cure to themselves and children, the same privi­leges that you enjoy? You must pardon them, it, sensible of the injuries that have been done them in times past, while we mutually groaned under a foreign yoke, and anxious for the com­plete Freedom and Happiness of their posterity, [Page 5]they should improve the important moment of forming a constitution for this most righteous purpose.

And, now Sir! I beg leave to offer a few of those reasons which induce me to oppose the re­ligious establishment of any one denomination of Christians in this State, under our new con­stitution.

1. My first, and most capital reason, against all religious establishments is, that they are an infringement of Religious Liberty.

Religious establishments, as far as they ope­rate, do interfere with the rights of private judg­ment and conscience: In effect, they amount to nothing less, than the legislature's taking the con­sciences of men into their own hands, and taxing them at discretion.

We contend, that no legislature under Heaven, has a right to interfere with the judgment and conscience of men, in religious matters, if their opinions and practices do not injure the State. The rights of conscience, are now too generally understood, to make it needful to take much pains to convince mankind, that they appertain to an higher tribunal, and that the objects of hu­man legislation, are quite of a different nature. The State may give countenance to religion, by defending and protecting all denominations of Christians, who are inoffensive and useful. The [Page 6]State may enact good laws for the punishment of vice. and the encouragent of virtue. The State may do any thing for the support of religion, without partiality to particular societies, or im­position upon the rights of private judgment. But when the legislative authority of the state, sets itself up as a judge in church controversies, and proceeds by law, to declare this system of opini­ons right, and that wrong; when it proceeds to lay hardships upon the professors of the one, while it lavishes its bounties on the other, and that while both are equally useful and inoffensive — I say, in this, it not only mistakes the pro­per objects of legislation, but is chargeable with manifest injustice. No legislature upon earth, has a right to do such a thing: Nay, we contend, that such a right cannot possibly be communi­cated to them. I can communicate to my re­presentative, a power to dispose of part of my property, for the security of the remaining part: I may give him a right to resign a part of my personal liberty to the obligation of good laws, as a means of preserving the rest,—but, can­not, —I say it is out of my power, to commu­nicate to any man on earth, a right to dispose of my conscience, and to lay down for me what I shall believe and practice in religious matters. Our judgment and practice in religious matters, is not like our purse; we cannot resign them to any man of set of men on earth; and therefore, no man or set of men on earth, either has or can have, a right to bind us in religious matters. The rights of conscience are unnalienable, and therefore, [Page 7]all laws to bind it, are, ipso facto, null and void. Every attempt of this kind is tyrany, let it be made by whatever body of men, and in whatever age: — Of all tyrany, religious tyrany is the worst, and men of true sentiment, will scorn ci­vil, where they cannot enjoy Religious Liberty.

And, now Sir! permit me to take a short view of religious establishments, and see, whether they do not more or less, bear hard upon the rights of private judgment, and partake, in greater or smaller degrees, of this worst of tyrany.

On all hands it will be acknowledged, that those establishments are of this nature, which lay heavy penalties upon those who refuse to conform to them. Can you form an idea of more horrid cruelty exercired upon the rights of conscience, than that which imposes fines, imprisonment and death, upon those who presume to differ from the established religion? You, Sir! look back with horror upon the history of such savage cruelty, — the more crued, as it has ever been exercised under the colour of law.

Of the same nature, though differing some­what in the degree of their cruelty, are those es­tablishments, which incapacitate good subjects; who differ from the speculative opinions of the State. Judgment and conscience, in these mat­ters, is, or ought to be, as independent of our will, as our height or colour: They are formed [Page 8]by the circumstances of the time in which we live, by the manner of our education, by the ca­pacity of our mind, and the degree of evidence. Would not that prince be esteemed a cruel tyrant, who should ordain, that every man of six feet high, and of a sandy complexion, should be ex­cluded from the rights of citizens? An assembly of two hundred senators, who could ordain, that good citizens should be deprived, on account of their inoffensive opinions, would be two hundred times as cruel.

2. The next kind of establishment that we meet with, is, that which now obtains in this State. I shall speak cautiously of it, but I shall take the liberty to speak freely, and shall only mention facts.

Its chief characteristicks are, that it makes a legal distinction between people of different deno­minations, equally inoffensive; it taxes all de­nominations for the support of the religion of one; it only tolerates those that diffent from it, while it deprives them of sundry privileges which the people of the establishment enjoy.

I say it makes a legal and odious distinction between subjects equally good. The law knows and acknowledges the society of the one, as a Christian Church; the law knows not the other Churches. The law knows the Clergy of the one, as ministers of the gospel; The law knows [Page 9]not the Clergy of the other Churches, nor will it give them a licence to marry their own people. Under this reputedly free government, licences for marriage are even now refused by the Ordi­nary, to any but the established clergy. The law makes provision for the support of one Church,—it makes no provision for the others. The law builds superb Churches for the one,— it leaves the others to build their own Churches. the law, by incorporating the one Church, ena­bles it to hold estates, and to sue for rights; the law does not enable the others to hold any reli­gious property, not even the pistances which are bestowed by the hand of charity for their sup­port. No diffenting Church can hold or sue for their own property at common law. They are obliged therefore to deposit it in the Hands of Trustees, to be held by them as their own private property, and to lie at their mercy. The conse­quence of this is, that too often their funds for the support of religious worship, get into bad hands, and become either alienated from their proper use, or must be recovered at the expence of a suit in chancery.

These are important distinctions indeed, but these are not all. The law vests the officers of the Church of England with power to tax not only her own people, but all other denomina­tions within the bounds of each respective parish, for the support of the poor: an enormous pow­er! which ought to be vested in no one denomi­nation [Page 10]more than another. Greater distinctions still! where there are parishes the law throws the whole management of elections, that most inesti­mable of all the rights of freemen, into the hands of Church officers exclusively.

And why all this inequality? Why does the law thus favour one, and bear hard upon every other denomination of Christians? The reason is only to be found in the spirit of the times when this unequal establishment was framed, and in the Machiavelian policy of the British government; which ought not any longer to take place in this country.

But that which shews much of the injustice and oppression of the present establishment, is the tax which it makes all other denominations pay to the support of the religion of one. It puts its hand into the pocket of nine denominations, all equally pretending to the merit of good subjects and citizens, to bestow upon one and support its dignity.

Sir! is this consistent with our first notions of justice and equality? And here, it matters not whether the religious tax is equally levied upon the people at large, or whether it is paid by a general duty. The treasury is the equal proper­ty of all denominations in the State, and if it [Page 11]comes out of the treasury, it comes in effect out of their pocket. ^*

The sums advanced by the treasury, for the support of the Church of England, within the space of the last ten years preceding the 31st of December 1775, amount to 164, 027 l. 16 s. 3 d. The expence of the year 1772 only, was 18, 031 l. 11 s. 1 d ^† The religious estate, now in the actual possession of the Church of England, drawn more or less from the purses of all deno minations by law, would probably sell for three hundred and thirty thousand pounds ^§

Now, if you suppose that Dissenters have al­ways made more than one half of this govern­ment, [Page 12] ^‖ — the sum that has been actually taken out of their pockets for the support of a Church with which they did not worship, must amount to more than 82013 l. 10 s. within the ten years aforesaid; and a very large sum of their proper­ty, in globes, parsonages and Churches, lies in the possession and improvement of the Church of England. [Were we to compute the lawful inter­est of all, and the usual rent of the glebes, &c. from the time when they were severally granted and ap­propriated, I dont know how far it would swell the sum.]

But if the dissenters do make a great majority of the inhabitants, the argument is still stronger, and the impropriety of obliging the purse of the major to suit itself to the consciences of the minor, can't fail to weigh with every candid mind. The inequality of the religious burden, is the more evident, when you consider, that the number of the established Churches in this State is only twenty and many of them very small, whereas the number of formed differenting congregations, the generality of which are much larger than those of the establishment, is at least seventy-nine, as ap­pears from a schedule now in my hand. ^* Still more unequal it appears, when you take into [Page 13]computation the large sums which dissenters do actually pay over and above their share of expence to the Church of England, for the support of their own worship. From the best intelligence that I can obtain, they have made provision for the support of their own worship, and would actually pay the sum of 40,000 l. annually, could they be furnished with Clergy. But the defici­ency of gospel ministers reduces the sum very considerably.

Sir! you may say, that the doors of the esta­blished Church are open equally to all denomi­nations, and that all may equally enjoy the bene­fit of it. I have heard of such an argument.

But besides that it is notorious, that what the public has paid for, in some instances has been converted into private property, and become the real estate of individuals, ^* it would here be ex­tremely natural to ask, how a rational Dissenter can enjoy the benefit of the establishment? The only answer that I can give to such a question is a very short one, He must do it at the expence of his own private judgment and conscience.

‘But Dissenters are tolerated; there is a free toleration: Does any man impose upon them? [Page 14]who prevents their worshipping as they please?’

I answer. In this respect they stand upon the same footing with the Jews. No body molests them. But would it, Sir, content our brethren of the Church of England, to be barely tolerated? that is, not punished for presuming to think for themselves. Is a bare toleration sufficient for the majority of a free State? of a free State that expects to gain its liberties by the sword? Would not a bare toleration be viewed by our brethren with infinite disdain; Is this equality? Sure the justice of this house, now unfettered by British violence, will not permit the continuance of such a monument of inequality.

3. There are some who entertain an idea of keeping up the Establishment, meerly as a mat­ter of religious superiority, without taxing other denominations. But they seem to forget, that every reason for which they desire the superiority by establishment, operates as an abridgment of Religious liberty. For when a man presumes to follow his own judgment in religious matters, and refuses to conform, he must at least submit to this inferiority, or rather bear the reproach of the law, as not being on a level with those that are Christians in its esteem. Still there remains injustice, and a foundation for dissatisfaction. For Sir! let it be remembered, that there are many Dissenters in this State, who care but little for [Page 15]money that it costs them to support the Church of England. They value much more their reli­lious, their unalienable rights, than the expence. Sir! you very well know, that it was not the Three Pence on the Pound of Tea, that roused all the virtue of America. It is our birth-right that we prize. It is a full and undiminished freedom in the exercise of our own judgment, in all reli­gious matters, that we value and esteem.

And for a meer empty name, without profit,—for a meer title of pre-eminency without emolu­ment,—is it worth while to have a bone of end­less contention in the State, and to maintain these odious distinctions?

4. There is proposal Mr. Speaker, to establish all denominations by law; and to pay them all equally.

This, Sir! may operate as a scheme of divi­sion, but in practice it must appear equally ab­surd and impossible. Absurd, as the establish­ment of all religions would in effect be no esta­blishment at all. It would destroy the very end of an establishment, by reducing things just to the same state they would be in without it, with this disadvantage, that large bodies of men who could not obtain Church officers, might be oppressed, by being obliged to pay for that which they received no benefit from. But it would be found impracticable, as people of different senti­ments [Page 16]live intermingled, and there could be no possible distinction of parishes, so as to accommo­date different denominations. But if the esta­blishment must from time to time conform itself to the prevailing party in each parish or district, there would not only be the same ground for complaint that there now is, but it would prove the means of everlasting strife. And indeed I am afraid that the expence would be found upon tryal insupportable. Sir! it is impracticable in this State to establish all denominations, and it is only thrown out to amuse us. But to admit the establishment of a few dissenting Churches, in pre­ference to all others, as a means to make them acquiesce! It is too big with injustice to procure the consent of an honest man. Let us all have equal privileges or nothing. EQUALITY OR NOTHING! ought to be our motto.

In short, every plan of establishment, ^* must operate as a plan of injustice and oppression; and therefore Sir! I am utterly against all establish­ments in this State. Leave each Church to be [Page 17]supported by its own members, and let its real merit be all its pre-eminence Thus while you give proper scope for a laudable emulation, you take away all complaint of injustice, and build your State upon the solid foundations of equity and righteousness.

If these arguments have failed to weigh at other times, they ought now to have amazing weight. While you are contending for the rights of mankind with one of the greatest powers up­on earth, will you leave your own Constitution marked with injustice and oppression, and that in the most important of all respects that ever mor­tals contended for? What are all the Liberties for which we dare to grapple with Great-Britain, when compared with our religious Liberties? Can you imagine, that the numerous Dissenters who venture their all in support of American Freedom, would be fond of shedding their blood in this cause if they did not with confidence ex­pect, that they should have justice done them, and that they should stand upon the same footing with their brethren? Can you imagine that a re­fusal of justice would not damp their ardour, if not utterly disarm them? Do they ask any more than what they have an absolute and indefeasible right to enjoy? Sir! these are rights which they cannot possibly relinquish. Their claim is found­ed in eternal justice, and this stands confessed by their most violent opposers. They must pay an equal share of that tax which independency will [Page 18]cost you—they must spill a greater share of blood, and therefore they cannot, I say they can­not consent to the smallest inferiority in privi­leges either civil or religious.

But Sir! in the present case, the claims of good policy join those of common and confessed justice. Religious establishments discourage the opulence and cramp the growth of a free State. Every fetter, whether religious or civil, deters people from settling in a new country. Take off every unnecessary yoke, and people of all deno­minations and professions will flock in ^§ upon you with all their arts and industry. If a spirit of toleration raised the United Provinces to such a pitch of glory and grandeur, by inviting people from every quarter of Europe; if an entire equa­lity has made Pennsylvania the Emporeum of America, to the immortal honour of its wise le­gislator; what good effects may not be expected from the same spirit of laws in this State. That State in America which adopts the freest and most liberal plan will be the most oppulent and power­ful, and will well deserve it. Sir! as a narrowness in these matters is the disgrace of the human mind, so is it the disgrace of any system of laws whatever.

[Page 19] I could wish to draw the attention of the House to another important motive,—that is, the future peace and happiness of this State. Grant this pe­tition, and the foundation of religious discord is eternally removed. It is inequality that excites jealousy and dissatisfaction. Make your laws partial towards people of any one set of opinions, suppose it only in philosophy, and you entail immortal strise and debate upon your children. If all your people are equally free and happy, it will be no matter who is in or who is out, i. e. in respect to denomination.

Where the people have a full voice in legisla­tion, the case is vastly different from what it has been in times past, while royal violence stood ready to support the claims of injustice. Gentle­men of the Church of England, should methinks be as much concerned to obtain the prayer of this petition as any others. The course of things is very uncertain. None know where numbers and interest may carry matters in future time. Some have unjustly ^§ accused Dissenters with an inten­tion to establish themselves. It was partly that accusation that gave birth to the petition before you. But if the gentlemen of the Church of England do really apprehend danger of such a [Page 20]mortisying issue in process of time, sure they of all men ought to be most anxious so to six the ba­sis of the Constitution, as forever to prevent it: I mean by making it a foundation article, that there never shall be any such establishment. This is the only security of the Church of England, as well as of other Churches. That Church has long had the advantage; she has reaped uncon­trouled, the emoluments of the State; she has subsisted on the abridgment of the equal privi­leges of others; she has fluorished by aid of their property. Let the time past suffice. With the new Constitution, let the day of justice dawn up­on every rank and order of men in this State. I et us bury what is past forever. We even con­sent, that the estate which she has for a century past been drawing more or less from the purses of all denominations; an estate of no less value than three hundred and eighty thousand pounds, re­main in her quiet possession, and be fixed there. Let her only for the future cease to demand pre­eminence. Let her freely content that others enjoy the same privileges, in every respect with herself. This is all we ask, we seek no restitu­tion. After the vast sums partially expended by the State upon one denomination, all the others ask not a farthing to be returned them. Let her be contented with her superb churches, her spacious burying-grounds, her costly par­sonages, her humerous glebes, and other church estates, obtained in a great degree from the pub­lie purse, while not a farthing has been granted to [Page 21]other Churches; and let her not now insist up­on such glaring partiality any longer.

Mr. Speaker! I know I transgress the usual bounds. Although I know it is my right,—yet I can hardly keep from asking pardon of the House for being tedious. But it is impossible to do justice to this great cause by confining my­self to a narrow compass. I am obliged to an­swer one capital objection before I sit down,— and reserve to myself the right of answering the arguments which are used in favour of a continu­ance of the establishment, in case I find it need­ful.

The objection I mean is that with respect to the Time. You hear it from all quarters by those who speak in favour of the establish­ment, ‘It is perfectly just, that an equality of privileges should take place. None can con­tradict the justice of the petition. If you had only delayed it to a proper time, we should have become advocates for it ourselves. But we have too much now upon our hands. Wait until matters are better settled, and you are sure of it.’

I believe the gentlemen that I have heard speak in this manner, are sincere as to their own inten­tions; but I must be excused from believing, that the zealous friends of an establishment so partial, will be of the same mind with them. I think if [Page 22]the time is left to them, it will prove as it did in the case of the man, the time of whose ex­ecution was left to himself: It so happened, that all the persuasions of the executioner could ne­ver make him believe that the time present was proper. I remember from the history of the re­volution, when the Papists were like to prove too strong for the favourers of the Accession,—the Dissenters thought it a proper time to insist on some alterations in the penal laws, which, though leveled against Papists, were so artfully managed, as to take in all Dissenters with them. The only way found to content them, was, by solemnly promising to give them relief, as soon as ever the affairs of the nation would permit it. They were prayed and entreated to be silent at that time: "it would be dangerous to make any alterations—the Papists would take advan­tage of it, and endanger the accession." They simply yielded to the prayers of the establish­ment: But, a full proof, that to postpone where the rights of justice demand, is to betray them; a full proof of the danger of deferring to another time, what ought to be done now—I will on­ly ask any man, who knows the history of the na­tion since that time, whether those promises have ever been fulfilled? Are they placed upon the equal footing that was promised? Not that there were not found some who faithfully endeavoured to fulfill their promises,—but the majority thought it proper to ride on in the same manner, after they found themselves well fixed in the saddle.

[Page 23] But Sir! suppose the petitioners had no such instance to warn them; suppose the event was not so perfectly natural and to be expected. Yet let me ask any gentleman, who thinks that this is not a proper time, a few questions.

Is it not a fact, that we are now reviewing the Constitution; that what was designed only as a protempore affair may become so perfected as to be fit to stand? Is it not an agreed point, that it is dangerous to have the Constitution placed upon the same footing with any common law, subject to be canvassed every sessions? If then, there is ever a time in which it is proper to apply for re­dress of any grievance which may be supposed to lye in the present frame of the State, when should that be, but when the Constitution is to be re­viewed and fixed? Is there, can there be another time so natural? Or should a thing in which the Liberties of the people are so essentially concern­ed, not enter into the Constitution, but be left to the precarious fate of any common law? Shall it be left to be promoted or crushed at hazard? Should not the Constitution take care of the religious as well as civil Liberties of the Peo­ple? Or do you think the former of less impor­tance than the latter?

When these questions are properly answer­ed, I then beg leave to ask; if this matter is not now attended to, will not the Church of Eng­land be established by law under the New [Page 24]Constitution, and become the constitutional Church? If so, and none will deny it, as we pre­sume; then will not all these oppressions which have been groaned under heretofore, be constitu­tional in this free State? And is this a matter of small moment to the major part of the people? And must they sit still out of meer compliment? Must they compliment away their Freedom in this Manner, and not only suffer, but even lend their aid, by putting their own hands to it, with the sanction of the people at large? It is strange that gentlemen can expect it. How can we an­swer our neglect to our constituents, who expect that we shall make them free? How can we an­swer it to our posterity, who even now ought to rise in our imagination, and demand of us to leave them free? This is the natural time, and this is the only time. Things ought to be done in their proper season. And gentlemen may pre­tend what they please,—if they are averse to grant justice in the present season of it, — if they are un­willing to do it now, they will be more so by and by. One thing I am sure of, they will have less motives to engage them to do it by and by. He that is disposed to do justice, is willing to do it without delay. The old law maxim is good, to delay justice is to deny it.

Sir! at this time, all ranks of people more sensibly feel the claims of justice, than they will hereafter. They now feel the rod of oppression: And nothing like suffering to bring us to our [Page 25]senses. They are now struggling against arbitra­ry power. They can now realize the hardship. Let these times pass, and ease will naturally lull them into an inattention, to the rights of mankind.

That this is a proper time the example of other States confirms. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Dela­ware have led the way; Virginia, and North-Carolina are now meditating the same important step. Maryland has done it already.

That this is the proper time is plain, as the people are now waiting to see what they have to expect, for what it is they are to waste their trea­sure and their blood? They are ready to do it cheerfully, if they may with certainty expect to be made and kept as happy as their brethren. They ask no favours, they ask only the common rights of mankind.

By some it is said to be dangerous to grant this request at the present time. They own it is just. —It ought to be. No member, say they, in the house will deny it; but the time is dangerous.

But Sir! are we indeed reduced to that situa­tion, that it is dangerous to do common justice? Every man allows it to be just: Well then, who is to be feared? Are you afraid of those who confess the justice of the present application? Acknowledging it to be just and right, will they be apt to revolt against their own sentiments? Will the danger arise from the dissenting denomi­nations [Page 26]No; it answers the prayer of their pe­tition. Will the danger arise from the Church of England? I can't think it. It is too harsh an imputation upon the gentlemen of that Church. They will not endanger the State on account of that which they know and universally allow to be just. I cannot, I will not admit the supposition. Sir! I have the pleasure of knowing too many of them to think so. Many of them have signed the petition. Many more have declared their sentiments in the most liberal terms. There is too much Catholicism and love to Liberty a­mong them. They don't desire any longer to oppress their brethren. They profess a gene­rous disdain of the thing. They have property sufficient to maintain their own Clergy liberally; and if the State did not take it off their hands, I believe they would do it more liberally than it is now done.

If the Diffenters did not apply now,—it might by and by be retorted upon them, and that with great justice:— ‘You have had an hand in framing the Constitution, as well as we. The Church of England is the constitutional Church, by your own act and deed. Why did you not make your opposition in proper time? Why so much out of season? Why en­deavour to subvert what your own hands have reared?’ Sir! we should be dumb; or, what is as bad, we should justly lye under the charge [Page 27]of some species of sedition. Sir! we mean to act a rational and constitutional part.

And now Sir! it only remains to be seen, whether this legislative body, now, by God's goodness, free from the chains of foreign com­pulsion, will rectify the errors of less happy times: whether they will rise in the annals of this important age, by shewing a temper superior to all illiberality and oppression.

Will you Sir! comply with the demands of common justice? or are you willing to listen longer to the cry of oppression? Will you make all your people equally free and happy? Do you desire to put an effectual end to all religious broils and contentions forever? Will you strengthen your own hands in defence of your bleeding country? Do you wish to enrich it by an influx of healthy inhabitants from every quarter of the world? Would you secure yourself from the fetters of any one denomination, with which the uncertainty of time may inundate this coun­try? Will you give to every denomination the best security of future religious freedom and hap­piness that the nature of the case admits?

Grant them the prayer of the Petition: Grant it in substance, if not in the very expressions. Let it be a foundation article in your Constitu­tion, ‘That there shall be no establishment of one religious denomination of Christians in pre­ference [Page 28]to another. That none shall be oblig­ed to pay to the support of a worship in which they do not freely join.’ Yield to the mighty current of American freedom and glory, and let our State be inferiour to none on this wide continent, in the liberality of its laws, and in the happiness of its people.