[Typed from photocopies--Library of Congress: LC, 20111 & 20593]
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7th, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States. And though our mode of expression may be less courtly [stylish] and pompious [pompous] than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty--That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals--That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions--That the legitimate Power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour.
But Sir, our [Connecticut] constitution of government is not specific. Our antient [ancient] charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government At the time of our revolution, and such had been our laws and usages [practices], & such still are, that religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.
It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law, & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national Legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radient beams of the Sun, will shine & forever prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.
Sir, when we reflect on your past services and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have called you to sustain, and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh'[emia]h Dodge The Committee Eph'[rai]m Robbins Stephen S. Nelson* * * * *
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [LEVI LINCOLN]
Averse to receive addresses, yet unable to prevent them, I have generally endeavored to turn them to some account, by making them the occasion, by way of answer, of sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets. The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings and thanksgivings, as my predecessors did. The address, to be sure does not point at this, and its introduction is awkward. But I foresee no opportunity of doing it more pertinently. I know it will give great offence to the New England clergy; but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. Will you be so good as to examine the answer, and suggest any alterations which might prevent an ill effect or promote a good one, among the people? You understand the temper of those in the North, and can weaken it, therefore, to their stomachs; it is at present seasoned to the Southern taste only. I would ask the favor of you to return it, with the address, in the course of the day or evening. Health and affection.
[The above is copied from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Library Edition, Andrew A. Lipscomb, Editor, 1904, 10:305. The "alliance between Church and State" of which Jefferson writes is the one which still existed in 1802 in Connecticut under its constitution (charter). In 1802 Baptists in Connecticut petitioned its legislature to repeal laws which compelled citizens to pay taxes for the support of religion. That "alliance" was eliminated by the Connecticut legislature in 1819. As Jefferson knew, tax support for Anglican clergy was eliminated in Virginia in 1776 and Virginia's "alliance between Church and State" was for all practical purposes destroyed in 1786 by the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty. The only state which still had a significant "alliance" after 1819 was Massachusetts which disbanded its legal relationship in 1833, and the principle of voluntary financial support for religion and its institutions finally prevailed throughout the nation--thanks, in no small way, to Jefferson's "bill for establishing religious freedom" which was introduced into the Virginia legislature in 1779. In his reply to the Baptists, President Jefferson deliberately defined the religion clauses, as they related to the national government, in terms of principle with which he totally approved, as "building a wall of separation between Church & State." Accommodationists, read it and weep--including Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and those confused organizations which emphasize this comment from Jefferson and completely overlook his distinction (in the same sentence ) which clearly states that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions."]
* * * * *To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which delcared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
ThJefferson Jan. 1, 1802
Copyright 1996 Gene Garman
* * * * *Addendum:
Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in historical context: "law religion" and "religious laws" in Connecticut, as described in 1791. The following is quoted from The Writings of [Baptist] John Leland, ed. L.F. Greene (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, reprint edition, 1969).
Religion is a matter between God and individuals: the religious opinions of men not being the objects of civil government, or in any way under its control [p. 181].
Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men, than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing [p. 184].
Having made the foregoing remarks, I shall next make some observations on the religion of Connecticut....
At present, there are in the state about one hundred and sixty-eight Presbyterial, Congregational and Consociated preachers; thirty-five Baptist, twenty Episcopalians, ten separate Congregationals, and a few other denominations. The first are the standing order of Connecticut; to whom all others have to pay obeisance. Societies of the standing order are formed by law.... Their choice of ministers is by major vote; and what the society agree to give him annually, is levied upon all within the limits of the society-bounds; except they bring a certificate to the clerk of the society, that they attend worship elsewhere, and contribute to the satisfaction of the society where they attend. The money being levied on the people, is distrainable [enforceable] by law;....
It is not my intention to give a detail of all the tumults, oppression, fines and imprisonments, that have heretofore been occasioned by this law religion [italics added].... Let it suffice ...to say, that it is not possible,... to establish religion by human laws, without perverting the design of civil law and oppressing the people.
The certificate that a dissenter produces to the society clerk, must be signed by some officer of the dissenting church, and such church must be Christian; for heathens, deists, and Jews, are not indulged in the certificate law; all of them, as well as Turks, must therefore be taxed for the standing order, although they never go among them, or know where the meeting-house is.
This certificate law is founded on this principle, "that it is the duty of all persons to support the gospel and the worship of God." ...Is it the duty of a deist to support that which he believes to be a cheat and imposition? Is it the duty of a Jew to support the religion of Jesus Christ, when he really believes that he was an impostor? Must the Papists be forced to pay men for preaching down the supremacy of the pope,...? Must a Turk maintain a religion, opposed to the Alkoran ...? I now call for an instance where Jesus Christ, the author of his religion, or the apostles, who were divinely inspired, ever gave orders to, or intimated, that the civil powers on earth, ought to force people to observe the rules and doctrine of the gospel.
Mahomet called in the use of the law and sword, to convert people to his religion; but Jesus did not--does not.
...so there are many things that Jesus and the apostles taught, that men ought to obey, which yet the civil law has no concern in....
The charter of Charles II., is supposed to be the basis of government in Connecticut; and I request any gentleman to point out a single clause in that charter, which authorized the legislature to make any religious laws [italics added], establish any religion, or force people to build meeting-houses or pay preachers....
The certificate law supposes, first, that the legislature have power to establish a religion; this is false. Second, that they have authority to grant indulgence to non-conformists; this is also false, for a religious liberty is a right and not a favor. Third, that the legitimate power of government extends to force people to part with their money for religious purposes; this cannot be proved from the New Testament....
Although it is no abridgement of religious liberty for congregations to pay their preachers by legal force, in the manner prescribed above, yet it is anti Christian; such a church cannot be a church of Christ,...[pp.186-189].
In addition to the above, there is a quote from Elder Leland which provides understanding as to what Jefferson meant when he said that "man ... has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." On July 5, 1802, Leland used the same words in the following context:
Gentlemen, you have taken notice that some men are always contending for the energy of government, while others are pleading for the rights of the people. On this I shall remark, that man has no right which stands in opposition to his social duties; no right to exercise his liberty to destroy the right and property of his neighbor; no right that frees him from his proportionable part of the burdens of government, and the restraint of just laws [p. 266].
Copyright 1998 Gene Garman