of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, towards whom he displayed some personal bitterness in the Convention which ratified that instrument. His statements, therefore, in favor of Mr. Henry cannot be questioned. He left a history of Virginia in manuscript, a fragment of which is in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society. In this he gives an account of the Bill of Rights, and of each section. He says: "The fifteenth, recommending an adherence and frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and the sixteenth, unfettering the exercise of religion, were proposed by Mr. Henry." As reported to the body, these read as follows:

"That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under the color of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or the safety of society; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

This statement of the rights of conscience is in almost the same words used by the Independents in the Assembly of Westminster Divines, and the word " toleration " was of course used in its most liberal sense. But the acute and logical mind of James Madison detected the danger which lurked in the word, and he moved to amend the section so as to avoid its use. As adopted by the Convention, it reads: "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that

it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

It is the high honor of Virginia that she was thus the first state in the history of the world to pronounce the decree of absolute divorce between Church and State, and to lay as the chief corner-stone of her fabric of government this precious stone of religious liberty, which had been rejected by the builders.

Her example was followed sooner or later by every State in the Union, and thus the principle of perfect religious liberty has become "the chief corner-stone of the American system of government."

When we remember that a large proportion, if not majority, of the Virginia Convention were members of the Established Church, and some of them, certainly Edmund Pendleton, the President, and Archibald Cary, a prominent member, had as magistrates imprisoned Dissenters (Baptist ministers) for preaching, it may well be asked how they were induced to vote unanimously for this provision. The explanation doubtless is to be found in the fact that the discussions of human rights which the period produced had caused a great enlargement of views, and the growth of dissent in the colony had become so great that religious liberty could no longer be denied, when it was demanded by such a leader of the people as Patrick Henry. He seemed to know, as if by intuition, when the popular mind was ready for every political movement during the entire Revolution, and he never made a mistake as to the proper time to take a step in advance.

His views of human freedom were early imbibed. His father was connected with the Established Church, but his mother was a Dissenter, and a member of the congregation to which Samuel Davies, the great orator and divine, ministered before he was called to the presidency of Princeton. From him he, when a youth, first learned what was true eloquence and how to value religious liberty.

Mr. Jefferson, though not in the Convention when the Bill of Rights was framed, was one of the committee to revise

the laws of Virginia, and suggest such acts as were proper for the new State. Among those which he drafted was the famous "Act to Establish Religious Freedom," which was passed Dec. 16, 1785. He seized upon the proposition embodied in the 16th section of the Bill of Rights, that religion should be directed by reason and not by force, and the statement embodied in the question of Milton, "who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?" And these he expanded in a magnificent preamble which introduced the following act :

"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 opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

This act, the authorship of which Mr. Jefferson desired to be noted on his tombstone, is frequently referred to as the establishment of religious liberty in Virginia. But it contained no principle which had not already been more solemnly enacted in the Bill of Rights more than nine years before its passage, and the Legislature on January 24, 1799, in repealing certain acts deemed in conflict therewith, expressly declared that this act was " a true exposition of the principles of the Bill of Rights."

The Constitution of the United States, as proposed by the Convention that framed it, contained no guaranty of religious liberty. Its only reference to the subject was in section 3, article 6, in these words: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

It is well known that Mr. Henry, in the Virginia Convention called to consider the Federal Constitution, opposed its adoption in its unamended form. In the first speech in which he developed his objections to the instrument, he called attention to the fact that it contained no guaranty of religious liberty. Mr. Madison, who was pledged to sus

tain the Constitution as it was framed by the Convention, was forced to admit the fact; and though Mr. Henry's language in drawing such a guaranty had not been strong enough for him in framing the Virginia Bill of Rights, he now took the position that no guaranty was needed, claiming that the diversity of sects was the best protection of religious liberty. This did not satisfy Mr. Henry, and he urged the objection time and again during the memorable debates which followed, under the leadership of Mr. Henry on the one side and Mr. Madison on the other. It soon became apparent to Mr. Madison that although a considerable majority had been counted on for the Constitution when the Convention met, he would not be able to carry the body for it in its unamended form. He thereupon changed his ground and promised, if the paper should be adopted, he would exert himself to procure the amendments which should be proposed by the Convention. A struggle then arose between the party led by Mr. Henry and that led by Mr. Madison, whether the amendments should be required to be engrafted before Virginia would adopt the instrument, or whether the Convention should adopt first and trust to subsequent amendments. As so many States had already adopted it, Mr. Madison urged with great force the dangers of disunion, and finally carried his point by a majority of only eight in a vote of 168. Mr. Henry had already presented the amendments which the Convention finally recommended, and directed their representatives in the Congress to urge. First among these was a bill of rights, the 20th section of which was in the following words:

"The religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and inalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others."

Mr. Henry was in the next Legislature of his State, and thoroughly controlled it. He carried through the body a

memorial to Congress urging the call of another Federal Convention to consider the amendments to the Constitution. He was so anxious about the fate of the amendments, and so determined that they should have no lukewarm support from Virginia, that he defeated Mr. Madison for senator, and procured the election of Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson, who were fully in accord with his views. Mr. Madison then offered for the House of Representatives, and was returned by his district. In fulfilment of the requirement of the Virginia Convention and of his own pledge, he brought the matter before the House of Representatives, and, after much opposition, he succeeded in carrying through the amendments which that Congress proposed to the States, ten of which were adopted. The first of those adopted contains a guaranty of religious liberty in these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

When the Virginia Convention met in 1788, eight States had ratified the Constitution, but no one had proposed an amendment securing religious liberty. Five days before the action of Virginia, the New Hampshire Convention ratified the instrument with a recommendation of amendments, one of which was for the security of religious liberty; but I find, from a letter of Senator Grayson to Mr. Henry, of 12th June, 1789, that when Mr. Madison brought forward the matter of amendments in Congress, the representatives of New Hampshire were among those who opposed him. A month after the adjournment of the Virginia Convention, New York followed her example in ratifying and proposing similar amendments, and North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify until amendments were engrafted. It is known that the action of North Carolina was induced by the influence of Mr. Henry, who urged it on her leading men. What influence he may have exerted in New York and Rhode Island, I know not. But I am entirely safe in saying that it was the influence of the principle embodied in the Virginia Bill of Rights upon the American States, and the steps taken upon the requirement of the Virginia Convention of