The Virginia Gazette

VIRGINIA, August 15, 1771.

GENTLEMAN, some Time ago, in one of the Gazettes, offered it as his Opinion that the Act of Toleration passed in the Reign of William and Mary, for the Relief of Protestant Dissenters, does not extend to this Province; and that the penal Laws which were in Force against them in former Reigns, in Great Britain, are still in Force against them here.

It is not my Design to refute this Opinion. I acknowledge that I have thought, as it is entitled "an Act for exempting their Majesties Protestant Subjects, dissenting from the Church of England, from the Penalties of certain Laws," that it extended to all such Subjects in any Part of their Majesties Dominions, and exempted them all, in Virginia, as well as in Britain, from suffering by the Laws mentioned in that Act; and indeed I think it is plain that the penal Laws which the Act of Toleration was intended to repeal can reach no farther than this annulling Power of the repealing Act. If then the penal Laws of James the First, or of Charles the second, extend to Virginia, this just too, and their penal Nature be destroyed by it. Protestant Dissenters, of Consequence, have as little to fear here, from these or any other penal Laws that have been made, as in England.

Though it were granted that the Act of Toleration does not extend to this Country, I see no Reason to think that the other Laws do; and if the Dissenters have not religious Privileges allowed to them by Law, neither are they liable to be punished by any Law for their religious Opinions or Manner of Worship, unless they expose themselves, in the Use or Exercise of them, to penal Laws never intended to affect or regulate either, which the most imprudent of them have not yet done. It may be asked then, by what Authority have some dissenting Teachers been imprisoned in this Province, and very lately in the County of Middlesex? To allow a Magistrate more Power than the Law gives him is making him a Tyrant. Is attempting to make the Ignorant and Wicked wiser and better a Breach of any Law? The Magistrate should approve of such Attempts, as there is great Need of both. But perhaps the Men he committed were badly qualified for the Business. They might be so; but had he a Right to imprison them for that? It will perhaps be alleged that they exhorted or preached in an unlicensed Place; but if the Law of Toleration does not extend here, which is the prevailing Opinion, by what Law were they obliged to have any licensed? If there be no such Law, how could they be shut up in close Prison for disobeying it? Another Reason for their Commitment might be their being a Pack of ignorant Enthusiasts. This is a common Accusation; and People of little Knowledge, and less Humanity, generally think it a very good One. So did Hernando Cortez, when he exercised Cruelties on the Mexicans, and Tupinambies of Brazil.

I heard once a sensible Gentleman in Maryland remark, "that if the established Clergy were more diligent and faithful in discharging the Duties of their Function it would be a more effectual and commendable Way to disconcert the Measures taken by the Roman Catholick Priesthood to deceive People than to sue and fine them, which served to stir up the Compassion of the Populace to them, and ensure Success." However inapplicable this may seem here, it is not without a Moral.

Many will scarcely believe that Society can subsist on any Foundation but a Sameness of Religion; and think, of Consequence, every Man an Enemy to the State who objects to an Article of the established Faith. Such People should inform themselves better of the Tendency of religious Opinions that differ a little from their own, and of the natural Right of Mankind, and be no longer so weak and illiberal. A Man may soon be convinced that there are flourishing and happy Governments where the Subjects, though of every Denomination, yet live in Harmony. There Liberty of Conscience is the sacred Property of every Man, which none can take from him without being guilty of Sacrilege and Tyranny.

TIMOLEON.