"The sentiments of the several companies of militia and freeholders of Augusta, in Virginia, communicated by the deputies from the said companies and freeholders to their representatives in the General Assembly of the commonwealth.

Gentlemen,

We have chosen you at a very critical juncture to represent us in the General Assembly of our commonwealth, and need not tell you that we place a great confidence in you. Your being elected by us, in such times as these, to an important place of trust, will sufficiently prove it, and show, at the same time. our respect for you, and the sense we have of your abilities and virtue.

Our independence on Great Britain, and every other nation, we are determined upon, without a nice calculation of costs; for if possible to effect and preserve liberty for ourselves and unborn generations, we think int will be a noble equivalent for much blood and treasure, and we trust a full balance of all our losses.

Attempts, unnatural, cruel, and unjust, to rob us of our most valuable rights and privileges, have roused almost all America to defend them, forgetting the illiberal treatment which a difference in religious sentiments, in some misguided places, has produced. All denominations have unanimously rushed to arms, to defend the common cause. Their unanimity has made them formidable to their enemies; their unanimity will be ever preserved by giving equal liberty to them all; nor do the(sic) crave this as the pittance of courtesy,, but demand it as their patrimony, that cannot be withheld from them without the most flagitious fraud, pride, and injustice, which, if practised, may shake the continent, and demolish provinces.

This we think our representatives in Convention, last June, had fully in view. Besides other things, they declared, 'that all men are equally entitled to the 'free exercise of their religion, or the 'duty they owe to their creator, and 'the manner of discharging it according 'to the dictates of their consciences.' We take this to be the true and full meaning of their words, without any unjust view of favoring some to the hurt of others, and we view their declaration in this light as a most happy proof of their wisdom and virtue.

Hereby men, how different forever in their religious opinions, are united in defence of our invaluable inheritance, which they can equally call their own. Hereby jealousies, oppositions, and we believe all the plagues of jarring interests, will be prevented, their united force be employed to accomplish the same ends, and the only strife be who will become the most approvable, wise, and useful members in society.

While we most pressingly request you as individuals, or members of the same community, to use your best endeavours to promote the general good, we do, gentlemen, as our representatives, most solemnly require you, and positively command you, that, in the General Assembly of this commonwealth, you declare it the ardent desire and unanimous opinion of your constituents, should such a declaration become necessary, that all religious denominations within this dominion be forthwith put in the full possession of equal liberty, without preference or pre-eminence, which, while it may favour one, can hurt another, and that no religious sect whatever be established in this commonwealth.

This, from its apparent tendency to promote, and most effectually to secure, the good of our country, we earnestly wish to see established; and we hope that the number of interested bigots, illiberal politicians, or of disguised enemies to the freedom and happiness of Virginia, will be too small and contemptible to obstruct a matter of such extensive utility, a matter so just that the contrary is most evidently iniquitous, destructive, and oppressive.

But, should the future conduct of our legislative body prove to you that our opinion of their wisdom and justice is ill grounded, then tell them, that your constituents are neither guided, nor will ever be influenced, by that slavish maxim in politicks, 'that whatever is enacted by 'that body of men in whom the supreme 'power of the state is vested must in all 'cases be implicitly obeyed,' and that they firmly believe attempts to repeal an unjust law can be vindicated beyond a simple remonstrance addressed to the legislators.

These, gentlemen, are the sentiments with which we have been intrusted, by communicating of which we have discharged the duties of our deputation. Other things, how material soever they may be, are committed to your prudence, and unremitting care, to be managed comformable to the declaration of rights.

We are, for ourselves, and the companies and freeholders for whom we act, gentlemen, your most obedient humble servants,

John Magill, James Allen, George Moffett, David Laird, James Frazier, James Marshall, Walter Moffett, John Cunningham, Alexander Sinclair, James Bruster, John Poage, John Hington, John Davis, Alexander Long, Christopher Graham, William M^cPheeters, Elijah M^cClanahan, Alexander Thompson, Archibald Alexander, David Gray, Robert Wilson, Thomas Hewitt, John Wear, Michael Dickey, Robert Tedford, James Walker, Charles Campbell.

(A copy)

WALTER CUNINGHAM, clerk."

" Mr. Purdie,

IN your last paper I saw a piece entitled the sentiments of the several companies of militia and freeholders of Augusta, communicated by the deputies from the said companies and freeholders to their representatives in the General Assembly of the commonwealth; which piece, as it has been submitted to the publick inspection, is a proper subject for a few publick strictures. Its object is the subversion of our church establishment, an establishment which has been found, from the experience of near 200 years, productive of peace and order, of piety and virtue. Its independent exordium is, to be sure, of a very popular nature; but then it would precede with as much, perhaps more, propriety, an essay to prove the expediency of continuing our establishment. For did not churchmen, clergy as well as laity, when the salvation of their country rendered it necessary, declare for independence with as much alacrity as dissenters of any denomination? And have they not since been as active in supporting it? I could instance many clergymen of the established church who have been more forward in the present glorious contest than any of the religious of any sect amongst us, although the former acted at the risk of losing livings, whilst the latter were tempted with the prospect of creeping into them. The grand, and indeed the only argument, which these sentimental gentlemen indulge us with, in behalf of their favorite scheme, is, that by giving equal liberty to all denominations unanimity will be ever preserved; and unanimity, they tell us, has already made us formidable to our enemies. I would ask, as they acknowledge unanimity has heretofore prevailed amongst us, what was our situation at that time? Had we not a church establishment, and were not dissenters freely tolerated? Why then should unanimity forsake us, as long as we continue in the same situation? If it does, it must be because some people require more than others for having ventured less, and only having done, to say the most, as much. But are our gentlemen sure, that, by destroying our church establishment, that unanimity, so necessary to the salvation of our country, will be preserved? If they are, they have, I must needs confess, great confidence in the meek and disinterested disposition of the members of the established church, much more than they evidently have in the temper of their own sects. They suppose the spirit of one church so generous and forgiving that it will dispose us to submit to laws which are injurious to us, rather than for a moment endanger the publick welfare; while they declare they will not pay obedience to what is enacted by the supreme power of this state, unless their particular interest is preferred to the lasting interest and happiness of the whole community. If they represent matters fairly, our legislatures may easily determine whether they will do their country a greater service by supporting so excellent a church as ours is acknowledged to be by its very adversaries, or by depressing it, and encouraging sectaries, who, by their own confession, are selfish, turbulent, and seditious. but, what if these men should be mistaken? They may not have considered, that though the spirit of the established church is meek and tolerating, still its members are by nature men, of like passions with themselves; and that though their religion forbids them to trespass upon the patrimony of others, it by no means authorises them to give up, or even neglect, their own. To threaten seems to be the province of bullies, and of such as have a bad cause;; but every reasonable person will allow, that, to deprive men of what they have always enjoyed, and been taught to regard as their right, is a much juster cause of complaint, and much more likely to produce dissatisfaction and dissentions, than the withholding from them what they never had in possession, and what the distresses of their country only could have made them expect. I hope this will be considered by our Honourable Assembly, and that they will carefully avoid a measure by which the greater and more orderly part of the state will be aggrieved, and may be sickened of our important dispute. The rest of this sentimental piece containing only puerile declamation, I shall vouchsafe it no farther notice; but as I am before the publick, I will take this opportunity of making a few observations on the advantages of a religious establishment. I take it for granted, that the necessity of the Christian religion, both with respect to our temporal and eternal welfare, is a point in Christian countries generally acknowledged; and, if so, it is undoubtedly the duty of those who are appointed to take care of a state to adopt the most likely method of having it propagated in the greatest purity. An establishment of that church, which to the majority seems most orthodox in its doctrines, most apostolical in its form, and most rational in its precepts, bids fairest to effect this purpose; for when a good provision is made for teachers, and ensured to them by the publick faith, men of abilities will think it worth their whiles to take some pains in qualifying themselves for such an office, and men who have been accustomed to think and reason, who have had their judgments strengthened and assisted by all the learned treasures of the ancient and modern world, will be more able to communicate to their hearers, the sense of the holy scriptures. On the other hand, when every church and sect is countenanced by the state, when salaries are to depend entirely upon the caprice of the people, what encouragement is given to men of genius to qualify themselves for the sacred function? That person must be but little acquainted with the world who has not observed that the generality of mankind are more influenced by their passions than by their reason, and that the harangues of fanatics are more likely to be attended to, and to gain followers, than the most sensible discourses of sober-minded rational men. The consequence must be, where there is no establishment, that all preachers must either turn popular declaimers or starve; and thus, all just notions of religion must be lost. I own it seems somewhat hard, and repugnant to liberty, to oblige men to pay towards the support of a church to which they do not belong; but if such a thing be conducive to the general good, as from the foregoing observations appears to be the case, such persons are in duty bound to submit, in consideration of the many advantages they may be supposed to derive from the state. And in so doing they make but a small sacrifice, especially when they are permitted to enjoy their own private opinions, and to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. Would anyone hesitate a moment to affirm, that it was highly just and reasonable to oblige every member of a society to join in supporting that form of civil government which had been judged best, and adopted by a majority of the society? I am inclined to think that an advocate for monarchy, whose lot was cast in a republican government, would not be excused his quota of publick taxes upon any plea he could urge of disapprobation of that form of government; and as the cases are similar , why should we not admit in both the same mode of reasoning? I shall make no apology, mr. Purdie, for giving your so much trouble. You must be sensible of the necessity of such publications at this time.

"QUERIES on the subject of RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS.

Is not the power conferred by the people on their governours limited? Can its limitations be better understood than by considering the ends for which it was instituted? Is not the most proper method to know the ends for which it was instituted to inquire into the evils and inconveniences that attend the want of it? And is it not evident, on an impartial survey, that, in a state of nature, any man, or collection of men, might embrace what doctrines of faith, and worship the deity in what form they pleased, without interfering with the same, or any other natural right of their neighbors?

Do not the constitution of the human mind, whose real assent or dissent necessarily follows its conviction, and the obligations of conscience, which forbid all equivocation and hypocrisy, render it both unlawful and absurd for any society to invest the magistrate with authority to prescribe articles of faith, or regulate their religious conduct?

But waving the impossibility of exercising dominion over the understanding or conscience, and the unlawfulness of attempting it, does experience show that the rulers of the earth have in general been marked out by their piety and infallibility, as religious guardians to the rest of mankind? And can it be supposed that any man, whose entrance into civil society was a rational act, ever meant to assign to the magistrate his rights of conscience, which all good men hold the most sacred, and which, of all other rights, the magistrate is least qualified to be intrusted with?

Does not the New Testament, in almost every page, assert the rights and ratify the obligations of conscience, in direct repugnance to the unwarranted claims of the civil magistrate? May not the same reasoning, that will justify the establishment of the best and most orthodox religion, be applied, with equal force, to defend the establishment of the worst and most erroneous? Why is Christianity established in any country, but because the magistrate believes it to be the true religion? And is the emperour of China, or the Great Mogul, less orthodox in his own opinion?

Can the cause of Protestantism be maintained on any ground which will not support the profession of every religion that does not set up a claim to civil preeminence?

If the design of civil government does not imply, if the nature of religion does not admit, if the general character of rulers can neither challenge nor countenance, and if the principles of Christianity and Protestantism manifestly disclaim, a surrender, on the part of the people, of the rights of conscience; does not the magistrate stand disarmed of every plea by which he could be authorised to dictate in matters of religion?

It appearing, then, that when men form the social compact each one reserves to himself the right of choosing and acting for himself in what relates to religion and conscience, does it not follow that every individual is equally entitled to protection in the exercise of this as much as any other unresigned right; to obtain which, they were induced to part with so great a portion of their natural liberty, and which they parted with in equal measure?

Can all men be said to enjoy an equal portion of their rights, religious or temporal, where a law exists that compels every member of the community to contribute a share of his subsistance for the maintenance of a church to which many cannot conform, and from which a part only derive a benefit? And does not the imposition appear exceedingly flagrant and inhuman, when we reflect that it is submitted to by as many with a reluctant conscience; whilst, with respect to others of a certain class, it either robs tem of the necessaries of life, or, by exhausting the redundant pittance of a narrow income, disables them from procuring that particular instruction and worship which their judgment approves, and which they deem of inestimable utility? And is there not something peculiarly opressive and dishonourable in obliging the inhabitants on the western side of the Blue Ridge to contribute indiscriminately to the support of a worship which not more than one of twenty approve or attend?

Is it consistent with reason to say, that a partial and unjust institution is necessary for the support of a just and equal government? Is it consistent with true religion to say, that its preservation requires an establishment founded in a violation of the common maxims of moality? Is it any evidence of esteem for teh author of Christianity, who affirms that his kingdom is not of this world, to say that his scheme of religion would prove abortive if it was not incorporated with the kingdoms of this world? Does it argue a rational attachment to any church to deny that reason and its own intrinsic excellence are sufficient to uphold it, where every secular prop is withdrawn; although other churches are seen to flourish without such props, and although it is undeniable that the primitive curch made its way in the world; and continued to extend itself, for more than 300 years, without the least assistance from civil power?

But wherin is it pretended thatt this salutary influence of ecclesiastical establishments on civil government conflicts? Can they possibly afford the least probability for an uniformity of opinion, unless they include the remorseless tribunal of the inquisition, from which torents of blood must continually flow to extinguish the spirit fo inquiry, and at whcih liberty herself would soon be offered a victim to savage bigotry and sacerdotal domination? Or has the approbation of certain publick revenues to a particular sect any tendency to soften te religious animosity resulting from diversity of opinions, unless all other sects could, by some magick art, be made to believe that the religion of their rivals was so much superior to teir own that it might deservedly receive such a mark of distinction?

Does not the constitution of Virginia justly leave all power ultimately in the hands of the majority? Is there not reason to apprehend, from the daily multiplication of dissenters, that the time may shortly come when they will have the direction of our publick affairs? if justice be not done them when they are weak, will they not obtain it when they become powerful? May they not do more? May not a sense of injuries excite a spirit of retaliation?

At a time when the salvation of our country confessedly depends on the aid and exertions of every party, does not policy loudly forbid an irritating refusal to the reasonable demands of thousands of valuable citizens? Does not prudence dictate an extention of the rights of all those who have been unjustly restrained, that they may be more interested in defending the present government, and may conceive greater horrour at a return to the former one, which must infallibly be accompanied with the loss of so grateful an acquisition?

Wherein consists the utility of church establishments, with respect to religion and morality? Are any religious doctrines of the least avail, to the individaul, or to the community, which are not sincerely believed, and which have not an actual impression on the heart? Can the magistrate ensure any thing farther than the external profession of such doctrines? If it be pretended, that the promoting of morality or the duties of imperfect obligation, as they are styled, be the object of such establishments, do not the teachers of every religious denomination inculcate the same moral virtues? And can they justly be excluded, either directly or indirectly, from a participation of their emoluments?

Does not experience demonstrate, that in those countries where religion is most carefully guarded, and its officers most highly rewarded by the laws, it has the least rational and moral influence? What part of Christendom can be parallelled with Italy for atheism, and profligacy of manners? Has any place rivalled it in zeal and provision for the temporal interests of the church?

Can it be said that establishments are requisite to secure a competent number of virtuous pastors, whom the people would neglect to provide for themselves, when it is unquestionable that in each of those American states where there is no civil establishment of religion the number of publick teachers is much larger, in proportion to the number of inhabitants, than in either of those states where a mistaken policy has transferred the care of religion from the people to the magistrate? And is there not a greater likelihood that the pastoral fidelity, and exemplary deportment, on which the usefulness of such teachers chiefly depends, would be found in men subject to the voluntary maintenance of the people, than in such as, by their independence on the people, are exempted from all obligation to fulfil their engagements but the sense of duty? How do men reason in other cases? Would the lawyer be more indefatigable in ppursuing the interest of his clients, would the physician give a more punctual and painful attendance on his patients, would the steward be more faithful to the trust committed to his management, if the connexion between duty and interst, between merit and reward, were diminished or dissolved?

Have they imbibed the genuine spirit of the Gospel who are ambitious of being MASTERS in the sense forbidden by the meek and lowly Jesus, who are not contented with being on a level with their brethren of other denominations, and who distrust the faithful promise of their saviour, that he will be with them to the end of the world, unless, by an establishment of human invention, security be obtained from the civil magistrate for its accomplishment? Or are they under the guidance of an honourable, humane sentiment, who, for the support of their religion, devour the widow and the fatherless, and oppress the poor, the needy, and the stranger, and who are not ashamed to demand their hire from those for whom they never laboured?

Whatever narrow zealots may alledge to the contrary, does not a mixture of a variety of religious sects in the same civil society the most effectually promote freedom of inquiry, and liberal sentiments? Can any device more completely answer the purposes of a censor morum (an inspector and reformer of manners) or form a more certain barrier against the encroachments of lawless power, foreign or domestick?"