University of Virginia Library

ARTICLE II.

Recollections of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia,
during the Present Century.

On leaving Alexandria I returned to my little farm in Frederick
and to the tending, in conjunction with Mr. Balmaine, of the two
small flocks at the chapel and in Winchester. During all the time
of that joint rectorship I bestowed a considerable portion of my
labours on five or six counties around, which were either destitute
of ministers or very partially served. The continual presence of
Mr. Balmaine in Winchester, and the lay-reading of my excellent
father-in-law, Mr. Philip Nelson, at the chapel, enabled me to do
this. In my absence from the chapel, the excellent sermons of
Gisborne and Bradley and Jarrett were delivered by one of the
best of readers, from its pulpit. I was happy to be able, during
my visit to England some years since, to communicate to the two
former the fact that they had thus, without knowing it, preached
so often and so acceptably in my pulpit in America. Such was
the scarcity of ministers and churches around, that my chapel services
were attended by families living at the distance of twelve and
fifteen miles. There are now seven churches, with regular services
by six ministers, within that district to which I was a debtor for all
pulpit and parochial ministration. My connection with Mr. Balmaine
was most pleasant and harmonious. He was one of the most
simple and single-hearted of men. Himself and his excellent partner
were the friends of the poor, and indeed of all, and were beloved
by all who knew them. They had no children, and having
some property, as well as a few hundred dollars rent for the glebe,
might have lived in a little style and self-indulgence, but they were
economical and self-denying in all things, that they might have
something for the poor and for the promotion of pious objects.
They did not even keep fire in their chamber during the coldest
weather of winter. They had one family of servants, who were
to them as children. As children they inherited, and some still
live in, the old mansion. As to some things Dr. Balmaine had
been weak, and at times led astray by those who surrounded him.
But I can truly say, that for many of the last years of his life, a

more warm-hearted and exemplary man I knew not. Some of the
most eloquent extempore effusions I ever heard were from his lips,
while standing in the chancel on sacramental occasions, when he
referred with tears to past errors and sought to make amends, by
thus testifying to evangelical doctrine and holy living. In the
spring of 1812, Bishop Madison died. And as Dr. Buchannon, of
Richmond, was the Secretary to the last Convention, which was
held seven years before, Dr. Wilmer and myself united in a request
that he would call a special one in May. At that Convention
fourteen clergymen and fourteen laymen assembled. It resulted
in the election of Dr. Bracken as successor to Bishop Madison;
not, however, without opposition by some among us.[11] Another
Convention was held in the following spring, at which only seven
clergymen attended. To that Convention Dr. Bracken sent in his
resignation. Our deliberations were conducted in one of the committee-rooms
of the Capitol, sitting around a table. There was
nothing to encourage us to meet again, and but for that which I
shall soon mention, I believe such profitless and discouraging efforts
would soon have ceased. I well remember, that having just read
Scott's "Lay of the Last Minstrel," as I took my solitary way
homeward on horseback, I found myself continually saying, in
relation to the Church of Virginia, in the words of the elvish
page, "Lost—lost—lost;" and never expected to cross the mountains
again on such an errand. But in the course of that year, or
in the early part of the following, it was suggested to Messrs. Wilmer
and Norris, and by none other than that unhappy man, the
Rev. Mr. Dashiel, of Baltimore, (whom they then highly esteemed,
but whom they abandoned as soon as his unworthiness was known,)
that the Rev. Dr. Moore, of New York, was the man to raise up
the Church in Virginia. Mr. D. had become acquainted with Dr.
Moore at a recent General Convention, heard him eloquently advocate
the introduction of more hymns into the Prayer Book, and
preach the Gospel with zeal and power in several large churches.
Dr. Wilmer and myself entered into a correspondence with Dr.
Moore, which led to his election at the next Convention. Some
objections, however, were privately made to Dr. Moore. It was
said that Bishop Hobart had complaints against him for some
irregularities in carrying on the work of the ministry, and that he
was somewhat Methodistical. It so happened, however, that Bishop
Hobart had written a most favourable letter concerning Dr. Moore
to some one present, which being shown, all opposition was silenced
and he was unanimously elected as Bishop of the Diocese, and immediately
after, or perhaps before, as Rector of the Monumental
Church, which had been reared on the ruins of the Richmond
Theatre. Bishop Moore was consecrated in May of 1814, and entered
on his duties in the summer of that year. Our organization
was now complete, but on a diminutive scale. Besides the few older
clergy, who had almost given up in despair, there were only the
Rev. Messrs. Wilmer and Norris, in Alexandria, the Rev. Mr.
Lemmon, who had just come to Fauquier, Mr. Edward McGuire,
acting as lay-reader in Fredericksburg, (preferred by the people in
that capacity to another importation from abroad,) and the one
who makes this record. But from this time forth a favourable
change commenced. Hope sprung up in the bosoms of many
hitherto desponding. Bishop Moore had some fine qualifications
for the work of revival. His venerable form, his melodious voice, his
popular preaching, his evangelical doctrine, his amiable disposition,
his fund of anecdote in private, and his love for the Church, all
contributed to make him popular and successful, so far as he was
able to visit and put forth effort. His parochial engagements and
bodily infirmities prevented his visiting many parts of the diocese.
He never crossed the Alleghany Mountains, although he sometimes
visited North Carolina, which then had no Bishop. In the spring
of 1815, the first Convention under his Episcopate assembled in
Richmond. It must be evident to all, from the account given of
the past history of the Church in Virginia, that much prejudice
must have existed against it, and that the reputation of both clergy
and people for true piety must have been low, and that it was most
proper to take some early occasion of setting forth the principles
on which it was proposed to attempt its resuscitation. The last
Convention, which was held under Bishop Madison, and which was
followed by an intermission of seven years, had prepared the way
for this, by declaring the necessity of a reform in the manners of
both clergy and laity and by establishing rules for the trial of both.
Wherefore, among the first things which engaged the consideration
of the Convention of 1815, was the establishing a code of discipline.
The Diocese of Maryland, from which two of our brethren,
the Rev. Messrs. Wilmer and Norris, came, had already been engaged
in the same work, and we did little else than copy the regulations
there adopted. But although they were only the grosser
vices of drunkenness, gaming, extortion, &c. which it was proposed
to condemn, yet great opposition was made. The hue and cry of
priestly usurpation and oppression was raised. It was said that
the clergy only wanted the power, and fire and fagot would soon
be used again—that we were establishing a Methodist Church, and
that the new church needed reformation already. The opposition
indeed was such at this and the ensuing Convention, that we had
to content ourselves with renewing the general resolutions of the
Convention of 1805, under Bishop Madison. In two years after
this, however, in the Convention held in Winchester, when the
number of the clergy and the piety of the laymen had increased,
the subject was again brought up, and the condemnation of those
things which brought reproach on the Church was extended to
theatres, horse-racing, and public balls, by an overwhelming majority.
The same has been renewed and enforced at a more recent
one. The Church now began to move on with more rapid strides.
In looking over the list of the clergy who were added to our ranks
in the few following years we see the names of such men as Hawley,
Horrell, the two Allens, the Lowes, Ravenscroft, Smith, now
Bishop of Kentucky, Wingfield, the elder Armstrong, of Wheeling,
Charles Page, Keith, Lippitt, Alexander Jones, Cobbs, George
Smith, William Lee, John Grammer, J. P. McGuire, Brooke, the
Jacksons, and others. The itinerant labours of some of them deserve
special notice. Benjamin Allen's labours in the Valley of
Virginia, Charles Page's in the counties of Amherst, Nelson, &c.,
Mr. Cobb's in Bedford and the counties round about, William Lee's
in Amelia, Goochland, Powhatan, and others, Mr. Grammer's in
Dinwiddie, Brunswick, Greenville, Surry, and Prince George, and
J. P. McGuire's between the Rappahannock and James Rivers,
were such as few professedly itinerant preachers ever surpass.
Without such self-denying labours, the Church could never have
been revived in these places. The faithful and zealous men, whom
I have enumerated above, were accompanied and have been followed
by other faithful ones, too numerous to mention

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

It is time that I should now advert to the origin and progress of
one great instrument of the Church's prosperity in Virginia,—the
Theological Seminary at Alexandria. As Bishop Moore was about
leaving New York for Virginia, in the summer of 1814, Dr. Augustine
Smith, a native of Virginia, who had been for some years
Professor in a Medical School in New York and who was then
about to take charge of William and Mary College, met him in the
street and proposed that the Church in Virginia should establish a
Theological Professorship in Williamsburg, and thus make the College,
what its royal patrons designed, a School of the Prophets.
Bishop Moore encouraged the proposal, and a deputation of one of
the Professors was sent to the Convention of 1815 for the purpose
of promoting the plan. The Convention approved it, and the Rev.
Dr. Keith became the minister of the Episcopal congregation in
Williamsburg, and was prepared to instruct any candidates for the
ministry who might be sent there. During a stay of two years
only one presented himself. On various accounts Williamsburg
was found to be an unsuitable place. The Convention of Virginia
had appointed Col. Edward Colston and myself a Committee to
correspond with the Bishop of Maryland and some leading laymen
in North Carolina, proposing a union with Virginia in the establishment
and management of the Seminary at Williamsburg. From
North Carolina we received no answer. From the Bishop of Maryland[12] we received a prompt and decided refusal, accompanied with
such severe strictures on the religion and morals of Virginia that
we did not present it to the Convention, but only reported our

failure. Williamsburg especially was objected to on account of its
infidelity as altogether unfit to be the seat of such an institution.
Those of us who were engaged in the resuscitation of the Church
were also said to be extravagant in some of our notions, as is apt
to be the case with those who in flying from one extreme rush into
the other. There was much in the letter but too true of the laity
and clergy, both of Maryland and Virginia, in that and past days.
Having failed in our experiment at Williamsburg, we determined to
make trial of it in Alexandria, by the help of our Education Society
—Dr. Keith, Dr. Wilmer, and Mr. Norris, being the Professors.
The General Theological Seminary was now getting under way,
and its friends were afraid of some interference with its prosperity.
The ground was taken that this was the institution of the Church,
and its claims paramount to all others. Most threatening letters
were addressed to Bishop Moore, calling upon him as a Bishop of
the General Church, bound to guard its unity, to interpose and
prevent the establishment of the Seminary at Alexandria. Happily
for us, Mr. Kohn had bequeathed a large fund for the General
Seminary in New York, where it was located when the will was
written; but, meanwhile, it had been removed to New Haven, and
it was contended that it could not inherit a legacy which was given
to an institution in New York. Bishop Hobart now took the
field in favour of Diocesan Seminaries and wrote a pamphlet on the
subject, claiming the legacy for one to be established in New York,
under Diocesan rule. A General Convention was called to settle
the question, and it was compromised by restoring the General
Seminary to New York, on certain terms, which, as it was foreseen
and predicted, made it and has continued it, virtually, a New York
Seminary. But we heard no more after that of the schismatical
character of the Virginia Seminary, nor have we since that time
heard any other objections of the kind to those established in Ohio,
Kentucky, Illinois, and Connecticut. Our Seminary continued for
several years in the town of Alexandria, until we raised sufficient
funds to purchase its present site and erect some of its buildings.
We are indebted to the zeal of Mr. John Nelson, of Mecklenburg,
for the first moneys collected for that purpose. He visited a considerable
part of the State, and raised a handsome contribution to
it. In the year 1828 I took my turn, and visited a still larger
portion of the State, realizing a greater amount. Other calls
have at successive periods been made, and always with success.
An attempt to raise an Episcopal fund for a time interfered with
and postponed this, but it was soon evident that this was the
favourite with the people, and the other was relinquished.

CLERICAL ASSOCIATIONS.

Next in the order of time, and agreeably to a recommendation
in one of the Conventions in Bishop Madison's time, comes the
establishment of Clerical Associations. The first of these was in
the Valley of Virginia, consisting of the ministers of Berkeley,
Jefferson, and Frederick—Dr. Balmaine, the Rev. Benjamin Allen,
Enoch Lowe, Mr. Brian, and myself,—Benjamin Smith, now
Bishop Smith, coming among us soon after. We assembled quarterly
in each other's parishes; preaching for several days and
nights; having meetings among ourselves, and at private houses,
for special prayer; taking up collections for missionaries to the
western part of Virginia. The two first who went to Virginia
beyond the Alleghanies—the Rev. Charles Page and William Lee
—were sent out by our Society. These Associations were
attended by much good and no evil, so far as I know and believe.
I have ever encouraged them since entering the Episcopate, and
Bishop Moore did the same before and after that time, as being
most important auxiliaries to the Bishops, especially in large
dioceses. I regard it as an evil omen, when ministers, favourably
situated, are averse to such means of their own and their
people's improvement, though I do not mean to say that there
are not some good and pious men who regard them in a different
light.

OUR CONVENTIONS COME NEXT.

For the first few years after our reorganization our Conventions
were not only small as to numbers, but sad and gloomy in character,
attracting no attention. A succession of the rainy seasons in
May attended them for so many years that the two were closely
associated in the public mind. For some years they were held in
Richmond; but the proverbial and profuse hospitality of that place
was not then generally afforded them. For the most part, both
clerical and lay delegates were to be seen only at the taverns, and
but few religious services were held. The Convention at Fredericksburg—the
first after the system of rotation commenced—was
kindly and hospitably entertained, and from that time onward they
became not only delightful to the clergy and laity composing them.

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEAR ALEXANDRIA.

but attractive to others. To understand aright the history of such
large assemblies as our Conventions attract, and the reasons which
justify our encouragement of them by making religious exercises
so large a part of their doings, it must be stated that not only are
the Virginians a people given to visiting, but that the Episcopalians
are peculiarly so by reason of the fact that, for the most part,
they have sprung from a comparatively few families, who, by marriages
and intermarriages, though scattered all over the State,
make up one great family of tenderly-attached relatives, who are
always pleased at a good excuse, if the ability allows, to assemble
together. The bond of Christian fellowship and of Church feeling
also is very strong, even where the other is not, as well as where it
is. Hospitality also is a strong principle with them, and it is easier
here than in most places to throw open the doors and welcome all
who will come in on such occasions. A more innocent mode—nay,
a more religious mode—of gratifying the social feeling cannot be
than that of meeting together at our Conventions; and an imperative
duty rests on the ministers to afford the people the most frequent
and edifying services in their power, so that they may take
up the song of God's ancient people, when going by Divine command
to the great feasts of His own appointment:—

Sometimes they have been most edifying as well as joyful occasions.
The presence of God has been felt. The word preached
has been attended with great power. Many have remembered
them as the means of their awakening, and many as the channels
of more grace to their already converted souls. Long may they
continue to be thus used. Even if some dioceses are so small, or
the conveyances so convenient and rapid, that a few hours or at
most a day can bring them all to the place of meeting, and a very
short time may suffice for legislation and business, let it be remembered
how very large are the dimensions of the Diocese of Virginia,
how difficult and tedious the journey of many of its members to
the Convention, and it will be felt and acknowledged that to meet
on mere business for a few hours or a day would not be sufficient
to induce and remunerate the attendance of either clergy or laity.

THE REQUIRING OF LAY DELEGATES TO BE COMMUNICANTS.

We have already spoken of the measures adopted for the purification
of the Church from evil-livers, among both clergy and laity,
by the passage of wholesome canons. At three successive periods
was this done, opposition being made each time, and six Conventions
in all being in part occupied in the discussion and contest.
We now refer to the method adopted, after a considerable time had
elapsed, for the purification of our Conventions from unworthy lay
delegates, by requiring that they be in full communion with the
Church, and not merely baptized members or professed friends,
whether baptized or not. No law, either of the General or State
Conventions, forbade an infidel or the most immoral man from being
the deputy from a parish in the Diocesan Convention, although questions
might come before them touching the Creed and Articles and
worship of the Church, or the trial of bishops, clergy, and laymen.
The strange anomaly of persons legislating for others and
not being themselves subject to such legislation was allowed in the
Church, when it would have been resisted in any and every other
society. The consequence resulted, that, although there was a
great improvement in the general character of the Church and the
respectability of the lay delegation to our Conventions, we were
still distressed and mortified at the occasional appearance of one
or more unworthy members, who were a scandal to the Church,
the scandal being the greater because of the number of attendants.
The frequenters of the race-ground and the card-table and the
lovers of the intoxicating cup sometimes found their way through
this unguarded door into the legislative hall. It was proposed to
close it; but strenuous opposition was made by some, as to a
measure assailing individual and congregational rights. It was
discussed for three successive years, and though a considerable
majority was always ready to pass the proposed canon, that majority
yielded so far to the minority as to allow of delay and
further consideration, which only resulted in the final passage of it
by increased and overwhelming numbers. An incident occurred,
during one of the discussions, showing how the consciences of even
those who are not in full communion with the Church approve of
wholesome legislation and discipline. A worthy clergyman, who
was opposing the canon, referred to his own lay delegate as a proof
of what excellent men might be sent to the Convention, who were
nevertheless not communicants. When he was seated, the lay delegate,

a very humble and good man, who had never spoken before
in Convention, rose and expressed his entire dissent from his minister,
and, as it was proposed to postpone the question until the
next day, begged that there might be no delay, as he should sleep
more quietly that night after having given his vote in favour of so
necessary a regulation. He lived to appear in our body once more
in full communion with the Church. We have never, since the
adoption of this rule, had cause to repent of our legislation, or to
blush for the scandal cast upon us by unworthy members.

POLICY OF THE BISHOPS AND CLERGY OF VIRGINIA IN REGARD TO
TRACTARIANISM.

At an early period Bishop Moore called the attention of the
clergy and laity of Virginia to this heretical and Romish movement,
when it overhung our horizon only as a cloud no larger than
a man's hand. But it was a black and portentous one. The Convention
in Norfolk, with a few exceptions, agreed with him in the
propriety of warning against the giving of any encouragement to
the circulation of the insidious tracts. At the meeting in Alexandria,
the following year, when they had been circulated through
the land, having already done much evil in our Mother-Church, a
call was made upon all to expose and condemn the false doctrines
thereof. The Bishops and ministers did their duty in sounding the
alarm, and the faithful Professors of our Seminary did theirs. The
consequence is that the Church of Virginia has been preserved
from the ill effects of the erroneous and strange doctrines taught
by that school.

THE USE OF THE LITURGY AND VESTMENTS IN VIRGINIA.

From what has been said in the foregoing pages as to the
deplorable condition of the Church in Virginia, it may well be
imagined that its liturgical services were often very imperfectly
performed. In truth, the responsive parts were almost entirely
confined to the clerk, who, in a loud voice, sung or drawled them
out. As to the psalmody, it is believed that the Hundredth Psalm,
to the tune of Old Hundred, was so generally used as the signal
of the Service begun, that it was regarded as the law of the Church.
A case has been mentioned to me by good authority, where a new
minister, having varied from the established custom, gave out a
different psalm; but the clerk, disregarding it, sung as usual the
Hundredth. So unaccustomed were the people to join in the Service,

that when I took charge of the congregation in Alexandria
in 1811 I tried in vain to introduce the practice, until I fell on the
expedient of making the children, who in large numbers came
weekly to my house to be catechized, go over certain parts of the
Service and the Psalms with me, and, after having thus trained
them, on a certain Sabbath directed them to respond heartily and
loudly in the midst of the grown ones. They did their part well,
and complete success soon attended the plan. Throughout the
State, when not only the friends of the Church were rapidly diminishing
and Prayer Books were very scarce, but even clerks were
hard to be gotten, I presume that the Services were very irregularly
performed. I knew of an instance where the clergyman did
not even take a Prayer Book into the pulpit, but, committing to
memory some of the principal prayers of the Morning Service, used
them in the pulpit before sermon, after the manner of other denominations.
I am unable to say whether it ever was, or had been
for a long time, the habit of any or of many of the ministers to
use what is called the full Service, combining what all acknowledge
to have been originally the three distinct parts of the old English
cathedral Service, and used separately at different portions of the
day, namely, the Morning Service proper, the Litany, the Ante-Communion
Service, and which, without law, were gradually
blended into one, for the convenience of those who preferred one
long to three short services. The probability is, that in a church
without a head and any thing like discipline, the practice may have
been very various, according to the consciences, tastes, and convenience
of those who officiated. The practice of those who engaged
in the resuscitation of the Church in Virginia, was to use the two
former portions of the Liturgy—the Morning Service and Litany
—and to omit the Ante-Communion Service, except on communion
days. This was introduced among us by the brethren who came
from Maryland, the Rev. Dr. Wilmer, Norris, and Lemmon, who
doubtless believed that it was according to the design of those who
arranged the American Prayer Book. They quoted as authority
the declaration and practice of the Rev. Dr. Smith, who, as may
be seen in the journals of our earliest General Convention, took a
leading part in the changes of the Prayer Book. Dr. Smith, after
leaving Philadelphia, settled in Chestertown, Md., where it was
declared he never used the Ante-Communion Service. Dr. Wilmer
was one of his successors, and said that it was also affirmed that
Dr. Smith avowed himself to have been the author of one or more
of the Rubrics, on the meaning and design of which rested the
question of obligation to use the Ante-Communion Service every
Sabbath, and that he had in view the permission to leave it optional
with the minister. I am aware that Bishop White has expressed a
different opinion, and that his practice was otherwise, nor do I purpose
to discuss the question or take sides, but only to state the
authority on which the Virginia custom was advocated. Neither
do I mean to appropriate this custom exclusively to Virginia and a
part of Maryland. In other parts of the land there were those who
adopted it. I had it from the lips of Bishop Hobart himself, that
a portion of the clergy of New York omitted that part of the Service,
and, as I shall show hereafter, it was this fact which had
much to do with his proposition to abridge the Service in other
parts, in order the more easily to enforce the use of this favourite
portion. The Bishop acknowledged to me that the Virginia clergy
were not the only transgressors in this respect. This much I can
say, that if they did err in the understanding of the rubric, they
made amends for the abridgment of the Service by seeking to
perform what was used in a more animated manner, and to introduce
a warm and zealous response among the people, and also by more
lengthened, animated, and evangelical discourses from the pulpit.
Nor was there any attempt to enforce upon all the practice thus
commenced. From the first, every minister has been allowed the
free exercise of his conscience and judgment in regard to it. For
a time, Bishop Moore, who had been accustomed to the fuller service
in the city of New York, was disposed to urge the same upon
the clergy of Virginia, but, after some observation and experience,
became satisfied that it was best to leave it to the discretion of each
minister, and, though in his own parish he always used it, never
required the same in his visits to others.

As to the vestments, the same liberty and the same variety has
ever existed in the Church of Virginia, without interruption to its
harmony. It is well known that the controversy in our Mother-Church
concerning the use of the surplice was a long and bitter
and most injurious one; was, indeed, considered by some of her
ablest Bishops and clergy as that which was the main point which
caused the final secession; that if the obligation to use it had been
removed, the Church would, for at least a much longer period, have
been undivided. Various attempts were made to abolish the canon
or rubric enforcing it, but it was thought improper to humour the
dissenters by so doing, and alleged that if this were done other
demands would be made. At the revision of the Prayer Book by
our American fathers, this and other changes, which had long been

desired by many in England, and still are, were at once made, and
the dress of the clergy left to their own good sense, it being only
required that it should be decent. I believe it has never been attempted
but once to renew the law enforcing clerical habits. Soon
after I entered the House of Bishops some one in the other House
proposed such a canon. A warm but short discussion ensued,
which ended in the withdrawal of what found but little favour.
During the discussion the subject was mentioned among the Bishops,
who seemed all opposed to it, and one of whom, more disposed,
perhaps, to such things than any other, cried out, "De minimis
non curat lex." That the old clergy of Virginia should have been
very uniform and particular in the use of the clerical vestments is
most improbable, from the structure of the churches and the location
of their vestry-rooms. The vestry-rooms formed no part of
the old churches, but were separate places in the yard or neighbourhood,
sometimes a mile or two off. They were designed for
civil as well as religious purposes, and were located for the convenience
of the vestrymen, who levied taxes and attended to all the
secular as well as ecclesiastical business of the parish. The setting
apart some portion of the old churches as robing or vestry-rooms
is quite a modern thing, and it is not at all probable that the ministers
would have gone backward and forward between the pulpits
and the former vestry-rooms in the churchyards, to change their
garments.[13] The clergy of Virginia, from the first efforts at resuscitating
the Church, have been charged by some with being too
indifferent to clerical garments; nor have they been very careful
to repel the charge, thinking it better to err in this way than in the
opposite. Bishop Hobart once taunted me with this, though at the
same time he acknowledged that there were times and places when
it would be folly to think of using the clerical garments, saying,
that in his visitations, especially to Western New York, he sometimes
dispensed not only with the Episcopal robes but even with
the black gown. The Bishops of Virginia have sometimes been
condemned for not requiring the candidates to be dressed in surplices
at the time of their admission to deacons' orders, although
there is no canon or rubric looking to such a thing. They are at
least as good Churchmen, in this respect, as the English Bishops.
When in England, some years since, I witnessed the ordination of
fifty deacons, by the present Archbishop of Canterbury, in Durham
Cathedral, not one of whom was surpliced; some of them, as well
as I remember, having on their college gowns, answering to our
black gowns, and others only their common garments. There is, I
think, less disposition to form and parade there than is sometimes
seen in our own country. I only add that Bishop Moore, in his
visitations, always took his seat in the chancel in his ordinary dress,
except when about to perform some official act, and thus addressed
the congregation after the sermon. I have seen no cause to depart
from his example.

GLEBES AND SALARIES WITHDRAWN.

It has been made a matter of great complaint against the Legislature
of Virginia, that it should not only have withdrawn the stipend
of sixteen thousand-weight of tobacco from the clergy, but
also have seized upon the glebes. I do not mean to enter upon the
discussion of the legality of that act, or of the motives of those
who petitioned for it. Doubtless there were many who sincerely
thought that it was both legal and right, and that they were doing
God and religion a service by it. I hesitate not, however, to express
the opinion, in which I have been and am sustained by many
of the best friends of the Church then and ever since, that nothing
could have been more injurious to the cause of true religion in the
Episcopal Church, or to its growth in any way, than the continuance
of either stipend or glebes. Many clergymen of the
most unworthy character would have been continued among us, and
such a revival as we have seen have never taken place. As it was,
together with the glebes and salaries evil ministers disappeared
and made room for a new and different kind. Even in cases
where, from some peculiarity in the manner in which the glebes
were first gotten and the tenure by which they were held, the law
could not alienate them from the parish, they have been, I believe,
without an exception, a drawback to the temporal and spiritual
prosperity of the congregations, by relaxing the efforts of the
people to support the ministry and making them to rely on the
uncertain profits of their contested or pillaged lands. The prejudices
excited against the Church by the long contest for them were
almost overwhelming to her hopes, and a successful termination of
that contest might have been utterly fatal to them for a long period
of time. Not merely have the pious members of the Church
taken this view of the subject, since the revival of it under other
auspices, but many of those who preferred the Church at that day,

for other reasons than her evangelical doctrine and worship, saw
that it was best that she be thrown upon her own resources. I had
a conversation many years since with Mr. Madison, soon after he
ceased to be President of the United States, in which I became
assured of this. He himself took an active part in promoting the
act for the putting down the establishment of the Episcopal Church,
while his relative was Bishop of it and all his family connection
attached to it. He mentioned an anecdote illustrative of the preference
of many for it who still advocated the repeal of all its
peculiar privileges. I give his own words. At a time when lobby
members were sent by some of the other denominations to urge
the repeal of all laws favouring the Episcopal Church, one, an
elder of a church, came from near Hampton, who pursued his
work with great fearfulness and prudence. An old-fashioned Episcopal
gentleman, of the true Federal politics, with a three-cornered
hat, powdered hair, long queue, and white top-boots, perceived him
approaching very cautiously one day, as if afraid though desirous
to speak. Whereupon he encouraged the elder to come forward,
saying that he was already with him, that he was clear for giving
all a fair chance, that there were many roads to heaven, and he
was in favour of letting every man take his own way; but he was
sure of one thing, that no gentleman would choose any but the
Episcopal. Although I am far from assenting to the conclusion
that no gentlemen are to be found in other denominations, or that
there were none in Virginia at that time who had become alienated
from the Episcopal and attached to other churches, yet it cannot
be denied that the more educated and refined were generally averse
to any but the Episcopal Church, while many, of whom the above-mentioned
was a fair representative, were in favour of equal privileges
to all.[14] It may be well here to state, what will more fully
appear when we come to speak of the old glebes and churches in
a subsequent number, that the character of the laymen of Virginia
for morals and religion was in general greatly in advance of that
of the clergy. The latter, for the most part, were the refuse or
more indifferent of the English, Irish, and Scottish Episcopal
Churches, who could not find promotion and employment at home.
The former were natives of the soil and descendants of respectable
ancestors who migrated at an early period. For high and honourable
character and a due appreciation of what was required in
ministers of the Gospel there were numerous influential laymen
who would favourably compare with those of any part of the land.
Some of the vestries, as their records painfully show, did what
they could to displace unworthy ministers, though they often failed
through defect of law. In order to avoid the danger of having
evil ministers fastened upon them, as well as from the scarcity of
ministers, they made much use of lay-readers as substitutes. In
some instances, as will be seen, such readers were very successful
in strengthening the things which remained after the Church was
deprived of her possessions and privileges and the clergy had
abandoned their charges. The reading of the Service and sermons
in private families, which contributed so much to the preservation
of an attachment to the Church in the same, was doubtless promoted
by this practice of lay-reading. Those whom Providence
raised up to resuscitate the fallen Church of Virginia can testify
to the fact that the families who descended from the above-mentioned
have been their most effective supports. Existing in greater
or less numbers throughout the State, they have been the first to
originate measures for the revival of the Church, and the most
active and liberal ever since in the support of her ministers.
More intelligent and devoted Churchmen, more hospitable and
warm-hearted friends of the clergy, can nowhere be found. And
when in the providence of God they are called on to leave their
ancient homes and form new settlements in the distant South and
West, none are more active and reliable in transplanting the
Church of their Fathers.

SOME REFLECTIONS GROWING OUT OF THE FOREGOING PAGES.

The desertions from the Episcopal Church in Virginia on the
part of many who were awakened to a deeper sense of religion,
the violent opposition made to it, the persevering and successful
efforts for its downfall, the advantage taken by politicians for promoting
their objects, the abandonment of their charges by far the
greater part of the ministers so soon as their salaries were withdrawn
and when only unprofitable glebes remained to them, are
events in history which must have resulted from some powerful
cause or causes. The leading one must be found in the irreligious

character and defective preaching of the clergy, operating more or
less on the laity, for it will always be, in some degree, "like priest
like people." The ignorance, superstition, and corruption of the
Romish clergy and people invited that grand assault of the great
enemy of God and man upon the Christian Church and religion in
Europe, by the agency of Voltaire and his host of followers, which
led to the French Revolution with all its horrors. It is not wonderful
that the same great foe and his active agents should have
turned their attention to the Church and people of Virginia, in
their then most irreligious state, and made an effective assault
upon them. Infidelity became rife in Virginia, perhaps beyond
any other portion of the land. The clergy, for the most part,
were a laughing-stock or objects of disgust. Some that feared
God and desired to save their souls felt bound to desert them.
Persecution followed, and that only increased defection. Infidels
rejoiced at the sight, and politicians made their use of the unhappy
state of things. The Church fell. There was no Episcopal head
to direct and govern either clergy or people. No discipline could
be exerted over either. It is not surprising that many should
think it was deserted of God as well as of man. Such a view has
been taken of it by some ever since, and most diligently and successfully
urged to our injury. Although our present condition
ought to be sufficient proof that the Episcopal Church itself is
not an offence unto God,—while at one time it came under his displeasure
by reason of the unworthiness of many of its ministers
and members,—yet it may be well to advert, not in a spirit of
retaliation but in the love of truth and justice, to some facts,
showing that the Episcopal Church is not the only one in our land
which has had its unworthy ministers and members, and been of
course so far an object of the Divine displeasure. The history of
the whole Christian Church, as one of our opponents has said, is
the "history of declensions and revivals." The Baptist Church
in Virginia, which took the lead in dissent, and was the chief
object of persecution by the magistrates and the most violent and
persevering afterward in seeking the downfall of the Establishment,
was the first to betray signs of great declension in both ministers
and people. The Rev. Robert Sample, in his History of the Baptists
of Virginia, is faithful in acknowledging this. He informs us
that at an early period Kentucky and the Western country took
off many of their ministers in pursuit of gain. Some of these
ministers had dishonoured the profession. "With some few exceptions,"
he says, "the declension (among the people) was general
throughout the State. The love of many waxed cold. Some of
the watchmen fell, others stumbled, and many slumbered at their
posts. Iniquity greatly abounded." At another time he says,
"The great revival had now subsided, and the axe was laid at the
root of the tree. Many barren and fruitless trees were already
cut down. In many of the churches the number excluded surpassed
the number received." Again, he speaks of the undue
dwelling on some highly Calvinistic doctrines. "Truth is often
injured by an unsuitable application of its parts. Strong meat
should not be given but to men. To preach the deep, mysterious
doctrines of grace upon all occasions, and before all sorts of people,
is the sure way to preach them out of the parts." Again, he says,
in the same connection, "Unguardedness respecting preachers, in
various ways, but especially as to impostors, has injured the Baptists
in many parts, but in none more than on the Eastern Shore.
They have probably suffered more by impostors than any other
people in Virginia." He then mentions several sad instances of
shameful misconduct, adding others afterward. I am also compelled
in honest truth to say, that at a later period, many others
coming within my own knowledge and observation must be united
to the above; but I am also rejoiced to declare, from the same
knowledge, that the character of the ministry of that denomination
for piety and ability, and no doubt that of the people with it, has
been most manifestly improving for many years. I trust that with
the acknowledged improvement of our own, there will be an increased
disposition to forget all former animosities, to think and
speak charitably of each other, and only strive which shall most
promote the common cause of true religion.

Leaving my own State and Diocese, I proceed to speak of some
at a distance who have experienced like declension from the true
faith and practice. Col. Byrd, of Virginia, in his "Westover
Manuscripts," concerning a tour through the State in the year
1733, speaking of the Pilgrim Fathers of New England, says,
"Though these people may be ridiculed for some Pharisaical peculiarities
in their worship and behaviour, yet they were very useful
subjects, as being frugal and industrious, giving no scandal or bad
example, at least by any open and public vices. By which excellent
qualities they had much the advantage of the Southern colony,
who thought their being members of the Established Church sufficient
to sanctify very loose and profligate morals. For this reason
New England improved much faster than Virginia." Strict, however,
as were the morals, and evangelical as were the doctrines, of

the Pilgrim Fathers of New England, the time of declension in
both came on. We may trace the declension in doctrine to that
which was the Mother-Church to many of them,—the Church of
Scotland. The moralizing system began there, as it had done in
the English Church. I remember to have heard Mr. Balmaine—
once a member of that Church—often compare together the moralizing
and evangelical parties of his early days,—now a hundred
years ago. Dr. Blair and Mr. Walker were the representatives of
the two parties, though associate ministers in the same church in
Edinburgh. He had heard them both. The more worldly and
fashionable delighted in the sermons of Dr. Blair, who preached in
the morning. The more zealous and evangelical attended in
greater numbers the services of Dr. Walker, who preached in the
afternoon. Dr. Witherspoon also, former President of Princeton
College, has, in his work entitled "Characteristics," exercised his
unsurpassed wit as well as pious zeal in portraying the two parties,
—the one, calling itself the "Moderate Party," which he charges
with being "fierce for moderation," and zealous in nothing else.
The same soon began to exist in New England. Low views of the
qualification for baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the ministry,
gradually crept in. The moralizing system took the place of the
evangelical. The distinctive principles of the Gospel were kept
back, and thus the way was prepared for the Unitarian heresy.
The morals also of the Church, as might be expected, began to
fail. The labours and preaching of Edwards and others and the
great revival under them did much to arrest the downward tendency;
but the evil went on. The love of pleasure in the young
and of strong drink in both young and old increased in many
places. Deacons and elders sold rum by wholesale, and other
members by retail. Nor did the clergy lift up their voices in
solemn warnings, as they should have done, but very many freely
used the intoxicating draught. That aged and venerable man, the
Rev. Leonard Woods, of Andover, states that at a particular period
previous to the temperance reformation he was able to count
nearly forty ministers of the Gospel, none of whom resided at a
very great distance, who were either drunkards or so far addicted
to intemperate drinking, that their reputation and usefulness were
very greatly injured if not utterly ruined. He mentions an ordination
at which he was present, and at which he was pained to see two
aged ministers literally drunk and a third indecently excited by
strong drink. "These disgusting and appalling facts," says this
most esteemed minister of the Gospel, "I could wish might be
concealed. But they were made public by the guilty persons; and
I have thought it just and proper to mention them, in order to
show how much we owe to a compassionate God for the great deliverance
he hath wrought."[15] (The Ninth Report of the Am. Tem.
Society, as quoted in the Temperance Prize Essay, "Bacchus," pp.
79, 80; edition of 1840.) To this I add a testimony of my own.
About thirty-five or thirty-six years ago, I devoted some time to
the service of the Colonization Society, forming the first auxiliaries
and selecting the first colonists in some of the larger cities of the
Union, North and South. Of course, I mingled freely with ministers
and members of different denominations and had opportunity
of knowing what I now affirm,—namely, that many ministers of
respectable standing, and not confined to any one denomination,
were in the habit of using themselves and offering to others who
visited them, not merely at the hour of dinner, but long before,
brandy and other drinks. I have special reference to one large
city, where, in a few years, the evil effects were seen and felt, in
the reproach brought on several denominations by the partial if
not total fall of some of their chief leaders. In proof of the prevalence
of such a ruinous habit I mention the fact, that in a funeral
sermon preached about that time over a deceased minister, and
published to the world, it was mentioned to his praise, that such
was his hospitality that he never permitted even a morning visit
to be paid him without offering wine and other refreshments. How
thankful we should be to God for the great change which he has
caused to take place in the hospitalities of our day! As for myself,
I can never hear without pain a slighting remark made by any one,
especially by a minister, and more especially by one of our own
Church, concerning that society which I believe God has raised up
in our land, as one instrument by which so much has been done
for the diminution of this great evil.

From this digression, if it be a digression, I return, and draw
this article to a close.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

Having thus presented a brief sketch of some of the most interesting
incidents in the past history of the Church of Virginia, let
us with deep humility and lively gratitude compare together our
past and present condition, saying, "What hath God wrought!"
Toward the close of two hundred years after its first establishment
there were nearly one hundred ministers and one hundred and
sixty churches, and then in seven years after only a few fainthearted
ones serving in the few remaining and almost deserted
sanctuaries; now again, after the labours of less than half a century,
our hundred ministers are restored and more than one hundred
and seventy churches are open for the people of God. For
two hundred years not a Bishop ever visited the diocese, and even
after one was sent only a few ministrations were performed; now,
two Bishops have full employment in visiting two hundred churches
or stations. It was for years found impracticable to raise sufficient
funds for the consecration of one Bishop; now, funds are raised for
the annual support of two, independent of parochial charges. It
was once proposed, in a declining state of the Church, but in vain,
to raise funds for the education of only two candidates for the
ministry; now, numbers are annually receiving preparatory instruction
at our Seminary. Formerly we were entirely dependent
on foreign parts for our supply of clergymen, insufficient as to
numbers and worse as to character; now, by the blessing of God
on our Seminary, we are enabled to send forth to the decayed
churches of Greece, or to the heathen of Asia and Africa, a goodly
number of faithful and zealous missionaries of the cross. Formerly,

and for at least a century, numbers were deserting our communion,
as that which had deserted God, and was deserted of God; now,
for the last forty years, either themselves or their children or children's
children have in considerable numbers been returning to our
fold, as to one which God himself was keeping and blessing.
Whereas once almost all men thought and spoke ill of our clergy
and communicants as devoid of piety, now, only those who are
misinformed, or most prejudiced, refuse to acknowledge that
through God's grace there is at least as large an amount of true
piety in both ministers and people as is to be found in those of any
other denomination. Whereas once we had for many years no
Conventions and then for some years a few faint-hearted ministers
and people meeting together, now, what numbers of clergy and
laity delight to assemble, not for the dry business of legislation
only, or for religious controversy, but chiefly for the blessed privilege
of joining hearts and voices in the sweet exercises of God's
word and worship, and thus becoming knit together in love! Thus
graciously hath God dealt with us. Out of gratitude to him, and
that we may continue to enjoy his smiles, it becomes us ever to
bear in mind by what means this hath been done; how our Jacob
arose, when he was not only so small, but crushed to the earth,
trodden under foot of man, after having been betrayed by friends
and dishonoured by the very ministers of God who were appointed
to defend him. In the character, habits, views, and history of the
man whom God sent to us from a distance to be our head and
leader in this work, and in the views of those, whether from our
own State or elsewhere, who entered into the service, may be seen
the religious principles and methods of action by which, under God,
the change has been effected; and it need not be said how entirely
different they were from those by which the disgrace and downfall
of the Church had been wrought. Of the efficacy of these means
we are the more convinced from the peculiar and very great difficulties
to be surmounted, which have nevertheless in a great measure
been surmounted. We are persuaded that in no part of our
own land were there such strong prejudices and such violent oppositions
to be overcome as in Virginia, in consequence of the former
character of the Episcopal clergy, and the long and bitter strife
which had existed between the Church and those who had left its
pale, which latter were never satisfied until the downfall of the
former was accomplished.

Let me briefly recapitulate the means used. Bishop Moore, in
his previous correspondence, and his first sermon and address,

declared his determination to preach as he had ever done, when
God so greatly blessed his ministry, the glorious doctrines of
grace, instead of a mere morality, such as many of the English
clergy had once preached, and such as had been but too common
in Virginia. The young clergy, who engaged in the revival of
the Church of Virginia, took the same resolve and made the great
theme of their preaching "Jesus Christ and him crucified," on the
ground of a total apostasy from God on the part of man which
required such a sacrifice, as well as the renewing of the Holy
Ghost in order to meetness for the joys of Heaven. But they
did not turn this grace of God into licentiousness and think that
either priest or people might indulge in sin. Among the first
acts of the earlier Conventions, it was at once set forth before the
world that the revival of the Church was to be undertaken on
principles entirely different from those which had hitherto prevailed,
and under the influence of which religion had been so
much dishonoured. It was plainly declared that there was need
of discipline both for clergy and laity, and canons were provided
for the exercise of the same. Not merely were grosser vices stigmatized,
but what by some were considered the innocent amusements
of the world and which the clergy themselves had advocated
and practised were condemned as inconsistent with the
character of a Christian professor.

Baptism, by which we renounce the pomps and vanities of the
world as well as the sinful lusts of the flesh, and which had been
customarily celebrated in private, directly in opposition to the
rubric and often amidst ungodly festivities, was now sought to be
performed only in the house of God, and with pious sponsors
instead of thoughtless and irreligious ones. Candidates for confirmation,
instead of being presented because they had reached a
certain age and could repeat the Catechism, were told what a
solemn vow, promise, and profession they were about to make,
and that it was none other than an immediate introduction with
full qualifications to the Lord's Supper. Of course very different
views of the Lord's Supper and of the conduct of communicants
were inculcated, and the ministers bound, by express canon, to
converse with each one before admitting for the first time to the
Lord's Supper. Thus were the whole tone and standard of
religion changed, to the dissatisfaction and complaint, it is true,
of some of the old members of the Church, and not without the
condemnation of some from abroad. In due time, the important
measure, requiring that all who enter our Convention to legislate

for Christians and Christian ministers should themselves be
Christian professors, was adopted, though there were those at home
who feared the attempt, and those abroad who prophesied evil in
such a manner as to encourage disaffection at home. But God
was with us and has granted most entire success.

As to the manner of exciting zeal in Christians and awakening
interest in those who were not, it was thought that no better
example could be followed than that of the apostles, who
preached not only in the temple and synagogues, but from house
to house, as occasion required and opportunity offered. As to
the manner of preaching, written sermons were generally preferred
in the pulpit, while extemporaneous exhortations were
often resorted to in smaller assemblies. Without slighting the
excellent prayers of our Liturgy, there were many occasions, both
in private families and in social meetings, when extemporaneous
petitions seemed edifying both to the pastor and his flock. As to
the great benevolent and religious institutions of the age, our
ministers felt that they were doing well to encourage their people
to a lively participation in them. The Missionary and Bible
Societies, the Colonization and Temperance Societies, received
their most cordial support, and they considered it a subject of
devout thankfulness to God if their congregations took a deep
interest in the same. To provoke each other and their congregations
to zeal in all good works, and especially to awaken the
careless to a sense of their lost condition, the ministers would
meet together occasionally, and for several successive days make
full trial of prayer and the word, expecting the blessing promised
to two or three who come together and ask somewhat of
God.

To these I will only add a few words as to the spirit cherished
and the course pursued toward our Christian brethren who walk
not with us in all things of Church order and worship. Long and
bitter was the strife that subsisted between them and our fathers,
violent the prejudices that raged against us, and it would have
been easy to enter on the work of revival in the spirit of retaliation
and fierce opposition. But would it have been right, and as
our Master would have had us do? Our forefathers had done
religion much and them some wrong. God made use of them for
good. Many of them were doubtless most sincere in their fear
of us and opposition to us. It became us rather to win them over
by love, and secure their esteem by living and preaching differently
from our predecessors. Such was the conciliatory course

pursued by our deceased father in God, and followed by those
who perceived the good effects of his example, and most happy
was the effect of the same. But while we have reason, at thought
of our present by comparison with our past condition, to exclaim,
"What hath God done!" "to thank him and take courage," yet
should we beware of boasting, or of supposing that all is done, or
that what remains will certainly and easily be done. I consider it
as the great error of many in our Church, that we are too much
given to boasting, too apt to overrate our own successes, and calculate
too largely on far greater, while underrating the present or
probable future successes of others. God will, in his own way,
correct us, if we be guilty of presumption. Our Jacob is still
small, and it becomes us now, as of old, to ask, By whom shall be
arise? Much is yet to be done, and there are many difficulties in
the way. Though we have a goodly number of ministers, yet there
are by no means enough to carry on the work of enlargement as
we could wish, and as the door seems opening to us. Although
we have many churches, yet how many of the congregations are
small and not rapidly increasing, being still unable to afford even
a moderate support to the ministry! Many are the discouragements
which meet us in our efforts to sustain some of the old and
to raise up new congregations. Among the most painful is the
difficulty of attaching the poor of this world to our communion.
When our Lord was on earth he gave, as one of the signs of his
heavenly descent, the blessed fact that "to the poor the Gospel
is preached," and "the common people," it is written, "heard
him gladly,"—"the multitudes followed him." Such should be
our constant endeavour; and if, from the causes alluded to in the
past history of our Church, one description of the poor of Virginia
have been almost entirely alienated from us, let us rejoice
to know that there is another description not less acceptable
in the sight of Heaven, who, if we are kind to them and will
take due pains to win them over, may more easily be led to come
under the faithful preaching of the word. The poor servants will,
if we persevere in our labours of love toward them, and be to
them what God's faithful pastors in every age have been to the
poor, be benefited by our ministry, and may—if we will, in conjunction
with their owners, attend to them betimes, as we do to
our own children—become regular and pious members of our communion.
But whether we think of the rich or of the poor, or
of those of any and every condition and character among us,
with the hope of converting them to Christ and attaching them to
the communion of our Church, we need not expect much success
without great zeal and diligence, such as was put forth in our first
efforts for its resuscitation. Our State is not one of those whose
population is rapidly increasing, in which flourishing villages are
springing up in every direction calling for neat churches to fill up
the measure of their beauty and excellency, and where the support
of the ministry is sure, so that our Zion must needs lengthen
her cords and strengthen her stakes. Very different is it with us
now, has it been for many years, and will it in all probability be
for many years to come. It is only by patient perseverance in
well-doing that we can hope to make advances in the establishment
of our Church. Much self-denial and enduring of hardship
and abounding in labours and itinerant zeal and contentedness
with a little of this world's goods, on the part of many of our
ministers, are indispensable to the growth of the Church in Virginia
much beyond her present attainment. Without these things
she may, except in the towns, continue stationary, or even retrograde
in some places, during years to come.

To the foregoing I only add that in the summer of 1829 I
was consecrated Assistant Bishop of Virginia, and continued to
perform the duties of that office until, by the death of Bishop
Moore, in 1841, I succeeded to the place which he occupied.
During all that time, I can with truth say that not the slightest
circumstance ever occurred to interrupt for a moment a most harmonious
and pleasant relation between us. Bishop Johns was
consecrated Assistant Bishop in the fall of 1842; and I can as
truly say that thus far the same harmony has existed, and I feel
confident that it will exist until death or some other circumstance
shall dissolve the connection. Such is the extent of the Diocese,
and such was the difficulty of traversing it, that, for the first
twelve or thirteen years, I was engaged in visitation during eight
months of each year, travelling over large portions of it on horseback,
or in an open one-horse carriage. During the latter period,
six months suffice for such duties as devolved upon me, and these
could not possibly be performed but for the greatly-improved
modes of conveyance. I need not add, what is so well known,
that they are most imperfectly performed.