University of Virginia Library

ARTICLE XXXIX.

Parishes in Hanover.—No. 2.

The history of the treatment of other denominations of Christians
by the Government and Church of Virginia deserves a
special consideration; and I know not where, in the progress of
my sketches, it can be more properly examined than in connection
with the history of this parish. That the Episcopalians of Virginia
should, from the first, have shared in the spirit of the age,
and been sometimes guilty of such an exclusive course as marked
the Church of England, of Scotland, and of New England, and
which all in this age of toleration unite in condemning, was to be
expected; but it is not fair that she should be loaded with a
heavier reproach than was merited. From a pretty extensive—
and, we think, impartial—examination of the subject, we are
firmly persuaded that her misconduct in this respect has been
greatly exaggerated, and is much misunderstood to this day, even
by some of her most attached friends. The press, the pulpit, and
the fireside have been, for more than a century, accustomed to
retail instances of imprisonment, and fines, and restraints, colouring
and magnifying them according to the temperament of the
speaker, until many have been impressed with the belief that the
bloody persecutions of Nero, in the first ages, were not more
wicked. I remember from early boyhood to have heard, from the
pulpit and elsewhere, of the dreadful persecution of a worthy old
Dissenting minister, and for a long time his name was always
associated in my mind with stripes, imprisonment, and the shutting
up his lips from preaching the Gospel of Christ. During the last
summer I happened at the court-house, where whatever proceedings
took place must have been recorded; and I asked to see the records
of the same, when one of the clerks, being a descendant of the old
martyr, with a smile told me that the persecution was not so cruel
as some had supposed. On examination of the record, it appeared
that, having violated the Act of Toleration and preached in various
places of the parish without taking out a license for the same, he
had been presented for it, summoned before the court, and made
to give a small security for the observance of the law in the

future. All that the law required was, to ask for a license to
preach in such and such places, and it was freely given. I have,
during my life, been accustomed to hear of the persecutions of the
harmless Quakers in Virginia and elsewhere, and have ever thought
that it must have been proof of a most uncharitable spirit, not to
make the largest allowance for their scruples, and not only permit
them without molestation to worship God according to their own
consciences, but even to have some immunities as citizens on the
same account. But recent investigations have convinced me that
great injustice has been done to our forefathers in the imputation
cast upon them for their treatment of the first of this sect who came
into America. I have been, by the kindness of a friend, furnished
with extracts from the records of the Court of Accomac,—going
back to the year 1632, the oldest documents of the kind in Virginia,—from
which I find that, between 1650 and 1660, some
persons (called Quakers) appeared in that part of Virginia, and,
after a time, having made a few converts, built a log-church,—only
ten feet square, so small was their number. They were charged
not only with vilifying the ministers and disobeying the laws, but
with blaspheming God. Witnesses, in open court, proved their
denial that Christ was ever seen in the flesh, that he had any
humanity about him, that several of them called God "a foolish
old man," and other names. On account of these things they
were ordered to be sent over the bay to the Governor and Council.
What was done to them does not appear. How entirely does this
change the aspect of the case! It seems they were sent over for
trial, not for dissenting from the Church of England, but because
they were disobedient to law, wicked men, and blasphemers.
Were this the only testimony against them, we might hope some
mistake had occurred; but, both before and after this, we find the
Acts of Assembly and other documents speaking of some belonging
to this sect as lawless persons, disturbers of the peace, atheists,
and blasphemers. Even at a time when other denominations—as
the Huguenots and German Lutherans—were not only tolerated but
patronized, these men were put upon the same footing with Papists.
In the year 1711, Governor Spottswood, in a letter to the Lord-Commissioner,
speaks of them as much embarrassing the Government,
and "broaching doctrines so monstrous as their brethren in
England never owned, and which cannot be suffered in any government.
They have not only," he says, "refused to work themselves,
or suffer any of their servants to be employed in the fortifications,
but affirm that their consciences will not permit them to contribute
in any manner or way to the defence of the country, even so much
as trusting the Government for provision to support them that do
work, though at the same time they say that, being obliged by
their religion to feed their enemies, if the French should come
here and want provisions, they must, in conscience, supply them."
Governor Spottswood was not the man to be thus dealt with.
Accordingly he says, "I have, therefore, thought it necessary to
put the laws in force against them, since any one that is lazy or
cowardly would make use of the pretence of conscience to excuse
himself from working or fighting when there is greatest need of his
service." As the Quakers became a more respectable body in
Virginia, the treatment of them was changed.

I must make the same remark as to another denomination of
Christians in Virginia, who were generally called—as on their first
appearance in Europe—Anabaptists, and were a very different
people from what they are at this time. In the year 1761, the
Rev. James Maury addressed a printed letter of some length to
the Christians of all denominations in Virginia, calling upon them
to unite in opposing that new sect. There was at that time a
considerable number of Presbyterians in the Valley, and some in
different counties in Eastern Virginia. The Methodists, also, had
their preachers and congregations. The ground on which he calls
upon them to unite against the Anabaptists was, that they denied
all ordination, and claimed that every one had a right to preach,
by virtue of the inspiration of the Spirit, and that they were
going about, without any licence, disturbing the order of neighbourhoods
and churches with wild doctrines. Although Mr.
Maury held in high esteem and preference the Episcopal ordination,
yet he considered that regularly-appointed preachers of the
other Churches, according to some rule, were lawful ministers, of
which the Baptists at that time had none. This fact I mention
to show that the first opposition made to the Baptists was in a
measure caused and strengthened by doctrines and practices
which they themselves would now hold in condemnation, and upon
which they would exercise discipline. That their preachers
were dealt severely with in some instances then, and perhaps at
a later date, is certainly true; but let the truth also be admitted,
that it was the State, not the Church, which did it; that the
civil magistrates, not the clergy, were guilty; that the offences
which were the cause of their being arraigned were offences
against laws made by the civil legislature, though those laws had
reference to religious matters. Let it also be remembered how

often the clergy themselves condemned and opposed all such interference,
and how, when an appeal was made to the Governor and
Council, the mildest and most tolerant construction was put upon
the law, and the magistrates rebuked. Mr. Sample, in his "History
of the Baptists of Virginia," gives some instances of this.
We shall also see, hereafter, how the Bishop of London, in his
own behalf and that of the whole Church of England, disavows
having any thing to do with the making or executing laws against
Dissenters. The following extract from the address of Mr. Maury
will show of what spirit he was:—

Having made these preliminary remarks, I proceed to consider
the case of the Rev. Samuel Davies and the Presbyterians of
Hanover county, Virginia, which has been the subject of much
discussion. I introduce it by the following address of five Episcopal
clergymen, in Hanover and the counties around, to the
House of Burgesses, in the year —:

That these memorialists were perfectly sincere and conscientious
in their protest, I doubt not; nor have I any reason to suspect the
respectability of their character. The following statement, which
I take substantially from the history of the Presbyterian Church
in Virginia, by the Rev. Mr. Foote, will show the grounds on which
the charges in the foregoing letter were made. It must have been
somewhere about the year 1740, when the reports of some great
awakenings and revivals at the North, and some books differing
from those in common use, found their way first into Virginia, and
especially excited the minds of some persons in Hanover, Louisa,
and other counties around. Finding nothing in the sermons of the
Episcopal ministers corresponding with these, some of the laity
separated themselves from the usual services, which by law they
were bound to attend, and read sermons in private houses. After
a time certain ministers came among them from the North, but who
were not recognised by the Philadelphia Presbytery. It seems
that they, and some of the laymen who set up reading-houses, held
some extravagant doctrines, probably Antinomian, which made a
great noise. These, and the irregular meetings of the itinerant
preachers, and lay readers and exhorters, came to Governor Gooch's
ears. They were charged with assailing the Church and its ministers,
in private and public, with the most abusive language, and of
disturbing the peace and order of society. Governor Gooch, who
had always treated the Dissenters with great kindness, and had, in
reply to a letter from the Philadelphia Synod a few years before,
assured them that their members and people should be allowed the
free exercise of conscience in the worship of God, if complying with
the Act of Toleration, became much offended, and, summoning a
general court, delivered a charge complaining of the conduct of
those laymen and preachers who, professing to be Presbyterians, yet
utterly disregarded the conditions of the Act of Toleration, and produced
much discord in the Colony. This charge was laid before the
Synod of Philadelphia by a gentleman from Virginia. The Synod,
having considered it, sent the following address to the Governor:—

The following is an extract from the Governor's reply:—

The Synod soon after this, in reply to a petition from the people
in Hanover, sent them, as a temporary supply, two most venerable
men, Messrs. Tennent and Finley, who were kindly received by the
Governor and permitted to preach in Hanover. Then followed the
Rev. Mr. Blair, and soon after Mr. Whitefield, who, in passing
through Virginia, preached for them five days. During the intervals
of their visits, it is said that the Non-conformists and itinerant
preachers and lay readers were harassed by the pains and penalties
of the law, by which I presume is meant the fines for not attending
the Established Church. The meetings for reading were, however,
kept up, although forbidden. Those ministers and readers who
had been summoned to Williamsburg for violation of law, and for
the use of most abusive language, seemed all to have been dismissed,
and there was no terror in the law for any who chose to worship
God in their own way and place, except a trivial fine for being
absent from church, which, I will venture to say, was seldom enforced,
as few could be found who would undertake to present them.
Those who are persecuted are very apt to magnify their sufferings,
and those who come after them to magnify them much more.

We now come to the time when the Rev. Samuel Davies, afterward
President of Princeton College, settled in Hanover, as the
regular pastor of the Presbyterians there and in some other places
around. Calling at Williamsburg, and showing his credentials as
a minister of that denomination, the Governor and Council licensed
four places at which he was allowed to officiate. His zeal and
eloquence soon attracted crowds, and drew many from the Episcopal

churches. His fame spread through the counties around, and in a
short time three other places were licensed, and then three more
were called for. Meanwhile, complaints were made to the Governor
that he also was nothing more than an itinerant proselyter, as those
who had gone before him, and who had been condemned by the
Philadelphia Synod itself. About this time the letter from the
five clergymen, which goes before, was addressed to the Burgesses.
The Governor was much excited, and, with the Council, questioned
whether it was according to the true intent of the Act of Toleration to
allow one man to have any number of houses licensed, in any number
of counties, at which to preach and draw away the people from their
regular places of worship, to which they were attached, and which
they were bound to attend by law. Mr. Davies appeared before
them and plead his own cause,—no doubt with great ability. The
result, however, was a refusal to license any more without consultation
with the authorities of England, and Mr. Davies was required
to content himself with his seven congregations in five or more
counties. The Governor himself, in his letter to the Synod of
Philadelphia, had said, after condemning itinerant preachers, who
disturbed the order and peace of the community, "Your missionaries
producing proper testimonials, complying with the laws, and
performing divine service in some certain place appropriated for
that purpose, without disturbing the quiet and unity of our sacred
and civil establishments, may be sure of my protection." On such
terms Mr. Davies was supposed to have come to Virginia, and for
the alleged violation of such was opposition made to the licensing
f so many places of service. We have the whole subject discussed
in a kind of triangular correspondence between the Bishop of London,
Mr. Davies, and the excellent Dr. Doddridge of England. I
shall briefly state the main points of these letters,—enough to exhibit
the subject in its proper light. The Bishop of London says, that,
as to any methods of oppression with the Dissenters, neither he nor
his Commissaries have any power, nor desire it; that if any is exerted,
the civil Government alone is concerned; that if the Church
of Virginia is in such a state of corruption as the Church of Rome
was at the Reformation, then, without any law authorizing it, such
methods as Mr. Davies pursues are justifiable; but, that though
Mr. Davies gives a much worse account of the clergy than he
receives, yet he does not justify himself on that ground; that he
places it on the right given by the Toleration Act, in which he (the
Bishop) differs from him, thinking that it never was designed to
give such unlimited license. The Bishop evidently considers that
Mr. Davies had come from a great distance (three hundred miles)
to disturb the minds of a people, where he admits that only a few
years before there were not more than five or six Dissenters. The
Bishop alludes to the opposition made at the North to the plan he
had submitted to Government of sending some Bishops, though only
to the Southern part of the country, where the Episcopal Church
prevailed, and asks what would be thought if the people of New
England were not allowed to settle ministers for themselves, but
must send them over for Orders to Geneva. He also alludes to the
fact of their persecuting and imprisoning members of the Episcopal
Church for not contributing to the support of their preachers. In
view of all these things, he asks, is it consistent to be sending a
minister to Virginia to disturb the minds of a people acknowledged
to be Episcopal, and to be a true Church?[116] Dr. Doddridge, in his
letter, differs from the Bishop as to the construction to be put on the
Act of Toleration, and shows clearly that the practice in England is
altogether different, and in favour of what Mr. Davies pleads for;
that it is only required that three men apply to have a place licensed,
and that every licensed minister may officiate. He agrees with the
Bishop, that it is a great hardship that the Episcopalians of America
should be obliged to send their candidates to England for ordination,
and says that he has always condemned his brethren for
their opposition. As to requiring Episcopalians in certain parts
of New England to pay for some other ministry, which may be the
established one, he is not sufficiently acquainted with the nature of
the Establishment to speak, but says that he has always maintained
that, in England, it was reasonable that Dissenters should pay
something to the Church which the majority had established. Of
the Church of England he speaks in kind terms, "as a most respectable
body, and heartily prays that it may in every regard be
more and more the glory of the Reformation." "As for myself,"
he concludes, "having now lived for almost a century, I consider
myself (if all my best hopes do not deceive me) as quickly to join
that general assembly and Church of the first-born, where our views
and hearts will be forever one; and, as that prospect approaches, I
really find every thing that would feed the spirit of a party daily
losing its influence on me. These sentiments I daily cultivate in
my own heart, and in the young people whom I am endeavouring to
form for the service of the sanctuary." Mr. Davies's letter to the
Bishop of London is like his sermons,—very long and very good.
He declares that, so far from coming to stir up the beginnings of
strife in Virginia, the work of separation had been going on
among the laity for at least six years; that a number of congregations
had been actually organized; that he was called to supply
them;[117] that he had carefully forborne to assail any peculiarities
of the Church, but contented himself with preaching the great doctrines
of the Gospel; that in so doing he had been the honoured
instrument of converting a number of souls; that it must, of course,
happen that some of those were brought up in the Episcopal Church;
that although he esteemed that Church as sound and evangelical
in its doctrines, and believed that some of its ministers were so also,
while others were only learned and moral men, yet he was obliged
to say that many of them were immoral and irreligious, and that
the laity also were in a most deplorable state of ignorance as to
true religion, and many of them of intemperate and vicious lives.
He also, I think, clearly shows that he had not violated the law
as understood and acted upon in England.[118] It certainly came to
be more and more thus understood and acted upon in Virginia,
until the necessity for a license was done away by the destruction
of the Establishment and the placing of all denominations upon an
equal footing. While we rejoice that such is the case, we cannot
join with those who condemn, as bigoted and intolerant, all who at
different periods approved and promoted measures for preventing
the introduction of different denominations. A sincere love of order,
peace, and unity, may have influenced their policy and conduct.
Experience shows that they were mistaken, and that all the interests
of Virginia would have been the better, and the condition of
the Episcopal Church certainly not the worse, had a more liberal
course been pursued from the first, and free permission granted to
all denominations from the mother-country to settle here. But let
none imagine that the desire to prevent inroads upon Church unity
was peculiar to the Episcopalians of Virginia. It belongs equally
to all denominations, and all congregations, with their ministers.
What Church previously established in any land or portions of a
land, what congregation being first established in any village or
neighbourhood, and having filled up the same, does not desire to
retain possession, and think it hard that efforts should be made to
divide, and sow discord and unhappiness therein? We say not
this to excuse our Church for wrong she hath done, or to cast undue
blame on others. If we know our own heart, it is our desire to
seek the truth and do justice to all. When we consider how much
and what has been said, written, and preached against the Episcopal
Church for more than a century,—what efforts have been made to
excite political and religious prejudices against her,—and more
especially what pains have been taken to bias the minds of the poor,
to warn them against her assemblies, even since her ministers have
been acknowledged to be evangelical, experimental, and faithful
preachers, and holy men in their lives,—we cannot but ask the question,
Which of all the Churches in Virginia has, in the sight of God,
been most persecuted during the last hundred years? We would
beseech our Christian brethren, of other denominations especially,
to consider whether, when seeking to array the rich and the poor,
the learned and unlearned, against each other, they are not committing
a great sin against society and government, and against
that God who has joined all together in his Church, and forbids us
to separate whom he hath united. While so many have for so long
a time been exposing the faults of our communion, and questioning
whether there has been or is true piety in the same, it may
be permitted to one in these latter days, in imitation of those of
other communions, to speak the praises of some who have been the
subjects of God's grace among us, without denying the melancholy
fact, that too many have in times past brought reproach upon our
Zion and its sanctuary. He who undertakes the task has not only
been for a long time going in and out among this people, becoming
acquainted with several generations, but has inquired of our fathers
who are no more, and searched much in ancient and veritable documents,
and in his own old age asks the privilege of gratifying his
own heart, and the hearts of others, in bearing testimony to the
piety of a goodly number, as pure perhaps as is anywhere to be
found in this evil world, and especially in whose hearts was and is
to be found a large share of the true spirit, not only of toleration,
but of Christian kindness to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity, by whatever name they be called.