University of Virginia Library

ARTICLE XIII.

Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.—No. 3.

With the death of Mr. Blair closed all conflicts, so far as
is shown, between Commissaries and Governors. The Rev. William
Dawson was chosen Commissary and President of the College,
while his brother, the Rev. Thomas Dawson, was called to the
rectorship of the church, Mr. Gooch being Governor. All the letters
of Governor Gooch and Commissary Dawson to the Bishop of
London show them to be truly anxious to promote the best interests
of the colony, though many difficulties seem to have impeded
its prosperity and prevented a supply of worthy ministers. One
thing is set forth in praise of William and Mary College, which we
delight to record,—viz.: that the hopes and designs of its founders
and early benefactors, in relation to its being a nursery of pious
ministers, were not entirely disappointed. It is positively affirmed
by those most competent to speak, that the best ministers in Virginia
were those educated at the College and sent over to England
for ordination. The foreigners were the great scandal of the
Church. No vigilance on the part of the Bishop of London, the
Governor or Commissaries, could altogether prevent this. Nor
was the discipline exerted over the clergy, whether foreign or domestic,
calculated to be a terror to evil-doers. We have seen
what Dr. Blair acknowledged as to his forbearance; and yet there
was more of clerical discipline under his supervision than at any
subsequent period. We read of none under the first of the Dawsons.
When Mr. Thomas Dawson, who succeeded his brother as
Commissary, (Mr. Stith being called to the Presidency of the College,)
was in office, a most flagrant case called so loudly for notice
that Governor Dinwiddie summoned the offender (the Rev. Mr.
Brunskill, of Prince William) to Williamsburg, and on trial dismissed
him from his parish. Mr. Dawson, however, shrunk from
the proceeding, expressing a doubt whether they were authorized
to exercise discipline. If what his successor, Mr. Robinson, stated
to the Bishop of London be true, there must have been a secret consciousness
of unworthiness which operated upon the mind of Mr.

Dawson,—viz.: that he himself in his latter years became addicted
to drink, to such an extent that the Visitors of the College arraigned
him for it, but let it pass on the plea that his troubles in office, as
President and Commissary, so pressed upon him as to make him
resort to this wretched refuge for consolation. It was in the time
of the first of these brothers that the troubles about the Rev. Mr.
Davis, the Presbyterian minister, took place; and in the time of
the second, that the great tobacco-question agitated the Church
and State, and about each of which I shall have something to say
in the proper place. The huge folio volume of manuscripts from
Lambeth and Fulham Palaces which lie before me contains a number
of letters and memorials on these subjects from which to draw
materials. At the death of the second Mr. Dawson, the Rev.
William Yates, of Gloucester, one of that family which so abounded
in ministers, succeeded to the rectorship of the church and
Presidency of the College, while the Rev. William Robinson, of
King and Queen, was made Commissary. Mr. Yates, dying in
1764, was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. Horrocks, in the College
and the church, and about the same time, at the death of Commissary
Robinson, he was appointed to that office also.

In the year 1771, a meeting of the clergy was called by Mr.
Horrocks, at the request of some of the Northern clergy, to consider
the subject of applying for an American Episcopate. The
desirableness of this, in order to complete the organization of our
Church for the benefit of Episcopalians, without requiring others
to be subjected to it, had been felt by its friends on both sides of
the water for a long time. Various plans had been proposed for
its accomplishment; but difficulties, civil and religious, (of whose
force it is impossible that we, at this distance of time, should be
proper judges,) interposed and prevented. Enemies to the scheme,
both in England and America, were always ready to rise up against
it with political and religious objections. At length, when Episcopalians
began to increase in the Middle and Northern States,
(though still a small band,) the press was resorted to in advocacy
of the measure. Dr. Chandler, an eminent divine of our Church
in New Jersey, took the lead in defence of the measure. An effort
was made to combine the Episcopalians of Virginia with those of
the North, in a petition to the throne for an American Episcopate.
Mr. Horrocks, the Commissary of Virginia, induced by various
pressing letters from the North, called a convocation of the clergy,
to be held in Williamsburg on the 4th of May, 1771, without mentioning
the object of it. But few attended, and they, on being

informed of the object, determined that it was too grave a matter
to be decided on by so small a number, and that another call should
be made, specifying the object of the meeting. Another call was
accordingly made for the 4th of June, when only twelve appeared,
a smaller number than before, although many more than these lived
very near the place of assemblage, and about one hundred were in
the diocese. There must, of course, have been some serious objection,
in the minds of the great body of the clergy, to taking any
part in it, for the subject was not new, having been under discussion
for some time in the Northern papers. After some deliberation,
it was determined not to address the crown, but to ask advice
of the Bishop of London,—the good Bishop Porteus,—who, in a
sermon, recommended the measure, but only in the event of the
Government, in its wisdom, favouring the plan. It was thought
proper, therefore, first to apply to him as the Diocesan and the
warm friend of Virginia, where his parents had resided and he
was perhaps born. This was passed by a unanimous vote. And
yet, by one of those unaccountable revolutions which sometimes
takes place in public bodies, before the final adjournment, the question
was reconsidered, the vote reversed, and a direct petition to the
King determined upon, two only dissenting, who were afterward
joined by two others in a protest, with the reasons thereof. It was
resolved that the votes of a majority must be obtained in some
other way. But we hear nothing more of it. This protest of the
Rev. Messrs. Gwatkin and Henly, Professors in the College, and
Bland and Hewitt, ministers of parishes, called forth a pamphlet
from the united Conventions of the clergy of New York and New
Jersey in condemnation, and a reply of the protesters in defence.
These were followed by various others, of the most severe and
bitter character, by different persons in the Northern and Middle
States. I have seen them all bound up in a number of volumes,
and read some of them. Many of those, in small pamphlets or in
newspapers, were written by those of other denominations, who
were entirely opposed to the introduction of Episcopacy; and I
feel confident that the Stamp Act, and the tax on tea and other
articles, did not draw forth more violent denunciations and threatenings
than were spread throughout the Northern States against
this proposal. All New England was in a flame. It may well
appear strange that so many Episcopal clergyman as were in Virginia
should appear indifferent to a measure so suitable and necessary
to the perfect organization and effectual working of our system,
and it is right that their reasons, not only for indifference,
but even opposition, should be stated. It appears, from what was
written in their defence, that there was but one opinion as to the
propriety and desirableness of the object, but only diversity as to
the time and manner of effecting it. It was declared that all things
were unfavourable to it at that time. The difficulties about the Stamp
Act were not over. There was a root of bitterness still remaining
in consequence of some deceptive measures charged on the British
ministry in connection with its repeal. Other causes of dissatisfaction
were arising. There was a filial feeling in Virginians toward
the mother-country and Church, which made them averse to war
and separation, and they wished to avoid every thing which would
hasten it; and yet there was a strong and firm determination not to
continue the union except upon honourable terms. Their just
rights they would maintain at all hazards. They believed that the
proposition for an American Episcopate, no matter how modified
the plan, was so offensive to all other Protestant bodies, both in
this country and England, that, united with other causes which
were increasing every day, it must decide the question of war if
agreed to. The violent tones of the press on this subject were
enough to justify the apprehension. But there was another very
general source of fear throughout the land. It was believed that
if Bishops should be sent they would be men, like the Governors,
favouring the royal pretensions instead of American rights, and
thus weakening the cause of proper independence. On this
account, Bishop White, in his Memoirs, expresses the belief "that
it would have been impossible to have obtained the concurrence of
a respectable number of laymen in any measure for obtaining an
American Bishop." He appeals to the conduct of Virginia, where,
if anywhere in the land, such concurrence might be expected.
And yet, nowhere was opposition greater than in Virginia, and
among Episcopalians, under existing circumstances. We have
seen the jealousies of the vestries as to the attempt of Governors
and wishes of Commissaries and clergy to deprive them of the
right to choose and displace their own ministers. The Governors
claimed to be Bishops, or in the place of Bishops, and to have the
right of inducting ministers for life, and, in many instances, of
choosing them and presenting them. If Bishops should be sent,
they would assuredly claim as much, if not more, and be more
likely to obtain it, and also to have greater power of discipline.
The laity, therefore, were on this account fearful of the experiment,
and preferred losing the benefit of the rite of confirmation
for a time, than be saddled with a power greater than Governors
and Commissaries had been able to erect. In proof of this general
aversion of the laity in Virginia to the proposal of a Bishop or
Bishops, we find that soon after the small meeting of the clergy at
Williamsburg which voted a petition to the Crown, the House of
Burgesses met and unanimously passed a vote of thanks to the few
who protested for the course they pursued. The thanks were carried
them by two gentlemen whose attachment to the Church cannot
be questioned,—Colonel Bland and Richard Henry Lee, the latter
of whom was our most active agent with the Court of St. James
in obtaining our Episcopacy immediately after the Revolution. In
proof that it was not a want of due regard to the Episcopal office,
but a conviction that it could not be obtained in such a manner
at that time as to comport with our civil and religious liberties,
which made the Virginia laity and very many of the clergy to
object, we would mention the fact that, so soon as we were free to
establish it on right principles, the very men who, in the House of
Burgesses and elsewhere, were most opposed to it, now came forward
to our Episcopal Convention and zealously advocated the
establishment of Episcopacy. There can be no doubt that the
general feeling of the nation, and of no part of it more than of
Virginia, was that America was destined to independence, though it
was not wished to hasten it by a bloody war. Can any one doubt
that the thought was often in the minds of our truest men, that the
time for establishing our Episcopacy would not be until we could
do it untrammelled by our connection with and subjection to England?
She, said some, is illy able to establish her own Episcopacy
aright, much less one for us. Trammelled as the Church of England
is by the State, her Bishops are almost powerless for discipline,
so complicated and expensive the machinery by which they
must exercise it. Few as were the instances of clerical discipline
under our Commissaries and Governors, it was believed that they
were far more numerous than during the same period under the
Bishops of England; and if we had Bishops, they of course must
be governed by the same laws as in England, whereas the Governor,
acting under some general instruction from the crown, has
more liberty, especially when such a spirit as that of Spottswood
ruled the Colony. A candid investigation of the whole subject
will therefore lead to the same conclusion to which Dr. Hawks, an
able jurist as well as eloquent divine and faithful historian, did,
when he says, in his work on Virginia, "At this distance of time,
it will probably be acknowledged that, on the question of expediency,
the Virginia clergy judged wisely. In the temper of the
times, the application could not but have proved unsuccessful: to
make it, therefore, could only serve to exasperate a large portion
of the Colonists, without the prospect of obtaining the end desired."

That the laity of Virginia, as represented by the Burgesses, had
reason to complain of the attempt of the clergy to manage this
delicate and important matter without any conference with them,
seeing that they were so deeply interested in the matter, cannot be
denied. In their meeting was no lay element whatever. One of
the protesters stated this, and proposed consulting with the Governor,
Council, and Burgesses; but one of the leaders of the
measure acknowledged that they would certainly be opposed to it,
and therefore objected to the reference. The protesters, in their
defence, make use of this argument, and say that, to establish a
measure of this kind, without the co-operation of the laity, would
be to adopt the Popish system of a spiritual dominion within the
State, entirely independent of it and dangerous to the liberties of
the people. The lay element in England was the King, Parliament,
and mixed courts; the lay element here had been the Governor
and Council, House of Burgesses, and vestries; but now all
those were dispensed with, and the clergy proposed to act without
advice and independent of these,—that is, the few who adopted and
signed the petition; for the greater part stayed at home, well knowing
the opposition of the laity. The protesters, in their reply, charge
their opponents at the North with a leaning to the Non-juring
Bishops of Scotland, whom they call schismatics, and bid them, if
they wished Bishops, apply to them, and thus set up a separate
Church without the support of the State; but not to disturb the
peace of the land by endeavouring to involve the Government of
England in the measure. They also intimate that some private
objects—perhaps ecclesiastical aspirations—influenced the great
and sudden change in the meeting at Williamsburg. Mr. Camm
had recently been disappointed in succeeding to the Commissary's
place, at the death of Mr. Robinson, in consequence of some difficulties
with Governor Dinwiddie; and Mr. Horrocks was suspected
of some desires for the mitre. These were the leaders among the
clergy. President Nelson, of York, writing to a friend in London
at this time, says:—

As the clergy met in secret, the President could not then tell
what they were about, but promises to write his friend hereafter.

The vestry-book ceases in the year 1769, while Mr. Horrocks
was minister, all the leaves being filled up. Doubtless a new one
was gotten and records made in it; but it is nowhere to be found.
Mr. Horrocks was rector of the parish, President of the College,
and Commissary as late as 1771. He was succeeded in all these
by the Rev. John Camm, who continued until 1777, when Mr.
Madison became President of the College.

We must here cease from the private history of the parish for a
brief space, in order to introduce a memorable passage from the
history of the State, which occurred within the bounds of this
parish. The decisive step was now about to be taken by the Colonies
in relation to the mother-country. They had denounced and
renounced her as a cruel step-mother; they were about to take up
arms and appeal to the God of battles to aid them in the defence
of their just rights. The patriots of Virginia determined to do
this with the most solemn forms of religion. On the 24th of May,
1774, the members of the Assembly, at their meeting in Williamsburg,
after setting forth in a well-written preamble the condition
of the country, the evils already oppressing us, the dangers to be
feared, and their determination to assert our just rights, "resolved
to set apart a day for fasting, humiliation, and prayer; and
ordered that the members of the House do attend in their places,
at the hour of ten in the morning, on the first day of June next,
in order to proceed, with the Speaker and the mace, to the church
in this city for the purpose aforesaid; and that the Rev. Mr. Price
be requested to read prayers, and the Rev. Mr. Gwatkin to preach

a sermon suitable to the occasion." The following extract of a
letter from George Mason, of Fairfax, a neighbour and friend of
Washington, who was in Williamsburg at the time, though not a
member of the House, (Washington being the delegate,) will show
the religious feeling of the members. It is addressed to Martin
Cockburn, one of his pious neighbours.

This speaks well for the faith, and humble dependence on God,
which dwelt in the breasts of our Virginia patriots. There were
those, even then, among them, who had unhappily imbibed the
infidel principles of France; but they were too few to raise their
voices against those of Washington, Nicholas, Pendleton, Randolph,
Mason, Lee, Nelson, and such like. And in proof that
they were disposed to go further than mere prayer and fasting, a
few years after, in the year 1778, when the American Congress
added to their appointment of a day of prayer and humiliation, a
condemnation of certain evil customs and practices as offensive to
the God whose favour they sought to propitiate, we find our delegates,
Richard Henry Lee and Marsden Smith, uniting with others
in voting for and carrying the measure. The resolution is as
follows:—

Had there not been in all parts of our land a goodly number of
our citizens of such a spirit and views, God might not have intrusted
such a gift as national independence to our keeping. It is,
however, deeply to be lamented that the successful termination of
the war, and all the rich blessings attending it, did not produce the

gratitude to the Giver which was promised by the hearts of our
people in the day of danger and supplication. The intimacy produced
between infidel France and our own country, by the union
of our arms against the common foe, was most baneful in its
influence with our citizens generally, and on none more than those
of Virginia. The grain of mustard-seed which was planted at
Williamsburg, about the middle of the century, had taken root
there and sprung up and spread its branches over the whole State,
—the stock still enlarging and strengthening itself there, and the
roots shooting deeper into the soil. At the end of the century the
College of William and Mary was regarded as the hotbed of infidelity
and of the wild politics of France. Strong as the Virginia
feeling was in favour of the Alma Mater of their parents, the
Northern Colleges were filled with the sons of Virginia's best men.
No wonder that God for so long a time withdrew the light of his
countenance from it.[49]

Brief must be our remaining notice of the ministry, the Church,
and the Presidents of the College. Dr. Bracken became the minister
in the year 1773, and continued so to be, in connection with
the Professorship of Humanity in the College, until his death in
1818. Bishop Madison became President in 1777, and continued
such until his death in 1812. After a temporary Presidency of
one year by Dr. Bracken, Dr. Augustine Smith, a Virginian, and
son of one of our most respectable clergymen, then the Professor
in a Medical College in New York, was called to preside over the
College. On entering upon its duties, he was conscious that the
aid of heaven, through his Church and ministry, ought to be had
in order to success, and therefore petitioned the now reviving Episcopal
Church of Virginia to establish a Professorship of Divinity
in the College. The result was, the sending the Rev. Dr. Keith
for that purpose, who succeeded Dr. Bracken as minister of the
parish, and made the experiment. After the trial of a few years,
being satisfied that success could not attend the effort at that time,
he resigned, and became the head of the Seminary at Alexandria.
Dr. Smith met with a good degree of success in increasing the
number of the students, but not enough to encourage his continuance

beyond the year 1826. At his resignation, the Rev. Dr. William
H. Wilmer, of Alexandria, was called to the rectorship of the
church and Presidency of the College, both of which he discharged
with zeal and ability, and with considerable success, during one
year, at the end of which he died of fever, deeply lamented by all
the friends of the church and College. The means of awakening
pious fervour in the friends of the Church and of converting the
irreligious youth had never been so earnestly employed before his
time. Besides the regular services of the Sabbath and temple,
lectures, exhortations, and prayers were most earnestly used in
private houses twice in the week, and well attended. It was hoped
that a genuine revival of true religion was about to take place in
the College and town. The first-fruits of it had already appeared.
Nor did he rely on moral suasion alone to govern the youth, but,
when occasion called, resorted to proper discipline. One instance
is worthy of being recorded. At Williamsburg, as at some other
places, it was thought to be an exploit, becoming students, to annoy
all around by ringing the College bell or some other to which access
could be had. The large bell of the old church, in the midst of
the town, was resorted to for this purpose by some troublesome
youths. After due warning and admonition, Dr. Wilmer determined
to detect and punish the offenders. On the sound of the
bell one night, he promptly reached the place, taking with him one
of the chief citizens of the town, rather against his will. While
the bell was still ringing, followed by his companion, he ascended
in the dark the steps of the belfry leading up to the bell, not
knowing who or how many he had to encounter, and, seizing on
one of them, effectually secured him. Such resolution is not often
to be found. At the death of Dr. Wilmer, the Rev. Dr. Empie
was chosen his successor in both stations. He continued in them
for eight or nine years, when he accepted a call to St. James
Church, Richmond. As pastor and preacher he was admired, esteemed,
and beloved, as he had been elsewhere before, and was in
Richmond afterward. He still lives. His many and increasing
infirmities of body amply justify his retirement from public service,
and his many excellencies secure him the affection and esteem of
all who know him. His place in the College was supplied by Mr.
Dew, a Virginia gentleman, a graduate of the College, and a
scholar. His amiable disposition, fine talents, tact at management,
great zeal, and unwearied assiduity, were the means of raising the
College to as great prosperity as perhaps had ever been its lot at
any time since its first establishment, notwithstanding many opposing
difficulties. To this we must make one exception,—viz.: as
to the classical and mathematical departments, under some of the
old and ripe scholars from England, before the Revolution. Mr.
Dew being arrested by the hand of death in a foreign land, in the
year 1846, the College was left in the temporary charge of Professor
Saunders and Mr. Benjamin Ewell during the years 1847
and 1848, when, by an arrangement with the Episcopal Church of
Virginia, the Visitors secured the services of Bishop Johns for a
few years. During the five years of his continuance, notwithstanding
the arduous labours of his Episcopal office, he so diligently
and wisely conducted the management of the College as to produce
a regular increase of the number of students until they had nearly
reached the maximum of former times, established a better discipline
than perhaps ever before had prevailed in the institution,
and attracted more students of divinity to its lectures than had
ever been seen there in the memory of any now living. At his
resignation in 1854, Mr. Ewell resumed the government, and is now
the President.

Renewing and concluding the list of the ministers of Williams
burg,—the Rev. Mr. Hodges succeeded Dr. Empie, and continued
for many years to fill the pulpit and perform all the duties of the
pastoral office most acceptably to the congregation. He was a
great favourite with a congregation of coloured persons, who,
though belonging to another denomination, preferred him as their
minister; and to the uttermost of his physical abilities he did for
many years act as such. At the resignation of Mr. Hodges, the
Rev. Mr. Denison became their pastor, and continued such for a
number of years. The Rev. George Wilmer, son of the former
rector and President, is their present pastor.

List of vestrymen in the church at Williamsburg from the year
1674 to 1769:—