University of Virginia Library

Old Churches, Ministers, and Families
OF
VIRGINIA.

[From the Protestant Episcopal Quarterly Review.]

ARTICLE I.

Recollections of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia,
during the Present Century. With a Brief Notice of its Earlier
History. By Bishop Meade.[1]

It is a useful employment for societies as well as individuals to
look back through their past history and mark the dealings of a
kind Providence towards them. The History of the Episcopal
Church of Virginia has been, from the very beginning, a most interesting

and eventful one—beyond that of any Diocese in the
Union. I would briefly refer to some of its particulars, in order
to raise our hearts in gratitude to God for its wonderful preservation,
and to make us more faithful and zealous in using the proper
means for its further advancement.

The Episcopal Church of Virginia commenced with the first
settlement of the first Colony. The code of laws of that Colony
was drawn up at a time when "religion (as Bishop Taylor expresses
it) was painted upon banners," for it was "divine, martial, and
moral," all in one, being enforced, even among Protestants, by
civil pains and penalties which we would fain now banish from our
recollections and blot from the page of history. That there was
much of sincere piety moving the hearts of those who incorporated
the forms of the Episcopal Church with the Colony of Virginia,
as well as of those who established other forms among the Pilgrim
Fathers of New England, I doubt not. Nor do I question the
piety and fidelity of some of the people and pastors during its
whole subsequent history. But that its spiritual condition was ever,
at any time, even tolerably good, bearing a comparison with that
of the Mother-Church, over whose defects also there was so much
cause to mourn, faithful history forbids us to believe. Many were
the disadvantages under which she had to labour, during nearly the
whole period of her existence in connection with the government
of England, which were well calculated to sink her character
beneath that of the Church of England, and of some other
churches in America. Immense were the difficulties of getting a
full supply of ministers of any character; and of those who came,
how few were faithful and duly qualified for the station! One who
was indeed so faithful as to be called the Apostle of Virginia at
an early period of its settlement, lamenting over the want of
ministers in the Colony, thus upbraids those who refused to come.
"Do they not either wilfully hide their talents, or keep themselves
at home, for fear of losing a few pleasures? Be not there any
among them of Moses and his mind, and of the Apostles, who
forsook all to follow Christ?" The Council of Virginia also
addressed the most solemn and pathetic appeals to the clergy of
England, beseeching them to come over to the work of the Lord in
the Colony—though, it is to be feared, with little success; for in
the year 1655 it is recorded that many places were destitute of
ministers, and likely still to continue so, the people not paying
their "accustomed dues." There were, at this time, about fifty
parishes in the Colony, most of which were destitute of clergymen,

as there were only ten ministers for their supply. To
remedy this evil it was proposed to establish in the English Universities
Virginia fellowships, imposing it as a condition, that the
fellows spend seven years in Virginia; but we do not read of its
execution. That the ministers then in the Colony were men of
zeal can scarce be supposed, as a law was required enjoining it
upon them to preach constantly every Sabbath and administer the
sacrament at least twice every year. If we proceed in the history
of the Colony another fifty years, which will carry us beyond the
first century of its existence, we shall find only a few more
parishes established, and, though glebes and parishes had been
provided, not more than one-half of the congregations were supplied
with ministers, the rest being served by lay-readers. In
some places indeed lay-readers were preferred to settled ministers,
because less expensive to the parishioners. As to the unworthy
and hireling clergy of the Colony, there was no ecclesiastical
discipline to correct or punish their irregularities and
vices. The authority of a Commissary was a very insufficient substitute
for the superintendence of a faithful Bishop. The better
part of the clergy and some of the laity long and earnestly petitioned
for a faithful resident Bishop, as the Bishop of London was,
of necessity, only the nominal Bishop. For about two hundred
years did the Episcopal Church of Virginia try the experiment
of a system whose constitution required such a head but was
actually without it. No such officer was there to watch over the
conduct and punish the vices of the clergy; none to administer
the rite of Confirmation, and thus admit the faithful to the Supper
of the Lord. It must be evident that the Episcopal Church,
without such an officer, is more likely to suffer for the want of
godly discipline than any other society of Christians, because all
others have some substitute, whereas our own Church makes this
office indispensable to some important parts of ecclesiastical
government and discipline. Such being the corrupt state of the
Church in Virginia, it is not wonderful that here, as in England,
disaffection should take place, and dissent begin. The preaching
and zeal of Mr. Whitefield, who visited Virginia about this time,
contrasted with the sermons and lives of the clergy generally, contributed
no doubt to increase disaffection. The pious Mr. Davies,
afterwards President of Princeton College, made the first serious
inroad upon the unity of the Church. His candid testimony
deserves to be here introduced. "I have reason to hope," he says,
"that there are and have been a few names in various parts of the
Colony who are sincerely seeking the Lord and groping after religion
in the communion of the Church of England." "Had the
doctrines of the Gospel been solemnly and faithfully preached in
the Established Church, I am persuaded there would have been
few Dissenters in these parts of Virginia, for their first objections
were not against the peculiar rites and ceremonies of that Church,
much less against her excellent Articles, but against the general
strain of the doctrines delivered from the pulpit, in which these
Articles were opposed, or (which was the more common case) not
mentioned at all, so that at first they were not properly dissenters
from the original constitution of the Church of England, but the
most strict adherents to it, and only dissented from those who had
forsaken it."

That there was at this time not only defective preaching, but,
as might be expected, most evil living among the clergy, is
evident from a petition of the clergy themselves to the legislature
asking an increase of salary, saying "that the small
encouragement given to clergymen is a reason why so few come
into this Colony from the Universities, and that so many who are
a disgrace to the ministry find opportunities to fill the parishes."
It is a well-established fact that some who were discarded from the
English Church yet obtained livings in Virginia. Such being the
case, who can question for a moment the entire accuracy of the
account both of the preaching and living of the clergy of his day,
as given by the faithful and zealous Mr. Jarrett? and who could
blame him for the encouragement afforded to the disciples of Mr.
Wesley, at a time when neither he nor they thought there could
be a separation from the Church of England? Dissent, from
various causes, was now spreading through the Commonwealth;
dissatisfaction with the mother-country and the Mother-Church was
increasing, and the Episcopal clergy losing more and more the
favour of God and man, when this devoted minister, almost alone
in preaching and living according to the doctrine, discipline, and
worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church, was glad to avail
himself of any aid in the good work he was endeavouring to perform.
For the time, however, his efforts were unavailing. The
War of the Revolution was approaching, and with it the downfall
of the Church. Many circumstances contributed to this event.
The opposition to the Dissenters in times past had embittered
their minds against the declining Establishment. The attachment
of some few of the clergy to the cause of the king subjected
the Church itself to suspicion, and gave further occasion

to its enemies to seek its destruction. The dispute about
Church property now came on, and, for twenty-seven years, was
waged with bitterness and violence. At the commencement of the
War of the Revolution, Virginia had ninety-one clergymen, officiating
in one hundred and sixty-four churches and chapels; at its
close, only twenty-eight ministers were found labouring in the less
desolate parishes of the State. Whither numbers of them had fled,
and to what secular pursuits some of them had betaken themselves,
it is not in our power to state. Had they been faithful shepherds,
they would not have thus deserted their flocks.

We come now to the efforts of the more faithful to strengthen the
things that remained but were ready to die. In common with
some other dioceses, the Church in Virginia resolved on an effort to
obtain consecration from abroad for a Bishop who might complete
her imperfect organization. A very worthy man, the Rev. Dr.
Griffith, was selected for the purpose; but so depressed was her
condition, so little zeal was found in her members, that, though
for three successive years calls were made upon the parishes for
funds to defray his expenses to England, only twenty-eight
pounds were raised, a sum altogether insufficient for the purpose,
so that the effort on his part was abandoned through poverty and
domestic affliction. Even at a subsequent period, when renewed
efforts, prompted by shame at past failures and a sense of duty
to the Church, were made to secure what was necessary for
Bishop Madison's consecration, a sufficiency, even with some
foreign aid, was not obtained to pay all the necessary expenses
of the voyage. The object, however, was accomplished, and at
the end of almost two hundred years from the establishment of a
most imperfect Church in Virginia a Bishop was obtained. But
she was too far gone, and there were too many opposing difficulties,
for her revival at that time. From the addresses of Bishop
Madison to the Episcopalians of Virginia, it will be seen that he
entered on his duties with no little zeal and with very just views
of the kind of men and measures necessary for the work of revival.
He plainly admits the want of zeal and fidelity in many
of the ministers as one of the causes of the low condition of the
Church, and that the contrary qualifications were indispensable to
her resuscitation. He made an ineffectual effort at bringing back
into the bosom of the Church the followers of Mr. Wesley, for
they had now entirely separated from her. After a few partial
visitations of the Diocese, his hopes of the revival of the Church
evidently sunk; and the duties of the College of William and

Mary, of which he was President, requiring his attention during
the greater part of the year, at the Convention of 1805 he called
for a Suffragan or Assistant Bishop. The subject was referred to
the next year's Convention, but no such meeting was held, nor
was there another until after his death. For seven years it
seemed as if the worst hopes of her enemies and the most painful
fears of her friends were about to be realized in her entire
destruction. In the General Convention of the Church, held in
the city of New Haven in 1811, there was no representation nor
any report whatever from Virginia. The following entry is found
on the journal:—"They fear, indeed, that the Church in Virginia
is from various causes so depressed, that there is danger of
her total ruin, unless great exertions, favoured by the blessing
of Providence, are employed to raise her." And what more
could be expected from the character of the clergy generally at
that time, or for a long time before? It is a melancholy fact,
that many of them had been addicted to the race-field, the card-table,
the ball-room, the theatre,—nay, more, to the drunken
revel. One of them, about the very period of which I am speaking,
was, and had been for years, the president of a jockey-club.
Another, after abandoning the ministry, fought a duel in sight
of the very church in which he had performed the solemn offices
of religion.[2] Nothing was more common, even with the better
portion of them, than to celebrate the holy ordinance of Baptism,
not amidst the prayers of the congregation, but the festivities
of the feast and the dance, the minister sometimes taking a full
share in all that was going on. These things being so, and the
churches having been, on account of such things, almost entirely
deserted or else occupied by those who only held our Zion up to
derision, what but a firm conviction of God's watchful providence
over her could keep alive hope in the most ardent of her friends?
How often, in looking at the present comparative prosperity of
the Church, do we say, Surely God must have greatly loved this
branch of his Holy Catholic Church or he would not have
borne so long with her unfaithfulness and so readily forgiven
her sins.

Having presented this brief sketch of the past history of the
Church in Virginia, I now proceed to execute the task assigned
me by stating some things which came more or less under my own
personal observation.

My earliest recollections of the Church are derived from visits,
while yet a child, to the Old Stone Chapel in Frederick county,
(then the back-woods of Virginia,) either on horseback, behind my
father, or with my mother and the children in my grandmother's
English chariot, drawn by four work-horses in farming-gear,—
richer gear having failed with failing fortunes. Some of the
neighbours went in open four-horse plantation-wagons, very different
from the vehicles to which they had been accustomed in
Lower Virginia, whence they emigrated.[3] My father took an

active part in the erection of this house, which was about seven
miles distant from his residence. It was here that I officiated
during the first twenty-five years of my ministry. The congregation,
which now worships in a larger one four miles off, makes
a kind of pilgrimage to it on one Sabbath each summer. It is
still used for service in behalf of coloured persons, and on funeral
occasions. Near it lies the parish burying-ground, where many
dear friends and relatives are interred, and where I hope to find
a grave. The Rev. Alexander Balmaine, a chaplain in the
United States Army during the War of the Revolution, and who
was married to a relative of Mr. Madison, one of the Presidents
of our country, was the minister of it for more than thirty
years, during the last ten or twelve of which I was associated
with him. He lived in Winchester, and preached alternately
there, in a stone church of about the same size, and at the
chapel.

There was a small wooden church very near the chapel, which
was built before the war, and in which the Rev. Mr. Thruston officiated.
The Baptists were, in his day, establishing themselves in
this part of the Valley of Virginia. With them, it is said, he had
much and sharp controversy. On the declaration of war he laid
aside the ministry and entered the army, attaining before the close
of it to the rank of Colonel, by which title he was known to the
end of his days. About twelve miles from my father's, in a direction
opposite to the chapel, there was another small log church, in
which the Rev. Mr. Mughlenburg, afterwards General Mughlenburg,
occasionally officiated. He was the minister of the adjoining
parish in Shenandoah county and lived at Woodstock. He also
exchanged the clerical for the military profession and rose to the
rank of General. Tradition says that his last sermon was preached
in military dress, a gown being thrown over it, and that he either
chose for his text or introduced into his sermon the words of

Ecclesiastes, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to
every purpose under the heaven,"—"a time of war and a time of
peace," and that, the sermon being over, he laid aside the gown
and walked forth the soldier in dress and office. He was esteemed
a very upright and patriotic man. I have often in my younger
days, and indeed after my entrance upon the ministry, seen a poor
old lady at the chapel in Frederick, who sat under his ministry
and still lived near his log church. Being twenty miles off from
the chapel, she would come on horseback either to Winchester or
to the house of my elder sister over night. Her visits were generally
on communion-days, and she always partook of it fasting.
She spoke well of her minister as one who was faithful to his duty,
for he rode twenty miles to preach to a few poor people in one of
the poorest parts of the country. My next recollections of the
Church are in the person of my teacher, who was educated in
General Washington's Free School in Alexandria, and afterward
on account of his promising talents sent to William and Mary
College. At the end of his literary course he was admitted to
Deacons' orders by Bishop Madison. A year or two after this he
became teacher to the children of those few families who composed
almost the whole of the chapel congregation. He was faithful as
a classical teacher, heard us our catechism once a week, and for
some time opened the school with prayer. He officiated also for a
period at the chapel on those Sundays which Mr. Balmaine gave
to Winchester; but, his habits becoming bad, he ceased ever after
to exercise the ministerial office, being fully conscious that he had
mistaken his calling. He left no posterity to be wounded by this
statement, or I should have forborne to make it.[4] During this
period of my life I had no other means of gaining a knowledge of
the Church and her clergy than from my parents at home. When
there was no service at the chapel or we were prevented from
going, my father read the service and a sermon; and whenever a
death occurred among the servants he performed the burial service
himself, and read Blair's Sermon on Death the following Sunday.
Of the character and conduct of the old clergy generally I have often
heard them speak in terms of strong condemnation. My father,
when a young man, was a vestryman in Prince George county,
Virginia, but resigned his place rather than consent to retain an
unworthy clergyman in the parish. Of two clergymen, however,
in King George county,—the Stewarts,—I have heard my mother,
who lived for some time under the ministry of one of them, speak
in terms of high commendation, as exceptions to the general rule.
At the age of seventeen I was sent to Princeton College, where, of
course, I had no opportunities of acquiring any knowledge of the
Church, as it had no existence there at that time, though it was
while there that I formed the determination, at the instance of my
mother and elder sister, to enter the Episcopal ministry, as they
perceived from my letters the serious turn of my mind. I ought
to have stated above that my confirmation took place at a very
early period, during the first and only visit of Bishop Madison to
this part of Virginia. I have but an indistinct recollection of his
having heard some of us the Catechism at church, and, as I suppose,
laying his hands upon us in confirmation afterward, perceiving
that we said our Catechism well. But as to both of them, especially
the latter, I have relied more on the testimony of older
persons than on my own certain remembrance. At the age of
nineteen or a few months sooner my college course was over.
Through my beloved relative and faithful friend, Mrs. Custis of
Arlington, I heard of the great worth of the Rev. Walter Addison
of Maryland and determined to prepare for the ministry at his
house and under his direction. In him I became acquainted with
one of the best of men and saw one of the purest specimens of
the ministerial character. Mr. Addison was of English parentage,
and born to large landed possessions on the Maryland side of the
Potomac opposite to Alexandria. He also inherited a number of
servants, whom he emancipated. Through mismanagement his
other property wasted away. But the God whom he served never
permitted him to want, though he was allowed to end his days in
poverty. It required but little to serve him, for he was a man of
content and self-denial. At a time when wine, whiskey, rum, and
brandy were so commonly and freely drunken by all, especially by
many of the clergy of Virginia and Maryland, he made a rule
never to drink more than one small glass of very weak toddy at
dinner, but this was equal to total abstinence now. Wine he had
none. He was faithful and bold in reproving vice from the pulpit
and elsewhere, though one of the meekest of men. He told me
of some mistakes into which he ran in his earlier days. He was
probably one of the first of the Episcopal clergy in the United
States who denounced what are called fashionable amusements.
Some years before my acquaintance with him he published a small
volume against balls, theatres, gambling, and horse-racing, adducing
some high authorities from the Church of England. His
opposition to duelling and the means he adopted to prevent it made
him for a number of years very notorious among the members of our
American Congress. Being pastor of the church in Georgetown,
though still living in the country at the time, he had the opportunity
of exerting himself in the prevention of duels on several occasions.
He has often detailed to me the circumstances attending those
efforts,—namely, his clothing himself with a civil office, in order the
more effectually to arrest the duellists in their attempts to find some
favourable place for the combat, his interview with Mr. Jefferson,
when he had reason to believe that one of the parties was in the President's
house, his pursuit after them on horseback, his overtaking
them just as the seconds were measuring the ground, their threatening
to bind him to a tree in the Arlington forest if he did not desist
from the pursuit. These and such like things have I heard from
his truthful lips. At the time of the threatened encounter
between Mr. John Randolph and Mr. Eppes, he was fully prepared
to prevent it, and if necessary deposit one or both of them in a
place of confinement. Mr. Randolph was then an attendant at his
church in Georgetown. Eleven o'clock on Sunday morning was selected
for the combat, in order, as was believed, to evade Mr. Addison's
vigilance, as it was supposed he would then be at his post of
duty in the house of God. But he believed that his post of duty
on that day was elsewhere, and did not hesitate about disappointing
the congregation. For some time preceding the appointed hour he
was secreted near the hotel where Mr. Randolph boarded, ready to
arrest him should he leave the house. But an adjustment of the
difference took place about that time. Mr. Stanford, a worthy
member from North Carolina, the steady and judicious friend of
Randolph, was doubtless engaged in the adjustment. At any
rate, he knew what was going on and when the pacification was
effected. He knew also where Mr. Addison was and what he was
prepared to do. He it was who informed Mr. Addison that he
might go with a quiet conscience to his Sabbath duties, as the difficulty
was settled. This I had from the lips of Mr. Stanford himself,
with whom I had the pleasure to be intimately acquainted for
many years. Mr. Addison was equally opposed to strife in the
Christian Church. Although he was a true lover of our own and
most passionately devoted to her services, yet he was no bigot, but
embraced all Christians and Churches in the arms of his wide-extended
charity. The unchurching doctrine he utterly rejected.
Just before I lived with him an Episcopal paper was commenced in
the North in which that position was taken. He either subscribed
to it, or it was sent to him; but, on finding that it declared all
other ministries invalid and all other churches out of the covenant,
he returned the paper or declined to receive it any longer. He
loved to see sinners converted, by whatsoever instruments God might
employ. There was a certain place in the corner of his large
country parish where neither he nor any other Episcopal minister
had been able to make any impression. Some Methodists being
there and desiring to build a church, he bid them God-speed and
furnished some pecuniary or other assistance, hoping that they
might do what he had not been able to do. Such was the man of
God with whom it was my privilege to spend some happy and I
hope not unprofitable months, the period of my stay being abridged
by a weakness in the eyes, which altogether prevented study. He
lived to a good old age, loving all men and beloved by all who
knew him. Many of his last years were spent in darkness, but
not of the soul. His eyes became dim, until at length all was
night to him. But while only a glimmering of light remained, he
rejoiced and thanked God for it far more than those do who enjoy
a perfect vision. And when all was gone, he was still the happiest
and most grateful of all the happy and grateful ones whom I have
ever seen or known. In my visits to the district afterward, I ever
felt it to be my sacred duty, as it was my high happiness, to enter
his humble dwelling. But this was never done without bursts of
feelings and of tears on both sides.

From this digression, which I am sure the reader will pardon, I
return to the more immediate object of this article.

As I am engaged in presenting my recollections of the state of
things in the Church of Virginia, I think this a proper time for
some notice of the character of the sermons which were preached
and the books which were read among the Episcopalians of Virginia.
This was the period when the poet Cowper upbraided the
clergy of the English Church with substituting morality for religion,
saying,—

In the Church of Virginia, with the exception of Mr. Jarrett
and perhaps a few others, I fear the preaching had for a long time
been almost entirely of the moral kind. The books most in use
were Blair's Sermons, Sterne's Works, The Spectator, The Whole
Duty of Man, sometimes Tillotson's Sermons, which last were of
the highest grade of worth then in use. But Blair's Sermons, on
account of their elegant style and great moderation in all things,
were most popular. I remember that when either of my sisters
would be at all rude or noisy, my mother would threaten them with
Blair's Sermon on gentleness. The sickly sensibility of Sterne's
Sermons (and especially of his Sentimental Journey) was the
favourite style and standard of too many of our clergy. After
entering the ministry I heard several of such most faulty exhibitions
of Christian morality. It is no wonder that the churches
were deserted and the meeting-houses filled. But the time had
come, both in the English and American Church, for a blessed
change. There is something interesting in the history of one of
the ways in which it was introduced into the Church of Virginia.
The family of Bishop Porteus was Virginian — of Gloucester
county—opposite old Yorktown, the residence of General Nelson.
It is not certain but that Bishop Porteus himself was born in Virginia
and carried over when a child to England with his emigrating
parents. Porteus became a tutor in the Eton school, and when
General Nelson was sent to England for his education his father
placed him under the care of Mr. Porteus. When Porteus was
elevated to the rank of a Bishop he did not forget his former pupil
and family, but sent them his first work, a volume of sermons,
which were a great improvement on the sermons of that day.
When Mr. Wilberforce, with whom he was intimate, published his

celebrated evangelical work, "Practical View of Christianity,"
this was also sent, and afterward I believe the Bishop's Lectures
on the Gospel of St. Matthew, which were an improvement on his
sermons. A beginning of more evangelical views of Christian
doctrine was thus made in one of the best and most influential
families of Virginia. By my intimacy with one branch of this
family, which led to a matrimonial connection before my ordination,
I became acquainted with Wilberforce's "Practical View of
Christianity," and I believe Porteus's Lectures. These I read
during the time I spent with Mr. Addison, and well remember the
impression made upon me by the same. I felt that, if ever permitted
to preach, I had only to present the views set forth in these
books, and my hearers must be converted, though I was soon
brought to the experience of Melancthon, "That old Adam was
too strong for young Melancthon." These books were, I believe,
republished in America about this time, together with some of the
writings of Miss Hannah More, and all contributed to elevate and
evangelize the style of preaching in our Church. Those who
undertook the resuscitation of the Church in Virginia certainly
adopted and in their sermons exhibited these views. In this they
were greatly encouraged by the sermons of Mr. Jarrett, two editions
of which had been published.[5]

I am now brought to the period of my ordination, which introduced
me to some things, in relation to the Church of Virginia,
not without a painful interest to the lovers of true religion. But,
before speaking of some circumstances attendant on my ordination,
it may be well to allude to a correspondence between Bishop Madison
and myself, some months before that event. It is the more
proper so to do as it will serve to correct some misunderstandings
which have gone abroad with respect to us both, and which have
had a bearing on the reputation of the Virginia Churchmanship of
that day. Passing through Philadelphia a year or more before my
ordination, and staying at the house of an Episcopal clergyman, I
heard some severe strictures on one or more of the ministers of our
Church, in some other diocese or dioceses, for violating the rubrics
of the Prayer Book by abridging the service. It was designated
by no slighter term than perjury, in the violation of solemn ordination
vows. I learned afterward that such charges were made
elsewhere. In examining the Canons of the Church I also found
one which seemed positively to forbid, under any circumstances, the
admission into an Episcopal pulpit of any minister not Episcopally
ordained. I was aware that it was impossible to use the whole
service in very many of the places where I might be called to officiate,
and well knew that ministers of other denominations preached
in many of our old Episcopal churches, and, indeed, that it was
questioned whether under the law our ministers had the exclusive
right to them. I also saw that there was a canon forbidding servile
labour to the clergy, while from necessity—for the support of a
young family—I was then taking part in the labours of the field,
which in Virginia was emphatically servile labour. Wishing to
enter the ministry with a good conscience and correct understanding
of my ordination vows, I wrote a letter of inquiry to Bishop
Madison on these several points. To this I received a very sensible
reply, nearly all of which, I think, the House of Bishops and the
Church generally would now indorse, though there would have
been some demurring in former times. On the occasion of my
consecration to the office of Bishop it was objected by some that
Bishop Madison had ordained me with a dispensation from canonical
obedience. Having his letter with me,—which the reader may

see in the note,—the objection was not urged.[6] In the month of
February, 1811, I proceeded on horseback to Williamsburg, about
two hundred miles, and on Sunday, the 24th,—a clear, cold morning,—was
ordained. My examination took place at the Bishop's,
before breakfast,—Dr. Bracken and himself conducting it. It was
very brief. It has been asserted that Bishop Madison became an
unbeliever in the latter part of his life, and I have often been
asked if it was not so. I am confident that the imputation is
unjust. His political principles, which at that day were so identified
in the minds of many with those of infidel France, may
have subjected him to such suspicion. His secular studies, and
occupations as President of the College and Professor of Natural
Philosophy, may have led him to philosophize too much on the
subject of religion, and of this I thought I saw some evidence in
the course of my examination; but that he, either secretly, or to
his most intimate friends, renounced the Christian faith, I do not
believe, but am confident of the contrary. To proceed with the
ordination. On our way to the old church the Bishop and myself
met a number of students with guns on their shoulders and dogs at
their sides, attracted by the frosty morning, which was favourable
to the chase; and at the same time one of the citizens was filling
his ice-house. On arriving at the church we found it in a wretched
condition, with broken windows and a gloomy, comfortless aspect.
The congregation which assembled consisted of two ladies and
about fifteen gentlemen, nearly all of whom were relatives or acquaintances.
The morning service being over, the ordination and
communion were administered, and then I was put into the pulpit
to preach, there being no ordination sermon. The religious condition
of the College and of the place may easily and justly be
inferred from the above. I was informed that not long before this
two questions were discussed in a literary society of the College:—
First, Whether there be a God? Secondly, Whether the Christian
religion had been injurious or beneficial to mankind? Infidelity,
indeed, was then rife in the State, and the College of William and
Mary was regarded as the hotbed of French politics and religion.
I can truly say, that then, and for some years after, in every educated
young man of Virginia whom I met, I expected to find a
skeptic, if not an avowed unbeliever. I left Williamsburg, as may
well be imagined, with sad feelings of discouragement. My next
Sabbath was spent in Richmond, where the condition of things
was little better. Although there was a church in the older part
of the town, it was never used but on communion-days. The place
of worship was an apartment in the Capitol, which held a few hundred
persons at most, and as the Presbyterians had no church at
all in Richmond at that time, the use of the room was divided
between them and the Episcopalians, each having service every
other Sabbath morning, and no oftener. Even two years after
this, being in Richmond on a communion-Sunday, I assisted the
Rector, Dr. Buchanan, in the old church, when only two gentlemen
and a few ladies communed. One of these gentlemen, the
elder son of Judge Marshall, was a resident in the upper country.
One of the old clergy who was present did approach to the chancel
with a view of partaking; but his habits were so bad and so
notorious, that he was motioned by the Rector not to come. Indeed,
it was believed that he was not in a sober state at the time.

Before proceeding further in the narrative of such circumstances
as may tend to throw light on the condition of the Church in Virginia,
I will, at the risk of being charged with even more of egotism
than has already been displayed, make a few remarks, which,
I think, are necessary to a right understanding of the whole subject
I have taken in hand. So low and hopeless was the state of the
Church at this time—the time of my ordination—but a few of the
old clergy even attempting to carry on the work—only one person
for a long time having been ordained by Bishop Madison, and he
from a distance, and a most unworthy one—it created surprise, and
was a matter of much conversation, when it was understood that a
young Virginian had entered the ministry of the Episcopal Church.
Even some years after this, when I applied to Judge Marshall for
a subscription to our Theological Seminary, though he gave with
his accustomed liberality, he could not refrain from saying, that it
was a hopeless undertaking, and that it was almost unkind to induce
young Virginians to enter the Episcopal ministry, the Church being
too far gone ever to be revived. Such was the general impression
among friends and foes. I had, however, throughout the State
many most respectable and influential relatives, some still rich,
others of fallen fortunes, both on my father's and mother's side,[7]
who were still attached to the Church. My parents, too, were
very popular persons, and had many friends and acquaintances
throughout Virginia, who still lingered around the old Church.
These things caused my ordination to excite a greater interest, and
created a partiality in behalf of my future ministry. But still
there were many who thought it so strange a proceeding, that they
were ready to accept, as a probable mode of accounting for it, an

opinion expressed by one or more and soon put in circulation, that
there was something unsound in mind or eccentric in character, at
any rate a want of good common sense, or I could not make such
a mistake as to attach myself to the fallen and desperate fortunes
of the old Church. Some strange speeches of this kind were made.
Nor were they or their effects confined to Virginia, or to that time.
I am not sure that their influence has ceased to the present day.
One good, however, resulted from them, namely, that certain views
of religion and certain modes of life adopted by me and contrary
to what were supposed to be the doctrines of the Episcopal Church
—certainly, contrary to the sentiments and practice of the people
—were ascribed to this natural defect and kindly dealt with, instead
of awakening hostility which, under other circumstances, might
have been exhibited. Certain it is that my ministry, from the first,
was received with a favour which neither my imperfect theological
education nor my most unfinished sermons nor any thing else
about me were entitled to. Under such favour, I commenced my
ministry in the spring of 1811, in Frederick county, as assistant
to Mr. Balmaine, in the two congregations belonging to his charge,
while living and labouring on a small farm, and having no design or
wish to go elsewhere. But in the fall of that year I consented to
the very urgent solicitations of the vestry of old Christ Church,
Alexandria, to take charge of it, with the privilege of spending a
portion of the year in Frederick and not entirely relinquishing my
engagements there. Very peculiar were the circumstances of that
congregation, and very strong the appeal, or I should not have
been moved to undertake even the partial and temporary charge of
it. Its last minister was from the West Indies, and after having
married in Alexandria was found to have left a wife behind him.
On her pursuing and reaching him he fled, and I believe was heard
of no more. His predecessor was of an unhappy temper and too
much given to the intoxicating cup. His predecessor again was
one of the old-fashioned kind in his preaching and habits, being
fond of what was called good company and the pleasures of the
table. In order to insure full and frequent meetings of the vestrymen—twelve
in number and, for the most part, good livers—he got
them to meet once per month at each others' houses to dinner.
These meetings continued until after I took charge of the congregation.
I was present at one of them. The old minister who had
established them was also there, being on a visit. He then lived
in a distant parish. It was not difficult to perceive why such
vestry-meetings were popular with certain ministers and vestrymen.
I attended no more of them, and they were soon relinquished.
That a congregation having had three such ministers in
succession should be desirous to try a young Virginian was not
very wonderful. I should be guilty, however, if I did not pursue
the history of the ministers of Christ Church further back. The
next in order of time past was the good Dr. Griffith, of whom I
have already spoken, as the first Bishop-elect of Virginia, but who
was prevented by poverty from going to England for consecration.
His predecessor was Lord Bryan Fairfax, of whom I have something
to say in another place. He was a pure and conscientious
man, the friend and neighbour of General Washington, and a true
Englishman. He attempted, in a series of private letters, which
one of his children showed me and which have since been published,
to dissuade Washington from engaging in or pursuing the
war. General Washington dealt very tenderly with him in his
replies, knowing how conscientious he was, and being much attached
to him and the elder Lord Fairfax with whom he had lived.
There was associated with Mr. Fairfax the Rev. Mr. Page, who
afterward moved to Shepherdstown, and of whom I have heard
that venerable old lady, Mrs. Shepherd, speak in the highest terms
as an evangelical man of the school of Whitefield.

A few remarks on my ministry during the two years of its
exercise in Alexandria may serve to cast some light on the progress
of the Church in Virginia from that time. 1st. The old
Virginia custom of private baptisms, christening-cake, and merriment,
had prevailed in Alexandria. The ground, however, was
now taken that the rubric was entirely opposed to this and that
the whole meaning and design of the sacred rite forbade it and
that it could not be continued. There were demurrings and refusals
for a time, but a little decision with kind persuasion completely
triumphed, as they did afterward at a later period both in Norfolk
and Petersburg, where private baptisms were made to give place to
public ones, when I had the temporary charge of these two congregations,
peculiar circumstances inducing me to undertake it.
2dly. The Gospel, it is to be feared, had not been clearly preached
in times past. It was now attempted; and, though most imperfectly
done as to style and manner, God's blessing was granted.
The services were well attended. Many were added to the Church
of such as gave good proof afterward that they would be of those
who should be saved. A goodly number of the members of Congress
often came down on Sunday morning to attend the church,

among whom were Mr. John Randolph[8] and Dr. Milnor, with
both of whom I became then and thus acquainted. In the mind
of the latter there was at that time going on the great change
whose abundant fruits have so blessed mankind. 3d. It was during
my stay in Alexandria that I procured from the library of Mr.
Custis, of Arlington, the folio edition of Bishop Wilson's works,
which had been presented to General Washington by the son of
Bishop Wilson, and which works had been recommended to me by
Bishop Madison. By the help of Mr. Edward McGuire, who, for
more than forty-two years, has been the faithful and successful
minister of the Church in Fredericksburg, and who was then preparing
for the ministry with me, I selected from the various parts
of that large book, a small volume of private and family prayers,
which have gone through three editions, and which, being freely
circulated among the families of Virginia, contributed greatly to
introduce what was indeed a novelty in that day—the practice of
family worship.[9] It was during my short stay in Alexandria that
the Rev. William Wilmer assumed the charge of St. Paul's congregation,
and at the close of my ministry there that the Rev. Oliver
Norris took charge of Christ Church. These beloved brothers,
coming from Maryland with those views of the Gospel and the
Church which the evangelical clergy and laity of England were
then so zealously and successfully propagating there, contributed
most effectually to the promotion of the same in Virginia, and to
them is justly due much of the subsequent character and success of
the Church in Virginia, as is well known to all of their day. I
cannot take leave of Alexandria without referring to my admission
to priests' orders, which took place there a year or two after this,
and which were conferred on me by Bishop Clagget, of Maryland,
our faithful brother the Rev. Simon Wilmer preaching on the
occasion. Bishop Clagget, so far as I know and believe, entertained
sound views of the Gospel and was a truly pious man.
There was much of the Englishman about him, I presume, from
his wearing the mitre, and his mode of examining me, that conforming
so much to the character of the English University examinations.[10] Beside a number of hard questions in the metaphysics
of divinity, which I was by no means well prepared to answer, but
which he kindly answered for me, he requested that I would, in
compliance with an old English canon, which had been, I think,
incorporated somewhere into our requisitions, give him an account
of my faith in the Latin tongue. Although I was pretty well
versed in the Latin language, yet, being unused to speak it, I
begged him to excuse me. He then said I could take pen and
paper and write it down in his presence; but he was kind enough
to excuse from that also, and determined to ordain me with all my
deficiencies, very much as some other bishops do in this day.

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.

ARTICLE III.

The Parish of James City.

I now enter upon the Parish of James City—the landing-place
of our first forefathers—the seat of the first civil and religious establishment
on the shores of North America. It dates its beginning
about two hundred and fifty years ago. But it found a place
in the hearts of pious and philanthropic men at a still earlier
period, and we must go back to that period with our preparatory
remarks. We are greatly mistaken, if we suppose that the missionary
spirit, after slumbering from the early ages, was aroused
to life and action only within the last hundred years. Instances
may be shown, in which Kings and Queens of our mother-country
and Church, moved to it by the pious zeal of Bishops and other
ministers, have commanded, that together with the sword and artillery
of war, and the implements of commerce and husbandry, the
sword of the Spirit and the trumpet of the Gospel should be sent,
with armies and navies and colonists, to the uncivilized nations of
the earth. I confine my references to what the religious principle
has done in behalf of the Colony of Virginia.

The domestic troubles of the English State and Church, the
controversies with Romanists, Puritans, and other disaffected bodies,
delayed and hindered any great schemes for Christian colonization
and missionary enterprise, just as civil wars prevent foreign aggressions
and conquests. To the Rev. Richard Hakluyt the chief
praise is due, for stirring up the minds of Christian statesmen and
people to the duty of finding out barbarous countries, in order to
their conversion to the Christian faith. To his friend, Sir Philip
Sydney, he dedicates his first collection of voyages and discoveries,
in 1570. In 1587, he republishes Peter Martyr's history of the
New World, with a preface, dedicating it to Sir Walter Raleigh,
together with another work on Florida, in which he urges him to
persevere in the good work he had begun in Virginia.[16] In both of
them he urges Sir Walter to prosecute the work from the only true

motive and design, the extension of Christ's religion,—"The glorie
of God, and the saving of the soules of the poor and blinded
infidels." The numerous volumes collected and published by this
laborious and zealous man on this subject have come down to our
day, and are a most valuable depository of missionary information.
After holding various preferments, he settled down as Prebendary
of Westminster, and continued till his death, in 1616, to watch over
the infant Colony of Virginia. The honour of being buried in
Westminster Abbey was conferred on this man of a large soul. It
deserves to be mentioned, that he not only by his pen and the
press urged on the Christian colonization of Virginia, but sought
and obtained the honour of being one of those to whom Virginia
was consigned, by letters-patent from King James, that he might
the more effectually labour for her welfare. To his exertions the
expeditions in 1603, and again in 1605, may in a great measure be
ascribed. The language used by the King, in the terms of the
patent for Virginia, in 1606, shows also the religious character of
the movement. One design was, that "so noble a work may, by
the Providence of God, hereafter tend to the glorie of his divine
majestie, in propagating of Christian religion to such people as sit
in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and
worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages
(living in those parts) to human civility and quiet government."
Another evidence of the operation of the religious feeling in those
who first engaged in the settlement of Virginia may be seen in
what one writes, who went out with Weymouth in 1605, in regard
to a proposal of some of the natives, that "the company would
push their discoveries further." It was declined, he says, on this
ground:—"We would not hazard so hopefull a businesse as this
was, either for our private or particular ends, being more regardful
of a public goode, and promulgating God's holy Church, by planting
Christianity, which was the interest of our adventurers as well
as ours."[17]

In the following year, December, 1606, the first little colony
came to Virginia, bringing with it the first minister of James City,
the Rev. Robert Hunt. Mr. Wingfield, the first President of the
Colony, gives the following account of his appointment:—"For
my first worke, which was to make right choice of a spiritual pastor,

I appeal to my Lord of Canterbury,—his grace,—who gave me
very gracious audience in my request. And the world knoweth
whom I took with me, truely a man, in my opinion, not any waie
to be touched with the rebellious humour of a papist spirit, nor
blemished with the least suspicion of a factious schismatic." In a
narrative, kept by Stukeley and others, it is written, "On the 19th
of December, 1606, we set sail from Blackwell, but by unprosperous
winds were kept six weeks in sight of England; all which
time Mr. Hunt, our preacher, was so weake and sicke that few expected
his recovery. Yet allthough we were but twenty miles from
his habitation, (the time we were in the Downes,) and notwithstanding
the stormy weather, nor the scandalous speeches of some few,
little better than atheists, of the greatest rank among us, suggested
against him, all this could never force from him so much as a
seeming desire to leave the businesse, but preferred the service of
God, in so good a voyage, before any affection to contest with his
godless foes, whose disastrous designs, could they have prevailed,
had even then overthrown the businesse, so many discontents did
there arise, had he not only with the water of patience and his
godly exhortations, but chiefly by his devoted example, quenched
those flames of envy and dissention."[18] It is very certain, that
notwithstanding the piety which prompted the expedition, and the
devotion of Mr. Hunt and some others who embarked in that
vessel, there was a considerable proportion of most unworthy
materials on board, as shown by their opposition to Hunt and Captain
Smith, two men who seemed to know no fear, but that of God.
The future conduct of the larger portion of the Colonists, after
their arrival, too well established this fact. The company in England
appears to have apprehended something of this, from their
instructions, in which they say to the Colonists at their departure,
that "the way to prosper and have success was to make themselves
all of one mind, for their own and their country's good; and to
serve and fear God, the giver of all goodness, since every plantation
which he did not plant would certainly be rooted out." Although
Captain Smith was appointed one of the Council of the
Company, a violent opposition was made to his having a seat
on their arrival. "Many," it is said in the narrative already
quoted, "were the mischiefs which daily sprung from their ignorant
yet ambitious spirits; but the good doctrine and exhortation of
our preacher, Mr. Hunt, reconciled them, and caused Captain
Smith to be admitted of the Council." The next day, the Holy
Communion was, for the first time, administered in Virginia. The
number composing the first congregation at Jamestown was one
hundred and four or five. "A circumstance," says the Rev. Mr.
Anderson, author of three most laborious and interesting volumes
on the Colonial Churches, "is mentioned in President Wingfield's
manuscript, which I cannot find recorded elsewhere, which shows,
in a very remarkable manner, the careful and pious reverence manifested
by the Colonists for the due celebration of Christ's holy
ordinance, in their sad extremity." He says that when "the common
store of oil, sack, vinegar, and aqua-vitæ, were all spent,
saving two gallons of each, the sack was reserved for the communion-table."[19]

In proof of the religious character of Captain Smith, as a part
of the history of James City Parish, I quote the following account
of the first place of worship in the same, in a pamphlet published
in 1631, by Mr. Smith, some years after his History of Virginia,
and entitled, "Advertisements for the unexperienced planters of
New England, or elsewhere, &c." To the Rev. Mr. Anderson's
labours we are indebted for the revival of this pamphlet.

Of the piety of Captain Smith we have further evidence, in the
account given of the survey of Virginia, when he and his valiant
comrades fell into so many perils among the Indians. "Our order
was daily to have prayer with a psalm, at which solemnity the poor
savages much wondered." On Smith's return to Jamestown, notwithstanding
all former opposition, such were his merits and such
its difficulties, that the Council elected him President of the Colony;

and the first thing done was to repair the church, which,
during his absence among the Indians, had, with other houses,
been destroyed by fire. Characteristic, and evincive of piety in
him, is the statement of it:—"Now the building of the palace was
stayed as a thing needless, and the church was repaired."

In what year the first minister, Mr. Hunt, died, is not now
known, but that there was a vacancy for some years is declared in
the foregoing passage from Captain Smith's last pamphlet. The
next was the Rev. Mr. Bucke, who came over with Lord De la
War, in the year 1610. The many disasters which had befallen
the first emigrants to Virginia, so far from discouraging either the
statesmen or the Christians in England, and causing them to abandon
the enterprise, only stirred them up to more active exertion.
In the year 1609, a new company, called the London Company,
was formed, and a new charter, with a larger territory and more
privileges, was granted. Twenty-one of the peers, including a
number of the bishops, and many of the first clergy and merchants
of the kingdom, were among those who are mentioned in
the charter. Mr. Edwin Sandys, the pupil of Hooker, the two
brothers John and Nicholas Ferrar, one of them a pious divine, and
both of them most active members of the board which managed
the concerns of the company, are worthy of special mention. That
a spirit of true piety to God and love for the souls of the heathen
burned in the breasts of many of the members of the company,
cannot be questioned. It is evident from the selection of the Governor,
who was a man of sincere piety; and had his health been
continued, so as to allow of a longer residence in America, much
might have been expected from his example and zeal. The spirit
which predominated in the company may also be seen in the minister
chosen for the new expedition, the Rev. Mr. Bucke, a worthy
successor to Mr. Hunt, and from the sermons preached at their
embarkation. Two of them were published, and are still extant.
One of them, the first ever preached in England on such an occasion,
was by the Rev. Mr. Crashaw, preacher at the Temple.
"Remember," he says, "that the end of this voyage is the destruction
of the devil's kingdom, and the propagation of the Gospel."
After upbraiding those who were anxious for acquiring
wealth by voyages, but indifferent to this, he says, "But tell them
of planting a church, of saving ten thousand souls, and they are
senseless as stones; they stir no more than if men spoke to them
of toys and trifles; they laugh in their sleeves at the silliness of
such as engage themselves in such matters." To Lord De la War

himself, who was present, he speaks as follows:—"And thou, most
noble Lord, whom God hath stirred up to neglect the pleasures of
England, and, with Abraham, to go from thy country and forsake
thy kindred and thy father's house, to go to a land which God will
show thee, give me leave to speak the truth. Thy ancestor many
hundred years ago gained great honour to thy house, but by this
action thou augmentest it. He took a king prisoner in the field of
his own land, but by the godly managing of this business thou
shalt take the Devil prisoner in open field and in his own kingdom;
nay, the Gospel which thou carriest with thee shall bind him in
chains, and his angels in stronger fetters than iron, and execute
upon them the judgment that is written; yea, it shall lead captivity
captive, and redeem the souls of men from bondage, and
thus thy glory and the honour of thy house is more at the last
than at the first. Go forward therefore in the strength of the
Lord, and make mention of his righteousness only. Looke principally
to religion. You go to commend it to the heathen: then
practise it yourself; make the name of Christ honourable, not
hateful unto them." Another sermon was preached at White
Chapel, London, in the presence of many honourable, worshipful
adventurers and planters for Virginia. At its close he says, "If
it be God's purpose that the Gospel shall be preached through the
world for a witness, then ought ministers to be careful and willing
to spread it abroad, in such good services as this that is intended.
Sure it is a great shame to us of the ministry, that can be better
content to set and rest us here idle, than undergoe so good a worke.
Our pretence of zeal is clear discovered to be but hypocrisy, when
we rather choose to mind unprofitable questions at home, than
gaining souls abroad." From the above we shall see that the true
missionary spirit, and missionary sermons and addresses to those
about to embark on some foreign work, are not peculiar to our day,
though, blessed be God, they are increased among us. For some
cause, which need not now be dwelt upon, Lord De la War did not
sail until the following year, though Mr. Bucke went over sooner,
in a vessel with Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Summers. On
reaching there, after having been wrecked themselves, and long
detained at the Bermuda Islands, they found the Colony in a most
deplorable condition, the greater part having been cut off by the
Indians, and the remainder almost in a state of starvation.[21] On
landing, the first place visited by Gates was the ruined and unfrequented
church. "He caused the bell to be rung, and such as
were able to crawl out of their miserable dwellings repaired thither,
that they might join in the zealous and sorrowful prayer of their
faithful minister, who pleaded in that solemn hour for his afflicted
brethren and himself, before the Lord their God." After a few
days, the provisions being nearly out, the whole Colony embarked
for Newfoundland, "none dropping a tear, because none had enjoyed
one day of happiness." "When this departure of Sir Thomas
Gates, full sore against his heart, was put in execution," says
Mr. Crashaw, "and every man aboard, their ordnance and armour
buried, and not an English soul left in Jamestown, and giving, by
their peal of shot, their last and woeful farewell to that pleasant
land, were now with sorrowful hearts going down the river,—behold
the hand of Heaven from above, at the very instant, sent in
the Right Honourable De la War to meet them at the river's
mouth, with provision and comforts of all kind, who, if he had
staid but two tydes longer, had come into Virginia and not found
one Englishman." They all now returned to Jamestown. On
landing, Lord De la War, before showing any token or performing
any act of authority, fell down upon his knees, as Paul upon the
sea-shore, and in presence of all the people made a long and silent
prayer to himself. After which he arose, and, going in procession
to the church, heard a sermon by the Rev. Mr. Bucke; at the close
of which he displayed his credentials to the congregation, and addressed
them in a few words of admonition and encouragement.
The author from whom the above statement is taken, and who was
Secretary and Recorder of the Colony, (Strachy, who wrote a
narrative of all the proceedings of the same,) gives us the following
sketch of the church, which he says the Governor had given order
at once to be repaired:—

In the foregoing, it is said that there were true preachers, who
took their weekly turns, which shows that there were more than
the Rev. Mr. Bucke in the Colony at this time; and we do read
of a most venerable old man, by the name of Glover, who came
over with Sir Thomas Gates, upon his second return to Virginia,
and who was doubtless one of the true preachers (perhaps it
should read two) spoken of above. In the account of the decorations
of the church under Lord De la War, and the pomp and circumstance
of his own attendance at church, the reader will not
fail to perceive some of the peculiarities of the Laudian school.
That school was not very far off, in our Mother-Church, at this
time. Some of those concerned in promoting and preparing this
expedition of Lord De la War were, I doubt not, somewhat
inclined to it. The secretary, Strachy, who has given this
account, was, it is believed, the person who had much to do in
drawing up the code of "Laws, moral, martial, and divine," which
is so much tinctured with Romish and martial discipline, and
which has ever been the reproach of the Church and State of Virginia,
though its penalties were so seldom enforced, and the worst
of them were soon abolished. One, at least, of those excellent
men, "the Ferrars," was somewhat inclined to a monkish religion.
This, however, is the only instance in which such decorations and
pomp are mentioned in the history of Virginia. Only a few years
after this, the Rev. Mr. Whittaker speaks of the simplicity of our

worship and liberality of our discipline in the following words:—
"But I much more muse, that so few of our English ministers
that were so hot against the surplice and subscription come
hither, where neither of them are spoken of."

Having alluded to the Ferrars, the two brothers, as zealous and
active friends of the Colony, and especially labouring for its
religious condition, it is due not only to them, but to the whole
family, to add a few more words. The father was a wealthy
merchant in London, and a promoter of all the good works in
which the sons were engaged. The mother was also like-minded.
The two sons, John and Nicholas, were highly-educated and
talented men, labouring zealously, as members of the London
Company, until it was dissolved by the tyranny and covetousness
of King James, by a kind of Star Chamber operation, in the year
1624, the year before his death. John, the elder, then entered
into the House of Commons, and sought to promote the best
interests of the Colony in that place. Nicholas, after debating
the question whether he should remove to Virginia and seek her
welfare here on the spot, or devote himself to the ministry at
home, determined on the latter. In the words of Mr. Anderson,
who duly appreciated his worth, I make the following
statement:—

As it is well known that such a type of personal religion is
often accompanied by an excessive regard to the ceremonial, the
pomp and show of public worship, decoration of churches, &c.,
we may thus account for the fact that Lord De la War, who may
have sympathized with the rising school of Laud, in England,
introduced some parade, which had never been before, and, as we

believe, never was afterward seen in the Colony. In connection
with this, we add that when George Herbert, a brother in soul to
Nicholas Ferrar, was about to die, he sent some poems to Ferrar,
which were published, and which showed how he sympathized
with him, in his hopes from America. The two following lines
are evincive of this:—

ARTICLE IV.

The Parish of James City.—No. 2.

As it is an important object with the writer to furnish proofs
of the benevolent and religious spirit which actuated the friends
and patrons of the Colony, before proceeding with our narrative
we invite the attention of the reader to the two following documents.
The first was written in the year 1612, and may be found
in a pamphlet entitled "The New Life of Virginia," and shows the
spirit of the author toward the Indians.

The following extracts are from "A Prayer for the Morning
and Evening Use of the Watch or Guard, to be offered up either
by the Captain himself, or some one of his principal men or
officers." It was probably prepared by Mr. Crashaw, and sent
out with Mr. Whittaker. It furnishes a just view of the religion
of that day,—at any rate, of those who were engaged in this enterprise.
It is also a fair specimen of the theology and devotion
of the English Reformers. While it is in faithful keeping with
the prayers of our Common Prayer Book, it shows that our forefathers
did not object to, but freely used, other prayers besides
those in the Prayer Book. The reader is requested not to pass
over it, but to read it in a prayerful spirit:—

We now proceed with the history.

The services of Lord De la War were of short duration, being
obliged to return to England early in 1611, by reason of ill
health. Before his arrival in England, the Council had sent Sir
Thomas Dale, giving him the title of High-Marshal of Virginia,
with a fresh supply of men and provisions, and with the Rev.
Alexander Whittaker, between whom and Sir Thomas there
appears to have ever been a strong attachment. They remained
together at Jamestown until the arrival of Sir Thomas Gates, in
the same year, with full powers as Governor, when Sir Thomas
Dale, the High-Marshal, by agreement with the Governor, went

higher up the river, with Mr. Whittaker and three hundred and
fifty men, to establish two new positions,—one of them called
New Bermuda, in what is now Chesterfield county, in the angle
formed by James River and the Appomattox, and which afterward
assumed and still retains the name of Bermuda Hundred;
the other was five or six miles higher up, on the opposite side of
the river, on what was called Farrar's Island, though it was, as
Jamestown, only a peninsula. This was called Henrico City. In
both of them churches were built, and small villages established,
and Mr. Whittaker was the minister of both, alternately residing
at each of them. As these were the first establishments after
Jamestown, and are intimately connected in their history with
that of Jamestown, the governors sometimes residing at Bermuda,
we shall unite them together in our notices, until the destruction
of Henrico in the great massacre of 1622. The Rev. Alexander
Whittaker was the son of that eminent theologian of Cambridge
who took part in drawing up the Lambeth Articles in the year
1595, and was, as his various writings show, one of the first theologians
and controversialists of his day. He was the friend and
companion of Hooker, and sympathized with him in his doctrinal
views. The son, Alexander Whittaker, was a graduate of Cambridge,
and had been for some years a minister in the North of
England, beloved and well supported by his people, with a handsome
inheritance from his parents. Crashaw says, "that having,
after many distractions and combats with himself, (according to
his own acknowledgment,) settled his resolution that God called
him to Virginia, and therefore he would go, he accordingly made
it good, notwithstanding the earnest dissuasions of some of his
nearest friends, and the great discouragements which he daily
heard of, touching the business and country itself." Again, says
the same, "He, without any persuasion but God and his own
heart, did voluntarily leave his warm nest, and, to the wonder of
his kindred and amazement of them that knew him, undertook
this hard, but, in my judgment, heroical resolution to go to Virginia,
and help to bear the name of God to the Gentiles. Men
may muse at it, some may laugh, and others wonder at it; but
well I know the reason. God will be glorified in his own works,
and what he hath determined to do, he will find means to bring it
to pass. For the perfecting of this blessed work he hath stirred up
able and worthy men to undertake the manning and managing of
it." Mr. Whittaker had given himself to this work for three
years, but at the end of that time, instead of returning to England,
as too many of the governors and other officers did, being
weary of their banishment, he preached a sermon and sent it
over to England, exhorting others to come over to his help, and
declaring his intention to live and die in the work here. His text
is, "Cast thy bread upon the waters, and thou shalt find it after
many days." Pleading for the nations, he says, "Wherefore, my
brethren, put on the bowels of compassion, and let the lamentable
estate of these miserables enter into your consideration. One God
created us. They have reasonable souls and intellectual faculties
as well as we. We all have Adam for our common parent; yea,
by nature the condition of us both is all one, the servants of sin
and slaves of the Devil. Oh, remember, I beseech you, what was
the state of England before the Gospel was preached in our
country." The whole sermon is full of such passages. In the
year 1614, after having spent three years at Bermuda Hundred
and Henrico, Sir Thomas Dale now removed to Jamestown, and,
as Mr. Anderson affirms, Whittaker returned with him to that
place. If so, he must, either before or after Sir Thomas's
return to England in 1616, have gone back again to his old congregations,
for, in the year 1617, Governor Argal, who succeeded
Sir Thomas Dale, writes to the Council, from Bermuda Hundred,
begging that a minister may be sent there, as Mr. Whittaker was
drowned, and Mr. Wickham was unable to administer the sacraments.
From this, it is probable that Mr. Wickham had been his
curate, in deacons' orders. I am aware that there is a letter
ascribed to a Rev. Mr. Stockam, and said to be dedicated to Mr.
Whittaker, at a later period. But this letter of the Governor,
declaring his death by drowning, would seem to be of higher
authority. Within the period of which we have been discoursing,
and during the ministry of Mr. Whittaker and the office of Dale
as High-Marshal, there occurred some things in the Colony
which deserve to be considered,—viz.: the conversion of Pocahontas
to the Christian faith, her baptism, and marriage to John
Rolph. The places of her residence, and of her baptism and marriage,
have been matter of discussion, and are not unworthy of notice.
As to the place of her birth and residence, there ought to be no
doubt. Her father, the great King Powhatan, lived chiefly on
York River, on the Gloucester side, some miles above York.
Here, or at a place higher up, it was that Captain Smith was
brought captive, and that Pocahontas saved his life. From one
of these places, she occasionally visited Jamestown, and there
doubtless became acquainted with Rolph, a young man of good
family and education from England, between whom and herself an
attachment was formed. In the year 1612, Captain Argal, afterwards
Governor for a short time, went up the Potomac River in
quest of provisions, and finding, accidentally, that Pocahontas was
there, artfully contrived to get her on board of his vessel, and
carried her prisoner to Jamestown, in order by that means to get
back from her father some of our men and arms, and implements
of husbandry which he had, from time to time, stolen from the
Colony. But he did not succeed in the effort. At this time, Sir
Thomas Dale and Mr. Whittaker were up the river, engaged in
their duties at Henrico and Bermuda Hundred. It is most probable
that Pocahontas was carried up the river to Sir Thomas
and Mr. Whittaker, as being a more distant place, and one of
greater safety, since her father might have attempted her rescue,
or she her escape from Jamestown, the place being so much nearer
to Powhatan's residence. Certain it is that, in the following year,
Sir Thomas himself went on the same errand, up York River,—
then called Charles River,—in a vessel, and succeeded in getting
the prisoners and property from Powhatan. He took Pocahontas
with him, and got her brothers to come on board and see her.
She did not now wish to return to her father, (for she was engaged
to Mr. Rolph,) and she did not go on shore to see him, as he
might have forced her to stay. Sir Thomas, however, on leaving,
caused the fact of her engagement to be made known to her
father, who was quite pleased, and, in ten days, sent over his old
uncle, Opachisco, and two of his sons, to bear his consent, and be
present at the marriage. It is, therefore, altogether probable
that the marriage took place at Jamestown, where Sir Thomas
would stop to deliver to Governor Gates an account of the success
of his expedition. From thence, they no doubt returned to
Henrico, which was their residence until they went to England,
with Governor Dale, in 1616. This I think to be the true
account, from an examination of all the documents on the subject.
As to the question whether her baptism was before or after marriage,
there are some conflicting testimonies. Mr. Stith, in his
History of Virginia, says,—

From the foregoing, we would infer that her marriage preceded
her baptism. On what authority Mr. Stith (who wrote his work
in 1746) relied, I know not, but the following testimony from Sir
Thomas Dale, in 1614, is certainly to be preferred. In a letter to
the Bishop of London, dated June 18, 1614, he thus writes:—

According to this communication to the Bishop of London, Sir
Thomas Dale, whose return to England was delayed beyond his
wishes or expectation, did, in the year 1616, carry with him Mr.
Rolph and his wife. Her son, Thomas Rolph, was born while she
was in England. On her return, she suddenly died, at Gravesend.
The husband returned to this country, being made Recorder and
Secretary to the Colony. The son, after being educated in England
by his uncle, Henry Rolph, returned to America, and lived at Henrico,
where his parents had formerly lived, and afterward became
a person of fortune and distinction in the Colony.[23]

Concerning the reception and behaviour of Pocahontas in
London, I shall only give the account which Purchas, the celebrated
compiler of the many treatises called "Purchas's Pilgrims,"
has handed down to us:—

ARTICLE V.

The Parish of James City.—No. 3.

The history of Rolph and Pocahontas is so identified with that
of Virginia, and with the Church of Virginia, that it deserves more
than a passing notice. The account usually given of it is too
often considered as an interesting and highly-exaggerated romance,
though founded on the fact of the first marriage of an Englishman
with an Indian. From an accurate examination of all the early
statements concerning the two persons, and the circumstances of
their marriage, we are persuaded that there is as little of romance
or exaggeration about it as can well be. On the part of Pocahontas,
she was the daughter of the noblest and most powerful of
the native kings of North America, who by his superior wisdom
and talents had established his authority over all the tribes from
James River to the Potomac, from Kiquotan or Hampton to the
falls of James River, or what is now Richmond, with the exception
of that on the Chickohomini. We read of two of his sons, and
another of his daughters, who also rose superior to the rest of their
race. Of one of the sons, Nantaquaus, Captain Smith says that
he was "the most manliest, comeliest, boldest spirit I ever saw in
a savage," and of his sister, Pocahontas, that she had "a compassionate
pitiful heart." The other daughter Sir Thomas Dale endeavoured
without success to obtain, with a view to another alliance
with some English gentleman. But Pocahontas was acknowledged
by all to be cast in one of the first of nature's moulds, both as to
person and character. She was declared to be the "nonpareil"
of Captain Smith and his associates. Nor is it wonderful. At
the age of twelve or thirteen, after using all her powers of persuasion
to obtain the release of Captain Smith, and to save him from
the sentence of death, but in vain,—when his head was laid upon
the stone, and her father's huge club was uplifted by his arm, and
ready to fall on the head of the prisoner, she threw herself upon
him, laying her head on his, and folding her arms around him,
thus moving the heart of her father, and, as Smith himself declared
to the Queen, "hazarding the beating out of her own brains instead
of mine." After this, her interest in Smith and the Colony

was displayed in frequent visits to it. "Jamestown with her wild
train (of attendants) she as frequently visited as her father's habitation,"
says Smith, in a letter to the Queen, and often, by her
timely warnings saved the Colony from destruction. On one occasion,
when Smith and a number with him were in most imminent danger,
she came along through the woods some miles, outstripping those
who were seeking their destruction: "the dark night (he says in
the same letter) could not affright her, but, coming through the irksome
woods, with watered eyes gave me intelligence." "She was,"
he adds, "the first Christian of that nation; the first who ever
spake English, or had a child in marriage." Her meeting with
Smith also, in London, was very characteristic. It was unexpected
by her, for she had been told that he was dead some years before.
She was in the circle of the great when Smith came into her presence,
and he thought it prudent and right to address her with
more ceremony and state than formerly in America, out of respect
to those around. This distressed her much, and she resented it,
and upbraided him with not calling her his child, as he did in
America, and allowing her to call him father, as she used to do;
nor could he convince her to the contrary, she declaring that she
would call him father. In relation to Mr. Rolph, there can be no
doubt that he had conceived a strong affection for her, on account
of her person, and deeply-interesting qualities, which affection was
fully returned. There is extant a long and most affecting letter
from Mr. Rolph to Sir Thomas Dale, declaring his wish and deter
mination to marry her, assigning his reasons, describing his feelings,
and asking the Governor's approbation. He seems to have
been much concerned and troubled in mind on the subject, and
calls God to witness the purity of his motives, and how deeply his
conscience had been engaged in the decision, and that not until
much suffering had been endured was the determination made.[24]
The letter can only be understood by considering the character and
position of Mr. Rolph. Here was a young Englishman, of family,
education, and reputation, about to engage himself to an Indian
girl, of a different and despised colour, of different manners, uneducated,
of a hated nation, not one of whom had ever yet been
married to one of the meanest of the Colonists; his children, and
children's children, to be regarded as an inferior race, his own prospects
in life as to preferment all blasted, himself, perhaps, to be a
byword and proverb. Such, doubtless, were his feelings when
penning this letter.

Principle, religious principle, as well as pure love of female excellence,
prevailed and was rewarded. Not only did Sir Thomas
Dale approve and encourage the alliance, but, after writing home
most favourably of it, carried them with him to England, where
they were most honourably received. It is said that King James
was even a little jealous of them, lest, on returning to America,
they might think, by right of inheritance from Powhatan, (a far
nobler monarch than himself,) to establish themselves in rule over
his Virginia territory. This was only one of the vain thoughts
which found a seat in that weak and conceited monarch's mind.
Nothing but good resulted from the union, and much more than is
seen or acknowledged may have resulted. Instead of a race of
despised semi-savages being the issue of this union, Mr. Burk, the
historian of Virginia, after giving the names of some of his descendants,
which have been already recorded, adds:—"so that this
remnant of the imperial family of Virginia, which long ran in a
single person, is now increased and branched out into a very numerous
progeny. The virtues of mildness and humanity, so eminently
distinguished in Pocahontas, remain in the nature of an inheritance
to her posterity. There is scarcely a scion from this stock which
has not been in the highest degree amiable and respectable." He
also adds, "that he is acquainted with several members of this
family, who are intelligent and even eloquent, and, if fortune keep
pace with their merits, should not despair of attaining a conspicuous
and even exalted station in the Commonwealth." This was
written in the year 1804, when Mr. Randolph of Roanoke, one
of the descendants of Pocahontas, was just entering upon public
life.

We are now approaching a deeply-interesting, eventful, and decisive

period in the history of the Colony. Until about the year
1616, when Sir Thomas Dale returned to England, Jamestown,
Henrico, and Bermuda Hundred formed nearly all of the Colony;
and at that time it is probable that Mr. Bucke, at Jamestown, and
Mr. Whittaker, with his curate, Wickham, were the only ministers
of the Colony. During the three following years, infant settlements,
planted by Sir Thomas Dale on James River, and others,
by his successors, Argal and Yeardley, began to increase, and assume
the forms of villages, called Hundreds, and several new ministers
came over. We ascertain the names of Stockam, Meare,
Hargrave, and Scale. In the year 1619, Yeardley, having visited
Europe, returned with new instructions and enlarged authority.
He was directed to convene the first legislative body ever held in
Virginia. Eleven boroughs sent delegates, called Burgesses, to it.
Mr. Bucke was still the minister at Jamestown, and opened the
meeting with solemn prayers in the choir of the church, the Governor
sitting in his accustomed place, the Councillors on each side
of him, and the Burgesses around; after which they all went
into the body of the church, and proceeded with the work of legislation.
The laws, martial, moral, and divine, were now superseded
by some of a different character. The Church of England was
more formally established than it ever had been before.[25] Now all
things began to assume a more regular and promising aspect.
More especially was the attention of the Company in London and
of pious friends in England directed to the cause of education in
the Colony. Many years before this, King James had, through
the Archbishop of Canterbury, called upon the Bishops and clergy
of England to take up collections for a University in Virginia, for
the benefit of both natives and Colonists, and the sum of £1500
had been raised for the purpose. Now an influx of charity poured
in upon Virginia, especially for this object. I have before me a
paper, copied from an English record, containing a list of the following
donations, during the years 1619-20-21:—"Mrs. Mary
Robinson, for a church in Virginia, £200. An unknown person,
£20 for communion-service, and other things for the same. A
person unknown, £30, for the College communion-service, &c. A
person with the signature of Dust and Ashes sent £550, in gold,
to Sir Edward Sandys, for the instruction of the natives in religion
and civility. Nicholas Ferrar, £330 for the same, and £24 annually.
An unknown person, £10 for the Colony. For a free
school in Virginia, by persons returning from the East Indies, to
be called the East India School, £70. Ditto for the same, by an
unknown person, £30. Ditto by a person unknown, £25. Ditto
a Bible, Prayer Book, and other books worth £10." The Rev.
Mr. Hargrave also gave his library. The place selected for the
College was Henrico City, before mentioned as settled by Sir Thomas
Dale and Mr. Whittaker, on the north side of James River,
about fifteen miles below Richmond. Not less than 15,000 acres
of land were given as College lands, and for purposes connected
with the Church and College, between the settlement and Richmond,
by the Company in England. The East India School was
to be established at Charles City,—a place somewhere in what is
now the county of Charles City, and probably not far from Henrico
City. The Rev. Mr. Copland, chaplain of the East India
Company, who had proposed the East India School in Virginia
and contributed liberally to it, was appointed by the Company to
be President of the College, and general manager of all its property.
The East India School, in Charles City, was to be a preparatory
one to the College. On the 13th of April, 1622, the
Rev. Mr. Copland was requested by the Company to deliver a
thanksgiving sermon, in London, for all the late mercies of God to
the Colony, and for the bright prospects before them; but in about
one month before that time, on the 22d of March, those prospects
had been blasted by one of the most unexpected and direful calamities
which had ever befallen the Colony. Since the marriage of
Pocahontas all had been peace with the natives. The Colonists
had settled themselves in various places along James River, from
Kiquotan (Hampton) to Henrico, fearing no evil, although the
dreadful massacre which then ensued had been secretly resolved
upon for some years. On one and the same day the attack was
made on every place. Jamestown, and some few points near to it,
alone escaped, having received warning of the intended attack
just in time to prepare for defence. Besides the destruction of
houses by fire, between three and four hundred persons were put
to death in the most cruel manner. Such was the effect of this
assault, both in Virginia and in England, that a commission was
sent over to the Governor, Sir George Yeardley, to seek for a settlement
on the Eastern Shore of Virginia for those who remained.
That plan, however, was never put in execution, though steps were
taken toward it. The hopes of the best friends of the Colony,
and of the natives, were now overwhelmed. This, added to all
preceding conflicts with the natives, and the continual defence required
before the marriage of Pocahontas, produced a change in
the feelings and language of many toward the natives, which we
should scarce credit if the records of the same were not too well
authenticated. In unison with the feelings of the English, Captain
Smith, who was still alive and in England, offered himself as
the commander of a company of young and valiant soldiers, to be
a standing army in Virginia, going in among the tribes, inflicting
vengeance for the past, and driving them out of their possessions
to some place so distant from our people as to render them harmless.
The Company itself, hitherto so strong in its injunction of
mild measures and the use of means for the conversion of the Indians,
now says, "We condemn their bodies, the saving of whose
souls we have so zealously affected. Root them out from being
any longer a people,—so cursed a nation, ungrateful for all benefits
and incapable of all goodness,—or remove them so far as to be
out of danger or fear. War perpetually, without peace or truce.
Yet spare the young for servants. Starve them by destroying
their corn, or reaping it for your own use. Pluck up their weirs,
(fishing-traps.) Obstruct their hunting. Employ foreign enemies
against them at so much a head. Keep a band of your own men
continually upon them, to be paid by the Colony, which is to have
half of their captives and plunder. He that takes any of their chiefs
to be doubly rewarded. He that takes Opochancono (the chief
and brother of old Powhatan, who was now dead) shall have a
great and singular reward." At a somewhat later period, either
an order in council or a law was passed, that "the Indians being
irreconcilable enemies, every commander, on the least molestation,
to fall upon them."

It may perhaps seem to some, that in giving such details of massacre
and revenge I am departing from that line of ecclesiastical
notices hitherto pursued. A few words will, I hope, suffice for my
justification, and show that I have a sufficient reason for it. In the first
fifteen years of the Colony, it must be admitted that, so far as
the few ministers who belonged to it, and a good proportion of the
laity taking part in it, are concerned, there is as large a share of
the true missionary spirit in its conduct as is anywhere to be found,
not excepting any missionary movements since apostolic days and
men. But this massacre, following others which had taken place,

and the little success attending the conversion of the natives in
this country, or in England, whither some had been sent for Christian
instruction, produced a sad revolution in public feeling. The
missionary effort was considered as a failure; the conversion, or
even civilization, of the Indian, was regarded as hopeless. The
Company began, and probably continued, to appropriate £500 annually
to the support of such men as Hunt, Bucke, Clover, Whittaker,
and other religious purposes; but that Company was, in the
year 1624, dissolved by the covetous and tyrannical act of James.
Where now are to be found the considerations sufficient to move
other such devoted missionaries to fill up the ranks made vacant
by their death? The Indians were now objects of dread, of hate,
of persecution. A sentiment and declaration is ascribed to one of
the last of the ministers who came over, "that the only way to
convert the Indians was to cut the throats of their chief men and
priests." It must also be acknowledged that the experience of
two hundred and fifty years has proved that the North American
Indian is the most unlikely subject for conversion to our religion
of all the savage tribes on whom the missionary has bestowed his
labour. Cowper may have poured out his soul of piety and poetry
over some instance of conversion among them:—

But how many of such have there been? Pocahontas, at the end
of seven or eight years, was perhaps the only trophy of the missionary
labours of the Virginia Colony. In forming a judgment,
therefore, of our Mother-Church, in regard to the ministers sent
forth by, or issuing from her, from the time of this great failure, we
must inquire into the arguments by which her clergy could henceforth
be urged to come over to this Macedonia. The only persons
who could be brought under their pastoral care in Virginia were
now the same kind of rich and poor who abounded so much more
in the country they would leave, and these were placed under the
greatest imaginable difficulties of access,—scattered at great distances
from each other, and along the margins of wide rivers,
with scarce a village, or village church, to be seen. To the present
day, how great the impediment this to the full trial of the Gospel
ministry! As to the salaries and residences of ministers, we shall

hereafter show that the former were most scanty and precarious,
and the latter uncomfortable. For a long time, all things were
most unfavourable for usefulness as well as comfort. Let us suppose
that the present missionaries to China and Africa were sent
merely to minister to the English and Americans scattered through
those lands, no opening whatever being had to the natives, and,
moreover, that, besides much and painful travelling through dark
forests, they were most meagrely supplied with the means of subsistence,
with clothing, and homes, so that scarce any of them
could venture to assume the relation of husbands and fathers; can
we suppose that such men as those we now send out as missionaries
would be ready to engage in the work, when there are so many
stations at home furnishing larger opportunities of usefulness? Let
us not, therefore, be surprised, if, in subsequent notices, we should
find an inferior order of men supplying the churches of Virginia,
Nor let any denomination of Christians boast itself over the
Church of Virginia, since, under similar circumstances, it might
not have done better.

ARTICLE VI.

The Parish of James City.—No. 4.

Having brought the history of James City parish, in its connection
with the few others then in existence, to the time of the
great massacre, with some thoughts on its effects, I briefly allude
to two events, occurring soon after, and calculated to concur with
it in having an injurious influence over the future welfare of the
Colony. While the Company and the Governors were endeavouring
to improve the condition of the Colony, by selecting a hundred
young females, of good character, to be wives to the labourers on
the farms in Virginia, King James had determined to make of the
Colony a Botany Bay for the wretched convicts in England, and
ordered one hundred to be sent over. The Company remonstrated,
but in vain. A large portion, if not all of them, were actually
sent. The influence of this must have been pernicious. Whether
it was continued by his successors, and how long, and to what extent,
I know not. Shortly after this, a Dutch vessel brought into
Jamestown the first cargo of negro slaves which was ever cast on
the shores of America. While we must acknowledge that "the
earth is the Lord's, and all that therein is;" that he has a right,
and will exercise it, to pull down one kingdom and raise up another,
to dispossess the Indians of their territories and give them to
the white men and the negroes for their possession; while we must
acknowledge that the advantage of the African trade, notwithstanding
the cruelties accompanying it, has been on the side of
that people, both temporally and spiritually; yet can we never be
brought to believe that the introduction into and the multiplication
of slaves in Virginia have advanced either her religious, political,
or agricultural interests. On the contrary, we are confident that
it has injured all. But if our loss has redounded to the benefit of
Africa, by affording religious advantages to numbers of her benighted
sons, who, in the providence of God, have come hither,
and especially if it should be the means, by colonization and missionary
enterprise, of establishing Christianity in that dark habitation
of cruelty, we must bow submissively to the will of Heaven,
and allow many of our sister States, with far less advantages of

soil, climate, and navigation, to outstrip us in numbers, wealth, and
political power.[26]

That an unfavourable turn had taken place in the affairs of the
Church of Virginia, by reason of the massacre and other circumstances,

although the temporal condition of the Colony and the
numbers of Colonists soon began greatly to increase, is evident
from various acts of the Assembly, and from letters to and from
England, which show the difficulty of procuring such ministers as
those who first came into the Colony. Laws now seem to be required
to keep the ministers from cards, dice, drinking, and such
like things; and even to constrain them to preach and administer
the communion as often as was proper,—yea, even to visit the sick
and dying. It is true, the inducements as to earthly comforts,
which might help to bring over respectable ministers, were very
small. The Assembly, by various preambles and acts, declares
that without better provision for them it was not to be expected
that sufficient, learned, pious, and diligent ministers could be obtained,
and admits that some of a contrary character did come
over, while there were not enough of any kind to do the work
required. From that time, until the close of the Colonial establishment,
Governors, Commissaries, and private individuals, in
their communications with the Bishops of London and the Archbishops
of Canterbury, all declare that such was the scanty and
uncertain support of the clergy, the precarious tenure by which
livings were held, that but few of the clergy could support families,
and therefore respectable ladies would not marry them. Hence
the immense number of unmarried, ever-shifting clergymen in the
Colony.

With these general remarks, we proceed with the special history
of James City parish. It was not until the year 1634 that it could
fairly be considered a parish. The settlements were for some time
called Plantations, Hundreds, Congregations, &c.; but in 1634,
part of the State was divided into eight shires, as in England.
They were James City, Henrico, Charles City, Elizabeth City,
Warwick River, Warrosquijoake, Charles River, and Accawmac.
Of these, all lay between York and James Rivers, and east of
James City, except Henrico, Charles City, Accawmac, the latter
being then all of what is now the Eastern Shore of Virginia. But
in James City shire or county, a number of small parishes were at
an early period established, for the convenience of the people, as
Martin's Hundred, Chiskiake, Chippoax, Lane's Creek, and Harrop
parish, which in time were lost in James City parish, York
Hampton, and Bruton parishes. The first minister of James
City parish of whom we read, after Mr. Bucke, was the Rev.
Thomas Hampton, in 1644, of whom we know nothing but the
name, as no vestry-book or other document remains to tell who, if

any, intervened between him and Mr. Bucke. Nor have we, for a
long time after, any name of a minister of that parish; but an
event occurred in the year 1675 or '76, by which the church and
city, and probably all the church-records, were destroyed, which
deserves to be mentioned.[27]

BACON'S REBELLION.

Jamestown having been the most prominent theatre of Bacon's
rebellion, and the greatest sufferer thereby,—the place being destroyed
by fire,—it becomes us to take some brief notice of it.
Writers on the subject trace the beginnings of this movement to
an enterprise against the Indians by Colonel Mason and Captain
Brent, of Stafford county, in 1675, who, on some cruel murder
committed by the former, collected troops and followed them
over into Maryland, putting great numbers to death, bringing
a young son of one of their kings or chiefs back a prisoner.[28]
These wars with the Indians continuing to harass those who lived
on the frontiers and in the interior, while the Governor and those
living at or around Jamestown were quite secure, the former began
to complain that they were not protected, and that they must follow
the example of Mason and Brent, and take care of themselves.
Among the dissatisfied was Bacon, a man of family, talents, courage,
and ambition. After applying in vain to Sir William Berkeley
for a commission to raise men for the purpose of assailing the
Indians, he, urged by his own genius and the wishes of others,
collected a considerable troop and spread terror around him,
destroying a number of the hostile natives. The Governor proclaimed
him a rebel, but the people sent him back to the House of
Burgesses, and the Governor thought it expedient even to admit
him into the Council, where he had been before. But it did not end
here. Bacon again raised a troop and sallied forth against the

Indians. Again the Governor pronounced him a rebel, and raised
an army to subdue him and his followers. But Bacon, with an
inferior force, besieged Jamestown, drove out the Governor and his
men, and, lest he should regain this stronghold, burnt city, church,
and all to the ground. The Governor had twice to seek refuge on
the Eastern Shore. Whether Bacon's rebellion was a lawful one
or not, I leave civilians to decide. Sir William Berkeley certainly
gained no credit to himself, either for his military talents, or his
truth, or humanity, for, in spite of all his assurances to the contrary,
and the express orders of the King, he did, after the sudden
decease of Bacon, put to death a number of his followers. For
this, and other high-handed acts, his memory is not dear to the
lovers of freedom.

Although a new and better church, whose tower still remains,
was built at Jamestown, yet the city never recovered from this
blow. The middle Plantation, or Williamsburg, was already beginning
to rival it, and by the beginning of the next century the
seat of government was removed to Williamsburg, where the College,
State-House, and Governor's palace quite eclipsed any thing
which had ever been seen at Jamestown. The Governor's house,
at Green Spring, which Sir William Berkeley built, a few miles off,
answered for a time in place of the State-House at Jamestown;
the Council and Burgh holding their meetings there.

Proceeding now with the succession of ministers in Jamestown,
we have been unable to ascertain any other until the Rev. James
Blair, the Commissary, who came to this country in 1685, and settled
in Henrico, whence, after remaining until 1694, he removed
to Jamestown, and remained until 1710, preaching there, and at a
church eight miles off, in the adjacent parish, and then moved to
Williamsburg. Who succeeded him, and who ministered there
until the year 1722, I know not. In that year the Rev. William
Le Neve took charge of it. He reports to the Bishop of London,
in the year 1724, that the parish is twenty miles long, twelve wide,
has seventy-eight families in it, and usually twenty or thirty communicants.
He also preached every third Sunday at Mulberry
Island parish church, lower down the river, where he had double
the number of communicants, and a larger congregation. The
congregation at Jamestown must have been small. There never
was but one church in it; and that was not a large one. The seventy-eight
families must have been the whole flock of James City parish
at this time. The salary of James City parish was only £60.

The minister received £30 for preaching at Mulberry Island, and
£20 for lecturing in Williamsburg on Sunday afternoons. In the
year 1758, we find the Rev. Mr. Berkeley the minister. In the
year 1772, the Rev. John Hyde Saunders was ordained for this
parish by the Bishop of London. In the year 1785, the Rev.
James Madison, afterward Bishop of Virginia, became its minister,
and continued so until his death in 1812, long before which the
congregation had dwindled into almost nothing,—the church on the
Island having sunk into ruins, and the little remnant of Episcopalians
meeting at a brick church a few miles from the island, on the
road from it to Williamsburg. That has also entirely disappeared.
A young friend of mine, who was in Williamsburg about the year
1810, informed me that, being desirous of hearing the oratory of
Bishop Madison, he had once or twice gone out on a Sabbath
morning to this church, but that the required number for a sermon
was not there, though it was a very small one, and so he was disappointed.
It might be expected that I should in this place say
something about Bishop Madison, in addition to what may be found
in my first article of Reminiscences of Virginia; but, though I
have endeavoured to procure some of his papers for this purpose,
I have thus far been disappointed. I can only say that in the
year 1775 he was ordained deacon and priest by the Bishop of
London. In the year 1774 he became Professor in the College of
William and Mary, in the year 1777, President of the College,
and in the year 1790 was consecrated Bishop of Virginia. His
addresses to the Convention breathe a spirit of zealous piety, and
his recommendations are sensible and practical. Although agreeing
in political principles with those who were foremost in the
State for the sale of Church property and the withholding from
her and other Societies any corporate privileges, he steadily and
perseveringly, though ineffectually, resisted their efforts. I again
repeat my conviction that the reports as to his abandonment of
the Christian faith in his latter years are groundless; although it
is to be feared that the failure of the Church in his hands, and
which at that time might have failed in any hands, his secular and
philosophical pursuits, had much abated the spirit with which he
entered upon the ministry.

The old church at Jamestown is no longer to be seen, except
the base of its ruined tower. A few tombstones, with the names
of the Amblers and Jaquelines, the chief owners of the island for
a long time, and the Lees, of Green Spring, (the residence and property,
at one time, of Sir William Berkeley,) a few miles from

Jamestown, still mark the spot where so many were interred
during the earlier years of the Colony. Some of the sacred vessels
are yet to be seen, either in private hands or public temples
of religion. The first I would mention are a large silver chalice
and paten, with the inscription on each,—

Also a silver alms-basin, with the inscription, "For the use of
James City Parish Church." When the church at Jamestown
had fallen into ruin and the parish ceased to exist, probably at
the death of Bishop Madison, these vessels were taken under the
charge of the vestry in Williamsburg. During the presidency of
Dr. Wilmer over the College, and his pastorship of the church in
Williamsburg, in the year 1827, they were placed in the hands of
the Rev. John Grammer, to be used in the church or churches
under his care, on condition of their being restored to the parish
of James City, should it ever be revived. In the year 1854, Mr.
Grammer thought it best to surrender it into the hands of the
Episcopal Convention, with the request that it be deposited for
safe-keeping in the Library of the Theological Seminary of Virginia,
where it now is. The second is a silver plate, being part
of a communion-service presented to the church at Jamestown,
by Edmund Andros, in the year 1694, he being then Governor.
The history of this is singular. In one of our Southern towns,
about twelve years since, a gentleman, wishing something from a
jeweller's shop, was directed by the owners of it to look into a
drawer for the thing wanted, in which drawer was kept old silver
purchased for the purpose of being worked up again. This piece
of plate was noticed, being much bent and battered. It was purchased,
and, being restored to its original shape, was discovered to
be what we have stated; this appearing from the Latin inscription
upon it. This also has been presented to the Church of Virginia.
The third and last of the pieces of church furniture—which is
now in use in one of our congregations—is a silver vase, a font for
baptism, which was presented to the Jamestown Church, in 1733,
by Martha Jaqueline, widow of Edward Jaqueline, and their son
Edward. In the year 1785, when the act of Assembly ordered
the sale of Church property, it reserved that which was possessed
by right of private donation. Under this clause, it was given
into the hands of the late Mr. John Ambler, his grandson. The
following lines in relation to it are from the pen of Mr. Edward
Jaqueline's grand-daughter, the late Mrs. Edward Carrington, of

Richmond. They have been furnished by one of her descendants,
and I take pleasure in placing them on record:—

I have also been permitted to make use of the papers of this
excellent lady in presenting some sketches of the members of her
family who were in connection with the old church at Jamestown.
Nor can I do this without first making a brief reference
to herself. Mrs. Carrington was a sincere and pious member of
our Church in Richmond, from the beginning of its resuscitation
in 1812,—how much longer I know not. Being infirm, from the
time of our first Conventions, she was unable to attend public
worship, but was not ashamed to convert her house into a place
of prayer and exhortation, inviting her neighbours and friends to
assemble there. Some pleasant and edifying meetings have I
been privileged to attend and participate in, under her roof,
during the last years of her pilgrimage on earth. The paper from
which I extract the following was drawn up in the year 1785, on a
visit to one of the Amblers, at a residence called the "Cottage,"
in Hanover county, Virginia, and where were the portraits of the
older members of the family:—

From the papers of Mrs. Carrington I take the following concerning
the religious character of her mother:—

Mrs. Carrington also speaks, in like manner, of her father, Mr.
Jaqueline Ambler:—

"His saintlike image is too deeply impressed to need any picture of
mine to recall him to our remembrance. I find a complete portrait of
him drawn by the inimitable Cowper:—

Speaking of the piety of both of her parents, she says,—

Her aged aunt Jaqueline had assured her that piety distinguished
her father from early youth. She herself had experienced the
fruits of it in his assiduous care of herself and sisters. Her mother
being in very bad health, her father, though much engaged in
the duties of his office, (collector of the King's customs at York,)
devoted all his spare hours to the education of herself and her
sister, (afterward Mrs. Marshall,) then only five or six years of age.
The copies for writing were always written by himself, in a fair
hand, containing some moral or religious sentiment, but defective
in grammar, that they might correct them; and so of other branches.
The advantages they possessed were superior to any enjoyed in
those days, when there were no boarding-schools and all that was
taught "was reading and writing, at twenty shillings a year and
a load of wood." Mrs. Carrington informs us that "the government
exercised by her father was by some thought to be too severe,
for the rod, at that time, was an instrument never to be dispensed
with, and our dear father used it most conscientiously. I have
since discovered that his superior knowledge of human nature led
him to pursue the right course, (as to discipline,) and in my own
subsequent experience, in the education of children, I have found
that the present prevailing opinion, that youth may be reared and
matured by indulgence, is erroneous. I will venture to say that,
with a very few exceptions, it will be always proper to observe a
well-regulated discipline. We often hear the observation that a
rigid parent never has an obedient child. Our experience certainly
contradicts it. Where the parent is found to unite the virtuous

Christian with the conscientious disciplinarian, he will never cease
to be loved and respected. Such a father was ours, and the love
and respect we bore him has seldom been equalled." His example,
also, added weight to his precept and government. "Never did
man live in the more constant practice of religious duties. Early
and late we knew him to be in the performance of them. It was
his daily habit to spend his first and latest hours in prayer and
meditation. Every Sunday that his church was open, he was the
first to enter it, and often would he be almost a solitary male at
the table of the Lord." This, she adds, was during the war, when
the men were engaged in it, and when infidelity was spreading
through the land. The last end of this good man was, as might
be expected, one of peace. On his death-bed, when speaking of
one of his neighbours, who had gone to some distant place in
search of a home, he said, with his eyes uplifted to heaven, "I am
going to a nearer, happier home" To a female friend, who was at
his bedside when he died, he exclaimed,—

From such ancestors, as might well be expected according to the
covenant of grace, many pious children have descended, who have
faithfully adhered to the Church of their fathers.

P.S.—Since preparing the above, I have received a fuller account
of the descendants of the first of the Jaquelines. He came
to this country from Kent, in England, in the year 1697, and, marrying
Miss Carey, of Warwick, settled at Jamestown. His daughter
Mary married one of those Smiths in Middlesex of whom we
shall make mention in our article on that parish, and two of which
family were ministers of the Church in Gloucester and Matthews.
Colonel Edward and General John Smith, of Frederick, and many
others, were the children of Mary Jaqueline and John Smith. We
have seen, in the account taken from the papers of Mrs. Carrington,
the sketch of one branch of the Amblers, that descended from Jaqueline
Ambler, who married Miss Burwell. We have only to refer
to that descended from Edward Ambler, who inherited Jamestown,
or a large portion of it. Mr. Edward Ambler married Miss Mary
Carey, daughter of Wilson Carey, the lady of whom Washington
Irving, in his life of Washington, speaks, as the one to whom General
Washington was somewhat attached. One of his sons was Mr.
John Ambler, first of Jamestown, then of Hanover, and afterward of

Richmond. His first wife was a Miss Armistead, by whom he had Edward, who settled in Rappahannock, and Mary, who married
Mr. Smith. His second wife was the sister of Judge Marshall, by
whom he had one child, Major Thomas Ambler, of Fauquier. His
third wife was the widow of Mr. Hatley Norton, of England, and
daughter of Philip Bush, of Winchester, by whom he had many
sons and daughters, who are married and settled in various parts
of the State,—warm friends or members of the Church. Two of
the descendants of this branch of the family are worthy ministers
of the Church,—the Revs. Charles and Thomas Ambler.

ARTICLE VII.

Being an appendix to the articles on James City parish, and containing
a further account of the Jaquelines, Amblers, and James
town.—No. 5.

Since the foregoing notice of these families was written I
have had access to some most reliable documents, from which have
been obtained the following additional information:—

Within the last thirty years visits have been made to England
by a number of their descendants, and an intercourse, personal
and epistolary, been established between those in England and
those in America. I am the more pleased at being allowed access
to these documents, because I am enabled thereby to gratify a
favourite wish and design of these articles in the establishment
of a connection between the old families and the old Church of
England and America.

The tradition prevalent in Virginia as to the descent of the
Ambler family is entirely confirmed by a letter of the Rev.
George Ambler, of Wakefield, in Yorkshire, to one of his relatives
in Virginia. Wakefield and Leeds are near to each other in
Yorkshire, as they are in Westmoreland, Virginia,—the latter
deriving their names from the former through the instrumentality
of the Washington and Fairfax families, whose residence was in
that part of England. The Amblers were also from the same
place, and Leeds Manor, in Fauquier, may have received its name
through them. The following is an extract from a letter of the
Rev. Mr. Ambler, of England, to Mr. Philip St. George Ambler,
of Virginia:—

This number exactly agrees with that of the children of Richard
Ambler, of York, who married Miss Jaqueline, of Jamestown. A

sister of this Richard Ambler (Mary Ambler) married the Rev.
George Shaw, a minister of the Established Church, and was
grandmother of Charles Shaw Lefevre, late Speaker of the House
of Commons. For many years this Richard Ambler was collector
of the port at Yorktown, an office both honourable and lucrative,
and which he discharged with great integrity. Of his
nine children by Elizabeth Jaqueline, all died at an early age,
except Edward, John, and Jaqueline, as we have said in our last
article.

I find some interesting notices in the document before me concerning
these three,—which I shall introduce, but not without a
previous notice, from the same source, of the family of their
mother, Elizabeth Jaqueline:—

The document thus concludes on the subject of the Jaquelines:—

We now proceed to speak of the three grandsons of Edward
Jaqueline. The sons of Richard Ambler and Elizabeth Jaqueline
were John, Edward, and Jaqueline. John was born in Yorktown.
At the age of ten he was sent, with his elder brother, Edward, to
Leeds Academy, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire, England, for his
education. He afterward graduated with great credit at Cambridge,
and then repaired to London, to begin the study of law.
There he became a very learned and accomplished barrister-at-law.
After travelling over Europe, he returned to Virginia and took
possession of Jamestown, which estate had been given him by his
grandfather Jaqueline. He represented the borough of Jamestown
for many years, and was considered one of the most accomplished
scholars in the Colony. He was perfect master of seven
languages. Many of his books in those different languages have
come down to his relatives. His health sunk under his literary
habits, and he died of consumption, at the age of thirty-one, in the
island of Barbadoes. His body was brought to Jamestown, and
deposited in the old graveyard around the church. The following
inscription, taken in 1820 from a tombstone of which no vestige
now remains, shows in what esteem he was held by his brother Edward,
who died on the day it was placed over his remains:—

To this brief testimony to the worth of one whose days were
soon numbered, we add a more enlarged one to the virtues of his
brother, Mr. Jaqueline Ambler:—

"To this fair transcript of his character," says Dr. Buchannon,
the author of the sermon, "I might, from a fourteen
years' knowledge of him, (ten whereof I spent in his family,)
add many private traits which characterize him as the good man
and sincere and pious Christian. I could set before you innumerable
instances of kind attention and anxious solicitude to alleviate
the distresses, bear the infirmities, provide for the wants, nay, even
anticipate the wishes, of her to whom he was united; of the constant
care and unremitted assiduity of the fond but judicious parent
training up his own children, as also the fatherless and those
who had none to guide and direct them in the paths of religion and
virtue, not merely by daily precepts, but by what is infinitely more
efficacious, by daily example; and thus conscientiously discharging
that most important of all trusts, and securing their eternal as well as
temporal interests. I might bear honourable testimony to his being
as tender of the reputation of another; repelling every report circulated
by envy or malice against his neighbour's fame, and, like
Christian charity, thinking no evil. I might adduce repeated
proofs of his delicacy and purity of manners and conversation,
and of his temperance and self-government. He may, however,
have been thought by some too reserved and too much of a recluse;
and that he separated himself more than was necessary from
scenes of cheerful and innocent sociability. But, it may be truly said,
none had greater enjoyment in his family and the private circle
of his friends whenever the state of his health would permit; and
that he was sufficiently conversant in the world to present a fair
model of integrity, and a constant attention to his duties as an
officer, though not enough to be seduced or contaminated by its
follies and vices. To sum up all, I might lead to his private retirement,
and there present to you the devout Christian, prostrate in
humble supplication before his almighty Creator, which they only
who follow his example can justly estimate, and which they know
proves their greatest consolation in the various trials and calamities
of life. In fine, I might conduct you to the altar of God, where
you would hear him making a public profession of his faith, and,

regardless of the scoffs of the infidel and the ridicule of a vain
and inconsiderate world, giving an open and solemn testimony that
he was not ashamed of the cross of Christ, which was to him both
the wisdom and power of God to his salvation.

"These and many more features of his character I might exhibit
to your view. But though a minute and particular detail would
still appear to myself as falling short of his merit, yet, to those
less acquainted with him than I was, it might seem to be drawn by
the flattering pencil of a friend. I therefore forbear a further
recital, and make one reflection naturally arising from the subject:
—that whenever the eye of man is disgusted and shocked by scenes
of impiety, rapine, cruelty, and bloodshed, let him cast it on such
a fair and pleasing picture as the present, which does so much
honour to human nature, and he will not fail to conclude that man,
the prey of furious and malignant passions, resembles an infernal
spirit; but when actuated by the sacred dictates of religion and
devoted virtue he claims kindred with the angels in heaven.
`Mark, therefore, the perfect man, and behold the upright, for
the end of that man is peace.' "

The following account of Mr. Edward Ambler is from the same
source,—the family document:—

The following account of a recent visit to Jamestown will conclude
our notices of this parish:—

On the 27th of October, 1856, I went to this place of ruins in
company with the Rev. Dr. Totten, the Rev. George Wilmer, Mr.
Richard Randolph, and Colonel Durfey. The latter had been
owner of the place some years since, and was well acquainted with
its past and present history. Mr. Randolph, our Virginia antiquary,
was also quite at home as to all that belonged to the
scene. We entered the island in a boat, at the upper or western
end of it, near to that which was once the neck constituting it a
peninsula and uniting it to the mainland. This has long since

been overflowed and the peninsula has become an island. About
ninety years ago the late Mr. John Ambler, then owning the
greater part of the island and residing on it, made a causeway on
that which had been the neck of land, but which was now covered
with water some feet deep. This, after some time, having been
overwhelmed with the waves of James River, Colonel Durfey, on
becoming the proprietor of the whole island, made a bridge to it at
some distance from the causeway, over which the stage passed, carrying
passengers to the Old Wharf at Jamestown, where the
steamboats received them. Only the piles on which the bridge
rested now remain, and the steamboats receive passengers from
Williamsburg and the country around at some other place. The
only access at this time to the island from the mainland is by boat
across Back River, which surrounds the island on the west and in
part on the north and east, uniting with James River at the upper
and lower ends of the island; also stretching up some miles into
the mainland, by a creek called Portan. While the neck of land
stood firm, Back River terminated in this creek. Since the irruption
of the waters of James River over this neck, the upper part
of the island has lost much of its ancient territory. The neck
itself is in some places a third of a mile in the river. A large
portion of the town also lies buried in the waves. At low-water
some signs of it may yet be seen. As this was the highest part
of the peninsula, and the most fertile and beautiful, the town was
chiefly built on it. The work of destruction has now passed along
nearly a mile, from the original connection with the mainland to
the lower part of the town, where the public buildings and the old
church stood. The bank is giving way within one hundred and
fifty yards of the old tower and graveyard; and, if some remedy
be not applied in time, they also must be immersed in the waters
of old Powhatan; for that was the Indian name of James River.
As the church was built on the fifty acres of land which is deeded
to the authorities of James City for public houses, it is hoped that
in due time either those authorities or that of the State will guard
the same against destruction. The old tower and the ruins of the
church are about fifty yards from the river, which in that place
has not yet encroached on the bank; although, as we have said, a
hundred and fifty yards above it is rapidly advancing on the
island.

Something special deserves to be said of the ruins of the old
church. The graveyard, in the midst of which it stood, contained
about half an acre of land, which is covered with old sycamores,

and mulberries, and smaller trees, and shrubberies, which form a
dense shade. The old brick enclosure, which was mouldering into
ruins, and some of the walls of the church, were used about sixty
years ago by Mr. William Lee, of Green Spring, and the late Mr.
John Ambler, of Jamestown, in making a small enclosure around
the tombstones which were still remaining. This enclosure covers
about one-third of the original one, and takes in a part of the spot
on which the church stood. The foundation of the old church is
still marked by the bricks which remain. On accurate measurement,
we found it to be an oblong square of just twenty-eight feet
by fifty-six. The ruined tower was judged to be about thirty feet
high, and, by measurement, proved to be eighteen feet square. As
there are conflicting opinions concerning the date of the erection
of this old church,—some affirming that what we see are the ruins
of that which was destroyed in Bacon's rebellion, while others
affirm the building of a new one after that event,—we will briefly
state the facts bearing on the case. The history of the succession
of the Jamestown churches is as follows:—The first place of worship,
as described by Captain Smith, was made of the awning, or
old sails, taken from vessels, and fastened to trees. The second
was a very plain log building, which was burned down in the second
or third year of the Colony, during the ministry of the Rev. Mr.
Hunt. The third was a larger and better one, probably of wood,
built during the presidency of Captain Smith, and in a ruinous
or neglected condition when Lord De la War arrived, in 1611.
By him it was repaired and adorned as I have stated. Its dimensions
were twenty-four feet by sixty. The chancel, called quoir,
was large enough to hold the Governor, the Council, and other
officers of state. This was doubtless the same in which Governor
Yeardley, with the Councillors and Burgesses, held their legislative
session in 1619; and, as we read of no other being built between
that time and 1676, when the town and church were burned down
by Bacon, it is most probable that this was the building. In opposition
to the theory that the present are the ruins of the old church
which was burned in the rebellion, is the fact that the dimensions
of the church which Smith built and Lord De la War repaired
were different from the one whose ruins are now seen. The dimensions
of the former were twenty-four by sixty; those of the latter
twenty-eight by fifty-six. Other circumstances there are, which
render it almost certain that another church had been built since
the destruction of the one by Bacon. Not only was there a goodly
number of families residing in the place for some time after this,

RUINS OF THE CHURCHYARD, JAMESTOWN.

but the court-house and House of Burgesses were there until the
removal of the seat of government to Williamsburg, after the year
1705. Although the Governors may have lived at Green Spring,
yet some of the officers of government, belonging to the port, and
Legislature, were there; and it is not to be supposed that they
would live for thirty years without a church. This improbability
is strengthened by the fact that Governor Andros presented some
communion-plate to the church at Jamestown in 1694; and yet
more by another fact, that in 1733 a silver font, still in existence,
was presented to it by two of the Ambler family. Surely these
would not have been presented to the ruins of a deserted church.
We must, therefore, suppose that the ruins which we now behold
are those of a church put up since the rebellion. That they are
not the ruins produced by fire I ascertain, not merely by the fact
that there are no marks of destruction by fire, but by the testimony
of an elderly gentleman, who assured me he was present when the
wooden part of the tower was burned by accident. It is proper to
state, in connection with this, that at a later period, the date not
known, a brick church was built on the road from Jamestown to
Williamsburg, called the "Main Church," in which Bishop Madison
preached in the concluding years of his ministry. He doubtless
preached at Jamestown in the earlier part of it. The Main
Church has recently disappeared. Underneath it was found a brick
vault, containing the remains of some unknown ones who were
buried there.[31] Having thus disposed of the church, we add something
concerning the graveyard. Deep-pressed into the earth and
almost covered up by it we found the following inscription:—
"Here lyeth the body of the Rev. John Gough, late minister of
this place, who departed this life January 15th, 1683-4, and waits
in hopes of a joyful reunion." This supplies one blank in our list
of its ministers. Besides this, we found the tombstones, or fragments
thereof, of Philip Ludwell and Sarah his wife, of Ursula
Beverly, wife of Robert Beverly and daughter of William Byrd,
(the first of that name, we presume, and who lived in Williamsburg
during the building of the College.) The tombs of Edward
Jaqueline and Jaqueline Ambler, also those of B. Harrison and
Mrs. Edwards, may yet be seen.

Something special in the way of notice is due to the condition
of the tombs of Commissary Blair and Mrs. Blair; the latter being
the daughter of Philip Ludwell, of Green Spring, who married
Miss Sarah Grymes, of Middlesex. The tombs were placed side
by side, and were very heavy and strong. The platform, sides,
and ends were of white freestone, and the interior filled with
bricks, well cemented. The top slab, on which the inscriptions
were made, are of thick dark iron-stone, or black marble. A
sycamore-shoot sprung up between the graves and is now a large
tree. In its growth it embraced, on one end and on the top, the
tomb of Mrs. Blair, one-third of which lies embedded in the body
of the tree and is held immovable. All the interior, consisting of
brick, and two of the side-stones, have been entirely forced out of
their places by the tree and lie scattered around, while the dark
iron-stone slab is held in the air three feet above the surface of the
earth, fast bound by the embrace of the body of the tree, into
which it is sunk between one and two feet, the inscription being
only partially legible. On the other side, the whole tomb of Commissary
Blair has been forced away from its place by the roots
and body of the tree, and is broken to pieces in all its parts.
We found about two-thirds of the slab (on which was the inscription)
scattered in three or four fragments at some distance from
each other, and having put them together made out an imperfect
Latin memorial,—so imperfect that we shall not insert it.

Leaving the ruins of the church and graveyard, we add a few
concluding words as to the island. About two hundred yards below
the church and a hundred from the river, is the old brick house
of the Amblers, or a large part thereof, built, it is supposed, more
than a hundred years since. It is still in good repair and is the
residence of the manager of the present owner, Mr. William Allen.
It is the only house on the island except the old brick magazine
and a small frame room near it, both of which, unless preventive
measures are adopted, must soon tumble into James River. At the
lower end of the island there are still the remains of a graveyard
belonging to the Travis family, which owned that part of the island
for some generations. The house is gone. This part of the island
became separated from the other by some low and swampy ground.
Mr. Allen now owns the whole of the island, which consists of
about seventeen hundred acres and is between two and three miles

in length and three-quarters of a mile in width. Twelve hundred
acres of it are now and always have been a marsh and incapable
of use. There are one hundred acres of woodland and four hundred
of arable land, very fertile and valuable. Within the last
thirty years it has changed owners several times, being sold at
various prices, from ten to thirty thousand dollars.

ARTICLE VIII.

The Parish of James City.—No. 6.[32]

SOME NOTES ON JAMESTOWN; SUPPLEMENTARY TO BISHOP MEADE'S
ARTICLES.

Your readers must have been deeply interested, Mr. Editor, by
Bishop Meade's articles in your paper upon the "Old Churches,
Ministers, and Families of Virginia." For a very long and important
portion of the history of the Episcopal Church in Virginia,
his own experience and observation have put him in possession
of the best materials; and for the rest, his position and efforts
have enabled him to avail himself of most of what others had to
contribute. For a vast deal of information, therefore, must we
acknowledge ourselves dependent upon and indebted to him.

When he reached the parish of James City, however, he entered
a field which has been long comparatively open to the researches
of other inquirers. Dr. Hawks explored it some years ago with
such industry and success, that we regret that he could not have
had the rare opportunities for obtaining materials which have been
enjoyed by the Rev. Mr. Anderson. No one can properly study,
write, or appreciate Virginia history who does not largely and
heartily enter into those parts relating and devoted to religion and
the Church. So that, if confined to any two works for the history
of Virginia down to the Revolutionary period, one could hardly
do better than take Henning's Statutes at Large and Hawks's
Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of Virginia.

It is hoped that a few supplementary notes will not be deemed
by Bishop Meade or any one else as an intrusion, but as a co-operation
in the good work in which he is engaged. Should any new
facts be brought out, or any inadvertences corrected, it may be of
some little service when he comes to rewrite his articles for a more
permanent form of publication.

Bishop Meade gives deserved prominence and praise to the missionary

element that entered into the colonization of Virginia.
Those adventurers who looked chiefly to the glory of God and the
conversion of the Infidels were as sincerely convinced as any
others of the bright prospects of gold and other temporal benefits;
but they used these mainly for the purpose of stimulating "the
action," that the religious and spiritual blessings to which they
looked might be realized. The constancy and continuousness with
which these last are held up in all that was said, done, and written
in behalf of this Colony until that awful check in the massacre by
Opechancanough, in 1622, are remarkable. Even the business-entries
in the records of the Company in London make express
reference to the blessing of God and the favouring care of his
providence. Whilst the motto of every patriot and Christian
should be, "A religious nation, and not a national religion," yet a
connection between Church and State is apt to confer upon the
State the benefit of an express recognition, in all enterprises of
public pith and moment, of God's supremacy and superintending
providence. This is a good habit in itself; but, of course, its
chief value consists in the sincerity of those who practise it, whether
rulers or ruled. In the case before us, numbers of Christian
men and women were equally as fervent and sincere as Richard
Hakluyt and Robert Hunt.

Bishop Meade refers to the first charters and to the instructions
issued by King James in 1606. But the passage in those instructions
which enjoins kind treatment of the savages, &c. has this
singular addendum:—"And that all just, kind, and charitable
courses shall be holden with such of them as shall conform themselves
to any good and sociable trafic and dealing with the subjects
of us, our heirs and successors, which shall be planted there,
whereby they may be the sooner drawn to the true knowledge of
God and the obedience of us, our heirs and successors, under such
severe pains and punishments as shall be inflicted by the same
several presidents and councells of the said several Colonies, or
the most part of them, within their several limits and precincts, on
such as shall offend therein or doe the contrary." We must not
lose sight of the spirit of the age, especially when we come to
judge of that after-policy which is said to have been ever the
reproach of Virginia.

In the third charter, 1611-12, March 12, which still recites
that the plantation was undertaken "for the propagation of Christian
religion and reclaiming of people barbarous to civility and
humanity," is a fact worth mentioning,—viz.: The fifth section

expressly admits and confirms among the adventurers, George,
Lord-Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry, Earl of Huntingdon,
Edward, Earl of Bedford, and Richard, of Clanrickard, who were
named in this formal manner at the request of the Company, "for
the good and welfare of the plantation, and that posterity may
hereafter know who have adventured and not been sparing of their
purses in such a noble and generous action for the general good of
their country." These are the only four named in this charter,
and, as they had all become members of the Company already, this
was doubtless done to get the influence of their names. There are
still extant alphabetical lists of the adventurers down to the year
1620.

It was under this charter that that code of "Laws, Divine,
Moral, and Martial," was introduced by Gates and Dale, about the
period when the Company were seriously debating whether they
should not recall Lord De la War home and abandon the action.
They called Gates from Virginia to England to advise them on
that subject. He and Lord De la War induced them to persevere:
but the state of affairs, especially in the Colony, required new and
vigorous remedies. The colonists were heterogeneous, disorderly,
wasteful, and mutinous; they had to obtain something to return
home by the ships; they had to produce a part of their own subsistence,
almost sword in hand; for the Indians, spoiled by Newport
and others, and no longer fooled with articles of mere trifling
value, would not trade freely, and were not only not yet conciliated
by the marriage of Pocahontas, but were really exasperated by the
new intruders. The Colony had to be reduced into somewhat of
a camp both for purposes of labour and of defence. Compulsion
in religious matters was a long-practised thing in the mother-country
and in those countries with whom she had intercourse. Indeed,
are not some compulsory features inseparable from any system that
tolerates a union between Church and State? Can there long be
entire religious freedom and tolerance, save where religion is sustained
and enforced solely on the voluntary principle? as in this
most glorious land of free freedom,—the wonder, thus far, of human
history.

Neither Gates nor Dale was a despot or tyrant. They had no
Brewster cases and appeals during their administration. Argall
was a tyrant, and a government of greater mildness theoretically
would have been arbitrarily administered by him.

In judging, then, of the code of laws referred to above, whilst
we, with the road-to-Damascus light about us, cannot but condemn

them, yet they should be viewed through the media of those days
in which they were adopted.

Bishop Meade says that Strachy probably had a hand in concocting
them. This is doubtful; but he certainly edited and vindicated
them in 1612.

Promising a narrative of what he had seen and suffered in Bermuda
and Virginia, he says, "I do, in the mean time, present a
transcript of the Toparchia, or state of those duties by which
their Colonie stands regulated and commanded, that such may
receive due checke, who malitiously and desperately heretofore
have censured it; and by examining of which they may be right
sorrie so to have defaulked from us as if we lived there lawlesse,
without obedience to our countrey or observance of religion to
God." He declares, moreover, that the laws are not new, but
"the same constant asterismes and starres which must guide all
that travel in these perplexed ways and paths of public affairs,"
&c. By this code, which deals so lavishly in capital punishment,
many and the chief offences were cognizable both by martial law
and by the civil magistrate; but there was a goodly catalogue appertaining
only to martial discipline, which were to be diligently
observed and severely executed. Along with the laws, Strachy
publishes instructions from the marshal to each officer, and even to
the private soldier, for the better enabling each in executing his
duty. These are in the nature of a long and wholesome lecture,
or charge, and wind up with the lengthy but excellent prayer
quoted from by Bishop Meade, and which was to be said twice
daily, upon the court of guard, by the captain or one of his principal
officers.

The religious services enjoined were as follows: — On weekdays,
early in the morning, the captain sent for tools, for which a
receipt was given; the companies assembled, with the tools, in the
place of arms, where "the serjeant-major, or captain of the watch,
upon their knees, made public and faithful prayers to Almighty
God for his blessing and protection to attend them in this their
business the whole day after-succeeding." The men were divided
into gangs, who worked on alternate days. The gang for the day
was then delivered to the maisters and overseers of the work appointed,
who kept them at labour until nine or ten o'clock, according
to the season of the year; then, at the beat of the drum, they
were marched to the church to hear divine service. After dinner,
and rest till two or three o'clock, at beat of drum, the captain
drew them forth to the place of arms, to be thence taken to their

work till five or six o'clock, when, at beat of drum, they were
again marched to church to evening prayer: they were then dismissed,—those
that were to set the watch with charge to prepare
their arms, the others unto their rest and lodgings. After order
given out for the watch, the captain had to assemble his company,
except his sentinels, upon his court of guard, and there "humbly
present themselves on their knees, and, by faithful and zealous
prayer to Almighty God, commend themselves and their endeavours
to his merciful protection." Again, in the morning, an
hour after the discharge of the watch, were they to repair to the
court of guard, and there, "with public prayer, to give unto Almighty
God humble thanks and praises for his merciful and safe
protection through the night, and commend themselves to his no
less merciful protection and safeguard for the day following."

It was also the special duty of the captain to have religious and
manly care over the poor sick soldiers or labourers under his command;
to keep their lodgings sweet and their beds standing three
feet from the ground, as provided in the public injunctions.

A singular duty was laid upon him who was for the time the
captain of the watch. Half an hour before divine service, morning
and evening, he had to shut the ports and place sentinels, and,
the bell having tolled the last time, to search all the houses of the
town, to command every one of what quality soever (the sick and
hurt excepted) to repair to church; after which he was to follow
all the guards with their arms into the church and lay the keys
before the governor. On Sunday, he was to see that the Sabbath
was noways profaned by any disorders, gaming, drunkenness, intemperate
meeting, or such like, in public or private, in the streets
or within the houses. On the Sabbath, all were required, under
severe penalties, to attend divine service, sermons, and catechizing,
morning and evening. Any disrespect to a minister or preacher
was also punished, and every person then in or who might arrive
in the Colony was required to give an account of his or her religious
faith to the minister and to seek instruction from him.

In the midst of all this blended system—martial, civil, and
religious—that same missionary spirit was maintained. Even in
the charge from the marshal to his colonel in this passage:—

Bishop Meade has alluded to the fact that for several years
after the death of Mr. Hunt the Colony was without a minister.
This is referred to in "A True Declaration of the Estate of the
Colony in Virginia," &c., published by the council in England, in
1610, as one of the causes which had provoked God to visit the
plantation with those dire calamities which beset it at the time that
Lord De la War was first sent out as Governor for life.

Bishop Meade quotes from Crashaw how providential and opportune
was the arrival of Lord De la War. Indeed, there did
seem then to be a most remarkable divine interposition in behalf
of the Colony, the striking circumstances of which are exultingly
set forth in the "True Declaration" already mentioned:—

The following letter, from an unknown person, relates to the
proposition at a later period to establish a College at Henrico:—

ARTICLE IX.

Henrico Parish.—No. 1.

About twelve or fifteen miles below Richmond, on the north
side of James River, lies a tract of land, than which none, except
the island on which Jamestown stood, has more interest to a Virginian.
It was the second settlement in the Colony, with the
exception of the feeble attempts at the Falls of James River, at
Nansemond, and Hampton. In the year 1611,—four years after
the first settlement at Jamestown, and while that was just struggling
into existence,—Sir Thomas Dale, High-Marshal of Virginia,
divided the colonists with Governor Gates, and brought with him
three hundred and fifty men, (chiefly German labourers,) and built
three rows of houses for them, a church, a house for himself, and
others for "the honester sort of people,"—that is, the farmers.
Palisadoes,—that is, fences,—to be some guard against the
Indians and to keep in the cattle, and small watch-towers and
other works, were put up. The place on which these things were
erected was afterward called Farrar's Island, from the name
of the man who bought it after the great massacre, but misnamed,
just as Jamestown was; for a narrow neck of land united
them both to the main, though, in the case of Jamestown, that
neck has been overflowed, and it is now—not only in name, but in
reality—an island. The other, Farrar's Island, is sometimes
called the Great Bend, because, while the neck is only one hundred
and twenty yards across, you must go seven miles around by
water to reach the opposite point. It has also been called Dutch
Gap, because there are indubitable marks of the commencement
of a channel by the first Dutch settlers across its narrow neck,
by which the water might be let through and thus the seven miles
of travel be saved. The channel was opened about half-way
across,—that is, about sixty yards,—and then abandoned. A
proposition to do this was also made during the last war, but
never executed. The same reason probably prevented in both
instances,—viz.: the fear of injuring the bed of the river, or of
inundating some of the adjoining lands. Another name was also
given to the settlement in earlier times,—viz.: Dale's Gift,

because Sir Thomas here first divided lands to the colonists, who
hitherto (while at Jamestown) lived in common, cultivating the
fields on the island, but living together in the city. Fifty
acres of fine river-bottom were allotted to each family. The
city was called Henricopolis, or the City of Henry, after
Prince Henry. It was afterward in common use contracted to
Henrico. There were probably about five thousand acres of
land in the settlement as bounded by the circuit of the river
and the long palisadoes which separated it from the main-land
on the north. If its figure be compared to the human body, the
head of a man would represent the island, or rather peninsula;
the neck represents the narrow part where the river, after its
circuit, almost touches; and then, if the arms be a little raised
from the body on each side, you would have the remaining part
of the settlement extending about two miles between the two
rivers, as they seem to be. Indeed, the visitor to this spot, standing
on the elevation where Henrico City once stood, may see,
almost at one view, what appear to be four beautiful rivers, though
only one in reality. The effect upon both mind and eye is truly
romantic and worth a visit from places far more distant than
Richmond, though it is believed but few of the inhabitants of that
city have ever enjoyed the sight. Let those who have any thing
of the feeling of an antiquarian, or even of a Virginian, only visit
that spot, taking with them the account given of its first settlement
by Captain Smith, Sir Thomas Dale, or any other of our
early writers, with the guidance of our fellow-citizen, Mr. Richard
Randolph, who was born near it and lived on it forty years ago,
and they may verify the accounts on the ground, may gather up
some broken bricks, which have been worn by the ploughshare for
one or two centuries on the well-known spots where the houses of
Sir Thomas Dale, Rolph, and Pocahontas once stood. The correspondence
between the ancient account and the present appearances
and relics is too strong to admit of a lingering doubt.
Near the Dutch Gap, or narrow neck separating what appears to
be two beautiful rivers only by a few paces, stood the second
church in Virginia and America, built immediately on the landing
of these Virginia Pilgrims, and before Sir Thomas Dale laid the
foundation of his own residence. And this was only preparatory
to a much better one of brick, whose foundation, Captain Smith
informs us, was soon laid. Such was the piety of our first
ancestors. It was soon discovered that another settlement on the
other side of the river—between James River and the Appomattox—was
necessary to the security of the little colony at
Henrico, for a troublesome tribe of Indians occupied that narrow
corner between the two rivers, and annoyed the colonists.
Accordingly, Sir Thomas, in a few months, divided his forces
again, drove away the Indians from thence, and made a settlement,
opposite to what is now called City Point, naming it
Bermuda Hundred, and dividing lands here also to the settlers,
and running a palisado from river to river across another neck.
The Rev. Mr. Whittaker—of whom we have before spoken—was
the minister to each of these settlements; for they were both
in one parish (Henrico parish) from the first, and for a long
time, extending (as did the county) on both sides of James River,
included what is now Chesterfield county and Dale parish.
Wherefore Mr. Whittaker, in order to be convenient to his whole
parish, chose for his residence what is well known at this day as
Rock Hall, on the southern bank of James River, in what is now
Chesterfield, and opposite to the lowest part of the Great Bend.
At this point Sir Thomas Dale built him a parsonage and set
apart his glebe.[34] It was probably in crossing the river near his
house, in order to visit his parishioners on the island, that he was
drowned, as we have before stated. Having referred to the
residence of Rolph and Pocahontas, it will be interesting to point
the reader and the visitor to the very spot, since it is clearly
ascertained. Mr. Rolph's house and residence were about two
miles from the city of Henrico, down the river, where the courthouse
afterward stood, and where a parsonage and glebe also were
located. All these sites are well known, and constitute what was
called Varina.

Before proceeding further in our history of Henrico parish, we
must make a digression, for which we are sure our readers will
more than pardon us. It will be remembered that, in our
sketch of the early history of Jamestown parish, we introduced
some things concerning Henrico and Bermuda, alleging, as a
sufficient reason, that the history of these three places were intimately
connected and identified for some years, and, indeed, was
the whole history of the colony at that time. For the same
reason we now introduce into the early history of Henrico some
things which might have formed a part of our notices of Jamestown,

but which were not at that time in our possession. It will
be remembered that, in speaking of the marriage of Rolph and
Pocahontas in the church at Jamestown, we alluded to a letter of
the former to Sir Thomas Dale, in which he sets forth all the perplexities
of his soul on that subject and submitted the final decision
to that pious and noble-spirited man. Through the kindness of our
worthy citizen, Mr. Conway Robinson, of Richmond, I have possession
of that letter, which he obtained during a recent visit to
England, and here submit it to the reader. None can fail to perceive
what a genuine spirit of piety and philanthropy breathes
throughout it.

FIRST JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES.

For the following deeply-interesting document I am also indebted
to the same hand. Mr. Robinson, in his careful examination
of papers in the State Office, in London, discovered a manuscript
journal covering thirty pages, in which are the proceedings
of a House of Burgesses held at Jamestown in 1619. It has
been generally received and admitted, since the first volume of Mr.
Henning's Statutes at Large were published, that no account of
any such meeting was to be found for some years after this.

My object in publishing it is not merely to gratify the curiosity
and promote the objects of the historian and politician, but far
more,—to give additional weight to what I have already adduced in
proof of the spirit of piety which animated the bosoms of the first
founders of the Church and State of Virginia.

None can read the following document without admitting this:—

This is a document of the greatest interest to every Virginian.
It is very satisfactory to find that it is quite a full report, embracing
thirty pages. After the caption it proceeds as follows:—

To the foregoing documents in proof of the spirit which animated
the most devoted friends of the Colony, I add a third,
furnished me by another true son of Virginia,—Mr. Charles Campbell,
of Petersburg.

In the records of the London Company we meet with the name
of the Earl of Southampton as the treasurer and most active
friend of the same at the time of its greatest trials, when King
James and his ministers were seeking its destruction. In the year
1724, their object was effected and the Company summarily disbanded,
all their papers were seized upon, and the Colony taken
under the sole charge of Government. The pious, zealous, and
brave Earl of Southampton, however, never deserted the cause,
but, in Parliament, boldly advocated such measures as he believed
would most promote the true welfare of the Colony, in opposition
to a corrupt king and cabinet. This was the more honourable to
him from the relation he bore to the king. The Earl of Southampton
was the bosom-friend of the celebrated Earl of Essex,
Prime Minister to Elizabeth, and was somewhat implicated with
him in that conduct toward the queen which brought Essex to
the scaffold. Southampton was imprisoned by the queen, though

spared the fate of Essex. At the death of Elizabeth and the
coronation of James, he was released from prison and placed in
some offices of honour and trust, being a member of the Privy
Council also. While thus honoured, in opposition to the wishes
and remonstrances of the king, the earl, true to the best interests
of the Company and the Colony, accepted the office of treasurer,
attended all its meetings, often had them at his own house, and, as
we have said, was the zealous advocate of all measures in Parliament
calculated to promote the truest good of the Colony, after
the company was dismissed by the king. The true secret of this
moral courage was his fidelity to the King of kings. How much
the following letter from his friend, the Earl of Essex, may have
contributed to this, we know not, but that it was eminently calculated
to direct his mind to the only true source of moral greatness
none can question. It has been a long time since its publication
in a London chronicle, and it is well worthy of republication in connection
with the name of Southampton and the early history of
Virginia. Let me add that so high was the character of Southampton
held in Virginia, that one of her rivers for some time bore
his name, and one of her largest counties still retains it.

ARTICLE X.

Henrico Parish.—No. 2.

We introduce this second article by the following extract from a
pamphlet of Alexander Whittaker, the first minister of Henrico
parish. It was written in the year 1613. The account he gives
of the Indian character has a bearing on that sad catastrophe
which at an early period marred the fair prospects of Henrico
College, and which, but for it, might have been the William and
Mary of Virginia.

"TRACTATE BY MASTER ALEXANDER WHITTAKER, WRITTEN AT
HENRICO, 1613.

We follow this sketch of the Indian character by stating that
the efforts of Mr. Whittaker and others, and all the acts of the
Company and Colony, seemed to have produced some effect on the
natives, and to promise friendly relations with them. This prospect
was brightened by the marriage of Rolph and Pocahontas.
Even after her death, in 1617, a letter is written to the Company,
saying, "Powhatan goes about visiting his country, taking his
pleasure, in good friendship with us; sorry for the death of his
daughter, but glad her son is living. So does Opechancanough.
They both wish to see the boy, but do not wish him to come to
Virginia until he is a man."[36] But, even at this time, it is to be
feared that the perfidious Indians were meditating war.

We now proceed with the history of the College and parish.

We have already stated, in one of our articles on Jamestown,

that about the year 1619 it was determined to establish a College
at Henrico, and that liberal contributions were made in England
for that purpose. A pious and philanthropic man, a good scholar,
a warm and confiding friend of the Indians, Mr. George Thorpe,
was actually engaged in superintending all the preparatory operations.
How far they had advanced when the great massacre in
1622 occurred, and in which Mr. Thorpe and so many others were
killed and the city either destroyed or greatly injured, we have no
means of ascertaining. We have reason to believe that some unsuccessful
attempts were afterward made; but neither the city nor
the College ever recovered from this disastrous blow.

Large tracts of land, called the College lands and the Company's
lands, to the amount of fifteen thousand acres, had been
set apart on both sides of the river for the purpose of promoting
the College and settlement. Between one and two hundred labourers
were imported to cultivate them. One hundred young
women, of good character, were ordered over to be wives to the
workmen here and elsewhere. Eighty of them actually came.
The massacre fell heavily on them upon both sides of the river.
Despairing of success, at length the lands were otherwise disposed
of.

We are informed, by one of the descendants, that Mr. William
Randolph bought at one time the whole of Sir Thomas Dale's settlement,
amounting to five thousand acres of land, and as much
more of other persons, reaching down to Four-Mile Creek, on
James River. The two settlements of Varina and Curls, so long
the property and abodes of the Randolphs, were on this estate.
The estate of Bacon, the rebel, once formed a part of this tract,
and there are still some remains of the fort which he erected when
contending with the Indians. The estate called Varina, which
continued longest in possession of the Randolphs, was so called
from a place of that name in Spain, because the tobacco raised at
both places so resembled each other in flavour.

As to the ministers and churches, we have seen that Mr. Whittaker,
who died in 1619, ministered to the people at Henricopolis
and at Bermuda Hundred. He was succeeded by the Rev. Mr.
Wickam, and he by the Rev. Mr. Stockam. After these we have
no authentic account of any minister until the time of the Rev.
James Blair, who settled here in 1685, and was the rector until
the year 1694, when he went to Jamestown and became Commissary
and President of the College of William and Mary. The
next account we have of the parish is in the year 1724, in an

answer to the circular of the Bishop of London; but unfortunately
the name of the minister is cut off from the manuscript which is
before us, and we can only give the report itself. The minister
(whose name is lost) had been in the parish fourteen years; that
is, since 1710. There were two churches and one chapel. The
parish was eighteen miles by twenty-five. There were eleven hundred
tithables and four hundred families in it. The masters do
nothing for their servants, but let some of them now and then go
to church. One or two hundred persons are sometimes at church.
The families are so distant that it is difficult to have the children
brought to catechism, and when they grow to any bigness they do
not like to be publicly catechized. The teachers and parents do
whatever is done in that way. There was no public school for
youth. There were only about twenty communicants at a time,
when the sacrament was administered.

The same evil is complained of here as is often elsewhere. The
large estates on the river separate the families, so that it is difficult
to get to church. It is so to this day along our rivers. Where
the two churches and the chapel were at that time, we are at a loss
to tell. Perhaps one may still have been at Henricopolis, the first
settlement by Sir Thomas Dale. After a time, one was built by
the first of the Richard Randolphs, which was called sometimes
Four-Mile Creek Church, sometimes Curls Church, as it lay between
these places. Whether there was a chapel at that time at the
Falls—that is, Richmond—is not certainly known, but is probable.
At a later period, the minister officiated alternately at the Four-Mile
Creek Church, or Curls Church, on the north side of James
River, and at a church on the south side, near Rock Hall, called
Jefferson's Church.

This was the case in the time of Mr. Stith, who wrote his History
about the year 1740, at Varina, when he was minister of
Henrico parish. He removed to Williamsburg to preside over the
College in the year 1752.[37] The building of the church at Four-Mile

Creek, or Curls, is clearly ascertained, as to the time and the
erection of it, by an extract from a letter of the eldest Richard
Randolph, of Curls, to his son Richard, in 1748, in which he says,
"Pray assist Wilkinson all you can in getting the church finished,
and get the shells that will be wanted carted before the roads get
bad. The joiner can inform you what shells I have at the Falls.
If more are wanted you must get them." Some thirty or forty
years ago, when this church was without Episcopal services, a man
claimed it, and declared his intention to take it, when a great-grandson
of old Mr. Randolph, of the same name, repaired to the
place, and informed him that as soon as he touched it he would
have him arrested. The desired effect was produced. It has,
however, now disappeared; and none, I believe, bearing the name
of Randolph, owns a rood of that immense tract of land on which
their fathers once lived.[38]

To proceed with the history of the ministers of Henrico parish:
we find, on the lists of the clergy in Virginia, that the Rev. Miles

Selden was minister in 1758 and also in 1776, from which we
infer that he was the minister from 1758 to 1776; how long before
1758 or after 1776, does not appear. Nor have I been able to
ascertain any thing particular concerning him.[39]

HENRICO PARISH AFTER THE REVOLUTION.

Previous to the Revolution, it is probable that the families of the
Randolphs at Turkey Island, Curls, Varina, Wilton, and Chattsworth,
with a few others in the neighbourhood of the old settlement
of Sir Thomas Dale, formed the main strength of the Episcopal
Church in Henrico, and that the ministers resided at the
parsonage and on the glebe at Varina. But the scene will now
be changed to Richmond, which, though still a very small place,
became the seat of government during the war.[40]

ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, RICHMOND, VA.

St. John's Church, on Richmond Hill, whose age we are unable
to ascertain, had been the sanctuary of patriotism, as well as of
religion, more than once before and during the war, in which the
voices of our Randolphs, Lees, Henrys, and Masons roused the
citizens to arms. Beneath it, on the river Powhatan, (the ancient
name of James River, and which ought never to have been
changed,) lay the spot where the old King Powhatan sometimes
held his court when warring with the fierce Monacans or Manakins,
who never allowed him to extend his conquests above the
Falls. Although it is clearly shown that Pocahontas was born and
trained at a place far distant from this, and baptized and married
at Jamestown, and though it is all a fable that it was here she
rescued the gallant Smith, yet, during her residence with Rolph
at Henricopolis, she may have visited the spot before any Christian
church was reared on its brows.

From this time forward we have the sure guide of a vestry-book
in tracing the history of this parish. The one before us opens
with the first meeting of the parishioners, in March, 1785, to elect
a vestry under the act of incorporation by the Legislature, which
had before put down the Episcopal Church as an Establishment.
The first vestrymen were Edmund Randolph, Turner Southall,
Jaqueline Ambler, Nathaniel Wilkinson, Hobson Owen, William
Fouchee, William Burton, Daniel L. Hylton, Miles Selden, Thomas
Prosser, John Ellis, Bowler Cocke, of whom Edmund Randolph
and Bowler Cocke were chosen churchwardens, and the former
elected to the Convention about to meet in the May following.
Previous to that meeting, the Rev. John Buchanon was elected
minister of the parish. He had been the minister of Amherst
parish some years before this. The following resolution of the
vestry in the year 1789 will show their sense of the importance of
religion, and their testimony to its low condition at that time:—

So low, however, was the condition of the church, that a very
small sum was raised in this way for the support of the ministry,
and Mr. Buchannon received but little beside the rent of the glebe
and perquisites during the whole of his ministry; and that little
was always given to others. Having some property of his own,
through the death of his brother, Mr. James Buchanon, and
living with simplicity and economy, he did not need a salary for
himself.[41]

In the year 1790, the vestry passed a resolution permitting the
churchwardens to allow ministers of other denominations to preach
in our country churches in the daytime, when not occupied by Dr.
Buchanon, provided they did not leave them open or injure them.
At a later period, Mr. Blair is allowed to preach every other Sunday
in St. John's Church. This not only shows their kind feelings
toward the other denominations, but that they considered the
churches as not made common property by the law, as some have
contended. In the year 1791, a committee appointed to inquire
into the property of the parish report that the glebe consists of
one hundred and ninety-six acres of land by an old patent, that
the houses are out of repair, that the glebe rents for forty pounds,

and is supposed to be worth one thousand pounds, that there is
one silver cup and salver. In the year 1714, the vestry elected
the Rev. David Moore, son of Bishop Moore, to act as assistant
to Dr. Buchanon; but the offer was declined. In the year 1715,
the Rev. William Hart was chosen and accepted. In the year
1722, Dr. Buchanon died, and Mr. Hart succeeded to the entire
rectorship of the church.

On the 13th of May, 1826, Dr. John Adams presented to the
vestry a marble font, which was obtained from Curls Church. In
July of the year 1828, the Rev. Mr. Hart resigned and the Rev.
William F. Lee was elected. Soon after Mr. Lee's entrance on
the duties of rector, a proposition was made to remove the old
church below the hill, or build or purchase a new one. This resulted
in the resignation of Mr. Lee and of a number of the vestrymen,
and the formation of a new congregation and purchase of
a Presbyterian church, since called Christ Church, in whose service
Mr. Lee ended his days.

In the year 1830, the Rev. Mr. Peet was chosen the minister of
St. John's. In the year 1833, the Rev. Mr. Peet resigned and the
Rev. Robert Croes was elected. Mr. Croes resigned in 1836, and
the Rev. Mr. Hart was re-elected to his old parish, and continued
its minister until the year 1842. In the following year, the Rev.
Mr. Morrison was elected, and continued the minister until 1848.
In the following year, the Rev. Mr. Kepler was called to be the
minister of this parish, and continues such to this time.

I close my notice of St. John's Church by referring to a subject
on which I find that the vestry took action in the years 1826 and
1828. At an early period, two hundred acres of land were laid
off from the College or Company lands near Henricopolis or Dale's
settlement, for a glebe, court-house, prison, &c., one hundred and
ninety-six being for the former. It continued to be the residence
and property of the successive ministers until the death of Dr.
Buchanon, in 1822. A short time subsequent to this, the overseers
of the poor laid claim to it and offered it for sale. The Rev.
Mr. Hart, assistant and successor to Dr. Buchanon, enjoined the
proceedings, and filed a bill in Chancery to obtain ownership;
whereupon the Chancellor, at the January term of his court in
1826, decided in favour of the church and against all claims of
the overseers of the poor. It was then resolved by the vestry to
sell their right and interest in the glebe to Mr. Pleasant Aiken, of
Petersburg, in such manner as shall appear for the best interests
of the parish. An appeal from the decision of the Chancellor was

taken by the overseers of the poor, and Mr. Aiken declined closing
the bargain until the decision of the Court of Appeals. In the
month of March, 1828, the vestry direct the rector to lease the
glebe-lands adjoining the Varina estate, and belonging to the
parish, to such person and upon such terms as he may think will
best secure their preservation. This is the last entry upon the vestry-book
concerning it. I am privately informed that the vestry
withdrew their claim, or did not prosecute it, rather than involve
the church in what might prove a long and bitter controversy with
the overseers of the poor representing the citizens of Henrico,
although well persuaded that the Chancellor was right in his decision.
I presume that the claim of the vestry rested on the fact
that this glebe was not purchased for the parish by a levy of the
vestry on the people, as was the case of the glebes generally, and
on which account the law for selling them was passed, but was a
gift to the parish by the London Company out of the lands set
apart for the College and the general uses of Henrico. In ceasing
to contend for their rights, the vestrymen of Henrico only did
what other vestrymen have done, preferring rather to suffer loss
than promote strife and thereby injure the cause of religion. It
has been the general sentiment of the clergy and laity of our
Church in Virginia, with whom I have been acquainted, that,
though the glebes may have been wrongfully taken away, (about
which there has been diversity of opinion,) yet even if they could
be recovered by law, the effort should not be made, because of the
discord and unhappiness which would certainly attend it.

As I am writing of the old churches and ministers of Virginia,
leaving it to some one else, at a future day, with ampler materials
than I possess for my work, to speak of more modern ones, a few
words will suffice for the new parishes and churches in Richmond.
Of the sad calamity which led to the erection of the Monumental
Church, every modern history of Virginia and sketch of Richmond
is full, and I shall not dwell upon it. Bishop Moore was
called to be its first minister, and still lives in the hearts of all
who knew him. The Revs. Mr. Croes, Nichols, Thomas Jackson,
and Norwood, were successively his assistants. The latter succeeded
to the rectorship at the Bishop's death. A larger church
being needed, St. Paul's was built under the auspices of Mr. Norwood
and some active laymen. The Rev. Mr. Woodbridge, who
had long laboured in the church vacated by the death of the Rev.
Mr. Lee, took possession of the Monumental, when St. Paul's was
completed and entered by Mr. Norwood and his congregation.

Years before this, St. James's Church had been built and Dr.
Empie called to be its pastor. After faithfully labouring many
years, and being unable to labour more, he resigned the charge of
it to the Rev. Mr. Cummings, at whose resignation the Rev. Mr.
Peterkin succeeded. At the resignation of St. Paul's by Mr. Norwood,
on account of ill health, the Rev. Alexander Jones was
chosen, and continued some years. The Rev. Mr. Minegerode is
the present pastor. Since Mr. Woodbridge's removal to the Monumental
Church, Trinity Church has been mostly supplied by missionary
services. During the last spring, while under the charge
of the Rev. Mr. Webb, the building was consumed with fire. It
deserves to be mentioned that a missionary chapel was erected in
the western part of the city, some years since, through the zealous
labours of the Rev. Dr. Bolton, though, from various unfavourable
circumstances, it failed of its object and has been disposed of.
Should I have failed to make mention of the missionary labours of
the Rev. Mr. Duval, in Richmond, the memories and the hearts of
all its citizens would have supplied the deficiency, even if the excellent
memoir of him by the Rev. Mr. Walker had not perpetuated
the remembrance of one of the most devoted Christians and philanthropists
of Virginia.

ARTICLE XI.

Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.—No. 1.

This parish was carved out of the counties of James City and
Charles River. The latter county was, in 1642, changed into
York county. The parish of Bruton, in the year 1723, was
reported to the Bishop of London as ten miles square. At one
time a parish called Marston was within these bounds, being the
upper part, toward New Kent; but that was soon dissolved and
added to Bruton. Of the early history of Williamsburg, or the
Middle Plantation, we know but little. That there was a church
there in 1665 is certain from an entry in the vestry-book of Middlesex
parish, in that year, which directs a church to be built in
that parish, after the model of that at Williamsburg,—probably a
wooden one. How long that at Williamsburg had been in existence
before this time is not known. The vestry-book of Bruton parish
commenced in 1674, and continues until 1769,—a few years before
the Revolution. The first minister was the Rev. Rowland Jones,
who continued from 1674 to his death, in 1688. Besides vestrymen
and churchwardens, there were, after the English custom and
canons, two officers, called sidesmen or questmen, who were especially
appointed to present unworthy persons to those in authority,
for civil and ecclesiastical discipline. I have not met with these in
any other parish. It appears that there were at this time, and
had been, no doubt, for a considerable period, two other churches
in this parish, an upper and lower, both of which needed repair;
and the vestry resolved, in the year 1678, not to repair either of
them, but to build a new brick church at Williamsburg, to answer
for all. Free donations were solicited before a levy was resorted
to. A list of some of the donors is recorded. At the head is
John Page (first of the name) for £20, and the ground for the
church and graveyard; Thomas Ludwell, £20; Philip Ludwell,
£10; Colonel Thorp, £10; and many others, £5,—among them
the minister, Mr. Jones. A pew was put in the chancel for the
minister, and Mr. John Page and Edward Jennings were allowed

WILLIAMSBURG CHURCH, BRUTON PARISH.

to put up pews for their families within the same.[42] The church
being finished, the Rev. Mr. Jones was requested to dedicate it.
The vestry now caused it to be proclaimed throughout the parish,
that the law against those who absented themselves from church
would be enforced. It seems that, though much violated, it had
not been enforced, and perhaps never was. The penalty was so
many pounds of tobacco, after the laws "martial, moral, and divine"
had been repealed. It was during Mr. Jones's ministry that the
salary of £100, which had been paid him, was commuted for sixteen
thousand-weight of tobacco, the minister consenting, as the people
complained that they were not able to pay the £100. At the death
of Mr. Jones, the Rev. Mr. Sclater was employed for six months,
to preach every other Sabbath afternoon, and then the Rev. Mr.
Eburne for the same time every other Sunday morning. It is
probable that these were ministers of neighbouring parishes. At
the close of Mr. Eburne's engagement they elected him for seven
years, instead of inducting him for life. Lord Effingham, Lieutenant-Governor,
then addressed them the following letter:—

The meaning of the foregoing is plain,—viz.: that the vestrymen
apply to the Governor to induct Mr. Eburne for life, and so
have him fixed upon them, unless by process of law he could be
discarded for some great crime or crimes. The vestry, however,
at the end of the seven years, passed a resolve never to elect a
minister for more than one year at a time, and invited him to
remain on these terms; but he, getting old and infirm, preferred
going to some milder climate. Here is the first recorded conflict
of a vestry with the Governor on the subject of inductions. We
shall very soon have occasion to consider the subject at some
length. In the year 1697, the Rev. Cope Doyley was chosen
minister. In the year 1700, Governor Nicholson appears on the
vestry-book, in a manner characteristic of himself. He demands
of the vestry, under their own hands, whether the Rev. Mr.
Doyley reads the service of the Book of Common Prayer in the
church. It is answered in the affirmative. In the year 1702, Mr.
Doyley dies, and Mr. Solomon Whately is chosen from some other
parish,—not, however, without the Governor's leave being asked
for his removal. After having preached his trial sermon, and
being called, some objection was raised, and he is requested to
preach again, for the satisfaction of those who were not present at
his first sermon. His election for one year was confirmed, at
the end of which time his call was not renewed; but he was invited
to continue for a few months while looking out for another
parish. One of the vestry was directed to see the Rev. Isaac
Grace, who had just arrived in the colony, and get him to preach.
Mr. Grace expressed a willingness to come, but said that his case
was in the hands of the Governor, who had forbid him to come into
the parish. It seems that Mr. Whately was a favourite of the
Governor, and that he was offended with the vestry for not
choosing him as their permanent minister. Mr. Whately was the
most active minister in sustaining Governor Nicholson when, on
various accounts, he had become so unpopular that, at the petition
of the Council and some of the clergy, he was withdrawn
from Virginia. This case of the vestry and Mr. Whately led Mr.
Nicholson to get the opinion of Mr. Edward Northy, one of the
King's high legal advisers, as to the relative powers and privileges
of the Governors and vestries in presenting and inducting ministers,
and to order it to be entered upon all the vestry-books. I
have seen it on a number of them, and find it on that of Bruton
parish, from which I am drawing these statements. On receiving
it, the vestry passed some resolutions, and directed Mr. John

Page, (grandson of the old vestryman of that name, who was now
dead,) an eminent lawyer and member of the Council, to draw up
something on the subject, with the view of presenting it to the
House of Burgesses, requesting them to take action on the question.
We hear nothing more of the dispute, and the Governor was recalled
in 1705; but this is evident:—that the vestry never yielded the
point; for although they thought it expedient to retain Mr. Whately
until his death, yet it was under a solemn declaration of their determination
to elect their minister every year, which was done in the case
of Mr. Whately and his successors, during the Colonial Government,
so far as the vestry-book shows. The history of the case is
this:—In theory, the Governor claimed to be the representative of
the King, in Church and State, and patron of all the parishes; also
to be the representative of the Bishop of London, having the disposal
of the ministers and the exercise of discipline over the clergy,
thus making the office of the Commissary a nullity. Nor did the
Commissaries object; for they were, with one exception, Presidents
of William and Mary College, and fully employed. Dr. Blair did
sometimes act. It was evident that if such was to be the construction
put upon the power of the Governor, as claimed by Effingham,
Nicholson, and Spottswood, the vestries would have little
power to prevent the settlement for life (with legal power to enforce
their salaries) of many most unworthy ministers; for although the
law allowed them the right of choosing a minister within six
months after a vacancy occurred, yet if they did not so do the
Governor might send one and induct him for life. Now, such was
the scarcity of ministers that they must wait the arrival of some
new and untried one from England, or else take some indifferent
one who was without a parish in this country. To save the
congregations from imposition under such a system, the vestries
adopted the method of electing from year to year, not presenting
to the Governors for induction, by which induction so many unworthy
ministers might be settled upon them. Induction did take
place in some cases where, after years of good conduct, it was
safe to conform to the law; and in some few others. Who could
blame them for this act of self-defence against such mighty power
in the hands of one man, when the consequences of induction were
so evil, and when the circumstances of the parishes, the small
salaries and extensive districts to be served, and the state of the
Mother-Church, made it so difficult to get worthy ministers? This
was the practice of the vestries almost from the first and to the
very last of the Colonial establishment. In vain did the clergy
complain to the Bishop of London, and even to the Crown, of the
uncertain and precarious tenure by which they held their livings
from year to year. In vain did the Governors and Commissaries
speak of this custom of the vestries, as preventing more and
better ministers from coming over. In vain were the sympathetic
responses from England. The vestries were unmoved. The
Governors and Commissaries were wise enough to attempt nothing
more than complaints; for they must have seen that the vestries
had much reason for their conduct, and that any rigid interpretation
of the law and effort to enforce it would meet with effectual
resistance from the vestries. The Crown and the Bishop of
London dared not issue any injunction of the kind. On the
contrary, whatever was done in England from time to time was
in modification of any supposed high rights of Governors and in
favour of vestries, and the nearer the Revolution approached the
more fearful were the authorities in England of doing any thing
against the vestries. The vestries were the depositaries of power
in Virginia. They not only governed the Church by the election
of ministers, the levying of taxes, the enforcing of laws, but
they made laws in the House of Burgesses; for the burgesses
were the most intelligent and influential men of the parish, and
were mostly vestrymen. It is easy to perceive why the vestry of
Williamsburg wished the question between them and Nicholson
referred to the Assembly; for it was only referring it to the other
vestries, who were pursuing the same course with themselves.
Nor were the vestries represented in the popular branch of the
Government only. We will venture to affirm, and that not
without examination, that there was scarce an instance of any but
a vestryman being in the Council, although, as the Council was
chosen by the Governor and the King, there was more likelihood
of some being found in them who might favour high views of
prerogative.

In the history of the vestries we may fairly trace the origin, not
only of that religious liberty which afterward developed itself in
Virginia, but also of the early and determined stand taken by the
Episcopalians of Virginia in behalf of civil liberty. The vestries,
who were the intelligence and moral strength of the land, had been
trained up in the defence of their rights against Governors and
Bishops, Kings, Queens, and Cabinets. They had been slowly
fighting the battles of the Revolution for a hundred and fifty
years. Taxation and representation were only other words for
support and election of ministers. The principle was the same.

It is not wonderful, therefore, that we find the same men who took
the lead in the councils and armies of the Revolution most active
in the recorded proceedings of the vestries. Examine the vestry-books,
and you will find prominent there the names of Washington,
Peyton Randolph, Edmund Pendleton, General Nelson, Governor
Page, Colonel Bland, Richard Henry Lee, General Wood,
Colonel Harrison, George Mason, and hundreds of others who might
be named as patriots of the Revolution. The principle for which
vestries contended was correct,—viz.: the choice of their ministers.
I do not say that it must necessarily be by annual election; but
there must be a power of changing ministers, for sufficient reasons.
The Governors and the clergy, who came from England, did not
understand how this could be, so used had they been to a method
widely different. It was reserved for the Church in America to
show its practicability, and also to establish something yet more
important, and what is by most Englishmen still thought a doubtful
problem,—the voluntary principle, by which congregations not
only choose their ministers but support them without taxation by
law. It may be wise to provide some check to the sudden removal
of ministers by the caprice of vestries and congregations, as is the
case in the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches, where some
leave of separation is required from Presbyteries and Bishops; but
neither of them are ever so unwise as to interpose a veto where it
is evident that there is sufficient reason for separation, whether
from dissatisfaction on either side, or from both, or any strong consideration.
The people have it in their power, either by withholding
support or attendance, and in other ways, to secure their removal,
and the ministers cannot be forced to preach. Either party
have an inalienable right to separate, unless there be some specific
bargain to the contrary. In one denomination in our land, it is
true that ministers are appointed to their stations and congregations
are supplied by its chief officers; but it must be remembered
that this is only a temporary appointment,—for a year or two at
most. Let it ever be attempted to make it an appointment for life,
or even a long term of years, and the dissolution of that Society
would soon take place. In the first organization of our general
Church in this country, after the separation from our mother-country,
an office of induction was adopted, with the view of rendering
the situation of the clergy more permanent; but such was the opposition
to it from Virginia and some other States, that it was determined
it should only be obligatory on those States which chose to
make it so. Very few instances of its use have ever occurred in
the Diocese of Virginia.[43]

From this digression, should it seem so to any, I resume the history
of Bruton parish. At the death of Mr. Whately, the Rev.
James Blair, Commissary to the Bishop of London, and President
of William and Mary College, was chosen minister, with the understanding
that there was to be an annual election. He continued
the minister for thirty-three years, until his death, in 1743.
Mr. Blair came over to Virginia in 1685, and was the minister of
Henrico parish for nine years, and then moved to Jamestown, in
order to be more convenient to the College which he was raising
up. In the year 1710, he became the minister of Bruton parish.
The history of Mr. Blair during the last forty-three out of the
fifty-three years of his ministry is so connected with the history
not only of Williamsburg and the College, but of the Governors,
the Council, the Assembly and Church of Virginia, that it will
require some time and labour to do it any thing like justice. Indeed,
with all the documents I possess, consisting of numerous and
most particular communications made by him and others to the
Privy Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of
London, as to the personal difficulties between himself and the
Governors and the clergy,—communications never published, and
which would form a large volume,—I find it very difficult to form
a positive opinion as to some points in his character. I begin with
that which is most easy and satisfactory,—his ministerial life. It
commenced under the administration of Governor Spottswood, and
with a tender from the Governor to the vestry of aid in building a
new church; the plan of which was sent by him, and is, I presume,
the same with that now standing. Its dimensions were to
be seventy-five by twenty-two feet, with two wings, making it a
cross as to form. The governor offered to build twenty-two feet
of the length himself. Mr. Blair, so far as the vestry-book shows,
lived in uninterrupted harmony with his vestry during the thirty-three

years of his ministry. As to his preaching, we have a
full opportunity of deciding upon the style and doctrine, in four
printed volumes upon the Saviour's Sermon on the Mount, containing
one hundred and seventeen sermons. These sermons
went through at least two editions in England. Dr. Waterbury
published a preface to the second, in high praise of them. Dr.
Doddridge also has spoken well of them. I have gone over
these discourses with sufficient care to form a just judgment
of the same. As an accurate commentary on that most blessed
portion of Scripture, I should think it can never have been
surpassed. Since it was reserved for the apostles, under the dictates
of the Spirit, to dwell on the power of the resurrection, on
justification by faith, on the cleansing by the blood of Jesus
Christ, so Christ, in this discourse, was not setting forth the faith
and doctrines of the gospel, but expounding the law, in opposition
to the false glosses of the Jews, and showing the superior spirit of
the gospel. Mr. Blair does not, therefore, enter fully into some
of the doctrines of the gospel, though he recognises them sufficiently
to show that he held them according to what may be
termed the moderate Arminian scheme. A faithful exposition of
the Sermon on the Mount must necessarily condemn all evil dispositions
and practices, and Mr. Blair does not soften any thing
His congregation was often composed of the authority and intelligence,
fashion and wealth of the State, besides the youth of the
College; nor does he spare any. I do not wonder that some of the
Governors and great ones complained of his being personal. From
many sources of information, I fear that swearing was most common
among the gentlemen of that day, those high in office setting
a bad example. In concluding his sermon on the third commandment,
as explained by our Lord in his Sermon on the Mount, he
thus speaks:—

In speaking of the lusts of the flesh, he hesitates not to call
things by their right names and to threaten the Scriptural penalties.
In warning against the temptations and provocations to the
same, he speaks in different terms from many of that day of
theatres, balls, frolics, rendezvous, promiscuous dances, interludes,
and clatter of company, the intoxication of drink, the lulling the
thoughts asleep by music, gaming, &c. In warning against the
love of dress, from our Saviour's allusion to the flowers of the field
being clothed with more glory than even Solomon, he says:—

He is throughout a faithful reprover of sin. He admits that
there is little or no infidelity known in the Colony, as in England,
but a great deal of wickedness. As to Church principles, as some
call them, he was no Sacramentarian, and denounces Romanism in
no measured terms, but is still conservative. He admitted Mr.
Whitefield into his pulpit, but, on hearing that the Bishop of London
had proscribed him, made a kind of apology for it, and asked
the Bishop's opinion about him.

WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE, WILLIAMSBURG, VA.

ARTICLE XII.

Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.—No. 2.

We have now to consider Mr. Blair as Commissary, and
having, with the Governors, the superintendence of the clergy
and the affairs of the Church; as representative of the Bishop
of London, with no defined limits of authority; as the founder
and President of William and Mary College, having joint action,
with visitors, professors, and others, in all things belonging to
the College, and of course often coming in collision with them;
as member of the Council, consulting and deciding with the
Governor and others — the first men of Virginia — on all the
concerns of the State, civil and religious, and forming the
great judicial body to whom all important causes were referred
for final decision. That a man of his active character and superior
mind should, for more than half a century, have been thus
associated in matters of such importance, without frequent collision
and without having many enemies, is not to be supposed.
That he should be charged with worldliness and management, with
being an informer to the Bishop of London and the Archbishop
of Canterbury, with whom he must have had intimate correspondence,
was to be expected; that he should be misunderstood by
many, and be very unpopular with some good men, through that
misunderstanding, and perhaps through want of conciliatory manners,
and a tact in the management of men:—all these things
might be expected. He was involved in difficulties with Governors
and clergymen, more or less, during almost the whole period
of his Commissaryship and Presidency of the College. I have the
whole of these controversies spread before me in long and tedious
letters, from himself and his opponents, to the authorities in England,
which have never been published. His first controversy was
with Governor Andros, who came to Virginia, under no good
character, from New York. By royal instructions Andros was not
only Governor of Virginia, but the ordinary, the representative
of the King and Bishop of London in Church matters, the Commissary

being comparatively a very negative character. When
these complaints were made, which ended in his disgrace, Dr.
Blair, then in England, about his College, preferred the charges
against him as an enemy to religion, to the Church, the clergy,
and the College, bringing proofs of the same. The charges cover
thirty-two folio pages of manuscript, and are well written. But
Blair had formidable foes to meet in London. Governor Andros
sends over in his defence Colonel Byrd, of Westover, Mr. Harrison,
of Surry, Mr. Povey, a man high in office in the Colony, and
a Mr. Marshall, to arraign Dr. Blair himself before the Bishop of
London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Two days were spent
in Lambeth Palace in the examination. The charges and the
answers are set down, and fill up fifty-seven folio pages of manuscript.
Never were four men more completely foiled by one.
The accusers seem to feel and acknowledge it, and doubtless
wished themselves out of Lambeth Palace long before the trial
was over. One of the chief charges was Mr. Blair's partiality to
Scotchmen, whom they said he brought over to fill the churches,
contrary to the wishes of the people. But, being called on to
specify names, it was found that they had made egregious blunders
as to facts; that some whom they supposed to be Scots were
Englishmen. Great was the prejudice against Mr. Blair, as being
a Scot. This was the time when that unhappy feeling was at
its height in England, when a "beggarly Scot" was the common
phrase. A number of the private letters which I have show the
prejudice to have been very strong. The result of it all was, that
Mr. Blair came home with a good sum of money for his College,
and Andros was sent back to England to stand his trial, from
which he came out but badly. Governor Nicholson succeeded him.
He had been Deputy-Governor before Andros came over, and
there was then a good understanding and friendship between him
and Mr. Blair. During the government of Andros he was Governor
of Maryland, and disagreed with the good Commissary Bray
not a little. On returning to Virginia he seemed to be a changed
man. A disappointment in love was thought to have much to do
with it. He was vain, conceited, fickle, passionate, and acted
sometimes like a madman, though still professing great zeal for
the Church. After a year or two Dr. Blair and himself were open
foes. Letters on both sides were written to England. Blair wrote
four, covering in all forty-four pages folio, charging him with
interfering with his province and with private and public misconduct;
dwelling on his furiousness in relation to the affair of Miss
Burwell, and the Rev. Mr. Fouace.[45] The Council and some of
the clergy joined with him in petitioning the recall of Nicholson,
which petition was successful. The Church and State were in an
uproar. A number of the clergy, with whom Mr. Blair was unpopular,
and whom Mr. Nicholson had ingratiated by taking part
with them against the vestries and representing Mr. Blair as less
favourable to their cause, took part with Mr. Nicholson. Mr.
Nicholson ordered a Convocation to be assembled for general
purposes, and during its sitting had private meetings of those
friendly to him, at his house or lodging, who signed a paper
denying the charges of Mr. Blair and the Council. A great
dinner or supper was given them at the hotel in Williamsburg,
which was satirized in a ballad, in which their hilarity was set
forth, and some of them depicted in rather unfavourable colours.
It soon appeared in London. Mr. Blair, with his few friends,
however, (for a large majority of the clergy present were against
him,—17 to 6,) triumphed again, and Mr. Nicholson was recalled.
In his place Mr. Nott, an amiable man, came out, and the Bishop
of London sent with him a severe letter to the clergy, begging
them not "to play the fool any more." Mr. Nott died in a short
time, much esteemed and regretted.

In 1710, Colonel Spottswood was appointed Governor,—an old
soldier, a man of resolute character, of liberal views on many
points, but a most ultra man for the royal prerogative, and for the
transfer of it to the Governor of Virginia. For some years he and
Mr. Blair agreed well. They both were in favour of efforts for the
Indians. Mr. Blair advocated the Governor's favourite enterprise,
—the ascending the Blue Ridge and looking upon the valley beyond.
At length the Governor became unpopular with the House
of Burgesses for some measures supposed to be high-handed, and
again Colonel Byrd is sent over, with others, to bring charges
against him, and was more successful than in the case of Mr.
Blair. About this time Governor Spottswood got into a difficulty
with the vestry of St. Anne's parish, Essex, on the subject of the
rights of the vestries and Governors in the matter of induction, in
which he claims higher powers than had ever been claimed before.
The Rev. Hugh Jones had been in England and reported some
things to the Bishop of London unfavourable to the rubrical exactness
of Mr. Blair and others; and evil reports also as to the
moral character of some of the clergy were rife in the mother-country.
In 1719 the Bishop of London addressed a letter to the
Governor and Commissary, directing a convocation of the clergy
to receive a communication from him. At their meeting the letter
is read. It referred to some reports as to the evil conduct of the
clergy and the violation of the rubrics. Commissary Blair opens
the meeting with a sermon and address. The Governor calls upon
him for his sermon, which he immediately sent. The Governor
was offended at something in it touching Government. Perhaps
the Commissary, even at that day, had a little of the spirit of
American independence in him. The Governor also sends in an
address to the clergy in reference to the Bishop of London's letter,
which he had previously read. He opens with a direct assault on
Commissary Blair, saying that he knew of no clergyman who
transgressed the rubrics except the Commissary, who sometimes
let a layman read the service for him in church, and even the
burial-service in his presence, and wished to establish lay-readers
in the parishes. He also charged him with injuring the clergy by

opposing their induction, &c. To all this the Commissary had an
easy answer. Once or twice, when unable to go through the service
through sickness, he had gotten a lay-reader to assist him.
On some occasion he may have passed the churchyard when a clerk
or lay-reader was burying some one,—a thing very common in
Virginia at that time by reason of the scarcity of clergymen, and
when lay-readers were common and commanded by law. As to
the discouraging of induction, he shows that he had always advised
it; but that the vestries would not present ministers for
this purpose to the Governor, and that the Governors would not
use the privilege granted and perform the duty enjoined upon them
by the royal institution,—viz.: after six months' vacancy to present
and induct if the vestry did not supply the place. As to his own
example, he said that he could not help it, for the vestry in Williamsburg
would not present him to the Governor for induction;
and that he, (the Governor,) though on the spot, had never remonstrated
against it, but, on the contrary, when he communicated the
fact of his election to the Governor he only received the assurance
of the pleasure it gave him; not one word being said about induction.[46] The manuscript of the journal of this convocation is before
me, covering some forty or fifty pages. Neither this nor any other
journal of the Colonial convocation has ever been in print. It
is one of the most interesting documents of the kind I ever read,
and exhibits in a clearer light the true condition of the Church,
and character of the clergy, and peculiarities of the two great
combatants, Spottswood and Blair, than can be seen anywhere
else. The whole history of the dispute about induction is also
there seen. The persevering determination of the vestries as to
their defensive measures, and the fearfulness of the Governor, the
Council, the Bishop of London, and the Crown, to come into collision
with the vestries, is there plainly seen. Though the vestries
doubtless often made the position of the ministers a painfully-precarious
one, and that doubtless prevented some good men from
coming over, yet these were lesser evils than would result from
allowing the Governor to be the patron of all the livings, with
authority to send to and keep in parishes any and all whom he
should choose. So interesting and instructive is this journal beyond
that of any meeting ever held by the clergy of Virginia, that
I shall subjoin the document in an appendix. There is one question,
proposed by the Bishop of London, which was very difficult
to be managed,—viz.: whether any of them knew of the existence
of evil livers among the clergy. It was first proposed in the
meeting from the chair. The answer was, that none of them were
personally acquainted with any notorious evil livers, and the same
was introduced into an answer to the Bishop of London, drawn up
by the committee. It was a trying question, and was doubtless
evaded by denying that they were personally acquainted with such.
It is probable that the notorious evil livers did not attend convocations,
especially this, as they might have heard the special object
of it. As this seems to be a proper place for considering this
painful question, I will adduce from letters addressed to the Bishop
of London, from Governor Drysdale, Dr. Blair, and others, some
passages which may give us a correct view of it. In 1723, Mr.
Blair, in writing to the Bishop of London, says:—

He complains of the precariousness of the ministers, by reason
of their dependence from year to year on new elections by the
vestries. "This (he says) has gone on so long, by the connivance
of Governors, that though our present Governor (Drysdale) is very
willing of himself to redress it, yet thinks it not prudent to do it
without an instruction from his Majesty." Dr. Blair wished the

Governor, when a vacancy of more than six months occurred, to
send and induct a minister, as by law directed. But neither the
Governors—not even the brave Spottswood—dared to do it, nor
did his Majesty dare order it to be done. In another letter from
Mr. Blair to a worthy clergyman, Mr. Forbs, he says:—

In a letter to the Bishop of London, in 1724, on the same
subject, he says, "I have never made but two examples (that is,
of withdrawing their licenses during the Bishop's pleasure) in all
the time I have been Commissary, now thirty-four years; and,
indeed, for want of clergymen, we must bear with those we have
much more than we should do." In the same year a joint letter
from Governor Drysdale and Mr. Blair, and others from worthy
clergymen, confirm the above. About the same time, several
lengthy communications are sent over to England, containing
schemes for a supply of more and better ministers for Virginia,
and offering some suggestions as to their government and discipline.
The reigning vice among the clergy at that time was
intemperance; as it probably has been ever since both among the
clergy and laity of all denominations, having given great trouble to
the Church of every age. The difficulty of proof is stated in one
of these schemes for reformation; and the following mortifying
tests of intoxication are proposed to the Bishop of London, for the
trial of the clergy in Virginia. They were these:—

It was found then, as it ever has been, that one great source of
the scandal brought upon the Church of God by the intemperance of
clergy and laity, is to be found in the difficulty not only of witnesses
and prosecutors, but of deciding when excitement from intoxicating
liquors has reached that point which must be regarded as the sin
of drunkenness. And what an argument this should be with both
clergy and laity, but especially the former, to abstain altogether,
lest they should appear to be, or be charged with, or suspected of
this sin!

I have thus brought to a close my remarks on the chief incidents
in the life of Dr. Blair, and the peculiar points of his character.
Our impression of him is, that, though he could not be otherwise
than busy, considering all the offices he held and the relation he
bore to others, yet that the charge brought against him by some,
that he was too busy, had truth in it. His most minute details of
things said and done, in his long and tedious though well-written
letters to England furnish proof of this. Still, we must esteem
him a sincere Christian and a most laborious man in the performance
of duty in all his official relations. The College owed its
existence to him, and was probably as well managed by him as
times and circumstances allowed; and it is probable that his faithful
preaching and correct moral deportment did much to stem that
torrent of wickedness which, in his day, flowed over England and
America. Few men ever contended with more difficulties or surmounted
them better than Dr. Blair. Few clergymen ever were
engaged with such fierce opponents in high stations, and who not
only bore up manfully against them, but actually overcame them.
Governors of distant provinces have ever been proverbially corrupt
and tyrannical men. Such were Andros and Nicholson. Spottswood
was a nobler spirit, but he was brought up a soldier, and rose
to high command in the English army, and had there learned both
to obey and command. As Governor of Virginia, he thought it
was his province to command, and that of all others to obey; but
Dr. Blair thought there were limits to submission. They were
both of them benefactors to Virginia. Had there been many such
before and after, it would have been well for the State. Of Dr.
Blair I have nothing more to say, but that, in a letter from Governor
Gooch to the Bishop of London, at his death, he informs
him that the Commissary left his library and five hundred pounds
to the College, and ten thousand pounds to his nephew and the

children of his nephew, besides some smaller legacies. His nephew
was Mr. John Blair, who was so long President of the Council,
and whose character was of the highest order. The son of this
John Blair (whose name was also John) was distinguished as a
patriot, statesman, and jurist. He represented the College of
William and Mary in the House of Burgesses for a long time,
took an active part in all the Revolutionary movements, was a
member of the great Convention which met to revise the Articles
of Confederation, and, finally, was one of the Supreme Federal
Court.

GOVERNOR SPOTTSWOOD AND HIS FAMILY.

The following sketch has been furnished me, at my request, by
one of the descendants in Virginia, and I take pleasure in adding
it to this article.

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:—

ARTICLE XIV.

Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.—No. 4.

According to promise, I proceed to some notices of a few of
the vestrymen of Bruton parish. There are doubtless others
equally worthy of praise, but I have no information from which
to speak. Mr. Daniel Parke, whose name stands first on the list
of the first vestry in 1676, was from Surrey, England, and
married a Miss Evelyn.[50] A tablet of him was placed in the
first church at Williamsburg, and afterwards was transferred to
the second. He appears to have been a man of worth and distinction.
Mr. John Custis, of Arlington, Northampton county,
Eastern Shore of Virginia, married his daughter, and was also a
vestryman. George Washington Parke Custis, of Arlington, Fairfax
county, grandson of Mrs. General Washington, was descended
from the above-mentioned Daniel Parke and John Custis. It
could be wished that the record of Daniel Parke his son, whose
name is also on the vestry-book, were as worthy of notice. He
was indeed more notorious than his father, but for other reasons.
He conceived a great dislike to Mr. Blair, the minister of Jamestown,
the President of the College, and who was living near
Williamsburg. Having no pew in the church at Williamsburg, his
wife was indebted to the kindness of Mr. Ludlow, of Green Spring,
whose daughter Mr. Parke married, for a seat. On a certain Sunday,
Mr. Parke, determined to mortify Mr. Blair by insulting his
wife, in his absence (and doubtless in the absence of Mr. Ludlow,
who afterward complained of it) came into the church, and, rudely
seizing Mrs. Blair by the arm, drew her out of the pew, saying

she should not sit there. He was a man of great violence of
character, as otherwise appears. This is recorded in the archives
of Lambeth, and speaks ill for the decorum and chivalry of the
times. In the Rev. Mr. Anderson's Colonial History of this period,
we have the following account of a Mr. Daniel Parke, which
answers but too well to the foregoing:—

Of old Mr. Page, who stands next to Colonel Daniel Parke the
elder, I have already spoken. Early on the list of vestrymen was
Mr. John Randolph, alias Sir John Randolph, who was the father
of Mr. John Randolph and Mr. Peyton Randolph, all of whom
were in succession Attorney-Generals of Virginia. The father is
spoken of as a most eminent man in his profession, and of high
character. His son Peyton Randolph was also a vestryman of
the church, and gave early signs of a too independent spirit to be
very acceptable to the English Government. Being sent over to
England on account of some of our complaints, and speaking his
mind too freely for the Court and Cabinet, he was displaced from
his office, and his brother John, who had been acting in his absence,
was installed. At the breaking out of the war, John went to England

and was succeeded by his son Edmond. The former, bitterly
repenting of his choice, died of a broken heart, and directed his
remains to be brought back to Virginia. They are interred in the
College Chapel. Mr. Peyton Randolph ever showed himself the
warm and steady friend of the Church as well as of his country.
He went by the name of Speaker Randolph, being for a long time
the presiding officer in the House of Burgesses. He was also
chosen Speaker of the first, second, and third Congress, but suddenly
died of apoplexy, during the last. He was buried for a time
in Philadelphia, but afterward removed to Williamsburg. In connection
with the foregoing notice of Mr. Peyton Randolph, I add
something concerning his nephew and adopted son, Edmund Randolph,
of whose religious sentiments I have spoken in a former
number.

It is sad to think that ministers of the Gospel should contribute
to infidelity by recommending the examination of infidel works.

Who they were I am unable to ascertain. I have other reasons
for knowing that infidelity, under the specious garb of Universalism,
was then finding its way into the pulpit. Governor Page,
Colonel Nicholas, and Colonel Bland made complaints against
some one preaching in or near Williamsburg about this time, for
advocating the doctrine with its usual associates, and prevented
his preferment. The Rev. Mr. Yancey, of Louisa, also published
a sermon on universal salvation, which has been recently
republished by some of that school. A Rev. Mr. Tally, of Gloucester,
taught the same, and afterward gave a fit comment on his
doctrine by dying the death of the drunkard, as one informed
me who closed his eyes. At such a time, when the writings of
French philosophers — falsely so called — were corrupting the
minds of the Virginia youth, the testimony of such men as Peyton
Randolph, Mr. R. C. Nicholas, Colonel Bland, President Nelson,
Governor Page, and the recovery of Edmund Randolph from the
snare, has peculiar weight. In the worst of times, God never
leaves himself without a witness.

There appears on the vestry-list the two names of George
Nicholas and his son, Robert Carter Nicholas. The former came
to this country a physician,—doubtless duly qualified. He married
the widow of Mr. Burwell, of Gloucester, a descendant of the Carters.
His son, Robert C. Nicholas, was distinguished at the bar in Williamsburg,
in the House of Burgesses, in the Council, as Treasurer
of the State, and as a patriot in the Revolutionary War. But he
had a higher praise than all these offices could give him; for he
was a sincere Christian, and a zealous defender of the Church of
his fathers when he believed her rights were assailed. Mr. Hugh
Blair Grigsby, in his eloquent description of the Burgesses of
1776, thus describes him:—

The children of R. C. Nicholas were blessed with a mother who
was equally worthy. Let the following letter to her son, Wilson
Cary Nicholas, on his entering public life, bear witness:—

The author of the above letter was the daughter of Colonel
Wilson Cary, of Hampton, a descendant of one of the first
families who settled in the lower part of Virginia. Tradition says
that Mrs. Nicholas, after the death of her husband, R. C. Nicholas,
at his seat in Hanover, was visited by some British officers,
and received them with great dignity. Her daughter-in-law, wife
of her son George, and sister of Governor Samuel Smith, of Baltimore,
being recognised by one of the officers as an old acquaintance
in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, secured polite treatment for the
family; but the officers, on discovering that there were some jewels
and other valuables in the house, seized upon them and carried
them off.

Although I have not continued the list of vestrymen beyond
the period of the Revolution, there are two who must have been
added to it soon after that event, of whom I wish to take a passing
notice. The first of these is Mr. Burwell Bassett. His name
may be seen on one or more of the earlier journals of the Church
of Virginia, when it was first organized on the American platform.
He is also to be seen, for a long time, as the representative of the
Williamsburg district in the American Congress, and very often as
filling the Speaker's chair in the absence of that officer. I knew
him from my very boyhood as my father's friend and visitor. The
name of Bassett is an ancient and honourable one on the page
of Virginia history, and Mr. Burwell Bassett did not dishonour it.

He was loved and esteemed for his integrity and friendly qualities.
An anecdote was related to me, more than forty years ago, by
that worthy man, Mr. Stanford, member of Congress from North
Carolina, which showed his generosity of character. On a certain
occasion, a poor old soldier of the Revolution presented himself in
Washington and asked an alms of the members of Congress.
Mr. Stanford, seeing something really touching and worthy in the
case, undertook a collection for him in the hall of Congress. He
was mortified at the refusal of some, and at the small and reluctant
contribution of others, but when he came to Mr. Bassett
the scene was changed. He was just receiving of some one a
number of bank-notes, and, on the mention of the subject, immediately
opened both his hands, in which he held the bank-notes,
and said, "Certainly," bidding him take whatever he wanted. His
hospitality was proverbial. You could do him no greater favour
than to go to his house and take as many others with you as you
pleased. He was, however, though a very ultra republican in
theory, pertinacious in having his own way in some things. An
instance of this was once displayed in the Board of Visitors of
William and Mary College, with which he had been connected for
a long time, and where his will had generally governed. On a certain
occasion, when, after much debate, he failed to carry his point
against the younger members, he left the room, shaking his coattail,
instead of the dust of his feet, against them. The Board
could not think of thus parting with their old friend, and, at the
suggestion of one of their number, contrived that evening to let
him know that they wished to dine with him next day. This was
enough. A hospitable feast was given, and nothing more heard
of the difference. The democratic principle of Mr. Bassett,
united with this pertinacity of character, was also evident in his
opposition to the canon of the Virginia Convention excluding from
that body all non-communicants. He held that the vestries had a
right to send whom they pleased, and that it was interfering with
their rights to impose any conditions. He came to the Convention
in Fredericksburg, at which the question was finally settled,
and spoke nearly one whole day against it. Being old and
infirm, when he was tired of standing he asked leave to sit, which
was freely granted. From a seat in the middle aisle, near the
chancel where the bishops sat, he still talked until toward the
close of the day. As I had read a written (and afterward published)
argument in its favour in the morning, his address was
chiefly to myself, and in a very plain style; but we allowed him
all liberties, and, at the close, passed the canon by a majority of
two-thirds or more. His vestry, sympathizing with him or unwilling
to differ, resolved to send no more delegates or contributions
while this canon continued, and were encouraged in their course
by the strictures upon our canon in two of our Northern Episcopal
papers. Bishop Moore and myself did not change our relation
to the parish, but continued to visit the congregation as
usual, and said not a word to persuade the vestry to change their
course. At the death of Mr. Bassett, not many years after, of its
own accord a delegate was sent to the Convention, and all the back
dues honourably sent with him. The kindness of Mr. Bassett to
myself was increased during this period. He not only was most
attentive to me when in Williamsburg, but, as I always came to it
through New Kent, he would meet me in his carriage, more than
twenty miles off, at old Colonel Macon's, and carry me thence to
his hospitable home in Williamsburg, and, when my services
there were ended, insist on sending me to the next point. From
him I learned much of the character of the old church and its
ministers.

MR. ROBERT SAUNDERS.

The other person to whom I alluded was the elder Mr. Robert
Saunders, and father to the one of the same name now living in
Williamsburg. Whether he was descended from either of the two
ministers of that name on the list of the Virginia clergy, (one of
early date,) or related to them, I know not. Mr. Saunders was a
lawyer of distinction in Williamsburg, and highly esteemed by Dr.
Wilmer and Dr. Empie for his religious character. He furnished
Dr. Hawks a lengthy statement about the Church in Virginia, and
especially about the parish of Bruton. The following is his opinion
of the conduct of the Virginia Legislature in relation to the sale
of the glebes:—

I entirely concur with Mr. Saunders, that covetousness did not
promote this law; for, as I shall show hereafter, the glebes were
not worth contending for. Infidelity and sectarianism, I think,
must have had their share in the work. I shall have occasion to
consider this question at a future time.

CONCLUSION.

Some thoughts on the formation of the Virginia character, as
displayed in the American Revolution and previously, may with
propriety follow after the history of the Church and College at
Williamsburg, and the foregoing list of vestrymen. As London
and the Universities were in one sense England, Paris and its University
France, so Williamsburg, while it was the seat of Government,
and the College of William and Mary, were, to a great extent,
Virginia. Here her Governor and chief officers resided; here her
Council often repaired and her Burgesses annually met. What
was their character? Whence did their ancestors come, and who
were they? Happily for the Colony, they were not Lords, or their
eldest sons, and therefore heirs of lordship. With one or two exceptions,
none such ever settled in Virginia. Neither were they in
any great numbers the ultra devotees of kings,—the rich, gay, military,
Cavalier adherents of Charles I.,—or the non-juring believers in
the divine right of kings, in the days of Charles II. and of James II.
Some of all these there were in the Colony, doubtless. Some dainty
idlers, with a little high blood, came over with Captain Smith at
first, and more of the rich and high-minded Cavaliers after the
execution of Charles I.; but Virginia did not suit them well
enough to attract and retain great numbers. There was too much
hard work to be done, and too much independence, even from the
first, for those who held the doctrine of non-resistance and passive
obedience to kings and others in authority, to make Virginia a

comfortable place for them and their posterity.[52] And yet we must
not suppose that the opposite class—the paupers, the ignorant, the
servile—formed the basis of the larger and better class of the Virginia
population, when it began to develop its character at the Revolution,
and, indeed, long before. These did not spring up into
great men in a day or a night, on touching the Virginia soil. Some
of the best families of England, Ireland, Scotland, and France,
formed at an early period a large part of that basis. Noblemen
and their elder sons did not come over; but we must remember
how many of the younger sons of noblemen were educated for the
bar, for the medical profession, and the pulpit, and turned adrift
on the world to seek their own living, without any patrimony.
Some of those, and many more of their enterprising descendants,
came to the New World, especially to Virginia, in search of fortune
and honour, and found them here. Numbers of Virginia families,
who are almost ashamed or afraid in this republican age to own it,
have their genealogical trees, or traditionary records, by which
they can trace their line to some of the most ancient families in
England, Scotland, Ireland, and to the Huguenots of France.
Where this is not the case, still they can derive their origin from
men of education, either in law, physic, or divinity, which things
were too costly in the old countries to be gotten by the poorer
classes, except in some few instances where charity was afforded.
Ministers could not generally be ordained without degrees from
Cambridge, Oxford, Dublin, or Edinburgh. Lawyers studied at
the Temple Bar in London; physicians at Edinburgh. For a long
time Virginia was dependent for all these professional characters
on English education. Those who came over to this country poor,
and ignorant, and dependent, had few opportunities of elevating
themselves; as has been happily the case since our independence,
by reason of the multiplication of schools and colleges, and of all
the means of wealth which are now open to us. Sir William
Berkeley in his day rejoiced that there was not a free school or
printing-press in Virginia, and hoped it might be so for a hundred
years to come; and perhaps it was not much otherwise as to
schools. In the year 1723, the Bishop of London addressed a
circular to the clergy of Virginia, then somewhat over forty in
number, making various inquiries as to the condition of things in
the parishes. One of the questions was, "Are there any schools
in your parish?" The answer, with two or three exceptions, (and
those in favour of charity-schools,) was, none. Private schools at
rich gentlemen's houses, kept perhaps by an unmarried clergyman
or candidate for Orders, were all the means of education in the
Colony, and to such the poor had no access. Another question
was, "Is there any parish library?" The answer invariably was,
none; except in one case, where the minister replied, "We have
the Book of Homilies, the Whole Duty of Man, and the Singing
Psalms." Such were the answers from thirty clergymen, whose
responses I have before me.[53] If "knowledge be power," Virginia
was, up to that time, so far as the poor were concerned, but a barren
nursery of mighty men. Would that it had been otherwise,
both for Church and State! Education was confined to the sons
of those who, being educated themselves, and appreciating the
value of it, and having the means, employed private teachers in
their families, or sent their sons to the schools in England and paid
for them with their tobacco. Even up to the time of the Revolution
was this the case with some. General Nelson, several of the
Lees and Randolphs, George Gilmer, my own father and two of
his brothers, and many besides who might be mentioned, just got
back in time to prepare for the Revolutionary struggle. The College
of William and Mary, from the year 1700 and onward, did
something toward educating a small portion of the youth of Virginia,
and that was all until Hampden Sydney, at a much later
period, was established. But let any one look at the published
catalogue of William and Mary, and see how few were educated
there from 1720 to the Revolution, and let him notice who they
were. Let him also examine whatever lists of Burgesses, Henning's
volumes and the old Virginia almanacs furnish, and he will
see who they were that may be considered the chief men of Virginia.
I have been recently examining another set of records
which show who were considered her first men. I allude to the
vestry elections; and nine times in ten we are confident one of
their body was the delegate. They were the ruling men of the
parishes,—the men of property and education. As we have said
before, from an early period they were in training for the Revolution,
by the steady and ever-successful struggle with Commissaries,
Governors, Bishops of London, and the Crown, on the subject of
the calling and induction of ministers. They also spoke through
the House of Burgesses, which was made up of themselves. We
will venture to affirm that very few of the statesmen of the Revolution
went into it without this training. Even Mr. Jefferson, and
Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief of Christianity, took their
parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one in Williamsburg, the other
in Albemarle; for they wished to be men of influence. In some
of the communications to England, the vestries are complained of
by the clergy as the aristocratic bodies,—the twelve lords or masters
of the parishes; and they did sometimes, I doubt not, rule
the poor clergy with a rod of iron; but they were not the men to
truckle to George III., Lord North, or the Parliament. Well did
Mr. Burke, in his celebrated speech on American affairs, reply to
some who said that the rich slaveholders of the South would not
stand a war, "that they were entirely mistaken; for that those
who had been long accustomed to command were the last who
would consent to obey."[54] In proof of my position that men of
education, and that gotten chiefly in Europe, were the ancestors of
large numbers of those who formed at a later period the most
influential class, I would here insert a list of the earlier clergy of
Virginia which I got from some ancient documents, (most of them
unpublished,) and this is but a small part of those whose names
are lost to us forever. Let the reader compare these with names
on the civil and military list of Virginia's history, and he must
acknowledge the probability at least of consanguinity between
many of them. I begin with the names of Bucke, Whittaker, the
two Williamses, (names still common in Virginia,) Young, Key,
Berkeley, Hampton, Richardson, Teackle, Cotton, Palmer, Gordon,
the Smiths, Ware, Doyley, the Bowkers, Saunders, Holt,
Collier, Wallace, Walker, the Monroes, Slaughter, Blair, Ander
son, Ball, the Yateses, Hall, Latane, the Roses, the Joneses, Sharp,
Waggener, the Taylors, Stith, Cox, the Brookes, the Robertsons,
the Robinsons, Collings, Baylie, Bell, Warden, Debutts, Forbes,
Marshall, Preston, Goodwin, Cargill, Hughes, the Scotts, the
Fontains and Maurys, the Dawsons, Reid, White, Campbell, Graham,
the Thompsons, Fraser, Thacker, Wilkinson, the Navisons,
the Stewarts, the Dixons, Webb, Innis, Warrington, Cole, Purdie,
Marye, Mackay, Jackson, Green, McDonald, Moncure, Keith, Leland,
Craig, Grayson, Bland, Manning, Hamilton, Dick, Clay,
Lyons. Many of the foregoing belong to the first century of our
existence and to the early part of the second. Many of the families
of Virginia may have descended from some of the foregoing
without knowing it. I leave it to others to search out the civil
list of Virginia names, in order to ascertain as far as practicable
how many of their ancestors may have been well-educated doctors
and lawyers, or respectable merchants and farmers, when first
coming to this country. I hope I shall not be misunderstood. It
is no dishonour to be born of the poorest parents in the land. It
is a much greater honour to be descended from a poor and ignorant
good man, than from a rich or learned bad man. I am only
speaking of a historical fact. It was the shame of our forefathers,
both here and in England, that they did not, by promoting education,
furnish more opportunities to the poor to become in a greater
degree the very bone and sinew of the State. It is our sin now
that more and better attention is not paid to the common schools
of Virginia, in order to make them nurseries of good and great
men.

ARTICLE XV.

Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.—No. 5.

Since the preceding articles on this parish were written, and
published in another form, we have obtained some further information
which may not be uninteresting to our readers. We have
searched among the old tombstones in the graveyard surrounding
the church, and deciphered some of the scarce-legible inscriptions
on the time-worn or broken slabs, which are either still resting on
their original foundations, or else prostrated upon the earth or
leaning against the church-wall or on other tombs. Some, no
doubt, were deposited beneath the church itself, as was the custom
more in ancient than in present times. Some of our great men, as
the Randolphs, Bishop Madison, and others, are in a vault beneath
the College chapel, while others are in adjoining farms, where once
stately mansions stood, and of which the tombstones are now the
only witnesses that they once existed. Williamsburg was once the
miniature copy of the Court of St. James, somewhat aping the
manners of that royal place, while the old church and its graveyard
and the College chapel were—si licet cum magnis componere
parva—the Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's of London, where
the great ones were interred.

We begin our transcript of inscriptions with that of the first
minister of the parish,—the Rev. Roland Jones, son of a minister
of the same name,—probably in England,—and of which name,
and doubtless family, several others ministered in Virginia:—

The blanks in the foregoing and others cannot be supplied, being
illegible.

Our next describes one of the best of our early Governors:—

The next is taken from a slab lying in the graveyard against the
wall of the church, in order to preserve it. Philip Ludwell lived
within a mile or two of Williamsburg, and his uncle Thomas may
have been buried there and removed by the nephew. Commissary
Blair married the daughter of Philip Ludwell and lived on a farm
adjoining, which was given to him by his father-in-law.

There can be no doubt but that the name Bruton was given to
the parish in honour of Thomas Ludwell, who came from a place
of that name in England. Originally the parish was called Middletowne,
when, in 1658, the inhabitants of Middle Plantation
(Williamsburg) and of Harop parish (between it and Warwick)
were united into one.

From the fragments of a large slab which, for some time, has
been lying at one of the gates of the churchyard, we take the following
imperfect inscription relating to the father of the Pages of
Virginia:—

From this and another inscription in Gloucester, it appears that
Governor Page was wrong when, in his autobiography, he calls
him Sir John Page. He is called Colonel John Page on this and
the tombstone in Gloucester, where he is mentioned as the father
of Matthew Page, who married Miss Mary Mann, of Timberneck.
Colonel Page died in 1690—½.

The following is the inscription over his wife:—

As York county took in a part of Williamsburg, Mr. Page may
have lived in or near it.

Mr. Page's eldest son was named Francis, who died at the early
age of thirty-five, but not without being much distinguished as a
lawyer. To him, according to Henning, were committed several
trusts; among them, the revision of the laws of the Colony. He
was also a vestryman of the parish of Bruton, and contracted for
the building of the present church; that is, for the part of it built
before the time of General Spottswood. He died only a year or
two after his father. The following is his epitaph:—

The following is a fragment of the poetic eulogy on the broken
tombstone:—

Near to this is the tomb of his wife, with the following inscription:—

Then comes the following eulogy:—

The difficulty of deciphering an old and long-exposed inscription
may cause injustice to the poetry, though we cannot expect
much in that line at that day.

It seems that Mrs. Page was the daughter of Edward Digges, a
man so well known and so justly esteemed. He is said to be of
the parish of Hampton. The reader must be guarded against the
mistake of supposing him to have been of Hampton parish, in Elizabeth
City county. There was, at an early period, a small parish
between Williamsburg and York, called Kiskiacke, or Chiskiake,
after a tribe of Indians which lived on York River. The church,
which still stands a few miles from Williamsburg, on the road to
York, vulgarly called Cheesecake, belonged to that parish. After
a time, about the year 1742, its name was changed to Hampton
parish, and was so called when the Digges lived in it. After some
time, the parish of Hampton was united to that of York, and
the name York-Hampton was given to the united parish. The
family-seat of the Digges was Bellfield, about eight miles from
Williamsburg, and is the same now owned by Colonel Robert
McCandlish. On a recent visit to it, I saw the large tombs of Mr.
Edward Digges and others of the family, whose epitaphs I shall
present to the reader in another article, in connection with some
account of the Church in Warwick and of the family of Digges.

There is also, in the Williamsburg churchyard, a tomb of a Mrs.
Page, wife of John Page and daughter of Francis Page. This
John Page was doubtless Colonel John Page, the lawyer, to whom
the vestry intrusted the defence of their rights when Nicholson
and others sought to invade them.

Following, as near as may be, the order of time, we give the inscription
on two of the Archer family:—

One of the earliest settlements was Archer's Hope; and the parish
was called Archer's Hope Parish, coming up within a few miles
of Williamsburg, to what is called the College Landing. It was
in time merged in Bruton parish. Some of the Archer family
continued to live in or about York until the Revolution. The
name is often to be seen in Henning's Statutes, connected with the
History of Virginia.

THE FAMILY OF THORP.

The name of Thorp must be dear to every Christian philanthropist.
Perhaps, of all the devoted friends to the first Colonists
and the Indians, he who was martyred, in the Great Massacre,
stands first among the laymen. The name did not die with him.
Whether they were his descendants or the descendants of his relatives,
we know not; but we meet with many of the name in Virginia.
They abounded in Bruton parish, as the following epitaphs
show:—

THE BARRADALLS.

This name is also an ancient and most respectable one. It is
another name for one learned in the law,—a name which for a long
time was a terror to the young applicant for a license to practise
law, and before which even a Pendleton trembled at his examination.
Two of these were buried in this churchyard. One or both of
them had been vestrymen of the parish. Edward Barradall married
Sarah, youngest daughter of the first William Fitzhugh, who
settled in Virginia, and who was also an eminent lawyer in the
Northern Neck, and belonged to the Council.

EPITAPH.

On the same stone is the name of Blumfield Barradall, brother
of Edward, and that of their sisters Elizabeth and Frances, who
had placed the tomb over their brothers.

We have also the monuments of the ancient and excellent family
of Brays:—

On the same is the following:—

There is also a large marble monument, on one side of which is
the following:—

On the other side as follows:—

The last I shall record is the following:—

I might add to these some monuments which lie all exposed in
the neighbourhood of Williamsburg. Nathaniel Bacon, uncle or
near kinsman of him who is called the rebel, and who was high in
office during the period of the rebellion, as he was before and
after, married Elizabeth, the daughter and heiress of Richard
Kingswell, of James City county. His residence was on King's
Creek, near York River, and not far from Williamsburg. There
are tombstones now near the bank of the river. The following
inscriptions have been furnished me:—"Here lyeth the body of
Elizabeth, wife of the Honourable Nathaniel Bacon, who departed
this life the second day of November, one thousand six hundred
and ninety-one, in the sixty-seventh year of her age." Also, on
a mutilated tombstone, may be deciphered these words:—"The
Rev. Thomas Hampton, rector of this parish in 1647." It is
probable that he ministered in one of those churches which were
closed when the first church at Williamsburg was built. Another residence
of Nathaniel Bacon must have been near Williamsburg; for
his tombstone now lies in a field on Dr. Tinsley's farm, while the
tombstones of the Palmer family are in the garden of that place.
The tombstone of Daniel Parke, whose name stands first on the
old vestry-book of Bruton parish as vestryman and churchwarden,
lies on the farm called Beal's, near Williamsburg.

In connection with the above, I mention that, in the Virginia
Gazette for March, 1746, it is stated that the plate given by
Colonel Nathaniel Bacon to York-Hampton parish was stolen.
There are also, I am told, some graves and tombstones around a
church about ten miles from Williamsburg, called Chickahominy
Church, and lying near that river. It may be that it was in one
of those numerous parishes which abounded in early times in and
around James City. One there was, called Wilmington parish,
which was taken partly from James City, and may have been
united to Bruton parish. If so, all that I can find of it is that it
was dissolved in 1723 and added to other parishes. At that time
it lay most probably on both sides of the Chickahominy, was thirty
miles long and eight wide, had one hundred communicants and one
hundred and eighty families. The Rev. Mr. Brunskill was the
minister, and reports that his parsonage had one room below and
a garret above, and, together with his glebe, rented for forty shillings
per annum.

At a recent visit to Williamsburg, my steps were directed to the
College and the old court-house, in order to see if I could find
something additional from the records thereof. In the old books

of the clerk's office, I was shown a deed of one acre of land from
some one for a new church in Wilmington parish,—probably the
very church just spoken of.

There is mention also of a letter of the Bishop of London
against swearing, and frequent notices of thanksgiving-days. The
Rev. James Horrocks, afterward President of the College, was
prevented by the court for not reading the act for suppressing
vice, as the law directs. Fifty acres of land at Jamestown, and
a house lately occupied by the Burgesses, were given to the justices
of James City for a free school. Susannah Riddle petitions that
her servant, John Hope, (alias Cæsar Barber, by which name he
was afterward, and for a long time, well known,) might be allowed
to be set free, as he had served her faithfully for thirty years.
Mrs. Riddle was the friend of Mrs. Carrington, of Richmond, and
aunt of Miss Caines, and great-aunt or relative of Lewis Warrington,
who bequeathed to him one thousand pounds, as mentioned in
a previous article. The Rev. Robert Andrews was the guardian
of young Warrington.

From the records of the College I obtained, besides those previously
gotten and used, one document worthy of insertion. In
the will of Hilarity Giles, of Newport parish, Isle of Wight, giving
a tract of land on Blackwater to the College of William and
Mary, he thus begins:—

ARTICLE XVI.

York-Hampton Parish.—No. 1.

This was originally called Charles River parish, as the county
of York was at first called Charles River county or shire, from
the river whose early name was Charles, afterward York River.
The name of Charles River county was changed to that of York
in 1642. Of the earliest history of this parish but little is known,
as there is no vestry-book to be found. In the first part of the
last century it was considered one of the most desirable in the
State, as Mr. Bartholomew Yates, of Middlesex, would have exchanged
his position for it, if his salary had not been raised to
twenty thousand-weight of tobacco and his glebe-house repaired
and enlarged.[55] In the year 1724, we find, from a letter to the
Bishop of London, that the Rev. Francis Fontaine — one of the
Huguenot family which first settled in King William parish, at
Manakintown on James River—had been the rector of this parish
for two years, on a salary of £150, arising from the sale of twenty
thousand-weight of sweet-scented tobacco, with a glebe and parsonage.
The parish was four miles wide and twenty miles long,
having two churches and two hundred families in it. Mr. Fontaine
seems to have been a faithful minister, attending to the
instruction of children and servants. He was unfortunate in his
second marriage, and not a little injured by it, as may be seen in
the History of the Fontaine Family, by Miss Anne Maury and
Dr. Hawks. How long Mr. Fontaine continued to be the minister
of York-Hampton we are unable to ascertain; but, as he was a
good man and it was a good parish, it is probable that he ended
his days there. The Rev. John Camm was the minister there in
1758, and, we have reason to believe, was there many years
before. Although President of the College, and Commissary from

the year 1771 or 1772, he still continued to be the minister of the
parish until he left the College in 1777: how much longer I know
not. Mr. Camm was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. Shield, who was
the minister to some now living.[56] He was, it is believed, an
intelligent and pious man. Some thought him rather too much of
a Methodist. I have it from relatives of one of the party, that a
lady of the old school, at a time when stiff broacades were the
church dress of those who could afford it, would come home, after
some of Mr. Shield's more animated discourses, and call upon her
maid to take off her clothes, for she had heard so much of hell,
damnation, and death, that it would take her all the evening to
get cool. I have one of his sermons, which does credit to his
head and heart, without being at all violent or extravagant. Mr.
Shield had a correspondent in London,—a merchant, of good
sense and apparent piety, to whom he shipped his tobacco,—a
number of whose letters have been furnished me. In one of
them there is allusion to the fact of Mr. Shield's retiring from
the ministry, and engaging in political life by entering the Virginia
Assembly. Mr. Shield replies at length, and solemnly declares
that preaching the gospel was the occupation of all others
in which he delighted, but that loss of his voice had incapacitated
him from either reading the service or preaching, and that he
acted under the advice of Bishop Madison in discontinuing all
efforts. The disease seems to have been what is now well known
as bronchitis, though he is at a loss even to describe it, so rare
was the complaint at that time. His correspondent—Mr. Graham
Frank, a gentleman well known to the merchants of York—mentions
having seen Bishop Madison when he came to London for
consecration, and that he was much pleased with the spirit and
plans with which he was about to engage in his work. Mr. Frank
had seen him some years before, on a visit to Virginia, and was
not pleased with him on account of his political principles. As
Mr. Frank was a man of zeal for the great doctrines of the
Church, there can be no doubt but that the Bishop was in a good
frame of mind, as may be seen in his address on entering upon
the duties of the Episcopate soon after. Mr. Shield, in his letter
to his friend, mentions that he had continued to perform his duties
with great pain, and in part only, until he could get his place
supplied, which was now about to be done by the ordination of a
son of a former rector of the parish and President of the College.
If the son did enter upon this charge, I do not think he continued
it long, but removed to a parish in York county, called Charles
parish, and which had formerly been served by the Rev. Thomas
Warrington, grandfather of Commodore Warrington, and by a
Mr. Joseph Davenport afterward. York had not recovered from
the ruins of the siege, and was now no longer the desirable parish
it had been. The old families were deserting it, and the inhabitants
around connecting themselves with other denominations.
Nevertheless, we hear of three ministers occupying it,—a Rev. Mr.
Scott, Mr. Henderson, and Brockenbrough, neither of whom were
calculated to arrest its downfall. At length, in the year 1815,
the old church was burned down. The material of the church was
remarkable. The walls were made of blocks of marl, taken out
of the bank of the river on which it stood, and which hardened by
exposure. It was cemented yet the more by the fire, which
caused it to melt somewhat and thus form one solid wall, which
continued to stand until the roof and other parts were renewed
a few years since, of which we shall speak more particularly hereafter.

We sometimes turn aside from the succession and character
of ministers and churches, to cast a glance over the scenery, or to
call up recollections of departed friends. We have recently done
this in the case of Jamestown and some of its inhabitants, the
Jaquelines and Amblers. Surely, if there be any spot in Virginia
where we may be allowed to pause and look around us, remembering
the past and dwelling with tender emotions on the
present, that spot is old York. To use the language of one who
has furnished materials for much of what follows:—

BACK VIEW OF GEN. NELSON'S HOUSE, YORK.

A few venerable relics of the past are all that may now be
seen. The old York House is the most memorable. The cornerstone
of it was laid by old President Nelson, when an infant, as it
was designed for him. He was held by his nurse, and the brick
laid in his apron and passed through his little hands. The bricks
were all from England,—the corners of hewn stone. It was long
the abode of love, friendship, and hospitality.

As one said of modern Italy, "Our memory sees more than our
eyes in this place." What Paulding says of Virginia may emphatically
be said of York,—

Let us, by the aid of well-attested tradition and history, speak
a few words concerning it and some of its old inhabitants. It was
established as a town and laid out in the year 1705. The founder
of it was a Mr. Thomas Nelson, the first of the name in Virginia.
He came from Penriff, near the border of Scotland, and was called
Scotch Tom on that account. He set up a mercantile establishment
in this place, as the first of the Amblers did soon after. He
married a Miss Reid of the neighbouring country, and had two
sons and one daughter. At her death he married a widow Tucker,
whose husband was from Barbadoes, where, and in Bermuda, that
name abounded. His two sons settled in York. His daughter
married Colonel Berkeley, of Middlesex. His eldest son, Thomas,
is the same who was called Secretary Nelson, because a long time
Secretary of the Council. He had three sons in the American
Revolution, whose descendants are all over Virginia. The other
son of old Thomas Nelson was named William, and has always
been called President Nelson, because so often President of the
Council, and at one time President of the Colony. He married a
Miss Burwell, grand-daughter of Mr. Robin Carter, called King
Carter. He had many daughters, but none lived beyond the
twelfth year. He had many sons also, the eldest of whom was
General Thomas Nelson of the Revolution. One of his sons was
burned to death, and another became an idiot by a fall from an

upper story. These afflictions contributed to make Mrs. Nelson a
"woman of a sorrowful spirit." She had been also educated
religiously by her aunt, Mrs. Page, of Rosewell. She was a truly
pious and conscientious woman. Her private and public exercises
of religion, her well-known frequent prayers for her children and
pious instruction of them, and exemplary conduct in all things,
established this beyond all contradiction.[57] Mrs. Nelson was not
alone in her personal piety, nor in her wishes and endeavours for
the religious welfare of her children. President Nelson performed
his part most faithfully. His eldest son, afterward General
Nelson, was placed under the care of the Rev. Mr. Yates, of
Gloucester, afterward President of William and Mary College, in
order to prepare him for an English University. At the age of
fourteen—sooner than was intended—he was sent thither. The
circumstance which hastened his going was the following. On one
Sunday afternoon, as his father was walking on the outskirts of
the village of York, (for it was then but a village, and never much
more,) he found him at play with some of the little negroes of the
place. Feeling the evil of such associations, and the difficulty of
preventing them, he determined to send him at once to England,
and, a vessel being ready to sail, he was despatched the next day
to the care of his friends,—Mr. Hunt, of London, and Beilby
Porteus, then Fellow of Cambridge University. He went for some
time to a preparatory school of Dr. Newcome, at Hackney, and
then to the especial care and tutorship of Dr. Porteus. The letters
of Mr. Nelson to Mr. Hunt and Dr. Porteus, copies of which I have,
and the answers to which are acknowledged, evince deep anxiety
for the improvement of his son in all things, but especially in
morals and religion. He is evidently uneasy about the spirited
character of his son, fearing lest it might lead him astray, and
begs his friends to inform him if his son shows a disposition to
idleness and pleasure. In order to avoid the temptations incident
to young men during the vacation, especially such as are far away
from friends, he requests Dr. Porteus to place him, during those
seasons, with some eminent scientific agriculturist, and thus prepare
him for dealing with the soils of America. After seven years,
he returns home, being delayed several months beyond the time he
intended, by a circumstance which showed the religious character
of his father. In a letter to his friend Mr. Hunt, he alludes to the
fact that two young Virginians, whose habits he feared were not good,
were coming over in the ship in which he expected his son, and he
must request that he be not sent with them; that he would rather
his coming be postponed six months than have them as his companions,
though they were sons of some of the first families of
Virginia, and of those who were on terms of intimacy with his.
His return was accordingly delayed for some months. On his arrival,
Mr. Nelson writes to his friends in England that he is much
pleased with the general improvement of his son, but regrets to find
that he has fallen into that bad practice, which most of the young
Virginians going to England adopt, of smoking tobacco,—adding,
emphatically, "filthy tobacco;" also that "of eating and drinking,
though not to inebriety, more than was conducive to health and
long life." Still, he was rejoiced to see him, such as he was, with
good principles. In proof of the respect in which President Nelson
was held, and the hopes entertained of his son, we state that,
though having been absent seven years, and being just twenty-one
years of age, he was elected to the House of Burgesses while on
his voyage home. If it be said that even immoral and irreligious
parents sometimes wish to see their sons moral and religious, we
further add, that President Nelson gave most varied proof of great
uprightness of character. One such is furnished in a letter to
some relatives in the North of England. He had redeemed an
estate in that region by paying off its debts, by which it became
his own. It proved to be much more valuable than was expected,
and, discovering that some other relative had a better right to redeem
it, voluntarily offered to surrender the estate or all the profits.
His commercial character was of the highest order. He imported
goods for merchants of Philadelphia and Baltimore, which places
were then in an incipient stage. By this means he acquired a
large fortune, leaving landed estates and servants to each of his
five sons,—Thomas, Hugh, William, Nat, and Robert,—and all of
his other property, amounting, according to the statement of the
elder St. George Tucker, to forty thousand pounds, to his oldest
son, General Nelson, who had been engaged in business with him.[58]
His interest in the affairs of religion and the Church was manifested
by his taking the lead in the parish. The parish, though
narrow, was long, and many, especially of the poor, must come
some distance to church. On Church-Sundays he always had a
large dinner prepared, to which rich and poor were indiscriminately
invited. After having been President of the Council for a long
term of years, on the decease of Lord Botetourt there was an
interregnum, during which he, as President of the Council, was
Acting Governor of the State, the civil and ecclesiastical representative
of the King. By two letters to Lord Hillsborough now
before me, in the years 1770 and 1771, he displays his determination
to do his duty in relation to unworthy clergymen, of whom
there were some needing discipline, and asks full and undoubted
authority for so doing, as such authority required to be renewed
from the throne. I conclude what yet remains to be said of President
William Nelson by a few extracts from a printed sermon
on his death, by Mr. Camm, the minister of York and President
of William and Mary College. He ascribes to him "a rational
and firm piety, an active and constant affection for the well-being
and best interests of mankind;" speaks of him as "constant in
his attendance at the ordinary service of God and the celebration
of the Lord's Supper, and exhibiting unaffected and fervent devotion."
He was—

This last remark has certainly been in a good degree fulfilled in
the descendants of President Nelson. Though they have not been
rich in this world's goods, yet they have not suffered through want.
Many of them have held respectable offices in the State and General
Government. Almost all of them have been enabled to obtain a
good education,—the best fortune in a country like ours,—so as to
associate with the most respectable portion of the community.
Many of them have obtained the highest of all honours,—the
honour which cometh from God only. It is true that the first son,
to whom the birthright of those days—the amplest fortune—was
given, spent it in his country's service, leaving his widow and
children in comparative poverty. But he spent it nobly, as his
father would have done had he lived to see the mighty struggle for
our liberties. Although that father was the first in the Government
only a few years before, and was the right hand of George
III. in this Colony, addressed in his commission as "My well-beloved
and worshipful, greeting," yet at that very time the letters
to his merchants and friends in London show that he had the soul
of a patriot as well as a Christian within him,—that he was indignant
at the imposition of the British Parliament,—and leave none
to doubt where he would have been found when the trumpet
sounded to arms. The thousands which General Nelson cast upon
the waters were not lost, but soon sprung up in a plentiful harvest

of rich blessings to his country, on which let his latest posterity
reflect with delight, and enjoy as a richer inheritance than thousands
of silver and gold.[59]

This leads me to add a few words concerning that patriot himself,
confining my remarks as nearly as possible to the special
character of the work I have in hand. I mean the moral and
religious character of the persons treated of. Whether General
Nelson was ever in full communion with the Church, I am not able
to say.[60] That he was a believer in the Gospel in that age of blasphemy
with so many, and that he was the friend of religion, cannot
be doubted. In writing to his own and his father's friend in London,
Mr. Samuel Martin, the 27th of January, 1773, he says:—

His friendship to God's ministers may be seen, about that time,
by the introduction of Mr. Samuel Shield to his friend in London,
with a request that he would pay him £50 on his account. Hitherto
there was a king's bounty of £50 to all who came over for Orders.
But this was in the year 1774, and probably Mr. Nelson apprehended
some difficulty, for, only two years after, Orders were
refused, such was the state of things between the Colony and
Great Britain.[61] We have seen that in the year 1775 the College

voted £50 to Mr. Madison when he went over for Orders. In the
following year I see an instance of liberality in General Nelson's
provision for a number of families in York, who had been driven
from their homes by Lord Dunmore's troops. Again I see his high
and honourable character, in imitation of that integrity which his
father displayed in all his dealings, when it was proposed in the
House of Burgesses to adopt some method of discharging British
debts which he considered improper. He indignantly opposed it, declaring,
some say, with an oath; others, far more probably, "So help
me God, others may do as they please, but I will pay all my debts
like an honest man." I might add numerous testimonies to his
unbounded liberality toward his comrades in the war when far from
home. It becomes not me to speak of the hundreds of thousands
procured on his own credit for the use of the State, when not a
dollar could be gotten on its own, nor how the account stood between
them at the close of that war. He certainly entered upon
it very rich, and came out of it so poor that when a few years had
passed away, and he was laid in the old graveyard at York, without
a headstone or slab to mark the spot, his property, save the old
house in deserted York and some poor broom-straw fields in Hanover,
was put up at public sale to pay the debts contracted in his
country's cause.[62] Even the old family Bible, with the births and
baptisms of the family, with the little table on which it stood, was
(though, I doubt not, by mistake) sold on that occasion. Within
the last year, in one of my visitations among the mountains, I
heard of this Bible. So was it valued by the family now having
it, whose baptisms and births had also there been registered, that
they could not be induced to relinquish it to one of the descendants
of its original owner.

The following account of General Nelson's family at Offley, a
small wooden house in Hanover county, Virginia, by the French
traveller, Chattellux, soon after the war, will not be uninteresting
to the reader:—

But still, as some one said of the people of Iceland, that "poverty was the bulwark
of their happiness," so it is, and has been, with many of the descendants of
General Nelson, in one respect: they have not been tempted by riches to "be full
and deny God."

We shall probably find an explanation of this absence of all
games, not only by the presence of such pious ladies as General
Nelson's mother and wife, but in the fact that old President Nelson
had trained up his family otherwise, and at a time when card-playing
and other games were but too common. We infer this from a letter
of his to a friend in England, concerning some young man in
whom they were both interested, and of whom Mr. Nelson entertains
painful apprehension because he had gone to a part of the State
where cards, racing, and suchlike things were freely practised.
We cannot forbear mentioning one circumstance that comes to us on
undoubted authority, concerning the second son of President Nelson,
—Colonel Hugh Nelson, of York. He followed the example of his
father's piety, and was a kind of lay preacher to the families in York,
especially to those of his own name. Besides reading the service
and sermon in the church every other Sunday in the absence of the
minister, and every Sunday when there was no minister, as was
often the case after the war, he acted as minister in preparing the
candidates for the first confirmation ever held in York, soon after
Bishop Madison's return from England with Episcopal consecration.
On the morning of the confirmation he assembled them all
in the large parlour or hall at the old house in York, and addressed
them on the nature of that rite. That, and the scene in church
which soon followed, has been often described as most deeply
affecting by one of his own children, the youngest recipient of the

rite, the late Mrs. Edmund Pendleton, mother of the Rev. William
N. Pendleton. We close with the expression of deep regret that
many documents, from which we might have drawn other passages
of interest touching President and General Nelson, are not to be
found. Of the numerous letters to correspondents in England,
written during a long series of years, only those of the last six of
President Nelson's life—from 1766 to 1772—are to be had. The
same loss is felt as to the letters of General Nelson. Not long
before his death he caused them all to be collected and filed by
his son, Mr. Philip Nelson, who had been trained to the mercantile
life; and among them that son always remembered and often
spoke of some most interesting ones from Washington, Lafayette,
and others during and after the war. These also have disappeared.
His papers and those of his father descended, together with the
old York house, to one of his sons and the descendants of the
same. They were doubtless objects of curiosity and desire to its
numerous visitors from all parts of the State and land, especially
after it became, as it was for many years, one of public entertainment.
Too freely may the desire and curiosity of travellers and
visitors have been yielded to, and too little, as in many other cases
in Virginia, have such relics of our ancestors been prized.

Although no apology is needed for the more full and particular
notice of the family of Nelsons which has been given, it may be
well to state that my more intimate connection with it for nearly
fifty years has furnished me with the means of such fulness and
particularity. As to others less known to me, and worthy of special
notice for their religious character and attachment to the Episcopal
Church, I invite communications. Some have been sent and
gladly used.

TOMBSTONES AND INSCRIPTIONS IN THE OLD CHURCHYARD AT
YORK.

But few of these remain, and some of them are broken and illegible.
That of the first Nelson and the founder of the town is as
follows:—

Which is thus rendered into English:—

Adjoining this is the tomb of his son, President Nelson, whose
character has been portrayed in the first article on this parish
The inscription is as follows:—

The latter part of this epitaph savours much of the language of
the pulpit in that day. The epitaph was probably written by
President Camm.

Very near to these tombstones General Thomas Nelson was
buried; but to this day not even a rough headstone marks the
spot, and no hillock is to be seen; and when one or two aged members
of the family are gone, there will be none left to point out the
place, when the gratitude of his country, or the filial piety of his
descendants, which has been too long waiting the action of the
former, desires to raise some humble monument to the most generous
and self-sacrificing of American patriots.[63]

The only other inscriptions which could be deciphered were
those of Abraham Archer, who died in 1752, aged sixty-two; of

Susannah Reignolds, daughter of William Rojers, who died in
1768, aged sixty; and of Jane Frank, the daughter of Mr. William
Routh, of Kisklington, in Yorkshire. She died on her passage
at sea, April 26, and was interred May 28, 1753, aged twenty-eight
years. She was doubtless the wife of that pious man, Mr.
Frank, of whom we have written as the friend and correspondent
of the Rev. Mr. Shield and others in York and Williamsburg.

ARTICLE XVII.

York-Hampton Parish.—No. 2.

In connection with York-Hampton parish and its minister, the
Rev. John Camm, there is a subject which I shall now consider,
deeming this the most suitable occasion, as the vestry was equally
concerned in it with any other in the diocese, and the minister
took a more active part than any other of the clergy. I allude to
the celebrated contest between the clergy on the one hand, and
the Council, Burgesses, and some of the vestries on the other, concerning
the salaries of the former, in the year 1758. The act of
Assembly which produced the contest, and convulsed both Church
and State, was called the Option Law or Two-penny Act, because
the people were allowed the option of paying as usual so much
tobacco, or about twopence per pound instead of it. It was occasioned
by the apprehension of a very short crop of tobacco, by
the failure of plants in the spring in some parts of the State.
The failure was very great, though not to the extent apprehended.
It was, however, so great as, with other circumstances, to raise
the price from sixteen shillings and fourpence—the supposed
average price of the clergy's tobacco—to fifty and sixty shillings.
In anticipation of the difficulty which many might find in discharging
their debts to the clergy and others in tobacco, according
to law or contract, the Assembly ordained that the debts due in
tobacco to the clergy and to certain officers of Government,—who
were but few at that time,—and from tenants to their landlords,
or planters to merchants, &c., might be discharged by the payment
of twopence a pound in paper currency, which was only
good in the Colony. In order to understand the subject aright, it
is necessary to recur to some previous acts of the Assembly on
the subject of salaries.

For a long time the salary of a minister had been settled at
sixteen thousand-weight of tobacco per annum; and in the year
1748 the Assembly passed a new act, confirming this, and giving
to the vestries certain privileges hitherto claimed by the Crown,
the Governors, and clergy, but in fact exercised by the vestries,
as has before been stated. Though the clergy did not like some

things in it, yet, unable to help themselves, they submitted, and
the royal assent was given. According to a standing law of England,
no act of the Colonial Legislature could contradict a previous
act which had received the royal sanction, without suspending its
execution until the King's pleasure could be known. The Assembly,
finding it desirable to have the privilege of passing some acts
and carrying them into execution sooner than the distance from
England and the time then required for communication with the
Government would allow, petitioned the King in the year 1751 or
1752 for leave to make some exceptions; but the petition was positively
refused. Nevertheless, it began to act in a small way at
first, on the principle thus refused. In the year 1753 it passed an
act allowing the vestries of Frederick and Augusta to pay the
salaries of their ministers in money instead of tobacco, as but little
of the latter was raised in the valley,—taking care, however, to
allow them handsome salaries, so that no complaint was made. In
the year 1754 the same was done in Norfolk and Princess Anne
parishes without much notice or complaint. But in the year 1755,
when there was the threatening of a very small crop of tobacco
throughout the country, the Assembly proceeded to a bolder step,
and passed a law allowing all who pleased to pay either in tobacco
or money as suited best. The law was carried by only one vote.
A general feeling of uneasiness now seized upon the clergy, and
they were preparing to make opposition. Letters and memorials
were sent to England, and meetings of the clergy held; but as the
season became more propitious and the crop turned out nearly as
good as usual, and the tobacco would generally be paid, no active
measures were taken, though some even then threatened to resort
to law. In the year 1758 a great failure was apprehended, and
the Assembly now passed the obnoxious law of which we are speaking.
Though opposed by some of the Burgesses and the Council
as illegal and unjust, it was carried. The clergy who were nearest
to Williamsburg assembled and asked to be admitted to the bar of
the House, to be heard in opposition to the measure before it
passed, but were refused. Governor Dinwiddie had been urged to
veto the act of 1755, but declined, though saying it was unjust and
illegal, asking, "What can I do? If I refuse, I shall have the people
on my back." Lieutenant-Governor Fauquier, now in office,
when applied to for the same purpose, also refused, saying, "Whether
it be just or unjust, contradictory to the King's instructions or not,
is not the question. The question is, What will please the people?"
He took part with the Assembly; and the Assembly, which had
voted Dinwiddie only £500, (it was the custom to make a present
to every new Governor,) voted him, though a more obnoxious man
than even Dinwiddie, £1000. The clergy were now convened,
and made an address to the Crown, through the Lord-Commissioner
of Trade for the Plantation, pleading their grievances. The Bishop
of London, being called upon for his opinion by the Commissioners,
was decided and strong in favour of the clergy. The Rev. Mr.
Camm was sent over by the clergy to plead their cause, and per
sons were employed by the Assembly on their part. The Rev.
Mr. Camm remained eighteen months in England in the prosecution
of the case. To oppose the Colonies in any thing where taxation or
prerogative was concerned was now becoming a critical matter.
The Stamp Act had just been repealed. Notwithstanding this, the
Commissioners of Trade unanimously declared the law to be not
only unjust, but null and void, and recommended the King to disallow
it and require its repeal, which he accordingly did. As to
the requiring the tobacco to be paid, they told Mr. Camm that the
courts in America must do this, and certainly would do it, the case
being so plain; that if it should be otherwise, and an appeal was
taken to the Privy Council in England, they would certainly be
righted. On this, Mr. Camm immediately wrote to his agent in
America to institute a suit against his vestry for the tobacco, and
carry it before the Governor and Council, which was the Supreme
Court in Virginia. The vestry declined standing the suit until
the Assembly passed an act to support all vestries in their defence.
The trial being had, it appears that Messrs. Randolph, Corbin,
Carter, and Lee were in favour of Mr. Camm's claim, and Messrs.
Byrd, Taylor, Thornton, Burwell, and Blair against it. The two
Mr. Nelsons, of York, the President and Secretary, declined sitting,
as they were a party concerned, being vestrymen of Mr.
Camm's parish. It was understood that they were in favour of the
claim of the clergy, one of them having told the Rev. Mr. Warrington
that he regarded the law as most unjust, and had Mr.
Warrington's case been permitted, as was attempted afterward,
to come up for trial, they would have been on the court, and have
made a majority of one in favour of the clergy, whereas, in the case
of Mr. Camm, a majority of one was in favour of the law. There
was now no other resort for Mr. Camm but to the English Court
of Appeals; and he was not the man to give up a contest until he
could contend no more, especially as he was fighting not only his
own battle, but that of all the clergy of Virginia. He accordingly
sent his case to the Privy Council, expecting that the promises
made to him while in England would be fulfilled, but was disappointed.
After various delays, the case was dismissed, on the
pretence of some informality, the blame being chiefly laid at the
door of Lord Northington. Inasmuch as the Lord-Commissioners
of Trade, Privy Council, and King had all so positively and unanimously
declared the law null and void, and the Governor of Virginia
had proclaimed its repeal by the order of the King, we must
seek the cause of this dismissal in some other difficulty than an informality.
It was doubtless to be found in the desire to avoid at
this time a collision with the Virginia Assembly; and the clergy
were deserted. The Rev. Mr. Warrington, of Hampton, who was
as brave and determined in the Church as his grandson Commodore
Warrington afterward in the navy, had his case before the Council
of Virginia, and, if unsuccessful, was prepared to try whether the
Privy Council would, when the alleged informality was avoided,
enter upon the cause; but his suit was never permitted to be tried
here, the court in Virginia professing to await the decision of the
court in England, and thus ended the matter. Mr. Warrington
brought suit for his full salary in the Court of Elizabeth City, and
the jury brought in a special verdict for some damages, but still
declared the law valid in opposition to the King. The Rev. Alexander
White, of King William, also brought suit. The court declined
instructing the jurors as to the law, and left it entirely with
them, who brought in some trivial damages. But the instance of
suit which caused most interest at the time, and has continued most
to sparkle on the page of history, was that of the Rev. James
Maury. It was tried in Hanover county, though he was in an
adjoining parish. The high character of Mr. Maury entitles any
account he may have given of the transaction to great confidence.
We have it in a printed letter to Mr. Camm in the year 1763. In
the November Court of that year, he says, the court decided in his
favour that it was no law, and at the next court a select jury was
to decide upon the damages. It was indeed, he says, a select jury,
three or four being what were called New Lights, who were dissenters
from and enemies to the Church, and the others picked up
on the occasion, and most unfit to decide such a cause.

It was on this occasion that Patrick Henry, then young in the
practice, made his first successful effort. It was truly an ad captandum
speech, being suited to the times and addressed to the
passions and interests of the people. He praised the law as salutary,—said
that a king, by disallowing such a law, became a tyrant
instead of the father of the people. He spoke in such a manner

that several persons in the crowd cried out, "Treason!" The cause
being pleaded on both sides, by Mr. Lyons for Mr. Maury, by Mr.
Henry for the vestry or collector, and it being intimated to the
jury that, though they must find for the plaintiffs, yet one penny
damages would suffice, in five minutes the jury brought in that
verdict. Mr. Lyons moved that the jury should be sent back
again, as having found against the evidence; but this was refused:
then that certain evidence should be recorded, which also was refused:
and, lastly, that an appeal should be allowed, which shared
the same fate.[64] It is due to Mr. Henry to state that he apologized
to Mr. Maury for some improper reflection made as to himself,
and pleaded, as an excuse for his course, that he was a young
lawyer, a candidate for practice and reputation, and therefore must
make the best of his cause. It is probable, also, that at this time
Mr. Henry may have been a little alienated from the Church of
his father and relatives.[65] The Revs. Mr. Davies and Mr. Waddell
(the old blind preacher of whom Mr. Wirt speaks) were then in
their height of zeal and eminence, and Mr. Henry often attended
their services and admired them much. Disaffection to the Church
was also getting quite strong in that region. Mr. Henry may for
a time have sympathized in their religious views, though I have no
testimony to this effect. The following extract of a letter of Mr.
Roger Atkinson, of Mannsfield, near Petersburg, an old vestryman
and staunch friend of the Church in that place, to his brother-in-law,
Mr. Samuel Pleasants, may throw some light on this
point. He is drawing the portraits of the members sent to the
first Congress from Virginia. Of Mr. Henry he says, "He is a
real half-Quaker,—your brother's man,—moderate and mild, and
in religious matters a saint; but the very d—l in politics,—a son
of thunder. He will shake the Senate. Some years ago he had
liked to have talked treason into the House."[66] Whatever may
have been the feelings of Mr. Henry as to the Episcopal Church
at that time, it is very certain that in after-life he gave full proof
that he was no enemy to it, and had no desire to deprive it of any
just rights. At a time when such numbers were deserting it,
when politicians were raising themselves on its ruins, when the
worn-out glebes, and decayed parsonages, and sacred vessels were
thought to be too much to be left in the hands of the few Episcopal
families which were remaining, Mr. Henry stood up in opposition
to every attempt at their alienation, with the same boldness
and the same success as when he denounced British oppression;
nor did the advocates of the last act by which she was prostrated
in the dust succeed in their endeavour until he had left the hall of
legislation.[67] There may be some difficulty in reconciling his opposition
to this measure with his advocacy of that concerning which
we have been writing, but there may have seemed to be one to him,
and may have been a real one. At any rate, his attachment to the
Church of his fathers is clearly established. There are abundant
proofs that it continued through life, and that his descendants have
inherited it. And now, should it be asked why the clergy alone
of all who were affected by this law should have made such opposition,
when it was professedly designed to relieve the poor, in a
year of unparalleled scarcity, I will endeavour to answer the
question out of the mouths of the clergy themselves at the time.
Their reasons and complaints were sent in lengthy letters—memorials
from themselves and the Commissaries Dawson and Robinson
—to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of London, and
the Privy Council; also in a letter from the Bishop of London to
the Lord-Commissioners of Trade, and in an opinion of some of
the first jurists in England, among them Lord Cambden. These
have been preserved in the archives of Lambeth and Fulham. I
have a copy of them before me, covering more than one hundred
and fifty folio pages of manuscript. I have carefully examined
the same, as well as whatever on the other side I could obtain, and
will briefly state the substance of the clergy's plea. In the first
place, it is declared to be untrue that no complaints came from
other sources. In the year 1755, the same measure was carried
by only one vote, such was the opposition to it. In the year 1758,
some of the ablest and best men of the Assembly and the State
were opposed to it. Those who were to be sufferers by it among
the officers of Government were afraid to complain, as they might
lose office. But the chief reason why many others did not complain
more and longer was, that most of them were actually paid
their full dues in tobacco. When the King disallowed the law at
the petition of the clergy, and the Legislature was obliged to
encourage the vestries to resent by promising to bear the expenses
of the suit, but said nothing about any other suits, nearly all the
other debtors, believing their cause to be a hopeless one, would not
incur the expenses of a suit, but paid their dues as they stood
before the law was passed. Thus the clergy alone were the sufferers,
while the instruments of doing justice to others. Secondly,
they maintained that theirs was a peculiar case, and might have
been exempted from the operation of law, even if some such
method could have been legally adopted with others. They, by
their profession, were precluded from those various modes of
acquiring property by which others might more easily bear a loss.
Their salaries too were generally small,—so small that a great
number of them could not marry,—that respectable families would
not admit them into that relationship. In ordinary years most of
them, it was declared, did not receive more than eighty pounds,—
sometimes much less; and, when tobacco was indifferent, not more
than forty or fifty pounds, while cases occurred of still less. One
great grievance was, that their salaries were not paid until eighteen
months after their year's labour begun, the levy being never ordered
until twelve months had elapsed, and that not demandable
for six months after; and, if shipped to England, a still longer
delay; and, if they did not send it to England and get their goods
there, must sell it here and buy indifferent articles at an advance
of from twenty-five to fifty per cent. The consequence of this
was, that the clergy were often deeply in debt long before their
salaries were paid. They thought it hard, therefore, that when,
in the course of Providence, an increase of funds occurred for one
year, by which they might be set free from debt or be enabled to
buy a few books, this should be prevented by such an act. They
had often before, by bad seasons injuring the tobacco, or by an
abundant crop reducing the price, suffered a great diminution of
salary, but the Assembly had never regarded this their loss and
sought to supply it in any other way, and it was not fair now to
reduce it by an arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional act. Moreover,
they said it was an ex post facto or retrospective law, passed
after they had earned their salary by a year's labour. It was thus
their own property, though not in their hands, as it ought to have
been. They also declared that, considering the high price at which
tobacco sold that year, it was a prosperous one. The quantity of
tobacco shipped was estimated at thirty-five thousand hogsheads,
instead of fifty thousand, the average crop; that, selling at fifty
shillings a hundred instead of sixteen and eightpence, every man
got two-thirds more than usual for his tobacco, and therefore could
better afford to pay than in other years, except in such places as
failed very greatly. The clergy thus lost two-thirds of their just
expectations and lawful rights. They said the history of Virginia
proved that a small crop of tobacco was best for the Colony, that
the Legislature was often endeavouring to stint the crop of tobacco
by preventing the culture of so much, and in former days had
even destroyed some which was already made, and that now, when
Providence had stinted the crop, it was hard that the clergy should
be the chief, indeed only, sufferers. They most positively denied
that the welfare of the poor was the object or the effect of the law,
and said that the rich planters were the chief gainers by it,—that
they had few tenants to pay them in money instead of tobacco,
but cultivated their lands with their own servants, and now paid
the clergy and others to whom they were indebted at one-third of
the price at which they sold their tobacco. They charged the
Legislature with taking from them one penny for the poor and a
shilling for the rich, and maintained that some other method might
have been adopted for the relief of real sufferers far more just and
equal. Comparing their tithes with those of Israel of old, they
computed their portion of the tobacco on an average to be less
than one-fiftieth, and even in that year less than a twentieth, and
said that nothing whatever of any other crops was taxed, and
that all other crops that year were uncommonly abundant. If,
therefore, the Church was worth supporting, they maintained that
it ought to be honourably done. They affirmed that the effect of
this unjust proceeding must be to deter respectable clergymen
from coming into the Colony, or young men of education and
respectability here from entering the ministry. They declared
that such an effect had already been produced; that some of the
best men had already left the Colony, and others were preparing
to follow. There was, with one exception, (and he a young, conceited,
and unworthy man,) entire unanimity among the clergy,
while there was great diversity of sentiment among the laity, and
certainly among the opponents of the measure there were many of
the ablest and best men of Virginia. The clergy, indeed, boasted
that what their advocates wanted in numbers was amply made up
in quality. As the question came to be weighed in the balances
of law and equity, it was more and more admitted to be
unconstitutional and unfair. Many confessed their error; but it
was too late to retract. The clergy had committed the unpardonable
sin of appealing to the Crown; and, though many of them
became staunch Revolutionists, preaching and writing in behalf of
the war, and some girding on their swords, the evil could not be
repaired. Dissenters were rapidly gaining ground. They took
possession of the vacant pulpits and drew off numbers from the
Church, and no future Assembly could have been gotten to repair
the wrong. Such was the permissive providence of God, and
doubtless for wisest reasons. Had the one hundred clergy of Virginia,
or a large portion of them, been true men of God, not only
leading holy lives, laboriously discharging all their duties, understanding
by their own heartfelt experience, and zealously preaching
the doctrines of the Gospel as set forth by the Reformers in
our standards, God would not have permitted that unjust act on
the part of the Legislature of Virginia. There were doubtless
many worthy men among them, and some few who understood,
felt, and preached the Gospel; but, if Mr. Jarratt's testimony is
to be received, God could not have been among them to bless
them. After his ordination in England and settlement in Virginia,
he attended one of the later convocations at Williamsburg, but
was so disgusted at the manner in which he heard some of the doctrines
of the Gospel and the Church spoken of, that he resolved to
attend no more of them. I doubt not there were many sober,
good-natured men among the clergy, but they wanted weight of
character, and were unfit for the ministry. There were many who
preached a dry orthodoxy and frigid morality; but that was not
enough. The Dissenters came and gave hungry souls something
else, though often mixed with what was not the Gospel.

Still, all this did not justify the act of which we have been speaking,
which must ever be regarded as a deep stain on the Legislature
of that day. Necessity, indeed, has no law, and there are times
when laws must be violated in order to prevent a greater evil.
Government has a right to interfere with the property of individuals,
when they greatly abuse it to the injury of the public. But no
such necessity existed. If tobacco was scarce, the price was very
high, and all the necessaries of life abounded. The clergy, whether
deficient in right views of religion or not, performed a large amount
of bodily exercise and went through their required duties, and
therefore had a right to what was secured to them by law. There
was the same scarcity in Maryland, where the salaries were larger;
and yet there was no such commutation enjoined there. We again
therefore come to the conclusion that the clergy were sinking in
public estimation, the dissenters from and enemies to the Church
were increasing, the Revolutionary spirit, the unwillingness to be
interfered with by the authorities of England, was daily strengthening,
and all these combined to permit the passage of the law
and to forbid the reparation of the wrong that was done. I add
that in the College of William and Mary the same contest was
going on. The Visitors and the Faculty were at variance,—the
former claiming the right to dismiss the professors at pleasure, the
latter affirming that, according to the charter of the College, a
controlling power was in the authorities abroad; but the former, as
might be expected, prevailed. The time for revolution and independence
was fully come, and there was no resisting it. President
Camm, at the beginning of the war, being summoned before the
Visitors to answer some complaints, denied their authority, and,
refusing to attend, was displaced, and Mr. Madison, of more republican
spirit, was chosen in his room.

Having closed the consideration of a question which for some
years violently agitated the Church and Colony of Virginia, and

which on one side was mainly defended by the minister of York
Hampton parish, we take our leave of poor old York, but not without
a word or two as to its past, its present, and its future, so
far as man may look into the future of a dilapidated town or
village. Little York was never much more than a village; although
merchants from Baltimore and Philadelphia—at that time little
more than villages—once got goods from its warehouses. How
many inhabitants it had, when at its height, cannot be said. Besides
tradesmen and artificers and shopkeepers, of whom we are
unable to get any information, we learn that before and for some
time after the Revolution there was one of the most delightful societies
anywhere to be found, consisting of Amblers, Archers, Gibbons,
Jamiesons, Macawleys, Nicolsons, Griffins, Nelsons, Diggeses,
Smiths, Popes, Shields, Fouchees, &c. All these, with the other families
of the place, and from the country around, filled the Episcopal
Church in York, and formed a happy, undivided society. During
the war, all fled who could: some did not return, or only returned
to bid adieu to its ruins. From time to time, others removed,
until it was left almost desolate, and the country around seemed
likely to share the same fate. Agriculture grew worse and worse.
Lands were almost given away. But within the last few years a
favourable change has seemed likely to take place, in sympathy
with the improvement of all Lower Virginia. A few zealous
females, in the hope and anticipation of it, by the most indefatigable
diligence, rebuilt the old church, which had been destroyed by fire,
and the Rev. Mr. Withers, while Chaplain to the Lunatic Asylum
in Williamsburg, rendered acceptable services to the few remaining
inhabitants of York. It has been hoped that the railroad, intended
to connect Richmond with Baltimore by York River, would have
found a terminus here, and thus insured a revival of the town. In
this its friends have been also disappointed, that terminus being
established higher up. Still, hopes are entertained of its more
gradual improvement by the increased commerce floating on the
bosom of York River, and from the rise in lands all around. The
demand for houses is increasing, and, if the present owner of nearly
all York and its vicinity was disposed to sell, lots and small farms
would be purchased and settled. There is one interesting and
venerable establishment in the vicinity of York which deserves
a notice. It is called Temple Farm. It was the country-residence
of Governor Spottswood in the beginning of the last century.
It was called Temple Farm because of a house in its garden,
built by the Governor as a cemetery. It was in the mansion-house
on this farm that Lord Cornwallis met Washington and
signed the articles of capitulation. One of our Virginia antiquaries,
(Mr. Caruthers,) in a semi-fictitious historical novel, after
the manner of Walter Scott, has made this place a chief scene and
Governor Spottswood the chief hero. But, it being so long since
the date of the events described, many of its readers perhaps
doubt whether the house was built by Governor Spottswood, or
whether he ever lived there. Having myself had an interest, by
marriage, in the house and farm, and knowing that there was much
of the real in the traditionary accounts of it, but wishing to obtain
the most reliable information, I addressed a letter to Doctor William
Shield, of York, who once possessed it, and received from him
the following communication:—

It is well known that Governor Spottswood died at Annapolis, in
the year 1737, on his way to join the army which he was appointed
to command, and which was about to engage in a Western expedition.
His remains were doubtless carried by water to York,
and deposited at this, his favourite residence, and in the tomb or
temple which he had built, and in which other worthies were buried.
It may be said, without fear of contradiction, that there is not on
all York River a more picturesque spot than Temple Farm. Its
capacity for improvement is also very great.

ARTICLE XVIII.

Hampton Parish, Elizabeth City County, and Parishes in Warwick.

Until the year 1751 it was called Hampton parish, and on one
of my lists after this; but on the vestry-book beginning in 1751
it is changed to Elizabeth City. Elizabeth City county is one of
the eight original shires of Virginia in the year 1634. It is situated,
as may be seen by looking at the map, just between the
mouths of James and York Rivers. Its compass is so small
and so compact that it does not appear that there was ever an attempt
at building more than one church in it,—that at Hampton,
—unless there may have been one on the Back River portion of it,
of which, however, we have no account. Although the parish and
county of Elizabeth City be comparatively so small,—only eighteen
miles square,—yet are they on many accounts deeply interesting.
Old Point Comfort, which is a part of this county, was, with
the exception of Cape Henry, most probably the first place in
Virginia which was touched by Captain Smith in 1607. In exploring
the county for a suitable settlement, they met (says the
historian Burk) with five of the natives, who invited them to their
town, Kecoughtan or Kichotan, where Hampton now stands. It
was doubtless one of the earliest Indian towns, as it became in
1610 one of the earliest settlements of the Colony. Even before
that, it became a kind of Cape of Good Hope to the Colonists, who
called here on their expeditions up York, Rappahannock, Potomac,
and Nansemond Rivers. It was also the first harbour which Europeans
reached after their long voyages over the Atlantic. Here
they usually stopped, and often proceeded to Jamestown and Williamsburg
by land. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that we
find a church and ministry here at an early period; especially as
this place does not appear to have suffered in the Indian massacre
of 1622, the natives having probably at this time been driven from
this corner of the Colony. We have no vestry-book of more ancient
date than 1751 from whence to draw our facts concerning
the early history of this parish; but the records of the court,
which are equally trustworthy, as far back as the year 1635, have
been preserved in the old clerk's office, and furnish us with some

interesting documents touching the ministers and church at Hampton.
I am indebted to the researches of the Rev. John McCabe,
late minister of Hampton, for the following facts out of the records
of the court, and which he has embodied in his full and interesting
account of this parish in the Church Review.

In the year 1644 we find the churchwardens presenting to the
court an unworthy female. In the year 1646 we find Nicholas
Brown and William Armistead presenting one of their own body.
In the year 1644 we read of a Rev. Mr. Mallory as performing
service and being remunerated for it. In the next year we read
of a Rev. Justinian Aylmer, who continued to officiate until 1667,
—twenty-three years. In the year 1667 we read of a Rev. Jeremiah
Taylor, who buried a Mr. Nicholas Baker in the new church
of Kichotan, according to a request in the will.

In the same year Mr. Robert Brough, by will, requests that he
may be buried in the old church of Kichotan. In one and the
same year there were an old and a new church standing at Kichotan.
The old one had probably been built many years, and was
going to decay. As there was a law passed in 1621, under the
administration of Sir Thomas Yeardley, that a house of worship
should be erected and a burial-ground set apart on every plantation,
(that is, settlement,) there is reason to believe that there was
one then built at Kichotan, if not before; and that the new one
was built between 1660 and 1667, and that new one is the present
church of St. John's, at Hampton. As to the location of the old
one, Mr. McCabe and some friends settled that point beyond all
dispute. There is an old burial-ground, about a mile from Hampton,
on the Pembroke farm, now the property of John Jones, Esquire,
on which are a number of old gravestones, and where tradition
had located an ancient church. To this Mr. McCabe and his
friends repaired with proper instruments, and, clearing away the
rubbish and digging into the earth, soon found the brick foundation
of the former church; the superstructure having probably been, as
with most other first churches, of wood. Among other interments
in that graveyard are those of John Neville, Vice-Admiral of his
Majesty's fleet in the West Indies, who died in 1697; of Thomas
Curle, born in the year 1640, in Sussex, England, and dying in
1700; also of the Rev. Andrew Thompson, minister of the parish,
who died in 1719, "leaving the character of a sober and religious
man." It seems that the old church had been repaired after the
new one was built, and that it and the burial-ground were preserved
for funeral purposes, (as the old church and graveyard at

Blandford and the old chapel and burying-ground in Clarke
county;) but now they are ruins in the midst of a field. From
the examination of records Mr. McCabe concludes that the Rev.
Mr. Mallory was the minister in 1664; how long before is not known.
He was succeeded in 1665 by the Rev. Mr. Aylmer, who in 1667
was followed by the Rev. Jeremiah Taylor. He was a disgrace to
his name and the ministry. For his insolency and misbehaviour
in open court, he was committed to confinement during the court's
pleasure. Again he was presented by the grand jury for drunkenness,
and again for slander. It speaks well for the grand juries
of that day, that they would take cognizance of and punish offences
which are sometimes permitted to pass unnoticed or unpunished
by some church judicatories of our day, of various denominations.
He was succeeded in 1677 by the Rev. John Page, who
left the Colony in 1687. He was no doubt the same of whom we
read as minister of St. Peter's, New Kent, for one year about this
time. He was succeeded by the Rev. Cope Doyley in 1687. In
1712 the Rev. Andrew Thompson became the rector, and died in
1719.[68] In 1731 the Rev. Mr. Fife becomes the minister, and continues
until his death in 1756. He was succeeded by the Rev.
Thomas Warrington, who died in 1770. The Rev. William Selden
followed and continued until 1783, and was succeeded by the Rev.
William Nixon. It does not appear how long he continued, as
there is no meeting of the vestry from 1786 until 1806,—twenty
years. At that meeting the Rev. George Halson was chosen minister.
About this time also the Rev. Mr. Syme served for a short
period. Twenty years longer elapsed before another meeting of
the vestry occurred, when the Rev. Mark L. Chevers was chosen,
who continued to serve the parish, in connection with the chaplaincy
at Old Point, until 1842 or 1843. In the year 1845 the
Rev. Mr. Bausman became its minister, and in 1850 the Rev. Mr.
McCabe, who continued until the present year, 1856.

Concerning two of the preceding ministers, the Rev. Thomas
Warrington and the Rev. William Selden, there is a transaction
recorded on the vestry-book worthy of special notice, as serving to
illustrate still more the contest between vestries and Governors,
Commissaries, and the Crown. It seems that at the death of the
Rev. Mr. Fife two candidates presented themselves,—the Rev. Mr.
Warrington, who was recommended to the parish by Governor
Gooch, and Mr. William Selden, then a young lawyer, probably of
Hampton, who, disliking his profession, wished to enter the ministry,
and applied for a title to this parish with which to proceed to
the Bishop of London for Orders. The vote in the vestry being
taken, there was a tie between the candidates. At this the Governor
and Commissary were much displeased, and wrote a sharp
letter upbraiding the vestry with despising the authority of the
Crown and the Bishop of London by thus refusing to comply with
the recommendation of their commissioned agents in Virginia,—
that is, themselves,—and again call upon them to receive Mr.
Warrington. The vestry have no meeting for four months, and
then the vote was the same as before. They, however, choose Mr.
Warrington temporarily, and at the end of five months more unanimously
choose him as their minister; and he continued to serve
them faithfully and acceptably until his death, thirteen years after,
in 1770. At his death Mr. Selden is again an applicant for the
parish, is elected, and goes to London for Orders, which he obtains
that same year, and continues to be an acceptable minister until
1783, when he resigned on account of ill-health, and soon after
died. For an account of him and his descendants, I refer to a
note in my second article on Henrico; though I am unable to reconcile
the date of his birth, as there given, with the date of his
application to the vestry, and think there must be a mistake on
the part of my informant.

Of the Rev. Mr. Warrington I have information in other documents,
showing him to have been a fearless, upright man, and
while reading of him have been reminded of his brave and patriotic
grandson, Commodore Louis Warrington.[69]

To the above I add a passage from the article of Mr. McCabe,
which had escaped my notice while preparing the above:—

The following inscription, on a stone near the east entrance to
the church, will show that very soon after the change spoken of
above, the parish was supplied with regular services:—"Sacred to
the memory of the Rev. John Jones Spooner, rector of the church
in Elizabeth City county, who departed this life September 15th,
1799, aged forty-two years." And then, to the right of the door
entering from the east, another, bearing the following:—"Departed
this life January 17th, 1806, the Rev. Benjamin Brown, rector of
Elizabeth City parish, aged thirty-nine years."

Another extract also I take the liberty of making:—

The following preamble, accompanying a subscription, tells the
story of her woes, and breathes the language of returning hope:—

A committee was appointed to take counsel with Bishop Moore
as to the best method of raising funds for the purpose. The subscription-paper
was circulated, not merely in Hampton, but sent
to some whose fathers had once worshipped in the old house, and
the desired object was attained. Among the subscribers we notice
Commodore Warrington for fifty dollars; Commodore James Barron,
one hundred; the latter, as well as his brother, who was also a
commodore in the American navy, having been born in the parish.

Funds being raised, the church was thoroughly repaired. It
was consecrated by Bishop Moore on Friday, the 8th of January,
1830, and is now one of the most interesting and comfortable
places of worship in Virginia.

A list of the vestrymen from 1751 to 1826 will close our notice
of this parish:—

The last-named vestryman but one—Mr. Richard B. Servant—
was for many years, and to the close of the vestry-book, the secretary
of the vestry. It has now been many years since he left
Virginia and moved to Illinois, which was once a county of Virginia,
made so for special purposes, at a time when Virginia's
western boundary was the Eastern Ocean, and embraced even
modern California, at least in theory or by royal grant. Mr. Servant,
as may be seen by the following letter, has not forgotten the
old State and Church of Virginia:—

PARISH OF WARWICK.

Of this we can say but little. The county was one of the eight
original shires in 1634. It is a small county on the lower part of
James River, lying alongside of Elizabeth City and York counties.
Of course it became a parish and county at the same time, and
they have always been known by the same names. The first
information we have of its ministers is in 1754, when the Rev.
Roscoe Cole had charge of the parish. In the year 1758 the Rev.
Thomas Davis was minister. In the years 1773, 1774, and 1776,
the Rev. William Hubard was there. In the year 1785 the Rev.
William Bland, of whom we have already written, was in the Convention
which organized the diocese, with Mr. Richard Cary as
his lay delegate. The Carys were a very ancient and most respectable
family in that part of Virginia. It is our purpose to
visit their ancient seat and the Clerk's Office of the county, in the
hope of finding something worth adding to this meagre account;
and, in the mean while, would be thankful to any member of the
family for some account of it.[70]

CHARLES, OR CHARLES RIVER PARISH, YORK COUNTY.

This was separated from York-Hampton parish before the year
1754, but how long we have been unable as yet to ascertain. The
Rev. Thomas Warrington was ordained in 1747 and was its minister
in 1754, and until he went to Hampton in 1756. As I do not
see his name as belonging to any other parish, it is probable that
he entered at once on the ministry in this parish.

The Rev. Joseph Davenport was the minister in 1773, 1774, and
also in 1785. In the last year he appears in the Convention with
Mr. Robert Shield as lay delegate. This is all we can learn as to
the parish of Charles,—so called because on York River, which
was once called Charles River, and because York county was once
called Charles River county.

Before crossing York River to treat of the parishes of Gloucester
and Mathews, it may be well to observe that at an early period
there may be found the names of a number of parishes which once

existed in that part of Virginia lying between Warwick and
Charles City, below and above Jamestown and round about Williamsburg;
as, for instance, Southwark, Chiskiack, Middletown,
Harop, Nutmeg and Denbigh, Wilmington, Marston, which were
soon merged into James City, York-Hampton, Bruton, and Westover
parish. Soon after the settlement of the country, when the
Indians abounded and it was dangerous to go far to worship, every
little plantation or settlement in that region was made a parish.
There is one parish, by the name of Westminster, which as yet I
have been unable to locate, and which made a report to the Bishop
of London in 1724. Its communicants only numbered sixteen. I
incline to think it was somewhere on the Chickahominy. Its minister
was the Rev. Mr. Cox.

In accordance with the determination expressed above, I have
visited old Warwick, which, though the least of all shires of Virginia,
was one of the most fruitful nurseries of the families of
Virginia. Its contiguity to James River and Jamestown rendered
it a safe place for early Colonists to settle in. It was probably at
one time, according to its dimensions, the most populous of all the
counties. In evidence of which, I find from an examination of the
records of the Clerk's Office, which extend back to about 1642,
that there were, at one time, not less than eight parishes in Warwick.
Two of these were on Mulberry Island,—one called Stanley
Hundred, and the other Nutmeg Quarter. It is really not an
island, as Jamestown was not an island, though both of them so called.
Mulberry Island joined the mainland in its upper part, and one of
its parishes at least—Stanley Hundred—was at one time connected
with the church at Jamestown, and had much the largest congregation.
The result of my hasty examination of the old and decayed
records at Warwick Court-house, some of which are like the
exhumed volumes from the long-buried towns of the East, and will
scarce bear handling, was the discovery that the following were the
most prominent names in this county in times long since gone
by: — Fauntleroy, Hill, Bushrodd, Ryland, Ballard, Purnell,
Ashton, Clayborne, Cary, Dade, Griffith, Whittaker, Pritchard,
Hurd, Harwood, Bassett, Watkins, Smith, Digges, Dudley, Petit,
Radford, Stephens, Wood, Bradford, Stratton, Glascock, Pattison,
Barber, Allsop, Browninge, Killpatricke, Nowell, Lewellin,
Goodale, Dawson, Cosby, Wythe, Reade, Bolton, Dixon, Langhorne,
Morgan, Fenton, Chisman, Watkins, John, Lang, Parker,
West. No one can look over this list without exclaiming, "What

a prolific nursery of Virginia families was old Warwick!" In what
part of Virginia are not some of the descendants of these first
settlers to be found?[71]

Besides visiting the old court-house and Clerk's Office and jail
(the latter without an inmate) of Warwick county, I went to the
ancient seat of the Coles and Digges, at Denbigh, on James
River, just opposite to Nutmeg Quarter, on Mulberry Island, the
island reaching down to this place and only separated from it by
Warwick River. The ancient house at Denbigh is no more, except
one wing of it, which forms a part of the habitation of the
present owner, Mr. Young, a descendant of one of the old Episcopal
families of Denbigh parish. The settlement at Denbigh was
formerly the seat of the Coles and Digges, who intermarried.
The Hon. Edward Digges, no doubt, at one time lived at this place
and owned part of Mulberry Island, which may have received its
name from the trees which furnished food for the worms which
were used in the raising of silk, of which operation Mr. Digges was
the great patron, as appears from history and his tombstone. There
is still handed down, in the family residing there, a ball of the raw
material, made at an early period, a portion of which was presented
to me. Within a few miles of Denbigh farm is one of the
ancient seats of the Cary family, and, at the same distance, old
Denbigh Church. I paid a visit to the latter, and found it in a
much better condition than I could have expected. It is in the
parish called Upper Denbigh, there being formerly one called
Lower Denbigh. The present building was erected one hundred
and ten years since; and the weatherboarding was so well done,
and was of such excellent material, that it is still good. The
foundation of an older one is plainly to be traced a short distance
behind it, in the woods which come up to the present church, which
is only a few yards from the main Warwick road leading up and
down the country. There is only one large tombstone there, on
which is the following inscription:—

Mrs. Harrison was grandmother of the late George Harrison,
of Lower Brandon, and of Mr. William Harrison, of Upper Brandon,
on James River.[72] I also visited the site of another old
church in Warwick, in the parish of Martin's Hundred a few
miles from the Grove, the former seat of the Burwells. After
much exploring of the place, now covered with trees and bushes
and leaves, my companion, Mr. Richard Randolph, and myself felt
beneath our feet a tombstone covered with moss and leaves, and,
on clearing them away, deciphered the name of "Samuel Pond,
of Martin's Hundred parish, in the Colony of Va., who departed
this life in the year of our Lord 1694, aged 48." By this discovery
alone have I been able to locate the parish of Martin's Hundred,
so often mentioned in the early history and statutes of Virginia.
A part of this parish may have been in James City county.

The family of Cary owned large tracts of land in this county,
and had two family-seats, well known and much visited in former
days. One of them is near Denbigh. The tombs of a number of
the family are still to be seen there. The other, called Richneck,
is about eight miles off, and higher up the county. The last occupant
bearing the name was Mr. Cary, who moved to Carysbrook,
in Fluvanna county. On visiting this place, and going to
the graveyard where some of the ancestors had been buried, I
found that the brick enclosure had been removed, and even the
bricks underneath the only large tombstone which was there had
been taken away, and used in constructing a steam mill for sawing
up the timber of the plantation. The whole estate, consisting chiefly

of forest, either of ancient or modern growth, and amounting to
fifteen hundred acres, had been sold to persons from a distance,
who were converting it into lumber and wood. What is true of
this is true of many other old settlements in Warwick. Impoverished
by improper culture, and deserted of its former owners, what
was once covered with habitations and people has now returned to
its primeval state, and is dense forest. It is now feeding the steamboats
and furnishing building-materials for our towns. A few
more generations may see it once more in a different condition.

Before leaving this county, it will be interesting to our readers
to have an extract from the Acts of Assembly, in the year 1654,
touching one whose family name is on the list of the early inhabitants
of Warwick, and who may himself have belonged to it at
the time:—

The above shows in what horror an atheist was then held, and
what a reproach it was to have such a one in a public office.

I also promised to examine further into the history of the Digges,
supposing them to belong much more to the county of Warwick than
I find them to have been. Although they intermarried with the
family of Cole, and some of them were Warwick men, yet, for the
most part, they lived in York county. Their two seats, Chilham,
near Yorktown, and Bellfield, some miles higher up the river and
about eight miles from Williamsburg, were both on the river. The
latter is just opposite to Shelly, on the Gloucester side, and was in
the parish first called Chiskiack, and afterward Hampton, until it was
merged into York-Hampton. Captain Smith, in his history of the
Colony at its first establishment, speaks of King Powhatan as being
sometimes with this tribe of Chiskiack Indians. He had only to
cross the river from his residence at or near Shelly to Bellfield,

now owned by Colonel McCandish, of Williamsburg, and he would
be in the midst of this tribe. Being informed that Bellfield was
the burial-place of the Digges, I recently spent a night there with
Colonel McCandlish and a part of his family, who met me at this—
which is only their occasional—residence. I found the tombs in
much better order than at most of the old family graveyards.
They are very massive. The top-stones, on which the inscriptions
are put, are of what is called ironstone, or black marble, being the
hardest and heaviest stone in England, scarcely less heavy than
iron itself. Nearly all of the old imported tombs are of this kind.
It preserves the inscriptions also much better than any other kind
of stone or marble. The following are the inscriptions:—

I.

II.

This is to the memory of his son Dudley, who married Miss
Cole, of Denbigh:—

Which is thus rendered:—

III. THE TOMB OF HIS WIFE.

IV.

ARTICLE XIX.

Lynnhaven Parish, Princess Anne County.

Cape Henry, in this county and parish, was probably the first
point at which our Virginia Colonists touched on reaching America.
Here a fort was established, either then or soon after. At what
time other settlements were made on the coast and bay surrounding
this part of Virginia on three sides cannot certainly be determined,
though there is every reason to believe it must have been at a very
early period. In the year 1642 we find Lynnhaven parish recognised
as existing, and its boundaries were then fixed. How long
before this it had been a plantation, or congregation, or hundred,
or parish,—for by all these names were the first settlements called,
sometimes long before parish-boundaries were fixed,—we cannot
ascertain. The following is the Act of Assembly which establishes
the existence of this and other parishes in the year 1642-3:—"Be
it further enacted and confirmed, upon the petition of the inhabitants
of Lynnhaven parish, by the Governor, Council, and Burgesses
of this Grand Assembly, that the parish of Lynnhaven be
bounded as follows." The bounds are then stated. After which
it is added:—"Provided it be not prejudicial to the parishes of
Elizabeth River and Southern Shoare by taking away any partes
of the said parishes." Then follow certain immunities granted to
the people of this parish.

The following interesting account of the first church and graveyard
in this parish will very properly introduce our notices of it:—

The following synopsis of the contents of the vestry-book of
Lynnhaven parish have been furnished me by a friend, as I could
not have access to the record:—

To the foregoing it may be added that the Rev. Robert Gatewood,
a Deacon, spent a part of the last year in this parish. I must
not omit to take special notice of one of the last of the ministers
who officiated in this parish,—the Rev. Mr. Hull,—an alumnus of our
Seminary. So entirely devoted was he to his work in public and
in private,—so beloved as a man and as a minister,—that when,
through failing health being unable to preach, he resigned his
charge, the people refused to accept it, and insisted upon his continuing
their minister; only asking such private intercourse as he
could carry on while going from house to house. Such was his last
year's ministry among them. Our prospects in this parish are now
and have been for a long time discouraging. Formerly this was
one of the most flourishing parishes in Virginia. Many circumstances
have concurred to promote its declension. In my early
youth I remember to have heard my parents speak of it as having
what is called the best society in Virginia. The families were interesting,
hospitable, given to visiting and social pleasures. They
whose words I quote had some experience of it. Both of them
were by marriage connected with the Rev. Anthony Walke, whose
mother was a Randolph. At his glebe they were sometimes
inmates. The social glass, the rich feast, the card-table, the
dance, and the horse-race, were all freely indulged in through the
county. And what has been the result? I passed through the
length and breadth of this parish more than twenty years ago, in
company with my friend, David Meade Walke, son of the old

minister of the parish, who was well acquainted with its past history
and present condition, and able to inform me whose were once
the estates through which we passed, and into whose hands they
had gone; who could point me to the ruins of family seats
which had been consumed by fire; could tell me what were the
causes of the bankruptcy and ruin and untimely death of those
who once formed the gay society of this county. Cards, the bottle,
the horse-race, the continual feasts,—these were the destroyers.
In no part of Virginia has the destruction of all that was old been
greater. But let us hope for better things, and strive for them by
the substitution of honest industry for spendthrift idleness, of temperance
for dissipation, of true piety for the mere form of it.
Some excellent people, doubtless, there always were. Their number
has increased of late years. Some have I known most worthy
of esteem. May God strengthen the things that remain, though
they seem ready to perish!

ARTICLE XX.

Hungar's Parish, Northampton County.

Northampton was originally called by the old Indian name of
Ackowmake or Accowmake. In the year 1642 the name was
changed from Accowmake to Northton or Northampton, the name
of a county in England from whence the family of Robins came,
and on account of which it probably received this name. In that
same year—1642—the parish was divided, all below King's Creek to
Smith's Island being one parish, afterward called Hungar's parish,
and all from King's Creek to Nuswattock Creek being the other,
and called Nuswattocks or Nassawattocks Church or parish. Accowmake
was one of the original shires established in 1634. Being
cut off from the mainland by the Chesapeake Bay, and the passage
being difficult and dangerous, it was permitted for a considerable
time to be somewhat independent in the execution of the laws, no
appeal from the decision of its authorities to the higher court on
the other side of the bay being allowed, except for great causes.
On account of its detached position, the title of the Colony in early
writers is that of Virginia and Accomac. This independent
condition probably contributed to something like a rebellion in
the time of Governor Yeardley, which required a visit from him
and the Council, and suitable attendants, in order to its suppression.
In this suppression Colonel Scarborough took an active part.

It was always an interesting part of Virginia. In the year
1622, when the great massacre of the Indians took place in all
other parts of the State, it was in serious contemplation to remove
the whole colony to the Eastern Shore; and when, in Bacon's
Rebellion, Mr. William Berkeley was obliged to fly, he twice found
an asylum there. Could an accurate history of its early settlement
and of the chief families which have ever since been living
there, and of the old churches and ministers, have been preserved,
perhaps no portion of the State would have furnished a more interesting
one; and had that justice been done to the culture and
improvement of its soil, and the use of its many advantages, which
now has begun to be done, few parts of Virginia would have been
more valuable. In one remarkable particular it has retained a

more accurate record of its early history than any other part of
the State. While the oldest vestry-books and county-records have
been burned by fire or lost through negligence, the proceedings
of the court of Accomac, from 1632, ten years before it changed
its name, and yet more, before it was divided into two counties,
have been preserved, and now furnish documents from which to
estimate the discipline of the court and the manners of the people.
A friend,[73] at great pains, has furnished me with copious extracts
from the records of the court from the year 1632 to 1690, and
some of a later date, out of which I shall select as many, and
of such kind, as shall best suit the size and character of this
work.

Those who examine these records are struck with nothing so
much as the penitentiary discipline which they exhibit, more like
that of the early ages than is to be found in Protestant times and
countries. As we have, in connection with certain parishes, taken
up some special topic for consideration, as those of induction of
ministers and the Option or Two-penny Act, we will, before entering
on the statistics of this parish, very briefly consider the subject of
discipline as exhibited in the early history of the Church and State
of Virginia. We have already alluded more than once to the
"laws moral, martial, and divine," which were introduced under
Governors De La War, Dale, and others from the Low Countries of
Europe, where they were in use among the armies of that time,
and which were better suited for a rude soldiery, in a barbarous
age, than for the Christian Church in any age. We have said
that the most severe of those enacted against heresy and blasphemy
and non-attendance at church were never executed. Mr. Burke,
whose skeptical principles and ill opinion of Christians cannot be
concealed, is forced to acknowledge this.

I have met with but one instance of the infliction of that most
painful punishment, "the running of an awl or bodkin through
the tongue;" and that was not for any violation of the laws concerning
religion, but for a sin of the tongue, in uttering a base
and detracting speech against Mr. Hamar, a worthy gentleman of
the Council at an early period of the Colony. The guilty person
was a Mr. Barnes, of Bermuda Hundred, who was sent to Jamestown
for trial, and condemned "to have his tongue run through
with an awl, to pass through a guard of forty men, and to be
butted by every one of them, and at the head of the troop

knocked down, and footed out of the fort." I find that, for the
violation of the seventh and ninth commandments, which God
himself delivered amidst lightnings and thunders from Sinai, the
most frequent and disgraceful punishments were inflicted. As
to slander, the bearing false witness against fellow-beings,—at
the early period of the Colony, if a woman was convicted of it,
her husband was made to pay five hundredweight of tobacco;
but, this law proving insufficient, the penalty was changed into
ducking, and inflicted on the woman herself. Places for ducking
were prepared at the doors of court-houses. An instance is mentioned
of a woman who was ordered to be ducked three times from
a vessel lying in James River, near Bermuda Hundred, for scolding.
No doubt she was notorious for it. If a man was guilty
of slandering a minister, he was required to pay a fine of five
hundred pounds of tobacco and ask the pardon of the minister
before the congregation. Now, however we may lament and
condemn the modes which were sometimes adopted by our
ancestors for declaring their abhorrence of these crimes and
seeking to banish them from society, we must do them the justice
to acknowledge that it was evidence in them of a hatred of sin
and irreligion, and of a desire and determination to punish what
was offensive to God. We must also ever make due allowance for
the times and circumstances in which laws are made and enforced.
In examining the early history of Hungar's parish, we find that
in the year 1633, the offence of slandering the first minister, the
Rev. Mr. Cotton, was punished in the following manner:—"Ordered
by the court that Mr. Henry Charlton make a pair of stocks and
set in them several Sabbath-days, during divine service, and then
ask Mr. Cotton's forgiveness, for using offensive and slanderous
words concerning him." In the year 1643 the court inflicted
punishment on one Richard Buckland for writing a slanderous song
on one Ann Smith, ordering that "at the next sermon preached at
Nassawattocks, he shall stand, during the Lessons, at the church-door,
with a paper on his hat, on which shall be written `Inimicus
libellus,' and that he shall ask forgiveness of God, and also in
particular of the said defamed Ann Smith." In the year 1647,
Mr. Palmer being minister at Nassawattocks, the churchwardens
presented two persons to the court, which ordered them to stand
in the church during the service, with white sheets over their
shoulders and white wands in their hands. In the year 1652 the
Rev. Mr. Higby is brought before the court for scandalous speeches
against Major Robins,—the issue of it not being mentioned. In
the year 1664 Major Robins brought suit against Mary Powell for
scandalous speeches against the Rev. Mr. Teackle, and she was
ordered to receive twenty lashes on her bare shoulders, and to be
banished the county. In the year 1664, Captain John Custis
being High-Sheriff, there were eight presentments for violating the
seventh commandment, one for swearing, one for not attending
church, two for playing cards on Sunday. We have already mentioned
that a few Quakers had before this time been brought before
the court for blasphemy and ordered out of the county. It is
due to the people of the county to say that they did tolerate
respectable persons of that sect at a later period. Between the
years 1680 and 1690 there were such living quietly and unmolested
in that region. It is on record that "Thomas Brown and his wife,
though Quakers, were yet of such known integrity that their affirmation
was received instead of an oath." That the citizens of
the Eastern Shore were not cruel and bloodthirsty may be inferred
from the fact that the first capital punishment was inflicted in the
year 1693. The above-mentioned Mr. and Mrs. Brown were the
ancestors of that large and respectable family of Upshurs which
have since been spread over the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The
old family seat, called Brownsville, on the sea-shore of Northampton,
still in possession of an Upshur, was the ancient residence of the
Browns, who were there visited by some of the more eminent
Friends from Philadelphia, who came to have fellowship with them
in their peculiar mode of worship.

Before attempting a list of the names of the ministers and a
notice of the churches, I will mention a few things reflecting credit
on a few individuals. The first notice is due to Mr. Stephen
Charlton, who, in the year 1653, bequeathed the glebe which has
so long been the subject of dispute between the Episcopalians of
Northampton and the overseers of the poor. I find honourable
mention of Mr. Charlton in the account given by Colonel Norwood
in his visit to the Eastern Shore in the year 1649. Being on a
voyage from England to Virginia, he and his company were cast
away on one of the islands in the ocean. After remaining there
more than a week, they were conducted by some friendly Indians to
the main land, and found their way to Captain Charlton's hospitable
abode. "When I came to the house of one Stephen Charlton, he
not only did outdo all that I had visited before him, in variety of
dishes at his table, which was very well ordered in the kitchen, but
would also oblige me to put on a good farmer-like suit of his wearing-clothes
for exchange of my dirty habit; and this gave me

opportunity to deliver my camlet coat to Jake, for the use of my
brother of Kickotanke, [the Indian chief who had been kind to
them,] with other things to make it worth his acceptance." Mr.
Charlton was not only a hospitable but a pious man, if we may
judge from the language and bequests of his will. After some
expressions showing that he had just views of a Saviour, he divides
his property equally between his wife and two daughters, Elizabeth
and Bridget, whom he directs to be educated in a godly manner,
and to be under guardians until the age of fourteen. Should
Bridget, the eldest, die without children, her share was to be given
to the church in Northampton, for the support of the minister.
She married a Mr. Foxcroft, a worthy man, and until his death a
vestryman of the church. They both lived to a good old age, and,
dying childless, the father's will was readily complied with. The
glebe, consisting of fifteen or sixteen hundred acres of the best
land in the county, has been in possession of the vestry ever since
her death, though the overseers of the poor have for some time
been endeavouring to take it from them. The other daughter,
Elizabeth, while at school, and only twelve years of age, was persuaded
to elope with a Mr. Getterrings, and, being unable to get a
license on that side of the bay, they came over to the western, and
contriving, by some artifice, to evade the laws, were married. She
soon died, and the husband sought to recover the estate to himself.
It was carried into court. A Colonel Scarborough, ancestor of
those bearing that name, prepared an address to the court in
writing, setting forth the iniquity of the conduct of Mr. Getterrings,
especially and emphatically dwelling on the right of every
man to dispose of his property according to his own will,—an argument
which may, with mighty power, be used in the case of the
other child's property also, since nothing can be clearer than that
Mr. Charlton's desire and intention was to leave her property, if
dying without issue, to the Episcopal Church of Northampton, or
in a certain event to one of his relatives.

In the year 1689, I read of the death of Colonel John Stringer.
His will indicates just views and feelings on the great subject of
man's redemption. In the preamble he says, "I bequeath my
soul to God, who first gave it me, Father, Son, and Spirit, Unity
in Trinity, Trinity in Unity, who hath redeemed and preserved
me, in and through Jesus Christ, who died for my sins and the sins
of all people that truly and unfeignedly believe in him, for whose
sake and loving-kindness I hope to obtain everlasting life; wherefore,
dear Father, have mercy on my soul." Among other legacies,

he leaves one thousand pounds of tobacco to have the Lord's Prayer
and Commandments put up in the new church about to be built in
the lower part of Northampton. He also forbids all drinking and
shooting at his funeral, as things altogether unbecoming the
occasion.

I may also mention the fact of Major Custis, who lived some
time in Williamsburg and married a daughter of Colonel Daniel
Parke, presenting sets of heavy silver Communion-service to both
the churches, upper and lower, of Northampton; and when the
lower church was built, in 1680, near which was his residence, he
promised to give the builder one hogshead of tobacco, or its equivalent,
and thirty gallons of cider, to put up for him the first pew
(the best, I suppose) in the church. Several other donations might
be mentioned. Let these suffice.

We now proceed to speak of the ministers and churches of
Northampton. It is somewhat difficult to determine their order
with accuracy, from the fact that there were from the year 1642
two parishes,—the upper and lower,—divided as we have already
said, and the ministers and people responsible to the one civil court,
from whose records we get our information. We shall not be very
anxious to decide this point, it being of little consequence.

Mr. Cotton is the first minister of whom we find notices on the
records of the court. He is often named therein from 1633 onward,
as bringing suits for his tithes. We read of a Mr. Cams,
or Carns, who received one hundred pounds of tobacco for preaching
a funeral sermon in the parish of Mr. Cotton. We read also
of John Rodgers, Thomas Higby, Francis Loughty, Thomas
Palmer, John Almoner, Thomas Teackle. Thomas Teackle was
the first minister of the upper church. Mr. Higby was then
minister of the lower. All of them, with the exception of Mr.
Teackle, served but a short time, and the records show many suits
for their salaries. Mr. Teackle had his difficulties also, and to the
end of his life sought his dues in a legal way. He seems to have
acquired much property in land. Though fiercely assailed as to
his moral character, in one instance by Colonel Scarborough, he
seems to have retained the confidence of the people.

About the year 1660, settlements had spread themselves up the
neck, toward Pungoteage, so as to call for a church and other
public buildings. In the year 1662, the county of Accomac was
formed. Of these things we shall treat in our next article.

In the year 1676, we find a Rev. Mr. Key the minister of the
lower parish. The Rev. Mr. Teackle, we presume, was still the

minister of the upper; for we find, in 1689, he recovered twenty
thousand-weight of tobacco from the vestry. A Rev. Mr. Richardson
preceded Mr. Key, but it seems he was not an orthodox
minister; that is, one regularly ordained by an English Bishop;
for such was the use of the word orthodox at that time. From
necessity,—the great difficulty of getting such,—the vestries sometimes
employed those who were not Episcopally ordained. An
opportunity offering to get an Episcopal minister of good character,
they dismissed Mr. Richardson, and wrote to the Governor,
Sir William Berkeley, to induct Mr. Key. The Governor readily
complied, and, being well acquainted with Mr. Key, recommended
him highly.

In the year 1691, a petition was made to the Assembly to unite
the two parishes of Northampton, on the ground that they were
unable, each of them, to give such a support as would secure an
able minister and build a good church. The petition was granted,
and the two merged in one, and called Hungar's parish. It was
after this, I presume, that the large church at Hungar's was built.[74]
In the following year, Mr. John Monroe was the minister of the
united parishes. Of him we read in some of the convocations of
the ministers in Williamsburg.

In the year 1703, the Rev. Mr. Collier was minister. He married
a widow Kendal, who had previously made an assault on some
one in church, and was afterward presented in court for cursing
and swearing.

Mr. Foxcroft died in 1702, leaving all his property to his wife,
Bridget, who died two years after, and fifty years after her father's
death. Being childless, the glebe-land, by his will, was the property
of the church.

In the year 1712, the Rev. Patrick Falconer is minister, and continues
so until 1718, when, after having given much to the poor,
he left his property to his brother James, in London, and desired
that his body be buried before the pulpit in Old Hungar's Church.
The Rev. Thomas Dell was then minister until the year 1729.
Then John Holbroke to 1747. The Rev. Edward Barlow probably
succeeded him, and died in 1761. Then the Rev. Richard Hewett,
who died in 1774; and in that year the Rev. Mr. McCoskry was
chosen, who died its minister in the year 1803. He married a

daughter of John Bowdoin, of Virginia. They died childless.[75]

Mr. McCoskry was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. Gardiner. The
Rev. Thomas Davis followed him, and was followed by the
Rev. Mr. Symes. In the year 1820, the Rev. Simon Wilmer
appears on the vestry-book as minister, and so continued until
1823. Stephen S. Gunter was elected in 1824, and continued
until his death, in 1835. W. G. Jackson was elected in 1836, and
resigned in 1841. J. P. Wilmer was elected in 1841, and resigned
in 1843. John Ufford was elected in 1843, and resigned in 1850.
James Rawson was elected in 1850, and died in 1854. John M.
Chevers was chosen in 1855, and is the present rector.

The following is the list of vestrymen since 1712:—Peter Bowdoin,
John Eyre, Nathaniel Holland, John Addison, John Goffigan,
John Upshur, John Winder, Littleton Upshur, George Parker,
William Satchell, Thomas Satchell, S. Pitts, Jacob Nottingham,
Isaac Smith, John T. Elliott, J. H. Harmonson, James Upshur, Abel
P. Upshur, W. Danton, Charles West, W. G. Smith, John Leatherbury,
Severn E. Parker, John Ker, T. N. Robins, N. J. Winder,
Major Pitts, G. F. Wilkins, Simkins, Fisher, Evans, Bell, Adams,
Nicholson.[76] One generous act of him who stands second on the

foregoing list deserves a mention. Besides being always most
liberal to the minister and to all the wants of the church, and
most punctual at the meetings of the vestry and at church, for a
long series of years, toward the close of his life Mr. John Eyre
gave the sum of three thousand dollars for the erection of that
model parsonage which may be seen a mile from Eastville, and
from which the great Atlantic may be surveyed. To Dr. W. G.
Smith, the faithful lay-reader and vestryman of so many years,
and the active friend of the church in so many ways, the church
is indebted, not only for the judicious planning of it, but for one
year's devotion of almost all his time and attention to the erection
of it, and of all the surrounding improvements.

The Episcopal congregation of Northampton is now, and has
been for a long time, a deeply-interesting one. Its peace and
happiness, however, has been much marred for many years by a
painful and protracted controversy with the overseers of the poor
concerning the glebe. More than two hundred years ago the
worthy and pious Charlton, in view of his approaching dissolution,
and in the event of one of his two daughters dying childless, left
a portion of that earth, which is all the Lord's, for the perpetual
support of the Church of his fathers, and of that religion which
had been his happiness in life, and was now to be his consolation
in death.

He did this in the exercise of a right recognised by God himself
in the law of his word, and secured to men by the laws of every
government on earth,—the right of disposing of our property by
will. It pleased that God, who put it into the heart of his servant
thus to will a portion of his property, to cause that contingency to
happen on which the bequest to the Church depended. He withheld
the blessing of children from the daughter, and so ordained
that the church of Northampton should be her heir. At her death
that church took quiet possession of it, and long enjoyed it. The
Legislature of Virginia, both under the Colonial Government and
since our independence, has by several acts ratified her claim. But,
after a long period of acquiescence in the church's right, the overseers
of the poor, under that act of the Legislature which had
never before been suspected of embracing this case, determined to
claim it, and actually did sell it, conditionally, at public auction.[77]
The question was brought before the Legislature, and a sanction
for the sale sought for; but it was dismissed as unreasonable. The
question was taken before a court of law, and twice decided in
behalf of the church. An appeal, however, has been taken from
the last decision to a higher court, and when the vexatious suit
will be decided, no one can tell. Years have already been passed
in painful controversy. Great have been the expenses to the
church, and much the loss in various ways which has been sustained.
The peace of the county has been much impaired by

it. Political questions, and election to civil offices, have been
mixed up with it, and Christians of different denominations
estranged from and embittered toward each other. Surely, when
our Legislators reserved all private donations from the operation
of the law which ordered the sale of glebes, if this case could have
been presented to them, and they been asked whether it could come
under the sentence of it, the bitterest enemies of the Episcopal
Church, and the most unbelieving foes of our religion, would have
shrunk with horror from the mere suggestion. May God overrule
it all for good!

A friend on the Eastern Shore, whose delight is in searching its
ancient records, has sent me a full account of the Custis family,
which so abounds in that part of the State. Its name and blood
are intermingled with those of most of the families of Northampton
and Accomac, whether rich or poor. I give a brief statement
of it. The name of John Custis first appears on the record in
1640. It is probable that he was the person of whom Colonel
Norwood speaks, in his account of his voyage to America and
shipwreck on the Eastern Shore in 1649, as having been a hotel-keeper
in Rotterdam and a great favourite with English travellers.
He had six sons and one daughter. The daughter married Colonel
Argal Yeardley, son of Governor Yeardley, of Virginia. His
sons were John, William, Joseph, who were in Virginia, Thomas,
who was in Baltimore, (Ireland,) Robert, who resided in Rotterdam,
and Edmund, who lived in London. The family is of Irish descent.
John appears to have taken the lead. He was an active, enterprising
man, engaged in making salt on one of the islands; foremost
in all civil and ecclesiastical matters; was, in 1676, during
Bacon's Rebellion, appointed Major-General; a true royalist; a
law-and-order man; a favourite of Lord Arlington in the time of
Charles II., after whom he called his estate Arlington, on the
Eastern Shore, which he received by his first wife. His second
wife was daughter of Colonel Edmund Scarborough. He died at
an advanced age, after having been full of labours through life.
He had only one son, whom he named John. This John Custis
had numerous children, whose descendants, together with those of
his uncle, William Custis, have filled the Eastern Shore with the
name. His son John, being the fourth of that name, after being
educated in England, received from his grandfather the Arlington
estate. He was the John Custis who moved to Williamsburg and
married the daughter of Colonel Daniel Parke, and was the father
of him whose widow married General Washington. His tomb is

at the Arlington House, in Northampton, and its inscription one
of the curiosities of the Eastern Shore. It is plainly to be inferred
from it that he was not very happy in his matrimonial relations;
for it says that he only lived seven years,—those seven
which he spent as a bachelor at Arlington. His wife, it is to be
feared, was too much like her brother, and unlike her father, both
of whom were spoken of in one of our articles on Williamsburg.

ARTICLE XXI.

Parishes in Accomac.

At the first, as we have seen in the article on Northampton, the
whole of the Eastern Shore of Virginia was called Accowmake;
then changed to Northampton; then divided into Northampton
and Accomac. Soon after this, in the year 1762, the county of
Accomac was divided into two parishes, by a line running from the
bay to the sea, the upper being called Accomac parish, and the
other St. George's. The dividing-line runs about three miles north
of Drummondtown.

From a record in the Clerk's Office in Northampton there is
reason to believe that the church at Pongoteague was built before
the division of the Eastern Shore into two counties, and was the
first erected in Accomac. The next was that which stood a few
miles from Drummondtown, and was, until the year 1819, called
the New Church. At that time the name of St. James's was given
to it. It was subsequently removed to Drummondtown, and now
forms the church in that place. In the year 1724, there were
three churches in the upper parish, (Accomac,) about ten miles
distant from each other. The first minister of whom we read in
this parish was the Rev. William Black, who, in the year 1709-10,
wrote to the Bishop of London that he had taken charge of it,—
that there had been no minister there before for fifteen years. In
the year 1724 he is still the minister; and, in answer to certain
questions by the Bishop of London, writes, that he preaches at
these churches, has two hundred communicants, four or five hundred
families under his charge, instructs the negroes at their masters'
houses, has baptized two hundred of them, catechizes the
children on Sunday from March to September, has no Communion-service
or any thing decent in his church, receives a salary of forty
pounds per annum, (that being the value of his tobacco,) rents his
glebe for twenty shillings per annum, has a school in his parish,
endowed by one Mr. Sanford, of London, and which is still in
existence.[78]

How long the pious labours of Mr. Black continued after the
year 1724 is not known. In the year 1755, we find, from an old
list of the clergy of Virginia, that the Rev. Arthur Emmerson,
afterward well known in other parishes, was the minister. In the
year 1774, the Rev. William Vere is set down in the Virginia Almanac
as the minister of Accomac parish. He was doubtless the
last minister of this parish. In the year 1785, when the first Con
vention after the Revolution met in Richmond, there was no clerical
delegate from either of the parishes of Accomac. Mr. Jabez Pittis
was the lay delegate from Accomac parish, and Mr. Levin Joynes
and Tully Wise from St. George's.

I conclude this brief notice of the old and decayed parish of
Accomac, in Accomac county, with the following paper, furnished
by my friend, T. R. Joynes, Sr., of that county, touching the
school. The document consists of an extract from the will of Mr.
Sandford, with some remarks by Mr. Joynes:—

From the same source I learn that the churches in Accomac
were—a brick one, at Assawaman, on the seaside; a wooden one,
on the Middle or Wallop's Road, about five miles from the southern
line of the parish; and another of wood, at Pocomoke, near the
Maryland line, called the New Church. None of them now remain,
and very few of the inhabitants of the parish retain any attachment
to the Church of their fathers. About thirty years past, the
overseers of the poor took possession of the Communion-plate, and
sold the same to a silversmith, who intended to melt it up; but,
being advised that it was doubtful whether they had any authority
to sell the plate under the law directing the sale of the glebe-lands,
and there being a tradition that the plate was a private donation,
the sale was rescinded.

As to the ministers of St. George's parish, in Accomac, our
records before the Revolution fail us altogether. It is probable
that some of the ministers of Hungar's parish rendered service
here for some time after the division of the Eastern Shore into the
counties of Northampton and Accomac, especially Mr. Teackle.
The first minister on any of our lists was the Rev. John Lyon,
from Rhode Island, who was in the parish in the year 1774, and
continued there during and some time after the war. Being more
of the Englishman than the American in his feelings, his time was
very uncomfortable during the Revolutionary struggle; but, being
married into a respectable family, his principles were tolerated and
his person protected. While as a faithful historian we shall truthfully
admit whatever of Toryism there was among the clergy of
Virginia, we shall as faithfully maintain that there was a large
share of noble patriotism in the clergy of Virginia. Mr. Jefferson

declares this most emphatically. In a late number of the Lynchburg
Republican the editor refers to it, as may be seen in the note
below.[79]

In the year 1786 the Rev. Theopolus Nugent was present in the
Convention as the rector of St. George's parish, Accomac. But
nothing more is known of him. The following is the list of the
clergymen from the time of Mr. Nugent to the present day:—The
Revs. Cave Jones, Ayrs, Reese, Gardiner, Eastburn, Smith, Chase,
Goldsmith, Carpenter, Adams, Bartlett, Winchester, Jonathan
Smith, Wm. G. Jones, and Zimmer. I am not able, at present,
to get the surnames of some of the foregoing. A few remarks
concerning two of the above-mentioned ministers will be acceptable
to the reader. The Rev. Cave Jones was a native of Virginia,
—probably a descendant of one of the three of that name who
ministered in the early Church of Virginia. He was a man of
talents and eloquence, which, after some years, attracted attention
beyond the bounds of our State, and led to a call to Trinity Church,

New York. He was so popular in that situation as to become a
formidable rival to Dr. Hobart, afterward Bishop of New York.

The Rev. Mr. Eastburn was from New York, and brother to
Bishop Eastburn of Massachusetts. From every account we have
received of him, whether from New York or Accomac, he must have
been one of the most interesting and talented young men of our
land. He came to Virginia at a time when ample material still
remained in Accomac for the exercise of his pious zeal, and it was
exercised most diligently in all the departments of ministerial duty,
but especially in the instruction of the young by the means of
Sunday-schools. He is still spoken of in the families of Accomac
as that extraordinary young man. The following letter from his
brother, Bishop Manton Eastburn, in answer to one from myself,
furnishes some particulars worthy of being recorded:—

The Episcopalian cannot but think with melancholy feelings of
the gradual decline, as to numbers, of the Church in Accomac, from
the time of Mr. Black, in 1710, to the present day. Then, in one
parish only—the upper—there were four or five hundred families,
three overflowing churches, and two hundred communicants, with
scarce a Dissenter in it. Now, in both parishes, covering the whole
county, there are only three churches and about fifty communicants.
Other denominations, chiefly the Methodists, have drawn away the
great body of the people from our communion. There are still a
number of very interesting and intelligent families remaining to us,
in which are not only some attached Churchmen, but truly pious
Christians. May God strengthen the things that remain, and grant
us there, as he has done in so many other parts of the State, a
great increase!

It deserves to be mentioned that, some years since, the Rev.
Ambler Weed, of Richmond, undertook the revival of the Church
in the lower part of St. George's parish, and by great diligence
caused a new church, by the name of St. Michael's, to be erected
near Bell Haven. In this and in old Pongoteague Church he
officiated for some years with great diligence and self-denial, and
with some success.

Old Pongoteague—the first house of prayer erected in Accomac,
and probably not much less than two hundred years old—still stands,
a remarkable monument of former days, among some old trees,
perhaps as ancient as itself. It is a brick building in the form of a
cross. Though well-built, and in some parts still firm and unyielding,
yet in others it gives signs of decay and ruin. Breaches in the
walls are apparent, and the rains from above find their way through
its mouldering roof.

I am sorry to be unable to give a list of the ancient vestrymen of
Accomac. The only documents of which I have heard, from which
to derive such list, and other particulars, perished during the last
year. Would that all the friends, members, and ministers of the
Church of Virginia, and any others who have any care for her
past history, would but inquire for such documents, and search for
them among the neglected papers of old family mansions and
clerk's offices! How much might still be rescued from destruction and
oblivion, which is worthy of preservation in some permanent form!

In place of a list of the vestrymen of the parish, I subjoin the
following, of the families which from the earliest period to the

present time have belonged to the Episcopal Church in Accomac.
It has been furnished me by a friend, with the qualification that it
is imperfect, and that there were others who might be added:—
"Bowman, Cropper, Joynes, West, Satchell, Smith, Wise, Finney,
Bayley, Snead, Parker, Stratton, Bagwell, Andrews, Arbunkle,
Scarbrough, Robinson, Custis, Stokely, Poulson, Downing, Bell,
Upshur, Pasamour, Teagle, Hack, Seymour, Kellam, etc."

ARTICLE XXII.

Parishes in Norfolk County.

Until the year 1691, that which is now Princess Anne and Norfolk
was called Lower Norfolk, in contradistinction to Upper Norfolk,
now Nansemond. In that year Lower Norfolk was divided into
Norfolk and Princess Anne, the parishes being still called Elizabeth
River and Lynnhaven parishes.

The town of Norfolk was established in 1705. Colonel Byrd, in
his Westover Manuscripts, in the year 1728, after speaking of its
prosperous condition, says, "The worst of it is, they contribute
much toward debauching the country, by importing an abundance
of rum, which, like gin in Great Britain, breaks the constitution,
vitiates the morals, and ruins the industry of most of the poor people
of the country." Of the people of Norfolk he says, "The two
cardinal virtues which make a place thrive—industry and frugality—
are seen here in perfection; and, so long as they can banish luxury
and idleness, the town will remain in a happy and flourishing condition."
Although it has not increased in numbers and wealth as
some other places, if religion and morality constitute the real prosperity
of a place, then Norfolk has to this day flourished much
beyond most other towns in our land, and her industry and frugality
have ministered not a little to these.

Of the churches and ministers in Lower Norfolk before the year
1691, when the division above mentioned took place, we have but
scanty accounts. I state it on the authority of one who would not
speak unadvisedly, that, in the year 1637, one John Wilson was
minister of Elizabeth River parish, in Norfolk county. From this
until the year 1749 there is no information to be obtained as to
this parish or its ministers, except that in the year 1724, when
answers were sent to the Bishop of London's circulars, there were
no ministers of the parish to furnish one.

On a loose piece of paper which has come into my hands, I find
that, in the year 1728, a Mr. Thomas Nash—who was, I believe,
both clerk of the vestry and lay-reader of the South Branch Chapel—
gave in a list of births occurring in that part of the parish during
the year 1727. The number of these shows that there was a

considerable population at that time in the county, and that their
reliance here, as in some other places, was on the cheaper supply
of readers.

From the vestry-book, which begins in 1749 and ends in 1761,—
twelve years,—I learn that the Rev. Charles Smith was the minister
during all that period: how long before is not known, but it is
probable from the year 1743, from the following inscription on his
tombstone at the glebe, near Portsmouth, as he was the minister
of Portsmouth parish at his death in 1773:—

It appears, by what we learn from the vestry-book and tombstone,
that he was probably the minister of Elizabeth River parish
and of a division of the same during the whole period of a more
than thirty years' ministry.

In the year 1761 the parish of Elizabeth River, covering all
Norfolk county, was divided into three,—Portsmouth, St. Bride's,
and Elizabeth River. We cannot say whether Mr. Smith continued
to minister in Norfolk and Elizabeth River after this, or at once
chose Portsmouth town and parish as his place of residence and
field of labour. In the years 1773-4-6 we find, on our old lists,
the Rev. Thomas Davis the minister in Norfolk. He was one of
the ministers who zealously advocated the Revolution, and preached
on some public occasion by request of the Assembly. In the year
1785 he was the minister in Northumberland county,—afterwards
in Alexandria, and lastly in Northampton, where he died. In the
year 1785, when the first Convention was held in Richmond, no
clerical delegate appeared from Norfolk, and it is probable there
was no minister there, as two lay delegates were present, Dr.
James Taylor (son-in-law to the Rev. Mr. Smith, we presume) and
Mr. George Kelly. Although no clerical or lay delegation appears
from Norfolk in the years 1786-88, yet it is believed that the Rev.
Walker Maury was minister during a part of that time. The following
inscription on his tombstone in the graveyard at Norfolk,
put there, it is believed, by the congregation, would indicate that
he was the minister:—

He died of the yellow fever of that year. Mr. Walker Maury
was the son of the Rev. James Maury and brother of the Rev.
Matthew Maury of Frederickville parish, Albemarle, of whom we
have written. He married a Miss Grimes, of the Lower Country.
They were the parents of the ladies who married Mr. Isaac Hite
and John Hay, of Frederick county, and Mr. Polk, of Washington.
More pious and estimable ladies than the mother and daughters are
not easily found. There were also several sons.

In 1789-91, the Rev. James Whitehead appears in the several
Conventions as minister of Elizabeth River parish, Norfolk; and
again in 1805. During the interval no delegation appears. Soon
after this, it is believed, Mr. Whitehead accepted a charge in Baltimore.
From all the accounts I have received, Mr. Whitehead was
a worthy minister of the Gospel. He was also a good scholar, and
presided over the academy in Norfolk. He was the father of Mrs.
Commodore Skinner, and other children, who inherit the father's
attachment to the Episcopal Church.

It was during the ministry of Mr. Whitehead that a most unhappy
and bitter controversy occurred in the congregation, concerning
himself and the Rev. William Bland, who was the favourite of a
portion of the congregation, and was claimed, by some, to be the
minister, although he never had a seat in the Conventions. Mr.
Bland was ordained by the Bishop of London in 1767, and had
been floating about various parishes until he came to Norfolk. His
only virtue was an attachment to the Revolutionary cause while he
was minister in James City, and which brought him into some notice
by our patriots in Williamsburg. He was a man of intemperate
habits—at any rate while in Norfolk—but still had something about
him which created a party in his favour. The controversy was carried
on in the newspapers in Norfolk during the week, and also in
the pulpit on the Sabbath,—the same pulpit serving both ministers,
the one in the morning, the other in the afternoon. The following
extract of a letter from my friend, Mr. John Southgate, of Norfolk,
contains the most accurate account of the transaction which is to
be had:—

Mr. Whitehead was succeeded by the Rev. Thomas Davis, from
Alexandria, (the same who had formerly been minister in Norfolk,)
who continued with us until October, 1808, having received a call
from Hungar's parish, on the Eastern Shore. Mr. Davis was succeeded
by the Rev. Mr. Syme, who continued until February, 1815,
when he was not re-elected. He, however, occasionally did the
duties of the clerk and pulpit, in connection with the Rev. Mr.
Brown, until July, 1816. At this time Mr. Brown either died or
removed, and Mr. Syme was called to Hungar's parish. In August,
1816, the Rev. Samuel Low became rector of the parish, and continued
until his death in 1820. Mr. Low was the son of the unhappy
man who was minister in Lancaster and Fredericksburg and
gave much trouble to the Church, and of whom we shall have something
to say hereafter. His son was as a brand plucked from the
burning in more ways than one. Being of a literary and poetic turn,
and having some talent for the stage and passionately fond of it, he
for a time addicted himself to its performances; but the Spirit of God
followed him even into that synagogue of Satan, and brought him
forth and placed him on a higher and holier stage in the Church

of Christ. What little preparation he was able to make for the
pulpit was chiefly made under my own roof. His father's sin and
disgrace produced an abiding impression of pensiveness, if not of
melancholy, on a naturally sensitive mind, and this was deepened
still more by the early death of a lovely young woman (Miss Brown,
of Norfolk) whom he married soon after taking charge of Christ's
Church. His pious conversation and evangelical preaching began
that work which to this day has gone on. His successor, Mr.
Enoch Lowe, who had been a soldier in the late war and brought a
soldier's spirit with him into the ministry, by a bold and fearless
declaration of evangelical truth and a very impressive delivery,
advanced the work with rapid strides. He was succeeded by the
Rev. Mr. Wickes, originally a Methodist minister. His preaching
also was bold, impressive, sound, and experimental, and he was
effecting much good when the destroyer came in the form of strong
drink. He fell a victim to it, as many of God's ministers have
done, who, listening to the voice of the tempter, "Ye shall not
surely die," have fallen into the snare. Acknowledging his great
guilt, and not denying it, as too many do, he submitted to the
discipline of the Church, and afterward returned to the communion
he had left.

In the year 1825, the Rev. George A. Smith became the minister
of Christ Church, but was only able to continue one year, on account
of feeble health. He was succeeded by the Rev. Dr. Ducachet.
On his being called to St. Stephen's Church, in Philadelphia,
in 1834, I was induced, under peculiar circumstances, to leave
my old charge in Frederick to the care of another, and take the
temporary charge of this congregation, not knowing how long it
might seem to be my duty to continue. At the end of two
years, among the happiest and perhaps most useful years of my
ministerial life, I resigned the charge of it into the hands of the
Rev. Mr. Parks, whose ministry was highly acceptable. During
these two years I had also the care of the congregation at old
St. Paul's, which was without a minister, and in almost a despairing
condition. I was successful in keeping alive its hopes, and
preventing a dissolution of the congregation, and placing over it
the Rev. Thomas Atkinson, who was ordained a deacon by me
while in Norfolk. On the resignation of Mr. Parks, the Rev.
Upton Beale became its minister. His faithfulness in all the departments
of the ministry, private and public, his sound judgment
and prudence, and his unceasing labours and sound evangelical
and experimental preaching, secured for him the increasing affection

and esteem of the congregation until his death. To the Rev.
Mr. Beale succeeded the Rev. George Cummings, who, after a
ministry of a few years, was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. Minnegerode,
who has just resigned the charge.

THE CHURCHES OF NORFOLK COUNTY AND ELIZABETH RIVER PARISH.

As we hear of a minister in 1637, we must suppose that some
kind of a church was erected in Norfolk at that early period. The
first churches were always rude and indifferent, destined soon to
pass away. There were, indeed, very many such even to the time
of the Revolution.

I have no information concerning the old churches except that
contained in a vestry-book commencing in 1749 and ending in
1761. At the close of it a new vestry-book is spoken of as about
to be. Doubtless there was one, but it is nowhere to be found.

In the year 1750, there is, in the old one, a record evidently
alluding to St. Paul's Church that now is, and to one that had been
there some time before, but how long cannot be ascertained. It is
ordered in that year that Mr. James Pasteur be allowed to have
the bricks and timber of the old church to build a house on the
school-land,—a school-house, we suppose. This proves that the
present St. Paul's was built before 1750, and that there was a brick
church some time before this on or near the same place. It is
otherwise known that St. Paul's was built in 1739. There is an
entry showing that Mr. Smith, the minister, received sixteen thousand-weight
of tobacco for preaching at the mother-church, (St.
Paul's, in Norfolk) and four thousand for each of the three chapels,—that
at the Great Bridge, where the first battle of the Revolution
was fought, that at Tanner's Creek, and the Southern Branch
Chapel. In the year 1753, a Western Branch Chapel is also spoken
of. There are, I believe, some remains of one or more of these
chapels to this day. In regard to St. Paul's; in the year 1750,
we have an account of some of the interior of the same. It is
ordered "that Captain John Cook, Captain John Shriff, Captain
John Calvert, and Mr. Charles Sweny be allowed to build a gallery
in the church in Norfolk, reaching from the gallery of Mr.
John Taylor to the school-boys' gallery, to be theirs and their heirs'
forever." Also, "that Mr. Mathew Godfrey, Mr. William Nash,
Captain Trimagan Tatum, and Mr. William Ashley have leave to
build a gallery from the pulpit to the school-boys' gallery, to be
theirs and their heirs' forever." The whole church in each member

ST. PAUL'S CHURCH, NORFOLK, VA.

of the cross was, therefore, galleried by private individuals, except
that set apart for the school-boys. It appears from the foregoing
extracts that there was one church (St. Paul's) and four chapels,
with one minister and three readers. The readers were Chamberlaine,
Granbury, and Nash.

One-half of the glebe rented for thirty-six shillings; but there
were parish servants, and a parsonage which cost £131 10s. After
the building of the new church (Christ Church) in 1800, St. Paul's
was for a time loaned to the Baptist denomination, and was used
first by the white and afterward by the coloured portion of that
denomination. But in the year 1832 it was resumed and repaired
by the Episcopalians and solemnly consecrated by Bishop Moore.
It must not be omitted on our record that, during the war, all the
combustible materials of St. Paul's were consumed by the fire which
laid the town in ashes. The well-built walls, however, not only
resisted the fire, but the cannon-balls of our foe. There is still to
be seen a considerable indentation in the corner of one of them
made by a ball from the frigate Liverpool, and the ball itself may
also be seen in the vestry-room, although a Governor of Virginia
has petitioned that it might be placed in the public library at Richmond.
The communion-plate was taken by the enemy and carried
to Scotland. Some tidings of it have recently been received,
and hopes are entertained of its recovery.[81]

In relation to the other church in Norfolk, which was built in
1800, that was also destroyed by fire in the year 1827. A new
one, the present Christ Church, was immediately erected, which,
being planned before the new style of architecture was introduced,
(one so unfavourable to both speaker and hearer, in winter and in
summer,) is one of the most capacious and comfortable churches in
the land, and when well lighted up at night, and filled with worshippers,
as it almost always is, presents to the eye one of the most
delightful spectacles on earth.[82]

I would that it were in my power to furnish a larger list of the
vestry of the old church in Norfolk, but the brief term of twelve
years, to which the vestry-book is limited, forbids. Among the first
was Colonel Samuel Boush, who gave the land on which St. Paul's
and its graveyard stands, and whose tombstone, at the door of the
church, tells where his body lies. Himself, Colonel George Newton,
Colonel William Crawford, Captain William Hodges, Captain
Willis Wilson, Mr. Charles Sweny, Captain James Joy, Captain
John Shriff, and Mr. Samuel Boush were the first vestrymen on
the book. The two last were in place of Mr. John Scott and Captain
Samuel Langley, former vestrymen. To the above, at different
times, were added, Colonel Robert Tucker, Mr. Mathew Godfrey,
Mr. James Webb, Thomas Newton, Major John Willowby, Captain
George Yeale, Mr. Robert Tucker. This list comes down to 1761.
Should the new vestry-book which then commenced be discovered,
the list can be greatly enlarged.[83]

ST. BRIDE'S PARISH, NORFOLK COUNTY.

Of the position, lines, and boundaries of this we have no accurate
idea, but must refer our readers to the delineation of it in the
Act of Assembly, in 1761, which carved it out of Elizabeth River
parish. (See Henning's Statutes, 1761.) Having no lists of clergy
from 1758 until the year 1773, we must begin with 1773, when, as
well as in 1774, we find the Rev. James Pasteur its minister. In
the year 1776, the Rev. Emanuel Jones, Jr. becomes the minister.
How long he may have continued is not known. We know nothing
more of the parish until the year 1787, after the Revolution, when
the Rev. Needler Robinson appears on the list for one year, and
one only, as minister of St. Bride's parish. We presume he was
the last of her ministers.

Which of the old churches were embraced within her bounds I
know not, nor whether she erected any new ones.

PORTSMOUTH PARISH, NORFOLK COUNTY.

Of this I have rather more information, though no vestry-book
after 1761 affords it.

We have seen that the Rev. Charles Smith was its minister when
he died in 1773. He was succeeded in 1774 by the Rev. William
Braidfoot. He was a native of Scotland, and had not been long
in the ministry when it became evident that war between England
and the Colonies was inevitable; and, as he believed the Colonies
were contending for their just rights, he warmly espoused their
cause, and entered the army as chaplain, continuing to fill that
station until the close of the war, when he returned to Portsmouth
parish, and died at the glebe about the year 1784 or 1785.

Mr. Braidfoot married a Miss Mosely, of Princess Anne, and left
one son, whose descendants are now living in Portsmouth. Mr.
Braidfoot was succeeded by the Rev. Arthur Emmerson, son of
one of the same name who was minister on the Eastern Shore.
The son was minister in Meherrin parish, Greensville, and in
Nansemond, before coming to Portsmouth parish in 1785. He
ministered there from that time until 1801, much esteemed as a
man and minister, though from feeble health unable to lead an
active life. His wife was the widow of the Rev. John Nivison.
He was followed by the Rev. George Young, who continued until
the year 1808 or 1809. After his death or resignation there was
a vacancy until the year 1821, when the present rector, the Rev.
Mr. Wingfield, began his labours in that parish. In the absence
of any vestry-book to supply the names of vestrymen before the
time of Mr. Wingfield, I mention the following names of old
friends of the Church:—Sproull, Chisholm, Agnew, Herbert,
Hansford, Joins, Dyson, Porter, Godfrey, Wilson, Wallington,
Tankard, Parker, Veal, Roberts, Nivison, Marsh, North, Edwards,
Davis, Luke, Cowper, Blow, Braidfoot, Dickson, Thompson, Young,
Kearns, Grew, Garrow, Kidd, Mathews, Brown, Etheridge, Mushrow,
Shelton, Pearce, Satchwell, Milhado, Cox, Butt, Maupin,
Swift.

As to churches, there were three built in Portsmouth parish,—
one in the town of Portsmouth, in 1762, on a lot in the centre of
the town, given by William Crawford, Esq., the original proprietor
of the land on which the town is built; one on the north bank of
the Western Branch, and one near a village called Deep Creek.
The church in Portsmouth was rebuilt and enlarged in 1829, under
the rectorship of Mr. Wingfield. The country churches have long
since fallen into ruins. When the present rector took charge of
the parish, in 1821, the vestry had long since been dissolved, and
the members of the three congregations had united themselves—
as in many other places—with the various surrounding denominations.

A few years since, another congregation was formed in Portsmouth,
a church built, and the Rev. James Chisholm called to be
its rector. After labouring zealously and preaching faithfully and
affectionately for some years, he fell a victim, during the summer
of 1855, to the yellow fever, when, with the spirit of a martyr, he
was nursing the sick and dying of his congregation and of the
town. For the particulars of the life and death and character of
this most talented and interesting young minister of the Gospel, I

refer my readers to the Memoirs of the Rev. James Chisholm, by
his particular friend and former parishioner, Mr. Conrad, of Martinsburg,—a
biography which for thrilling interest is not easily
surpassed. For the biography of his brother and companion in
toils and sufferings and death, the Rev. William Jackson, the
minister of St. Paul's, Norfolk, I refer in like manner for a faithful
sketch of him to the work of the Rev. Mr. Cummings.

I now add, what was omitted in the proper place, that it was to
the labours of the Rev. Mr. Boyden, during the rectorship of Dr.
Ducachet in Christ Church, that the congregation of St. Paul's
owed its revival after a long, deathlike slumber. Its life was continued
and its energies increased under his successor, the Rev. Mr.
Atkinson. The Rev. B. M. Miller, who followed him, increased it
still more, especially by his attention to the poor. The Rev. Mr.
Caldwell was doing a good work, when failing health required his
withdrawal. The Rev. Joseph Wilmer and Leonidas Smith had
each rendered temporary services, not to be regarded as those of
regular pastors, as had also the Rev. R. K. Meade; but it was
reserved for the Rev. William Jackson and his faithful and
acceptable services to fill the church to such overflowing that it
was evident, if his life had been spared, a new and larger church
would have been built for him. His successor is the Rev. Mr.
Okeson.

ARTICLE XXIII.

Parishes in Nansemond.—No. 1.

There were settlements in Nansemond at a very early period.
The Acts of Assembly in dividing counties and parishes are nearly
all of its early history that can be gotten. A vestry-book of the
upper parish, commencing in 1743 and continuing to 1787,
contains all the statistics I can get. These are painfully interesting.
But as I propose to follow the course of the North Carolina
and Virginia line in some of the following articles,—if materials
can be obtained in time,—I think it best to begin with some notice
of the borders on that line. The running of it, in the year 1728,
by Colonel Byrd, Fitz William, and Dandridge, commissioners on
the part of Virginia, and others on the part of Carolina, led
to some information which must be interesting to all who take
pleasure in such things, and especially to the citizens and Churchmen
of the two States. This has recently been given to the
public in a small volume entitled "Westover Manuscripts,"—
taken from a large folio volume of Colonel Byrd's manuscripts on
various subjects, which is in the hands of one of his descendants,
or deposited for safe-keeping in the rooms of the Historical Society
of Virginia, in Richmond. Colonel Byrd was a man of
great enterprise, a classical scholar and very sprightly writer.
The fault of his works is an exuberance of humour and of jesting
with serious things, which sometimes degenerates into that kind
of wit which so disfigures and injures the writings of Shakspeare.
Although he never loses an opportunity of a playful remark about
Christians, and especially the clergy, it is proof of an admission
on his part that Christianity is divine and excellent, that he took
with him, on this difficult and somewhat hazardous expedition, the
Rev. Peter Fontaine, his parish minister, to be chaplain to the
joint company, with a salary of twenty pounds for the expedition.
Of Mr. Fontaine, the Huguenot minister, we have something to
say in the proper place. His conduct in this journey, and all the
witticisms of Colonel Byrd, testify to his piety. What I have to
say will be chiefly in the language of Mr. Byrd's journal, which is
to be taken with the qualifications above stated. After the commissioners

had wandered for some time about the Dismal Swamp,
they reach "Colonel Andrew Meade's, who lives upon Nansemond
River. They were no sooner under the shelter of that hospitable
roof but it began to rain hard, and continued so to do during the
night." On leaving that, with a cart-load of provisions to eat
and drink, which Colonel Meade insisted on sending with them,
he says,—

During a few days' delay at a certain point, the chaplain was allowed
"to take a turn to Edenton, to preach the Gospel to the infidels
and to christen the children there." Of Edenton at that time
he says, "I believe this is the only metropolis in the Christian or
Mohammedan world where there is neither church, chapel, mosque,
synagogue, or any other place of public worship of any sect or religion
whatever. Justice herself is but indifferently lodged, the
court-house having much the air of a common tobacco-house."
"Our chaplain," the journal proceeds, "returned to us, having
preached in the court-house and made no less than nineteen Christians,—that
is, baptized so many."

On their route the company stop and tarry for a time at Nottoway
Town, which must be near the dividing line and either in Nansemond
or Southampton, and which we suppose to be Christina, where
the Indian school was, and of which we shall soon speak. Of the
people of Nottoway Town, Colonel Byrd thus writes:—

Colonel Byrd often speaks of Mr. Fontaine as preaching to the
heathen of North Carolina, and baptizing their children to the
number of one hundred during the route, and in his way taunts
the Carolinians for not caring for the souls of their children enough
to take the trouble of bringing them over into Virginia to have
them made Christians, and thinks that if the clergy of Virginia
were as zealous as they ought to be, they would make more frequent
excursions into Carolina for the same purpose. He was
under the impression that there was not a single minister in North
Carolina. In this he was, we think, mistaken, although correct in
the statement that the moral and religious condition of the people
was most deplorable, and that the clergy, when any were there,
were not allowed to marry, the perquisite for this being claimed by
the magistrates. The following statement, in the third volume of
the Rev. Mr. Anderson's History of the Colonial Churches, is
doubtless the true one. Speaking of the missionaries sent out by
the Propagation Society in the beginning of the last century, he
says:—

The reader will more than excuse us for the foregoing notices
of the early condition of our sister State and diocese of North
Carolina.

According to promise, I now present a view of the Indian school
at Christina, in a report to the Bishop of London by its teacher,
the Rev. Mr. Griffin:—

I am sorry to add that, Mr. Griffin's labours proving much less
successful at Christina than he fondly anticipated in his letter, he
was some years after this removed to the Brafferton Professorship
at William and Mary College, and the institution at Christina
abandoned. He, however, still continued to pay attention to such
Indian youth as came to the College.

ARTICLE XXIV.

Parishes in Nansemond.—No. 2.

Having thus availed myself of the journal of Colonel Byrd, and
the report of Mr. Griffin concerning the Indian School, and Mr.
Anderson's account of the Church in North Carolina, I return to
the brief sketch of the Church in Nansemond. It was divided into
two parishes,—the upper and lower. The lower was sometimes
called Suffolk parish, although the town of Suffolk was in the
upper parish. All that I have yet learned of the Suffolk or lower
parish is, that there are two old brick churches in it, one on the
left and the other on the right bank of the Nansemond River, each
about ten miles from Suffolk. There is a valuable glebe attached
to them, which, being a private donation, has not been touched.
There is no minister in the parish.

The vestry-book of the upper parish dates back as far as
November 30th, 1743. At the first vestry-meeting there were
present Colonel Andrew Meade, Edward Norfleet, Lemuel Reddick,
John Gregorie, John Norfleet, Daniel Pugh, Jethro Sumner. In
the year 1744 Captain William Wright and Captain Williams
appear on the list, and the Rev. Mr. Balfour is minister. In the
year 1745 Mr. David Meade and Mr. Daniel Pugh take the places
of Colonel Andrew Meade and Colonel Daniel Pugh, the sons succeeding
the fathers. In this year the Rev. Mr. Balfour is arraigned
by the vestry for drunkenness, swearing, and other vices, and nothing
more is heard of him. In the year 1746 Henry Temple, Christopher
Norfleet, Miles Reddick, and Mr. Wimburn are vestrymen.
In this year a new brick church is ordered in Suffolk in the place
of the old one. In the year 1747 the Rev. Willis Webb is elected
minister, Richard Baker chosen vestryman, and a chapel at Holy
Neck ordered,—the minister to preach at Middle Chapel and
Somerton Chapel until the new chapel is built. In the year 1748
the order for a new church at Suffolk is renewed. It is to be a
handsome brick church, and David Meade and Lemuel Reddick
allowed to put up, at their own expense, galleries for their families.
Wm. Moore, Thomas Sumner, Messrs. Hunter and Rawles, Henry
Holland, and John Ashburn, vestrymen. In the year 1758 a
chapel is ordered at Mr. Norfleet's, like that at Nottoway. Richard

Webb, James Gibson, Josiah Reddick, are elected vestrymen. In
the year 1760 the Rev. Mr. Webb either died or removed, having
been minister without reproof for thirteen years. In the same
year the Rev. Patrick Lunan is chosen to preach at Nottoway
Chapel, Cypress Chapel, Holy Neck, and Suffolk Church, and the
Rev. Mr. Burgess assisted. In the year 1766 Jeremiah Godwin
was chosen vestryman, and the Rev. Mr. Lunan was presented by
the vestry to Commissary Robinson; and in the following year Mr.
David Meade and Thomas Gilgrist were ordered to prosecute the
case, and to apply to the Attorney-General and Mr. Wm. Waller.
This, and several other cases in different parishes, led Commissary
Robinson to write to the Bishop of London, stating the uncertainty
of the authority given to the Commissaries for the purpose of
discipline over the clergy. I presume that no change was made,
and this and other cases were left to be settled by the vestry as
they could; for we find that, though this Mr. Lunan did not preach
for the parish, he held the glebe until the year 1775, when he
relinquished all claim on glebe and parish for three hundred pounds,
paid in three annual instalments. In the year 1774 the Rev. Mr.
Agnew preached at Cypress Church and Suffolk, and the Rev. Mr.
Burgess at Holy Neck Chapel once a month. In the year 1775 the
Rev. Mr. Andrews is elected. Going back two years, we find that in
the year 1773 Mr. Lemuel Reddick resigned on account of age and
infirmities, having served forty years, and Mr. David Meade being
about to move from the county, having served twenty-seven years,
John Reddick and Andrew Meade were chosen in their room.
Walls Cooper, Willis Streaton, and William Pugh and Samuel
Cohoon appear on the vestry. In the year 1777 Mr. Andrew
Meade removed; and Jacob Sumner resigned. John Driver and
Christopher Roberts were elected. In the year 1781 John Brinkle
and John Coles were vestrymen. In the year 1785, according
to Act of Assembly, a new vestry was elected. There were six of
the Reddicks placed on it, and Richard Baker, Dimsey Sumner,
and John Giles, William King and Abraham Parker. Richard
Baker and Willis Reddick were appointed to attend the Episcopal
Convention to be held at Richmond, that year. The churchwardens
were directed to advertise for a minister. Meetings of the
vestry were also held in the years 1790 and 1791, when Henry
Harrison and Hardy Parker were chosen vestrymen. Thus
closes the journal. The misconduct of several of the ministers,
and several other circumstances, had combined for a long time to
bring the Church and religion to a sad condition.

On the journal of the Convention of 1785, the Rev. Arthur
Emmerson appears as the clerical delegate, and Willis Reddick,
Richard Baker, and Solomon Shepherd as lay delegates. In the
years 1790 and 1791 a Rev. Mr. Taylor appears on the journals
from Suffolk. In the year 1812 the Rev. Jacob Keeling's name
appears on the journal, he having been ordained by Bishop Madison,
but how long before is not known. The excellencies of this
simple-hearted and single-minded man are known to some now
living. During the latter years of his ministry he had much aid
from the Rev. Mr. Jones, of the adjoining parish in the Isle of
Wight, and the Rev. Mr. Wingfield, of Portsmouth. In process
of time the Rev. Mr. Disbrough became the minister of the parish,
and during the period of his ministry the present brick church was
erected. After his departure, the Rev. Aristides and the Rev.
Leonidas Smith rendered much service to the congregation while
engaged as instructors of youth in Norfolk. The Rev. Chauncey
Colton is its present minister.

Having thus presented the fullest sketch of the parish history I
have been able to get, I close, as in some others, with a notice of
some families which once belonged to it. Though there may be
others more deserving of notice, yet, as that of my own ancestors
is the only one known to me, I will be excused for saying something
of that. It is chiefly taken, even to the letter, from papers found
among the relics of the late David Meade, of Kentucky, eldest
brother of my father, who lived to be more than ninety years of
age, and was much addicted to the study of genealogy.

The family is traced by him to Thomas Cromwell, a blacksmith
of Putney, in Ireland, who was the father of Thomas Cromwell,
servant of Cardinal Wolsey, and his successor in the favour of Henry
the Eighth, but who, forfeiting that, was beheaded by his orders.
Oliver Cromwell was his nephew. One branch of this family was
the Everards, of Essex, from whom Richard Kidder, Bishop of
Bath and Wells, was derived, who, together with his wife, was
killed by the falling upon them of a stack of chimneys in a thunderstorm.
From him came the name of Richard Kidder, so frequent
in the family, and from the Everards the name of Everard, also
common in the family. The name of Oliver is also to be found in
it. The paternal ancestor of the family in this country, Andrew
Meade, was born in the county of Kerry and kingdom of Ireland
about the latter part of the seventeenth century. Tradition says,
that on leaving his native country he went first to London, and from
thence came to New York, where he, though a Romanist, married

Miss Mary Latham, a Quakeress, of Flushing, (a family still residing
there,)—a heterogeneous kind of union, less obnoxious to nature than
to bigotry, says Mr. Meade. Some five years after, he removed to
Virginia and settled in Nansemond county. It has never been
certainly ascertained whether he formally renounced the Catholic
faith, though he was for many years a representative of his county
in the House of Burgesses, judge of the county, and colonel of the
militia.[84]

He is said to have been a large, muscular man, of great corporal
strength, and rather hard-featured in the face, but of fine form.
He died in the year 1745, leaving a character without a stain,
having had the glorious epithet connected with it, The Honest.
One son and daughter were all the children which he left. His
son David Meade, and wife Susannah, afforded their posterity an
example of conjugal felicity which has been rarely equalled. The
God of Love was present at their first interview, and made them
feel the effects of his disposition at the same moment. But there
was a considerable lapse of time between their first meeting and
marriage. Her father was Governor Everard, of North Carolina,
then living with his family in Edenton, and was unwilling to leave
his daughter in the wilds of America when he should return home.
When about to sail,—the ship in which they were to embark lying
in Hampton Roads, then called Nansemond River,—there was no
other house at that time, convenient to the place of embarkation, at
which they could be well accommodated but Andrew Meade's.
To this they went; and, being detained some time by adverse winds,
or other causes, the earnest entreaties of a most affectionate father,
almost distracted at the thought of parting with his only son, (who
was determined to follow her,) at length prevailed, and they were
immediately married;[85] and the daughter of Andrew Meade was
named Priscilla, and married a Mr. Wilson Curle, of Hampton, by
whom she had two daughters and not less than six sons.

David Meade had two daughters and five sons. His daughters
were Anne, who married Richard Randolph, of Curls, and Mary,
who married Colonel Walker, each of them leaving many children,
who are scattered over the land. The sons were David Meade, who
inherited the estate in Nansemond, married a Miss Waters, of
Williamsburg, then settled at Macox, in Prince George, then removed
to Kentucky, devoting his time and fortune to the improvement
of the seats on which he lived, and which were celebrated all
over Virginia and Kentucky. The others were R. K. Meade, aid
to General Washington, Everard Meade, aid to General Lincoln
and afterward raised to the rank of General, Andrew Meade, who
settled in Brunswick, and John, who died in his youth. The three
elder children were sent to England for their education, and placed
under the care of Dr. Thackery, the Principal of Harrow School,
and Archdeacon of Surrey. The celebrated Sir William Jones, Sir
Joseph Banks, and Dr. Parr were at that time among its scholars.[86]

As it is good sometimes to wander amidst ruins and graveyards,
I will take my readers for a few moments to the spot where my
ancestors lived and some of them died and were buried, and from
whence they will rise up on the great day. It stands on an eminence
about a mile back of the town of Suffolk. An avenue of trees led
from it to the church in Suffolk, through which the family, at the
sound of the bell, repaired to church. Andrew Meade, having made
a handsome fortune, first by the fur-trade with Indians up the
Roanoke in Virginia and North Carolina, and then by the lumber-trade,
built a large house on this spot for his residence, and storehouses
also, as he still carried on trade by a creek which came up
almost to his door. The mansion has long since been consumed by
fire, and the other houses mouldered into ruin. The estate has
passed into many hands since the last of the family parted with it.
But there was one spot which it was hoped would be spared until
the dissolution of the earth,—the graveyard,—so well was it guarded.
It was a small square lot, around which cedar-trees were planted so
thick that their bodies reached within one or two feet of each
other. A better enclosure, and one more likely to endure, cannot
well be imagined. I visited the place some years since for the first

time, and was sorry to find that the last owner of it had cut down
every tree and converted them into stakes and firewood. The
stumps, however, were perfectly apparent. The graveyard was
thickly covered with grass, leaves, briers, and shrubs,—so much so,
that a friend and connection of the family who was with me could
with difficulty get a few yards into it, to search for some memorial
of the dead, for nothing of the kind appeared on the surface. The
corner of one slab, thickly covered with grass and mould, was all
that he could see or feel. We left the spot, convinced that a better
protection for the place and its monuments, whatever they were,
could not be provided, than that which they then had. But we
were mistaken. A few months since, I wrote to that same friend
and companion, saying that in view of this work which I am now
engaged in, I wished him to get some suitable hands with proper
implements, and remove all the trees, shrubs, briers, and rubbish,
so as to find out what was concealed by them. According to my
request, he went to the spot prepared to make the examination, when
to his surprise he found not a stump or shrub remaining, but only
a number of small fragments of tombstone about the spot, which
was now in the midst of a cultivated field, itself ploughed up and
cultivated. The names of Caruthers and Vail were all that could
be distinguished. That of Meade could not be made out on any
of the fragments. Perhaps no tombstone with that name was
ever there, although some of the family must have been buried
there.

I shall be excused for adding in this place some other particulars
concerning my father. He married, at the age of nineteen, Miss
Jane Randolph, of Curls, sister of Richard Randolph, who married
his sister, and aunt of John Randolph, of Roanoke, who
always called him Uncle Kidder. His wife was some years older
than himself, which called from the elder Judge Tucker some
humorous poetry, entitled Happy Dick, in which he condoles with
the younger ladies on James River upon their disappointment.
This wife lived but a few years, having several children during the
time, and leaving none behind. During his first marriage he lived
at Coggin's Point, in Prince George, the present possession and
residence of Edmund Ruffin, and which he sold during the war,
though, by means of the depreciation of money, he realized but
little from it. In Prince George he was a vestryman, but resigned
because the vestry would not discharge an unworthy clergyman.
He entered early into the Revolutionary War, being one of twenty-four
persons—among whom were James Monroe, George Wythe,

Benjamin Harrison, Colonel Bland, &c.—who, in June, 1775, seized
upon the arms and ammunition in Dunmore's house, in Williamsburg,
carrying the powder to the magazine, and dividing the arms
among themselves for safe-keeping and the service of the country.
In December of that year he was found at the battle of Great
Bridge, near Norfolk,—the first battle fought in Virginia. He had
raised a company, and was then serving as captain under General
Woodford. [See the account which he gives in the Bland Papers.]
He was soon taken into the family of General Washington as his aid,
and was the most active in reconnoitring, being a good rider and
having a fine animal,—the black mare so well known to the British
as well as American armies. [See Campbell's History of Virginia.]
He used to say that Hamilton did all the head-work for the General,
and he the riding, reconnoitring, and carrying orders on the field.
He was with Washington in all the great battles of the Revolution.
To him was committed the superintendence of the execution of
Major André, of which he always spoke with much feeling, saying
that he could not forbear tears at seeing the execution of so uncommon
and interesting a man, though he entirely approved the
order. At the close of the war he married the widow of Mr. William
Randolph, of Chattsworth, near Richmond, the brother of
Governor Beverly Randolph, of Cumberland, and Colonel Robert
Randolph, of Fauquier. She is mentioned in Campbell's History
as among the female contributors to the expenses of the war in a
time of great need. Her contribution was eight hundred dollars.
Perhaps this circumstance may have first attracted my father's
attention to her. When Washington was taking leave of some of
his aids, a circumstance occurred which showed his estimate of
their different characters. To Hamilton he said, "You must go to
the bar, which you can reach in six months;" to Laurens, something
as appropriate; to Colonel Meade, whom he then called by
his familiar name, "Friend Dick, you must go to a plantation in
Virginia; you will make a good farmer and an honest foreman of
the grand jury of the county where you live." And so it proved;
for he became a most attentive, successful, and, at first, hardworking
farmer, and was, while health permitted, always the foreman
of the grand jury of the old District Court of Frederick
county. He rejoiced as a citizen in those blessings which his military
services had helped to obtain, and often said that there was
no debt he so gladly discharged as the taxes levied for the maintenance
of our free and happy government. He never allowed a
tax-gatherer to come to his house in search of what was due, but
always anticipated this by paying it beforehand at some appointed
place. The same was true of all his debts. As infirmities of body
increased, the foundation of which were laid in his exposure during
the war, and he could no longer fell trees and maul rails with the
very few servants saved from the wreck of his estate, he still
laboured in other ways. A box of tools, imported from England,
stood in the corner of the old log dining-room, and a saddler's
bench during the winter season was on one side. All the helves,
rakes, cradles, gates, and plantation-gear were made by his own
hands; and so expert was he in the latter manufacture as to produce
a compliment from an old friend, that "a good saddler was
spoiled in the attempt to make a gentleman of him." Nevertheless,
he did not entirely discard books and politics, but sometimes
wrote an article for the press on some subject which deeply involved
our country's interests. Nor did Washington disdain to
consult with him as to the choice of officers when, in the near prospect
of war with France, he was called on once more to head the
armies of our country. The year before the death of Washington,
my father paid him a visit at Mount Vernon. They had not met
since the close of the war. The general was on his farm. They
met in one of the fields, near a pair of draw-bars. Each, recognising
the other, dismounted and shook hands over them, the General
insisting that he would pull down his own bars, and my father
that he would be his aid still.

My father survived but a few years. Several interesting obituaries,
in prose and verse, appeared at his death. From them I take
the following extracts. The first is from the pen of Mr. Robert
Page, of Janeville, Frederick county:—

The following is from the Rev. Mr. Wiley:—

The last is from Mrs. Mary Page, of Pagebrook, Frederick
county:—

I conclude this article by a brief reference to one individual
belonging to Suffolk parish, whom not to mention in its history
were an unpardonable neglect. In the history of Bruton parish,
Williamsburg, we have on the list of vestrymen and active members
of the Church the name of Prentiss more than once. Mr.
Prentiss, of Suffolk, was a worthy successor to the virtues of his
ancestors. To his persevering attachment to the Church of his
fathers during a long and dark period of almost despair, may be
mainly ascribed, under God, its continuance in Suffolk. A more
humble and conscientious Christian and more true-hearted Episcopalian,
a more honourable and courteous gentleman, a more
affectionate husband and tender father, was, and is, nowhere

to be found. His descendants still cherish the Church in which
they were trained, and will so do, we trust, to the latest generations.

Other members might, doubtless, be found among the Reddicks,
the Joneses, the Bakers, the Hallidays, and other families of the
parish of Suffolk, most worthy of special notice; but the writer has
not the necessary information for the purpose.

ARTICLE XXV.

Parishes in Isle of Wight and Southampton.

The Isle of Wight was one of the eight original shires in the
year 1634, and embraced what is now Southampton, extending
from James River to the North Carolina line,—a distance of ninety
miles. The first name it bore was Warrosquoyacke, which, in the
course of three years, was changed to its present. In all the early
notices of the Colony we have frequent mention of this settlement,
for it was among the earliest, being not far from Jamestown, on
the other side of the river. We find in Henning's Statutes, that
in 1642 it was divided into two parishes, the upper and lower, or
Newport and Warwicksqueake, each extending the full length of
the county, or ninety miles. The condition of the division, however,
was that the Rev. Mr. Falkner, the minister, should not lose
any thing of his salary by the change. In the year 1734, those
parts of the two parishes which lay south of Blackwater were
united in one, under the name of Nottoway parish, while those on
the north of it were to be united under the name of Newport parish.
In the year 1748, fourteen years later, Southampton was cut off
from Isle of Wight, the parish still retaining the name of Nottoway.
In the year 1762 this was again divided by the Nottoway River
running through Southampton, into two parishes, and St. Luke's
established. There are no Church records of this parish to which
I can resort for information about it. At the time of Tarleton's
invasion of Virginia, he sent a detachment to Macclesfield, the
residence of Colonel Josiah Parker, of Revolutionary memory, in
hopes to take him and destroy his papers, &c. In the former he
failed, but in the latter succeeded. Among the effects destroyed
were the vestry-book and some Church-papers, which he, as a warm
friend of the Church, had in keeping. It appears, however, that,
notwithstanding the vigilance of Arnold's men, some papers relating
to the Church were preserved and remained in possession of his
daughter, Mrs. Cowper, until the war of 1812, when a militia force
which was stationed near Macclesfield, being in want of cartridge-paper,
obtained from the servants what they supposed was waste
paper; and thus what remained of Church records was used in the
service of the country. Such being the case, I must rely on tradition

for any statements not provable by later records. There
have been some very old persons in the county, who have transmitted
to the present generation some testimonies which have probable
accuracy in them. There is a tradition that the old and venerable
brick church a few miles from Smithfield was built in 1632 and
was the second church erected in the Colony. Dr. Hawks mentioned
this as probable. It is quite likely that the date of its erection
was as early as 1632, but that it was the second church in the
Colony is disproved by all the early writers, who tell us of one at
Henrico in 1611. Others, no doubt, though of a rude character,
were raised in earlier settlements long before this time, and perhaps
some cheap and plain one at Warrosquoyacke itself. The building
of which we are speaking is a remarkable one. All of its materials
must have been of the best kind, and its workmanship superior,—
whether those materials were from England and the workmanship
as to the interior done in England, as tradition says, or not. Its
present condition fully proves this. Its thick walls and high tower,
like that of some English castle, are still firm, and promise so to
be for a long time to come. The windows, doors, and all the interior,
are gone. It is said that the eastern window—twenty-five
feet high—was of stained glass. This venerable building stands
not far from the main road leading from Smithfield to Suffolk, in
an open tract of woodland. The trees for some distance around
it are large and tall and the foliage dense, so that but little of the
light of the sun is thrown upon it. The pillars which strengthen
the walls, and which are wide at the base, tapering toward the
eaves of the house by stair-steps, have somewhat mouldered, so as
to allow various shrubs and small trees to root themselves therein.
Some few, indeed, though quite small, have issued from between
the bricks beneath the eaves, on other parts of the walls. This,
arising from the dense shade around, gives the building and the
picture of it (which I have) a deeply-interesting appearance.[87]
Some twenty or thirty years ago a new roof was put upon it
and worship occasionally held there, in which I have partaken on

OLD SMITHFIELD CHURCH.

several occasions; but, the neighbourhood being deserted of
Episcopal families and a new church built in Smithfield, it is now,
like the tomb or body of Sir John Moore, "left alone in its glory."

There were two other old churches in this county. The Bay
Church was a brick building about five miles northwest of Smithfield,
near a bend in James River called Burwell's Bay, (some of
that name having settled there at an early period,) originally
Warrosquoyacke Bay. It was erected about the middle of the last
century on the lands of Colonel Burwell, who was a Colonial clerk
of the county. About the year 1810, the estate came into other
hands; the church was pulled down and a kitchen built of the
bricks; the sides and backs of the pews were used to make stalls for
a stable and divisions in a barn, which was last struck with lightning
and burned down. The bell of the church was exchanged in
Richmond for a brandy-still. The other church, called the Isle of
Wight Chapel, was a framed wooden building about fifteen miles
southwest of Smithfield, and was erected about the year 1750. It
was destroyed by fire some thirty or forty years since. The new
church at Smithfield was built in 1832, and has been under the
charge of the Rev. C. J. Hedges, Thomas Smith, Jonathan Smith,
John Downing, John C. McCabe, H. T. Wilcoxon, and Chauncey
Colton.

Of the ministers in the county of Isle of Wight, previous to the
year 1724, we have not yet been able to learn any thing except
what has been already stated,—that, in the year 1642, the Rev. Mr.
Falkner was rector of the whole county. It was then divided into
two parishes. In the year 1724 the same division continued. The
Rev. Alexander Forbes was minister of the upper parish, called
Warwicksqueake, and Thomas Bayley of the lower or Newport
parish. I have before me a letter from each of them, in that year,
to the Bishop of London, giving an account of their parishes. Mr.
Forbes enlarges in a second letter on all the points contained in
his first, and gives a most particular, faithful, and painful history
of all the difficulties and trials of his ministry, and of the
unhappy condition of things in his parish and in the Colony. His
parish is eleven miles wide along the river, and more than sixty
miles long, extending to the North Carolina line. He has three
churches, one of which was doubtless the old one near Smithfield.
He speaks of the impossibility of any successful efforts at doing
much good either by preaching or catechizing, whether in churches
or private houses,—both of which he had diligently tried,—by reason
of the extent of his parish and the scattered position of the families

of his charge. He complains much of the Quakers, who annoyed
him not a little; somewhat of the Anabaptists, who were then finding
their way into Virginia; but most of all of some of our own
clergy, whose evil lives hindered the religion of the laity. His
nearest neighbour, as we shall see, was an instance of this. He
speaks of the Indian settlement on the Nottoway River,—Christina,
—where Mr. Griffin's school was, and which was in his parish, though
afterward in Southampton,—which was cut off from the Isle of
Wight,—and deplores the ill example of the Colonists and its influence
on the natives. There were no schools in his parish. His
number of communicants not more than thirty or forty. His glebe
was indifferent and had no house on it. The tobacco raised there,
being of bad quality, sold at a very reduced price, so that his salary
was small. From the testimony of Commissary Blair and others, he
was, however, not a mere complainant, but a very faithful and laborious
man, who continued at his post for a long time,—perhaps until
his death.

As to his neighbour,—the Rev. Mr. Bayley, in the lower parish,
—he was, from all the accounts we have of him, the very reverse.
Commissary Blair and Governor Spottswood speak of him, in their
letters to the Bishop of London and others, as a most notoriously
wicked man. Mr. Blair says that he has tried sharp reproof
without effect, and thinks that he shall be obliged to adopt something
more severe. Whether he ever did does not appear. He
acknowledges that the difficulties in the way of discipline were so
great, and ministers so scarce, that he was obliged to pass by many
offences.

From his answers to the Bishop of London, it appears that Mr.
Bayley had been ten years in the States,—during a part of which he
was minister of St. John's Church, Baltimore,—that there were four
hundred families in his parish, and about forty communicants. He
also had the small parish of Chuckatuck, in Nansemond, under his
care, at which he preached during the week. In answer to the question
whether there were any infidels in his parish, he says, "Yes,
both bond and free;" and the method of their conversion was "by
baptism and instruction." He speaks also of there being some
unendowed schools in his parish, but in such way that we conclude
they are none other than private schools.

After these we learn, by oral tradition, that there was a Mr.
Pedier, who probably was minister of the parish in which the old
church was situated, as he was buried in the aisle of it. Then the
Rev. J. H. Burgess, afterward of Southampton, was minister of

the parish for the years 1773, 1774, 1775, and 1776; how much
longer we know not. He went from thence to Northampton.
The last of whom we hear was the Rev. Mr. Hubard, who was
ordained by the Bishop of London in 1766. When he entered on
his charge we know not, as he was minister in Warwick in the
year 1776. He died in the parsonage on the glebe of Newport
parish, after the year 1802. He manifested his attachment to the
Church by preaching to the last, though there were only two or
three persons present.

No vestry-book furnishing us with a list of the vestrymen, we
insert the names of some of the families in this parish:—Bridger,
Smith, Pierce, Parker, Young, Cary, Pedier, Wills, Godwin, Burwell,
Cocke, Holliday, Todd, Purdy, Tucker, Butler, &c. The
tombstone of an ancestor of the Bridgers still stands on a farm a
few miles from the Old Brick Church, with an inscription which
declares him to have been a Councillor of State for Virginia
under Charles II., and that he died in 1682.

Since writing the foregoing, I have received further information
concerning this parish from a friend, who has come into possession
of the fragments of an old vestry-book, which partially cover
the period lying between 1724 and 1771. As we have stated
above, the worthy Alexander Forbes was the minister in 1724,
as appears by his letter to the Bishop of London in that year;
but, according to the vestry-record, in two years after the Rev.
Mr. Barlow is the minister officiating occasionally, being the
minister of some neighbouring parish. In the year 1727, we find
the Rev. Mr. Bayley—the minister of the lower parish, of whom
we spoke as being so unworthy a man—applying for this parish.
The vestry dispose of his application by electing him on the condition
that "he make it appear that he is not in any ways debarred
or silenced by any order of Government." It appears,
from other documents in my possession, that he had been thus
"debarred and silenced." He was a notorious character, and,
either before or after this, was in North Carolina and other parts
of Virginia, seeking employment.

In the year 1729, the Rev. John Gammill was chosen minister,
and continued so until his death in 1744. The following letter
from Governor Gooch to the vestry speaks well of him:—

Commissary Blair also recommends him highly.

After Mr. Gammill's ministry the Rev. Mr. Camm occasionally
officiated in this parish. Then the Rev. Mr. McKensie preached
nine sermons. In the year 1746, we find the Rev. John Reid
present with the vestry; and he seems to have been the minister
until 1755, when the record becomes defective. In 1766, the
Rev. Mr. Milner is the minister, and resigns in 1770. Tradition
says, as we have stated, that a Rev. Mr. Pedier was once minister,
and was buried in Old Smithfield Church. It is probable he succeeded
Mr. Milner. Then came Mr. Burgess and Hubard, as
before stated. The old vestry-book confirms what has been stated
as to the position of the three churches of this parish.

The following is the list of vestrymen during the period of which
it is a record:—

In the foregoing list, my friend remarks, are forty different
surnames, almost all of which are now to be found in Isle of Wight
and Southampton counties; that is, within the original bounds of old
Warwicksqueake shire and parish. It appears from the vestry-book
that, in the year 1737,—that is, one hundred and five years
after it was first built,—the Old Smithfield Church had a new
covering of shingles put upon it. This was doubtless the first
repair of the kind since its erection, for it was no uncommon thing
for a well-built roof to last thus long. Old Yeocomico Church, in
Westmoreland, has one on it at this time of greater age.

I have alluded to the families of Bridger and Parker, and their
mansion at Macclesfield,—a few miles from Old Smithfield Church,

—in the first part of this article, and to a tombstone thereat; and
a friend has furnished me with the following inscription, with the
explanatory remarks:—

Some eulogistic verses are added, from which we select the following:—

Perhaps it was as great an honour to him to be the son of the
man who built Old Smithfield Church as to have been one of the
Councillors of the corrupt Charles II., and to have acted with
Sir William Berkeley against him who is called the rebel Bacon.
That he was the son of the man who contracted for the church is
stated in the following words accompaning the inscription:—

My friend adds these words:—

I have also referred to a small parish, called Chuckatuck, in
Nansemond county, of which I could say nothing for want of any
documents. A friend has sent me the copy of a portion of an old
vestry-book of this parish, which contains the proceedings of the
vestry from December of the year 1702 to 1709. I will first
give the names of the gentlemen composing the vestry during that
period:—

The vestry seems to have been an energetic and decided one.
In April, 1703, is their first action:—

Mr. Rudd was then the minister of Norfolk, in Elizabeth River
parish, and it was customary to ask the consent of the Governor
to a separation; wherefore the vestry addressed a letter to Governor
Nicholson. Mr. Rudd became their minister, and remained such
for some years. After this they had the services of the Rev.
Thomas Hassell, but how long is not known. It was during the
infancy of this vestry that Governor Nicholson was endeavouring
to establish his authority over the vestries in relation to induction
of ministers and the supply of vacancies. The opinion of Sir
Edward Northy, the King's Attorney, was sent to all the vestries
and ordered to be recorded on the vestry-books. The vestry of
the little Chuckatuck parish obeyed the Governor's order and
placed the document on record, but added this spirited resolution
to it:—

I do not know that there was ever more than one church in this
parish. That is still standing, and has been occasionally supplied
by ministers from Suffolk and Smithfield. I have often been in
it, and enjoyed the services held therein.

On the few pages of this vestry-book which are before me, I
find all the oaths which at that time were required of vestrymen
and churchwardens. As they varied according to times and circumstances,
and some are to be seen in one vestry-book and some

in another, I will present them all to the reader as they here
appear:—

PARISHES IN SOUTHAMPTON.

Having exhausted our little stock of information concerning the
Isle of Wight parishes, we proceed to Southampton, which was cut
off from it in the year 1748, and the parish called Nottoway, which
was in a few years divided and St. Luke's parish established. In
the year 1758 we find a Rev. Thomas Burgess minister of the undivided
Nottoway parish; and in the year 1773, the Rev. William
Agur minister of Nottoway parish, and the Rev. George Gurley
of St. Luke's, and the same in 1774. But in the year 1776, the

Rev. William Andrews takes the place of Mr. Agur in Nottoway
parish. In the year 1785, Mr. George Gurley appears in the Convention
at Richmond as rector of St. Luke's still, and in 1786 the
Rev. Benjamin Blunt has taken his place. This is the last representation
from Southampton until after the revival of the Church
in Virginia. I have, however, some private information concerning
a portion of its intermediate history. During the war the Rev.
John Henry Burgess, who had been before ministering in Newport
parish, Isle of Wight, moved into Southampton, and there both
preached the Gospel and instructed the youth. He probably
preached at all the churches in the two parishes, and supported
himself by teaching, as the salaries of the ministers were very
badly paid during the war, if at all, and many of them ceased to
preach. There were not less than seven churches in the two
parishes, including one built under his auspices. The names of five
of them were Lecock, Oberry's, Simmons's, Jones's, and Millfield.
The latter, Millfield, was near his residence, and is now in possession
of the Baptists. All the rest have passed away. Mr. Burgess's
school was held in high esteem. Among those which were
educated in it we may mention one of the late Presidents, William
Henry Harrison. To the number of patriotic ministers we may
surely add the Rev. Mr. Burgess; for so zealously did he advocate
the cause of America, both privately and publicly, that the British
got possession of him during the war, and kept him a prisoner
until the close of it. So entire was the prostration of the Episcopal
Church in this county, that it was some time after our efforts
at resuscitation commenced before attention was turned toward it.
The Revs. Edmund Withers and Edward B. McGuire gave a portion
of their time and labours to it a few years since, and not without
effect. The Rev. Mr. Gibson, of Petersburg, and Robert, of
Greensville, have added their occasional services since then, and we
hope the time is not far distant when we shall have a regular
ministry and temples of our own.

PARISHES IN SURREY COUNTY.

This county originally contained all that is now Surrey and
Sussex. There were two parishes in it in 1738, called Lawn's
Creek and Southwark, running the whole length of the county
toward the Carolina line, being one hundred and twenty miles.
At that time each of them were curtailed; and, as in the case of
the Isle of Wight parishes, Black River divided them. Those
parts of the parishes which lie south of Blackwater River formed

a parish by the name of Albemarle, in what is now Sussex county,
and the parts north of Black River formed another parish, retaining
the name of Southwark,—that of Lawn's Creek being henceforth
dropped. Although there were many ministers in the parishes
of Surrey before the year 1724, and between that and 1754 and
1758, and though I have their names on different documents in
possession, I am not able to identify or locate them, because these
documents do not appropriate them to their parishes. I am able to
say who were the ministers in 1724, because their answers to the
Bishop of London show it. I can say who were the ministers in
1754 and 1758, because I have a list both of the ministers and
parishes of those years. Had I the old vestry-books, they would
supply the deficiency; but I have none of either of these parishes;
and yet they may be in existence, though in some tattered form.

I give, first, some of the answers of the Rev. John Worden,
who says,—

The following are the answers of the Rev. John Cargill, minister
of Southwark parish:—

Such is the sad account in 1724 of the two parishes in Surrey
county.

In the year 1758, after the arrangement by which all on the north
side of Blackwater is united in Southwark parish, we find the Rev.
Peter Davis its minister; in the years 1774 and 1776, the Rev.
Benjamin Blagrove. In the year 1785, the Rev. John Henry
Burgess, of whom we recently spoke as minister in Southampton,
appears in the Convention as minister of Southwark; and, in the
years 1790 and 1792, the Rev. Samuel Butler. After this we hear
of it no more. Its last minister was a man of pleasure, so devoted
to the turf that he was made President of the Jockey Club of
Surrey and Charles City, as I was informed by the clerk of the
same. Nothing else was to be expected but that the Church should
perish in such hands.

Since the revival of our Church in Virginia, efforts have been
made in behalf of the parishes in Surrey, and not without some
effect. Between twenty-five and thirty years ago the Rev. John
Cole, encouraged by the zeal of good Mrs. Falcon and others of
Southwark parish, preached for one year at Old Surrey and Cabin
Point Churches, reviving not a little the hopes of our few remaining
friends. At a later period the Rev. Edmund Christian spent some
time in the same; and for the last few years the Rev. John
McCabe recently of Hampton, has devoted one Sunday in four to
Old Surrey Church. Under his ministry the congregation increased,
and a new church has been recently erected near the old one.[88]
I know of no other churches in Surrey but those of Old Surrey and
Cabin Point, unless there be one standing about eight or ten miles
from the court-house. I made one visit to it about twenty years
ago. In company with a zealous female member of the Church,
some notice having been previously given, I approached the old
and desolate-looking place. No horses or carriages were around
it; but on the sill of an open door was sitting an old negro man,
who I was told had in former times been the sexton. We three
were the congregation. My visit has not been repeated.

To the foregoing I add the following communication from my
esteemed friend, William Harrison, of Brandon:—

The plate of this church, I have reason to believe, was sold by
a person having charge of it, and the proceeds applied to private
use. The Harrisons, Shorts, Allens, Cockes, and Peters, in olden
time, were leading families around this church.[89]

SUSSEX COUNTY.

A few words suffice for Sussex county, and Albemarle parish in
Sussex county. The parish, as has been stated above, was divided
from Lawn's Creek and Southwark parishes in 1738. We have an
old tattered register, which seems to have begun in 1738, and at
the bottom of each page is the name of William Willie, minister.
It continues until 1776 with the same name. I find the name of
William Willie, as its minister, on a list in 1754,—the earliest list to
be found on record. I find it also in a list for 1776 in an old Virginia
almanac. In both instances he is the minister of Albemarle
parish, Sussex. The parish, I doubt not, began and ended with
him, as does the old register, for we hear no more of him or the
parish after the year 1776. It is by far the most particular
register I have ever met with. It states the days on which he
preaches at each of his four churches,—St. Mark's, St. Andrew's,
St. Paul's, and Nottoway, and the number of persons present, and
occasionally other circumstances. It states the births, baptisms,
deaths, marriages, sponsors, names of masters, of bond and free,
black and white. So methodical and pains-taking a man, living for
thirty-eight years among a people (judging from the names in the
register) as respectable as any in Virginia, was, it is to be hoped,
a worthy minister in other respects.

In speaking of the church in Sussex as being born and dying
with Mr. Willie, we do not mean to say that there were no churches
and ministers in that region before,—the contrary being evident,—
but that its separate parochial existence commenced with him and
died with him so far as regular ministerial services were concerned.
Nor do we mean to say that no efforts have been made of late to
resuscitate it. Some years since a new church was erected by the

zeal of a few surviving friends and members of the church, and
the Rev. Mr. Withers, McGuire, and others, have performed
services in it. We hope the ground will never be abandoned, but
that in this and the neighbouring county of Southampton the
twelve churches which once were, but now are not, may in time
have their places supplied by the blessing of God on the labours
of faithful men.

ARTICLE XXVI.

Parishes in Charles City, Surrey, and Sussex

Although Charles City was one of the eight original shires or
counties into which the Colony was partitioned in 1634, and holds
so central a position among the old counties, and lies on one of our
noblest rivers, yet have we little knowledge of either its civil or
ecclesiastical history during the first century of our Colonial existence.
We read indeed of Westover Hundred, and Weynoake
Hundred, and Charles City Hundred, as early settlements on
James River, within its bounds, and of the destruction or great
injury of them by the Indians in the great massacre of 1622. We
read of a school being established, or about to be established, at
Charles City Hundred, in aid of the proposed College at Henrico,
without being able to ascertain the location of it,—though we presume
it was somewhere on the river. The dimensions of the parish
we are able accurately to define. As was the case with some other
counties on this and other rivers, it extended some distance on
both sides of James River. Inconvenient as this must have been
to the inhabitants in many respects, yet such was the unwillingness
to divide what God had divided, that two court-houses were used
in the one county, one on each side of the river, for a long period
of time. Still more inconvenient must this have been to the
ministers of religion and the people of their charges, whose
parishes were thus divided. There were two parishes in Charles
City,—Westover or the upper, and Weynoake or the lower,—each
divided by the river into two parts, until the year 1720, when the
two parts of Westover and Weynoake on the north of James River,
together with a part of another parish called Wallingford, extending
to the Chickahominy, were all united into one, and took the
name of Westover parish; while the two parts of Weynoake and
Westover on the south of the river were united to one called
Martins Brandon in Prince George, which latter county had been
taken from Charles City, being that part of it lying south of James
River. It is not until after this arrangement that we have any
account of the ministers of Charles City county and Westover
parish as they now are. We have no means of ascertaining the

name of a single minister of this ancient shire for nearly a century
after its establishment. In the year 1724, the Rev. Peter Fontaine
gives an account of himself and his parish. He came into
it nine years before that time,—had officiated in Wallingford,
Weynoake, Martins Brandon, and Jamestown, before the new arrangement.
He had now three churches in Westover parish, the
upper or Westover Church, and the lower church near the Chickahominy,
formerly in Wallingford parish. The length of this parish
was thirty miles; the number of families two hundred and thirty-three,
of communicants seventy-five. He was as attentive to the
instruction of children and servants as circumstances would allow.
There were two glebes in his parish, neither of which had houses
on them, and the best of them rented for thirty shillings. He
lived in his own house and on his own farm. His salary, besides perquisites,
was from fifty to sixty pounds. Mr. Fontaine is the same
minister of whom we have spoken as accompanying Colonel Byrd
on that most laborious and dangerous expedition for running the
dividing-line between Virginia and North Carolina. Colonel Byrd
evidently held him in the highest esteem, as doubtless did all his
parishioners. We find him still living in their affections and labouring
among them in the year 1757. He died in the month of July
of that year. After expressing a firm trust in a joyful resurrection
through the blood of a merciful Redeemer, he concludes his
will by saying, "My will and desire is, that I may have no public
funeral, but that my corpse may be accompanied by a few of my
nearest neighbours; that no liquors be given to make any of the
company drunk,—many instances of which I have seen, to the
great scandal of the Christian religion and abuse of so solemn an
ordinance. I desire none of my family to go in mourning for
me."

Concerning this good man and his family, something more must
be said. I have already, in my article on one of the parishes in
Albemarle, referred to the interesting history of the Fontaine
family as set forth by Miss Ann Maury and Dr. Hawks. I refer
to it again, and commend it to all as having all the interest of the
best novels, without their imperfections and evils. Mr. Peter Fontaine
was one of six children (five sons and one daughter) of two
pious and valiant Huguenots, who fled from France to England.
Giving their children a good education, especially as to religion,
they committed "them to the providence of a covenant God to seek
their fortune in the wide world." All of them came to America,
though two of them—Moses and John—returned to England. The

daughter, Mary Ann, married Matthew Maury, from Gascony, and,
coming to America, became the mother of a numerous posterity.
James Fontaine settled in King William as a farmer, and is also
the ancestor of many most respectable families in Virginia and
elsewhere. Francis was the minister of whom we have already
spoken in our article on York-Hampton. Peter is the worthy
person of whom we are now speaking, and who also has his descendants
spread over our own and other States. Nor are the names of
Fontaine and Maury absent from the lists of our present American
Episcopal clergy. Of Mr. Peter Fontaine, who spent his whole
ministry of about forty years in the county of Charles City, with
the exception of a short time at Jamestown and Wallingford parish,
it becomes us to add something more. His letters to various relatives,
and one of his sermons, furnish us with the means. It was
the pious custom of the Fontaines to assemble annually, and hold a
solemn religious thanksgiving in commemoration of their deliverance
from persecution in France, and remarkable preservation when
attacked by French privateers in the North of Ireland. I have
before me a sermon on one of those occasions, preached by Peter
Fontaine. After a suitable prayer, which is prefaced to it, he takes
for his text that passage from Romans,—"That ye may with one
mind and with one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ." After a general consideration of the duty enjoined
by the text, he applies it to their particular case. Alluding to the
former, he says,—

He exhorts them in the close of the sermon never to forsake
their annual meetings, which were so calculated to keep up the
remembrance of their parent's virtues and sufferings, and the wonderful
deliverance of God. "Would to God," he says, "that you
would make it your business to teach them to your children, that
they may be qualified to perpetuate them to infinite generations to

come, and thereby engage the protection and draw the blessing of
the Almighty upon them; for God is not like Jacob, who hath only
one blessing in store. He hath millions of millions to bestow on
those who love and fear him." We believe that the recollection of
these things has had a happy religious effect on very many of this
wide-spread family. A passage from one of the letters of Mrs.
Maury, the sister of Peter Fontaine, concerning his family, is
worthy of insertion:—

There is one passage from a letter of Mr. Fontaine to one of his
brothers in England, on the subject of preserving health, which is
worthy of him as a man and as a minister. Besides commending
active exercise in the open air on foot and horseback, and a careful
consideration of one's own constitution so as to be our own physician,
he adds this valuable hint:—"I drink no spirituous liquors at
all; no small beer; but when I am obliged to take more than ordinary
fatigue, either in serving my churches or other branches of
duty, I take one glass of good old Madeira wine, which revives me
and contributes to my going through without much fatigue."

Happy would it have been for the Church of Virginia had all
her members prescribed such bounds to themselves. Mr. Fontaine,
though living in the midst of the opulent and voluptuous gentlemen
on James River, was no wine-bibber sitting at their tables and
quaffing glass after glass of their rich wines after having imbibed
something stronger, perhaps, before and at dinner, but confined himself
to one glass of pure wine when weariness called for it, eschewing
all other liquors. Though we think expediency and a due
regard to personal security now call for even more abstinence, on
the part of the clergy especially, yet we are free to say that if all
had restricted themselves as did Mr. Fontaine, there would have
been no need, so far as the clergy are concerned, of a temperance-society.
No one can doubt on which side of the question Mr.

Fontaine would be were he living in our day. And had the rich
gentlemen of Virginia but followed his example, how many estates
would have been saved from ruin, how many families from dispersion,
how many young men from the grave of the drunkard!

Our remaining work as to the ministers of Westover parish will
be brief. In the year 1758—three years after the death of Mr.
Fontaine—we find on an English list the name of William Davis as
minister of this parish; and the same is found on a list in the Virginia
Almanac for 1773. In the year 1776 we find the name of
James Ogilvie. No accounts have reached us of the character of
either of them. In the year 1786 we meet with the name of the
Rev. John Dunbar,—a name to be met with previously as ministering
in other parishes. For the honour of the Church it were to be
wished that it had never been on any list of the clergy. He married
a daughter of Colonel Byrd, of Westover, of whom we have
already spoken.[90] By none was he better known and more despised
than by the members of that family. Often has one of its most
pious members, who in infancy was baptized by him, spoken to me
with concern about her baptism, asking whether it could not be
repeated, saying that she found it hard to regard herself as baptized.
Nor is it wonderful, when it is considered that, besides other
vices, he openly renounced the ministry and with it the Christian
faith, and, if I have been rightly informed, fought a duel in sight
of Old Westover Church, in which he had once officiated. Happily,
he left no descendants to blush at the above recital.

In the year 1793 we find the Rev. Sewal Chapin in the Episcopal
Convention at Richmond, with Mr. Charles Carter, of Shirley, as
lay delegate. Mr. Chapin continued on the list of clergy as long
as the Conventions continued; that is, until the year 1805, when
they ceased until 1812. How long Mr. Chapin was minister after
1805 we are unable to state, nor can we speak with any certainty
as to his religious views and character. Thus ends the history of

Westover parish previous to the revival of the Church, which commenced
in 1812. So low was the condition of the parish that it
was some time before even an effort was made in its behalf. In the
year 1833 the Rev. Farley Berkeley, now of Amelia, acted as missionary
in Charles City, Chesterfield, and King William, and somewhat
revived the hopes of these old parishes. He was followed in
Westover parish in the year 1835 by the Rev. Alexander Norris,
who continued its minister until 1838. The Rev. Mr. Leavell succeeded
Mr. Norris, and continued in the parish until 1853. The
Rev. Mr. Okeson took his place. Mr. Okeson resigned his charge
the past year, (1856,) and the Rev. Dr. Wade has accepted a call
from the parish.

As to the churches in Westover parish, we know nothing of the
history of that at Weynoake, or of that near the Chickahominy,
except that they are now nowhere to be seen. The Old Westover
still stands, a relic and monument of ancient times. A new
church in the neighbourhood of Weynoake was put up some years
ago, but has recently been destroyed by fire. Another is now
rising up upon the same site.

I wish it were in my power to furnish a list of the vestrymen of
Westover parish from an early period, as in so doing I should give
the names of the principal Episcopal families of Charles City; but,
no remnant of a parish-record being preserved, I am unable to do
any thing more than mention a few names familiar to my ears.
The Lightfoots, Minges, Byrds, Carters, Harrisons, Tylers, Christians,
Seldens, Nelsons, Lewises, Douthats, and Wilcoxes, are
those best known to me.

The following extract from the letter of a friend is an interesting
addition to this article:—

ARTICLE XXVII.

Parishes in Gloucester.—No. 1. Petsworth and Kingston.

Gloucester is recognised as a county in 1652, when it was represented
in the House of Burgesses by Colonel Hugh Gwinne and
Francis Willis. No change took place in it until 1790, when
Mathews county was cut off. The parishes in Gloucester in 1754
were Petsworth, Abingdon, Ware, and Kingston, the last being cut
off with Mathews in 1790. The Rev. Mr. Carraway, having hunted
up some mutilated copies of the vestry-books of Petsworth and
Kingston, has furnished the following summary of the contents of
the former:—"Petsworth exists only on paper: its church and
worshippers have alike ceased to be." The writer, feeling a common
interest with those who wish to gather up the history of the
Colonial times, proceeds to note some facts drawn from the old vestry-book.
This book contains, with a slight exception, the records
of the vestry-meetings from the year 1677 to 1793. When commenced
and closed, its torn condition permits us not to discover.
In 1677 there is an order for the completion and furnishing of a
church at Poplar Spring. At this date there is mention of a lower
church within the parish, which in the year 1695 is spoken of as the
"Old Church." It being then a ruin, it was determined not to rebuild
on its site, but to have only one place of worship, and that to
be kept in "thorough order and repair."

In 1684 we find the following entries:—"His Excellency the
Governor, having given to this Church one large Bible, one Book
of Common Prayer, one Book of Homilies, the Thirty-nine Articles,
and Book of Canons of the Church of England: it is ordered that
the clerk of the vestry enter the same in the register, to the end
His Lordship's so pious a gift may be gratefully remembered."
"Ordered, that the clerk enter into the register of this parish the
generous and pious gift of the Hon. Augustine Warner, deceased,
to this church,—viz.: one silver flagon, two silver bowls, and two
silver plates, which, though long since given, hath not yet been entered."
In 1723 an order was made for the building of a new
church at Poplar Spring,—the cost of said building, exclusive of
painting, &c., to be eleven hundred and ninety pounds Virginia

currency. This church was standing a few years since, and but for
the ruthless hand of cupidity it might have stood for centuries. The
writer will never forget his feelings as he looked upon it when the
work of destruction and desecration was going on. There remained
enough then of its former condition and elegance to assure the beholder
that they who erected this temple entered into the meaning
of God's ancient prophet, who taught that sacred edifices should
exceed, in comfort and stability and magnificence, private abodes.
We gather from the records in the large expenditure for painting,
and in the way of furnishing and ornamenting, that no means were
spared to present a church of the finest taste and finish. Such it
doubtless was,—perhaps too gorgeous for our republican simplicity.
The writer has talked with persons who remembered this church.
One of them—the late Mrs. Page, of Shelly—had much to say of the
former glory of old Petsworth. She, in childhood, had been a worshipper
within its hallowed courts, and had united her voice in songs
of praise with the swelling notes of the organ. In confirmation of
the liberality of this congregation and the elegance of the church,
we make the following copies from the record:—At a vestry-meeting
in 1735, it is noted that "there were great subscriptions made by the
present vestry for an organ, to be purchased for the use of the church
at Petsworth; also, it was directed that seven hundred gold leaves
be ordered for the use of the painter. In 1751 the vestry ordered
Mr. Augustine Smith to send to England for `pulpit, and table-cloth,
and cushion;' the cloth to be of crimson velvet, with a gold fringe
and lace." A subsequent entry shows that the cost of the same was
one hundred and fifty-four pounds, sixteen shillings, sixpence, current
money. Much refinement and wealth were found in the numerous
families who worshipped within the venerable church. Among those
who were active in the duties of the parish may be mentioned the
name of Porteus. It appears on the record from the earliest date.
This is the family of Beilby Porteus, Bishop of London, who, it is
supposed, was a native of Gloucester. Also, Colonel John Washington,
and son Warner, and their ancestor, Augustine Warner.[91]

A LIST OF THE MINISTERS OF THE PARISH.

In 1677, Rev. Thomas Vicaris, who continued until his death in
1697, when the Rev. Joseph Holt was employed as a temporary
supply. In 1700, Rev. George Young was elected upon the nomination
of Governor Nicholson; he remained only a few months, when
the Rev. Emanuel Jones was chosen, who served until his death, in
the year 1739. Rev. John Read supplied the pulpit until the return
of Mr. Ford. In 1741, Robert Yates, a member of the congregation,
was sent to England for Orders. He continued the minister until his
death, in 1761. In 1762, Rev. James Horrox served in the place
of Mr. James Maury Fontaine, who had been sent to England for
Orders. In 1764, the Rev. James M. Fontaine was the minister
for a few months, and removed to Ware parish. The vestry then
elected one of their own body, Captain Charles Minn Thruston,
who went to England for Orders. In 1767, Rev. Charles M. Thruston;
he served until the year 1768, when he resigned. In 1768,
Rev. Arthur Hamilton: no mention of him after this year. 1776,
1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, supposed to be vacant. In 1782,

Rev. Thomas Price: not known how long he served. In 1790,
Rev. James Elliott. In 1791, Rev. James Fontaine was elected as
weekly lecturer; in 1792, Rev. Thomas Hughes. Mr. Hughes
was a member of the congregation, and ordained by Bishop
Madison.

We make the following significant extract from the vestry-book.
It has reference to one who had been the minister of the parish for
many years:—"Ordered, that Mr. Vicaris, the present minister,
continue in his charge and exercise his ministerial functions until
the next shipping, in hopes of his future amendment, he declaring
his willingness then to leave the place if not approved by the precinct
and vestry." He became a reformed man, and was minister
for some years. (By the next shipping was meant the next importation
of ministers from England.) On agreeing with a clergyman it
was ordered, "That he, the said clergyman, will behave himself in
his ministerial function upon all occasions."

The site of this church, now only marked by a few ancient tombs,
is claimed as private property. The glebe was sold under the law
of 1802. No information is possessed by the author concerning the
plate. The sermons of the Rev. Robert Yates were found in the
library of Mr. John Randolph, and were sold and purchased with
other books and manuscripts.[92]

KINGSTON PARISH, MATHEWS COUNTY.

This was originally one of the parishes in Gloucester. There
are loose leaves of an old vestry-book, going back to the year 1677,
the first of which leaves do not indicate how much older the book
was. It was called the parish in North River precinct. It has a
peculiarity distinguishing it from all other parishes. With the
vestrymen, who were generally very few, there met a larger number
of the inhabitants, who seem to have managed the affairs of the
parish in conjunction.

From 1677 to 1691 the Rev. Michael Typerios and James Bowker
were ministers; but when their ministries began or ended cannot
be made out. In the year 1740 the Rev. John Blacknal appears
on the first page of another imperfect vestry-book. It cannot be
ascertained how much of the vestry-book was lost, and how long
Mr. Blacknal may have been the minister before 1740. He died
in 1747, and was succeeded by the Rev. John Dixon in 1750, the
Rev. John Locke having served meanwhile for three months. In
the year 1770 Mr. Dixon resigned, and died in 1777. Four applicants
appeared for the parish,—the Revs. Thomas Baker, Thomas
Field, Arthur Hamilton, and Archibald Avens, of whom Mr. Field
was chosen,—Mr. Baker having previously served three months.
In the year 1778, Mr. Field either dying or resigning, Revs. Robert
Read and William Dunlop were candidates, when the former was
chosen. In the year 1784 the Rev. Thomas Hopkinson became its
minister, and in the year 1789 the Rev. James McBride. In 1794
the Rev. Armistead Smith, of the old family of Smiths in that part
of Virginia, became the minister, being ordained by Bishop Madison.
He served the parish until his death in 1817. "His descendants
and relatives," says the Rev. Mr. Carraway, the present
minister of the parish, "are amongst the foremost friends of the

Church, and most of them communicants." One of the family, the
late Miss Elizabeth Tompkins, was the instrument under God for
the revival of the church. Under circumstances the most discouraging,
she determined to build a house of prayer, in which the few
scattered ones "who loved the old paths" might worship the God
of their fathers. Her efforts were crowned with success. She
lived to witness the completion of her dear little church, and her
highest earthly joy was experienced when she first heard within its
walls these solemn words:—"The Lord is in his holy temple,"
"declared by the minister of salvation." Mr. Carraway adds that
there were once four places of worship in the parish, over two of
which the plough and the harrow have passed. On the sites of the
others two churches have recently been erected,—the one just mentioned,
and another under his special care. Tradition says that
one of the old churches was a private chapel of the "family of
Hesse," the residence of the Armisteads.

By giving a list of the old vestrymen we shall see who were the
most prominent persons in Church matters. Mr. Carraway mentions
them as the "Dudleys, Armisteads, Carys, Tabbs, Gwynns, Billops,
Throckmortons, and Sir John Peyton,"—the latter being the patriot
of the Revolution as well as the Churchman.

Names of the Vestrymen, beginning in 1677.

Richard Dudley, James Ransom, James Hill, Sands Knowles, George
Burge, Thos. Bayley, Robert Elliot, Ambrose Dudley, Peter Ransom,
John Billop, William Tompkins, Charles Jones, John Coot, Humphrey
Tompkins, Edmund Roberts, George Dudley, John Hayes, Hugh Gwinne,
Robert Barnard, Charles Debrum, William Marlow, Humphrey Joye
Tabb, Wm. Armistead, Kemp Plumer, Gwinne Reade, Thomas Hayes,
Wm. Tabb, Chas. Blacknal, John Peyton, Captain Thomas Smith, Kemp
Whiting, George Dudley, John Armistead, James Ransom, Robt. Tabb,
Wm. Plummer, Wm. Armistead, of Hesse, Edward Hughes, Francis
Armistead, John Willis, Gabriel Hughes, John Billop, Walter Keeble,
Edmund Custis, Edward Tabb, John Dixon, Thomas Peyton, Robert
Mathews, Dudley Cary, Mordecai Throckmorton, James Booker, Josiah
Dean, Thos. Smith, Jr., Samuel Williams, Joel Foster, Armistead Smith,
Robert Cary, Thomas Tabb, Richard Gregory, James Bibber, Sands Smith,
John Cary, Wilton Glasscock.

In the above list hundreds scattered through Virginia and various
parts of the land will see the names of their forefathers.

The remaining history of Kingston parish is very brief. The
erection of a church, chiefly through the zeal of Miss Elizabeth
Tompkins, near her father's house, led to the employment of a

missionary about the year 1841 or 1842. The Rev. Mr. Rooker
spent some time between the two counties of Mathews and Middlesex
in this capacity. He was followed by the Rev. Mr. Carraway, who
to this day continues to perform the arduous labours required by so
large a field. Under his ministry a new church on the opposite
side of the county has been built on the ruins of one of the old
ones.

ARTICLE XXVIII.

Gloucester County, Abington, and Ware.—No. 2.

I take these together, since they have so long been identified
in the public mind, so long under one minister, and so little to be
said of them, though so much might be said, had we any ancient
records. The following letter from the Rev. Mr. Mann, the present
rector, forbids the hope of ever recovering what is lost in regard
to these parishes:—

To the foregoing information as to the earlier ministers of
Abington I am able to add something from documents in possession.
In the year 1724 the Rev. Thomas Hughes writes to the
Bishop of London "that he has been living in this parish for four
or five years, after having lived in the upper parish of Nansemond
for three years; that he was not inducted,—only four ministers in
the Colony being inducted; that he has three hundred families
under his charge, about two hundred attendants at church, sixty
or seventy communicants, no surplice used in the parish, as is the
statement in many other reports, a free-school endowed with five
hundred acres of land and servants; no parochial library here or
in any other parish in the colony." There being no minister in
Ware parish, he gives a portion of his time to it.

In the years 1754 and 1758 the Rev. William Gates was minister
of Abington, and the Rev. John Fox of Ware parish. In the years
1773-4 and 1776 the Rev. Thomas Price was minister of Abington,
and the Rev. James M. Fontaine of Ware. In the year 1785
neither Abington nor Ware was represented in the Convention by
the clergy, Mr. John Page (Governor) being the lay delegate from
Abington, Mr. Thomas Smith from Kingston, and Matthew Anderson
from Petsworth. Mr. Page attended the next two Conventions,
and Mr. Anderson one. Mr. Thomas Lewis also attended
from Abington in 1787. After this we find no more delegates,
either clerical or lay, from Abington until long after the revival
of the Church commenced. The Rev. Mr. Carnes was the first
minister after that work commenced. He continued for some
years in zealous prosecution of it, and was succeeded by the Rev.
John Cole, now in Culpepper, who was followed by the Rev. Mr.
Mann, the present rector of the parishes of Abington and Ware.

In the absence of all records from which to draw the names of
vestrymen, and thus ascertain who have been the leading families,
from the earliest to the present times, in the parishes of Abington
and Ware, we furnish the following imperfect list of families

known to us, or mentioned to us by one who is better acquainted
with the history of the old settlers.

Of the Burwells, who at an early period settled at Carter's
Creek, we have already said something when speaking of the
family at King's Mill and the Grove, in York and James City.
To this we add the Manns, who settled at Timberneck Bay, on
York River, not far from Shelly and Rosewell, the Montagues, the
Kempes, the Carys, the Tabbs, the Taliaferos, the Dabneys,
Thrustons, Catletts, Throckmortons, Roots, Lewises, Nicholsons,
Nelsons, Vanbibbers, Pages, of Shelly and Rosewell, Byrds, Corbins,
Joneses, Ennises, Curtises, Robinses, Harewoods, Dicksons,
Roys, and Smarts.

Of old Mrs. Vanbibber and Dr. Taliafero—two of the props
of the Church in the day of her adversity—I need not speak to
the present generation in Gloucester, as there are still some living
who knew their religious worth and continue to dwell upon the
same before the younger ones. Of Mrs. Vanbibber some interesting
notices appeared many years since in one of our religious
papers. Of Dr. Taliafero I may say from personal knowledge
that it is not often we meet with a more pious and benevolent man
or more eminent physician. There is one name on the foregoing
list to which I must allude as having, at an early period in the
history of Virginia, been characterized by a devotion to the welfare
of the Church and religion,—that of Kempe. The name often
occurs on the vestry-book of Middlesex county in such a way as
to show this. The high esteem in which one of the family was
held, is seen from the fact that he was the Governor of the Colony
in 1644, and the following extract from the first volume of Henning's
Statutes will show not only the religious character of those
in authority at that day, but the probability that Governor Kempe
sympathized in the movement, for the Governors had great power
either to promote or prevent such a measure. In 1644 it was

I do not remember ever to have seen such an indefinite and prolonged
period appropriated by a public body to public humiliation.
It speaks well for the religion of our public functionaries of that
day. What would be thought of such a measure at this?

Of Governor Page and his family I have already spoken somewhat
in treating of the Church in Williamsburg, where the first
of his name were buried; but, as the celebrated Rosewell and its
graveyard full of tombs with that name are in Abington parish, I
shall add something. And first I must take occasion to speak of
the great folly of erecting such immense and costly houses as that
of Rosewell, even in monarchical and aristocratic days. Richly-carved
mahogany wainscotings and capitals and stairways abound,
and every brick was English. The house was built, or rather
begun to be built, by Mr. Mann Page, grandson of old Sir John
Page, who wrote the good book to his son Matthew, father of
Mann. I am sure the grandfather would not have approved the
act of his grandson. It may be said that, as his mother was the
rich heiress of Timberneck Bay, he had a right to do it, and could
afford it, as he was the first-born son and chief heir. We do not
admit that any one has a right thus to misspend the talent given
to him by God to be used for his glory, and God often punishes
such misconduct by sending poverty on the persons thus acting,
and on their posterity. A most remarkable exemplification of this
appears in the case of Mr. Page, who began to build Rosewell,
and which was finished by his widow and son.

Whoever will look into the fifth volume and at the 277th page
of Henning's Statutes will see an Act of Assembly covering more
than seven octavo pages, and describing all the property in lands
and servants belonging to Mr. Page, and the former of which his
embarrassed son, Mann Page, Jr., petitioned to be allowed to sell,
in order to pay off his father's debts in Virginia and England, and
which all his real estate, though he had many servants on various
estates, was incompetent to discharge. His landed estates were in
Prince William, Frederick, Spottsylvania, Essex, James City,
Hanover, Gloucester, and King William. He had eight thousand
acres in Frederick called Pageland, more than ten thousand in
Prince William called Pageland also, four thousand five hundred
in Spottsylvania, one thousand called Pampatike in King William,
two thousand in Hanover, near two thousand in James City, &c.,
besides other lands not mentioned. Leave is asked and granted
that his son Mann might sell them, in order to pay off the debts
which had been for many years accumulating by interest, and
which the real estate was unable to discharge, and in order to pay
the portions of his brothers and sisters. For a long time had he
been labouring from the proceeds of the estates to do this, but in
vain. Now, it cannot be doubted that the tradition is correct that

much if not all of the original debt was contracted for the erection
of this immense pile of building, every brick of which, and doubtless
much other material, together with the workmen, were imported
from England and not paid for, except by his agents and friends
there, until the sale of these lands in Virginia enabled his son, long
after, to do it. The whole of the roof of this ancient building was
covered with heavy lead over the shingles. The result of this immense
expenditure was not only the entailing a heavy debt upon
his estate, and the causing a sale of lands which might have furnished
his posterity for some generations with farms, but the keeping
up such an establishment has been a burden on all who have
possessed it to the present day, as must be the case with all such
establishments. For a long time old Rosewell has been standing
on Carter's Creek, in sight of York River, like an old deserted English
castle, in solitary grandeur, scarce a tree or shrub around it
to vary and beautify the scene. No one of the name of him who built
it has owned it or could afford to own it for generations. "Some
stranger fills the Stuarts' throne." "Sic transit gloria mundi!"

Would that this were the only folly of the kind in ancient or
modern Virginia! The Acts of Assembly give us other instances
in old Virginia. Mr. Lewis Burwell, of King's Mill, near Williamsburg,
built a large house worthy of his first-born son to live
in; and that first-born son, after his father's death, was obliged to
petition the Legislature for leave to break the entail and sell a
large tract of land in King William to pay for it. The folly is still
going on in many parts of our land; the greater folly now, because
the law of primogeniture being happily abolished, and different and
better views prevailing as to the division of estates among children,
the proud homestead must be sold or be an expense and burden to the
child who inherits it. Even in England—the land of entails and
primogeniture—the philanthropic Howard, a man of birth and
inherited wealth, instead of listening to the plea that our houses
must be proportioned to our wealth, to the extent even of palaces,
and that it was a charity to the poor to employ numbers of them
in the erection of stupendous and costly mansions, built one of
more moderate size and expense for himself, and employed greater
numbers of workmen in rearing neat and comfortable cottages for
the poor on his large and numerous estates. How much of that
now needlessly expended in building and furnishing large houses
might be more rationally and charitably devoted to the improvement
of the dwellings of the labourers, whether on the plantations
of the South or the neighbourhoods of the North!

ROSEWELL HOUSE.

How much wiser was it in the first William Randolph, of Turkey
Island, to live in a house of moderate dimensions himself, though
with every comfort, and to build during his lifetime good houses
for his numerous children in various parts of the State! How
much more becoming Christians, instead of building extravagant
mansions for themselves, to see that the houses of worship are
comely and comfortable, and that all God's ministers are well provided
with houses becoming their station and the means of living
in them!

To return from this digression, let me say that Governor Page,
though living in this proud mansion of his forefathers, was not himself
a proud man. He was not only a true republican in politics, but
an humble man in his religion, and doubtless often wished himself,
on more accounts than one, well rid of his large abode. The poor,
I doubt not, were often kindly treated at Rosewell, and the servants
justly dealt with. There was once a picture—among many
others of higher degree—on the walls of Rosewell parlour, which
shows that he was not too proud to allow the head of a poor
African to be there. It was the head of Selim, an Algerine negro,
well known at Rosewell, York, and Williamsburg, which Mr. Page
had taken while he was a member of Congress in Philadelphia, and
hung up among his portraits. There was something so touching and
very remarkable in the captivity, conversion, and latter end of
Selim, that the Rev. John H. Rice, a Presbyterian minister of high
standing, wrote an account of him, which was published in a Presbyterian
magazine, I think. It is so interesting and so edifying in
a religious point of view that I shall insert it in these sketches;
and I am the more induced so to do because I am able to add some
particulars not contained in Mr. Rice's notice.

Before I introduce this, however, (reserving it for another
article,) I will add that Mr. Page was not only the patriot, soldier
and politician, the well-read theologian and zealous Churchman,—
so that, as I have said before, some wished him to take Orders with
a view to being the first Bishop of Virginia,—but he was a most
affectionate domestic character. His tenderness as a father and
attention to his children is seen in the fact that, when attending a
Congress held in New York, he was continually writing very short
letters to his little ones, even before they could read them. I have
a bundle of them, from which I extract the following:—

These letters were written on very coarse, stiff, dingy paper,
such as no country-merchant would use in wrapping any but his
heaviest and roughest goods in at this day. Some of them were
sent by the two Randolphs,—John and Theodoric,—who were going
to school in New York at that time.[95]

GLOUCESTER, THE RESIDENCE OF POWHATAN AND POCAHONTAS.

We are now in the region where by general consent the chief
residence of King Powhatan has been placed, after discussion and
accurate investigation. Mr. Howe, in his laborious though sometimes
inaccurate History of Virginia, quotes from Captain John
Smith as saying that "twenty-five miles lower (than what is now West
Point, the junction of the Pamunkey and Mattapony) on the north
side of this river (York River) is Werowocomico, where their great
king inhabited when I was delivered to him a prisoner," and where
Smith in another place says "for the most part he was resident."
Mr. Howe says, "Upon a short visit made to that part of Gloucester
county a year or two ago, I was satisfied that Shelly, the

seat of Mrs. Mann Page, is the famous Werowocomico. Shelly
adjoins Rosewell, formerly the seat of John Page, (sometime Governor
of Virginia), and was originally part of the Rosewell plantation;
and I learned from Mrs. Page, of Shelly, that Governor
Page always held Shelly to be the ancient Werowocomico, and accordingly
he at first gave it that name, but afterward, on account
of the inconvenient length of the word, dropped it and adopted
the title of Shelly, on account of the extraordinary accumulation
of shells found there. The enormous beds of oyster-shells deposited
there, especially in front of the Shelly House, indicate it
to have been a place of great resort among the natives. The
situation is highly picturesque and beautiful; and, looking as it
does on the lovely and majestic York, it would seem of all others
to have been the befitting residence of the lordly Powhatan."

Our worthy fellow-citizen, Mr. Charles Campbell, of Petersburg,
after having adopted the above opinion, has renounced it in favour
of another place only two or three miles, I believe, lower down
York River. On paying a visit a few years since to Shelly and
the neighbourhood, for the purpose of examining the question, he
became satisfied that Timberneck Bay, in Gloucester, the ancient
seat of the Manns, only a mile from Shelly, is the famous spot.
Smith, he says, in his work "Newes from Virginia," says "the bay
where Powhatan dwelleth hath three creeks in it." "I have
visited," says Mr. Campbell, "that part of Gloucester county,
and am satisfied that Timberneck Bay is the one referred to by
Mr. Smith. On the east bank of this bay stands an old chimney
known as `Powhatan's chimney,' and its site corresponds with Werowocomico
as laid down in Smith's map." Mr. Campbell supposes
this to be the chimney of the house built by the Colonists to
propitiate the favour of Powhatan, and says he is supported by
tradition. May not the two opinions be reconciled in the following
manner? Shelly may have been the original place of his residence
or of his frequent residence; but when it was offered to build
him a house after the English fashion, he may have preferred a
situation a few miles off, for reasons best known to his royal
majesty. And now, although I have already introduced some
documents touching Powhatan and Pocahontas into my article on
Jamestown and Henrico, yet, as there is another most worthy of
preservation and use, I will do my part toward its perpetuity by
inserting it in this place. It is the famous letter of Captain Smith
to Queen Anne, soliciting her attention to Pocahontas when in
England,—a letter not easily surpassed by any one in any age.

Since the above was in print, we have received the following
extract from one of our public papers:—

GRAVEYARDS IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY.

There are three graveyards of some note near to each other:—
that at Rosewell, where the Pages are buried; at Timberneck Bay,
where the Manns are buried; and at Carter's Creek, where the
Burwells alone are buried. Many inscriptions upon the old tombstones
have been furnished me.

The first of the Pages was John Page, usually called Sir John,
of Williamsburg, who wrote the good book to his son Matthew.
His son Matthew married Mary Mann, of Timberneck Bay, a rich
heiress, and bequeathed an immense estate to his son Mann, who
built Rosewell. His son Mann, Jr. married, first, Judith Wormley,
who had only one child who lived; and she married Thomas Mann
Randolph, of Tuckahoe. Mr. Page's second wife was Judith Carter,
daughter of Robert Carter, of Corotoman, commonly called King
Carter. By this marriage he had Mann Page, of Rosewell, John
Page, of North End, Gloucester, and Robert Page, of Broadneck,
Hanover. The first of these three married Alice Grymes, of Middlesex,
by whom he had two children,—John Page, of Rosewell,
alias Governor Page, and Judith, who married Lewis Burwell, of
Carter's Creek. At the death of his first wife, Alice Grymes,
Mann Page married Miss Ann Corbin Tayloe, sister of the first
Colonel Tayloe, of Mount Airy, by whom he had Mann Page, of
Mansfield, near Fredericksburg, who married his cousin, sister of
the late Colonel Tayloe, of Mount Airy; Robert Page, of Hanover
Town, who married a daughter of Charles Carter, of Fredericksburg;
Gwinn Page, who married first in Prince William and
then in Kentucky; Matthew Page, of Hanover Town, who died
unmarried; Betsey Page, who married Mr. Benjamin Harrison, of
Brandon; Lucy Page, who married first Colonel George Baylor,
and then Colonel Nathaniel Burwell.

The second son of Mann Page and Judith Carter—John Page,
of North End—married Jane Byrd, of Westover, whose son Mann
married Miss Selden, and was the father of William Byrd Page, of
Frederick, who married Miss Lee, and was the father of the Rev.
Charles Page, and many others.

John Page, second son of John, of North End, married Miss
Betty Burwell, and had several children. Their daughter Jane
married Mr. Edmund Pendleton. William, third son of John, of
North End, married Miss Jones, and had three children,—Jane,
Byrd, and Carter. Carter Page, of Cumberland, fourth son of

John, of North End, married, first, Polly, daughter of Archibald
Cary, then Lucy, daughter of General Nelson, of York. Robert
Page, of Janeville, Frederick county, married his cousin Sarah,
of Broadneck. The sixth son was Matthew, who died unmarried.
The seventh, Tom, who married Mildred, daughter of Edmund
Pendleton, of White Plains. The eighth, Judith, who married
Colonel Hugh Nelson, of York. The ninth, Molly, who married
Mr. John Byrd, and had no children. The tenth, Jane, who married
Nathaniel Nelson, and was the mother of Mrs. Nathaniel Burwell,
of Saratoga. The eleventh, Lucy, who married Mr. Frank
Nelson, of Hanover. The above eleven were all the children of
Mr. John Page, of North End, second son of Mann and Judith
Page, of Rosewell. Their third son was Robert, of Broadneck,
Hanover county, who married Miss Sarah Walker. Their children
were, first, Robert, who married a Miss Braxton, and was the
father of Carter B. Page, John White Page, Walker Page, and
three sisters. Second, John, of Page Brook, who married Miss
Byrd, of Westover, and left many children. Third, Matthew
Page, of Annfield, who married Miss Ann R. Meade, and left two
daughters. Fourth, Catharine, who married Benjamin Waller, of
Williamsburg. Fifth, Judith, who married Mr. John Waller.
Sixth, Sarah, who married Mr. Robert Page, of Janeville.

OLD SELIM.

ARTICLE XXIX.

Gloucester.—No. 3. History of Selim, the Algerine Convert.

The following article was written by the Rev. Benjamin H. Rice.
The addition is from a descendant of Mr. Page, of Rosewell:—

THE CONVERTED ALGERINE.

The following narrative was committed to writing by an aged
clergyman in Virginia, and is communicated for publication by a
missionary of known character. Its authenticity may be relied on.
It is introduced by the writer with the following paragraphs:—

I have long been of opinion that even the short account I am able
to give of Selim, the Algerine, is worth preserving, and suppose that
no person now living is able to give so full an account of him as
myself, not having the same means of information.

Had Selim ever recovered his reason so far as to be able to
write his own history and give an account of all the tender and
interesting circumstances of his story, it would undoubtedly have
been one of the most moving narratives to be met with. All I
can write is the substance of the story as related to me, most of
it many years ago. I have been careful to relate every particular
circumstance I could recollect worthy of notice, and make
no additions and very few reflections of my own. I publish
these narratives at this time for the sake of a few observations
which they naturally suggest, and which I think seasonable at the
present day.

About the close of the war between France and England in
Virginia, commonly called Braddock's War, a certain man, whose
name, as I have been informed, was Samuel Givins, then an inhabitant
of Augusta county, in Virginia, went into the woods back of
the settlements to hunt wild meat for the support of his family,—
a practice which necessity renders customary for the settlers of a
new country. He took more than one horse with him, that it
might be in his power to bring home his meat and skins. As he
was one day ranging the woods in quest of game, he cast his eyes
into the top of a large fallen tree, where he saw a living creature

move. Supposing it to be some kind of a wild beast, he made
ready to shoot it, but had no sooner obtained a distinct view than
he discovered a human shape, which prevented the fatal discharge.
Going to the place, he found a man in a most wretched and pitiable
condition,—his person entirely naked (except a few rags tied about
his feet) and almost covered over with scabs, quite emaciated and
nearly famished to death. The man was unacquainted with the English
language, and Givins knew no other. No information, therefore,
could be obtained who he was, whence he came, or how he was
brought into a state so truly distressing. Givins, however, with
the kindness of the good Samaritan, took a tender care of him,
and supplied his emaciated body with the best nourishment his
present circumstances would afford. He prudently gave him but
little at a time, and increased the quantity as his strength and the
power of digestion increased. In a few days the man recovered
such a degree of strength as to be able to ride on horseback.
Givins furnished him with one of those he had taken with him to
carry home his meat, and conducted him to Captain (afterward
Colonel) Dickerson's, who then lived near the Windy Cave. Dickerson
supplied his wants, and entertained him for some months with a
generosity that is more common with rough backwoodsmen, who
are acquainted with the hardships of life, than among the opulent
sons of luxury and ease.

The poor man considered that he had no way to make himself
and his complicated distresses known, without the help of language:
he therefore resolved to make himself acquainted with the
English tongue as soon as possible. In this his progress was surprising:
he procured pen, ink, and paper, and spent much of his
time in writing down remarkable and important words, pronouncing
them, and getting whoever was present to correct his pronunciation.
By his indefatigable application, and the kind assistance of Colonel
Dickerson's family, he in a few months was so far master of English
as to speak it with considerable propriety. When he found
himself sufficiently qualified for communicating his ideas, he gave
the colonel and others a most moving narrative of his various
unparalleled misfortunes. He said his name was Selim; that he
was born of wealthy and respectable parents in Algiers; that when
a small boy his parents sent him to Constantinople, with a view to
have him liberally educated there; and that after he had spent
several years in that city, in pursuit of learning, he returned to
Africa to see his parents, with a view to return to Constantinople
to finish his education. The ship in which he embarked was taken

by a Spanish man-of-war or privateer, and Selim thus became a
prisoner of war. The Spaniards were at this time in alliance with
France against England. Falling in with a French ship bound to
New Orleans, they put him on board this vessel, which carried him
to the place of its destination. After living some time among the
French at New Orleans, they sent him up the rivers Mississippi
and Ohio to the Shawnee towns, and left him a prisoner of war
with the Indians, who at that time lived near the Ohio. There
was at the same time a white woman, who had been taken from the
frontiers of Virginia, a prisoner with the same tribe of Indians.
Selim inquired of her, by signs, whence she came. The woman
answered by pointing directly toward the sunrising. He was so
far acquainted with the geography of America as to know that
there were English settlements on the eastern shore of this continent;
and he rightly supposed the woman had been taken prisoner
from some of them. Having received this imperfect information,
he resolved to attempt an escape from the Indians to some of these
settlements. This was a daring attempt, for he was an entire
stranger to the distance he would have to travel and the dangers
which lay in his way; he had no pilot but the sun, nor any provisions
for his journey,—nor gun, ammunition, or other means of
obtaining them. Being thus badly provided for, and under all
these discouraging circumstances, he set out on his arduous journey
through an unknown mountainous wilderness of several hundred
miles. Not knowing the extent of the settlements he aimed at, he
apprehended danger of missing them should he turn much to the
north or south, and therefore resolved to keep as directly to the
sunrising as he possibly could, whatever rivers or mountains might
obstruct his path. Through all these difficulties Selim travelled
on until the few clothes he had were torn to pieces by bushes,
thorns, and briers. These, when thus torn and fit for no other
service, he wrapped and tied about his feet to defend them from
injuries. Thus he travelled naked, until his skin was torn to
pieces with briers and thorns, his body emaciated, his strength exhausted
with hunger and fatigue, and his spirits sunk under discouragements.
All he had to strengthen and cheer him was a few
nuts and berries he gathered by the way, and the distant prospect
of once more seeing his native land. But this pleasing prospect
could animate him no longer, nor could these scanty provisions
support him. His strength failed, and he sank into despair of
every thing but ending a miserable life in a howling wilderness, surrounded
by wild beasts! Finding he could travel no farther, he
fixed upon the top of the tree where Givins found him, as the spot
where his sorrows and his life must end together. But God, whose
providence is over all his creatures, had other views. While Selim
was dying this lingering, painful death, and was scarce able to move
his feeble limbs, relief was sent him by the beneficent hand of
Givins: he is again restored to life, and hope once more revives
and animates his sinking heart. No doubt Colonel Dickerson was
sensibly touched with this moving tale of woe, and the generous
feelings of his humanity greatly increased. I infer it from his
conduct; for he furnished Selim with a horse to ride, treated him
as a companion, and took him to visit the neighbours and see the
country. He accompanied the colonel to Staunton, where the
court of Augusta county sat, and where the inhabitants of the
county were assembled, it being court-day. Among the rest was
the Rev. John Craig, a Presbyterian minister of the Gospel, who
resided a few miles from town. When Selim saw Mr. Craig he
was struck with his appearance, turned his particular attention to
him, and after some time came and spoke to him, and intimated a
desire to go home with him. Mr. Craig welcomed him to his
house, and then, or afterward, asked him why he desired to go
home with him in particular, being an entire stranger, whom he had
never seen before. Selim replied:—

"When I was in my distress, I once in my sleep dreamed that I
was in my own country, and saw in my dream the largest assembly of
men my eyes had ever beheld, collected in a wide plain, all dressed
in uniform and drawn up in military order. At the farther side
of the plain, and almost at an immense distance, I saw a person
whom I understood to be one of great distinction; but, by reason
of the vast distance he was from me, I could not discern what sort
of a person he was. I only knew him to be a person of great eminence.
I saw every now and then one or two of this large assembly
attempting to go across the plain to this distinguished
personage; but when they had got about half-way over, they
suddenly dropped into a hole in the earth, and I saw them no
more. I also imagined that I saw an old man standing by himself,
at a distance from this large assembly, and one or two of the multitude
applied to him for direction how to cross the plain in safety;
and all who received and followed it got safe across. As soon as
I saw you," added Selim, "I knew you to be the man who gave
these directions; and this has convinced me that it is the mind of
God that I should apply to you for instructions in religion. It is
for this reason I desire to go home with you. When I was among

the French, they endeavoured to prevail on me to embrace the
Christian religion. But, as I observed they made use of images in
their religious worship, I looked on Christianity with abhorrence;
such worship being, in my opinion, idolatrous."

Mr. Craig cheerfully undertook the agreeable work he seemed
called to by an extraordinary Providence. He soon found that
Selim understood the Greek language, which greatly facilitated the
business. He furnished a Greek Testament; Selim spent his time
cheerfully in reading it, and Mr. Craig his leisure hours in explaining
to him the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the space of about two
weeks he obtained what Mr. Craig esteemed a competent knowledge
of the Christian religion. He went to Mr. Craig's house of worship,
made a public profession of Christianity, and was baptized
in the name of the adorable Trinity. Some time after this, Selim
informed Mr. Craig that he was desirous to return to his native
country and once more see his parents and friends. Mr. Craig
reminded him that his friends and countrymen, being Mohammedans,
entertained strong prejudices against the Christian religion, and
that, as he now professed to be a Christian, he would probably be
used ill on that account, and that here in America he might enjoy
his religion without disturbance. To which Selim replied, that his
father was a man of good estate, and he was his heir; that he had
never been brought up to labour, and knew no possible way in
which he could obtain a subsistence; that he could not bear the
thought of living a life of dependence upon strangers and being a
burden to them; that he was sensible of the strong prejudices of
his friends against Christianity, yet could not think that, after all
the calamities he had undergone, his father's religious prejudices
would so far get the better of his humanity as to cause him to use
his son ill on that account; and that, at all events, he desired to
make the experiment. Mr. Craig urged that the favourable
regards of his friends and a good estate on the one hand, and a
life of poverty and distress on the other, might prove a too powerful
temptation to renounce that religion he now professed to believe
true, and to return again to Mohammedanism. Selim said, whatever
the event might be, he was resolved never to deny Jesus.

When Mr. Craig found that he was fully resolved, he applied to
some of his neighbours, and, with their assistance, furnished Selim
with as much money as they supposed sufficient to defray his expenses
to England, from whence he said he could easily get a
passage to Africa. He furnished him, also, with a letter to the
Hon. Robert Carter, who then lived in Williamsburg and was

noted for his beneficence to the poor and afflicted, requesting him
to procure for the bearer an agreeable passage in some ship bound
to England. Mr. Carter did more than was requested of him: he
furnished Selim plentifully with sea-stores. Being thus provided
for, he set sail for England, with the flattering prospect before him
of being once more happy in his own country and in the arms of
his affectionate parents. For many months no more is heard of
him by his American acquaintance.

How long after this I do not recollect,—perhaps some years,—
the poor unfortunate Selim returned again to Virginia in a state
of insanity. He came to Williamsburg, and to the house of his
old benefactor, Mr. Carter. His constant complaint was, that he
had no friend, and where should he find a friend? From which
complaint the cause of his present very pitiable situation was
easily conjectured: his father was not his friend. Notwithstanding
the derangement of his mental powers, he had certain lucid intervals,
in which he so far enjoyed his reason as to be able to give
a pretty distinct account of his adventures after he left Virginia.
He said he had a speedy and safe passage to England, and from
thence to Africa; and that, on his arrival, he found his parents
still alive, but that it was not in his power long to conceal it from
them that he had renounced Mohammedanism and embraced the
Christian religion, and that his father no sooner found this to be
the case than he disowned him as a child and turned him out
of his house. Affection for his parents, grief for their religious
prejudices and his own temporal ruin, tormented his tender
heart. He was now turned out into the world, without money,
without a friend, without any art by which he could obtain a subsistence.
He left his own country, the estate on which he expected
to spend his life, and all his natural connections, without
the most distant prospect of ever seeing or enjoying them more.
He went to England, in hopes of there finding some way to live,
where he could enjoy his religion when every other source of comfort
was dried up. But, having no friend to introduce him to the
pious and benevolent, he found no way to subsist in that country;
on which he resolved to return to America, it being a new country,
where the poor could more easily find the means of support. In
his passage to Virginia—while he had probably no pious friend to
console him in his distresses nor to encourage and support him
under them, and while he had little to do but pore over his wretched
situation—he sunk, under the weight of his complicated calamities,
into a state of insanity.

Though Selim's great distress was that he had no friend and
he was constantly roving about in quest of one, yet of friendship
he was incapable of enjoying the advantages. In pursuit of his
object he went up to Colonel Dickerson's, but to no purpose.
From thence he wandered away to the Warm Springs, where was
at that time a young clergyman of the name of Templeton, who,
having understood something of his history, entered into conversation
with him. He asked him, among other things, whether he
was acquainted with the Greek language; to which he modestly
replied that he understood a little of it. Mr. Templeton put a
Greek Testament into his hand, and asked him to read and construe
some of it. He took the book and opened it, and, when he
saw what it was, in a transport of joy he pressed it to his heart,
and then complied with Mr. Templeton's request. By these
actions he showed his great veneration for the Sacred Scriptures,
and how long he had retained the knowledge of the Greek in circumstances
the most unfavourable. From the Warm Springs he
went down to Mr. Carter's, (who, by this time, had removed from
Williamsburg to his seat in Westmoreland county,) in hopes that
gentleman would act the part of a friend, as he had formerly
done; but still, poor man, he was incapable of enjoying what he
greatly needed and most desired. He soon wandered away from
Mr. Carter's, was taken, and carried to the madhouse in Williamsburg.

The above account I received from Mr. Craig, Mr. Carter, and
Mr. Templeton; and it is the substance of all I knew of Selim
before I came to reside in this State. Since my arrival here I
have seen several men who were personally acquainted with him
while in a state of derangement. They say he was commonly inoffensive
in his behaviour, grateful for favours received, manifested
a veneration for religion, was frequently engaged in prayer,—that
his prayers were commonly, though not always, pretty sensible
and tolerably well connected,—and that he appeared to have the
temper and behaviour of a gentleman, though he was in ruins;
that he went roving from place to place, sometimes almost naked
for want of sense to keep on the clothes that he had received
from the hand of charity, until he was taken with the sickness
which put an end to his sorrows; that when he was taken sick his
reason was restored and continued to his last moments; that the
family where he lay sick and died treated him with great tenderness,
for which he expressed the utmost gratitude, and that, at his
request and importunity, no persons sat up with him on the night

in which he died. It appears, however, that he died with great
composure; for he placed himself, his hands, his feet, and his
whole body, in a proper posture to be laid in his coffin, and so
expired.

The following is added by a descendant of Mr. Page:—

The picture of Selim may still be seen in the library of Mr.
Robert Saunders, of Williamsburg. Mr. Saunders married a
daughter of Governor Page, and thus inherited it. Selim, out of
his attachment to Mr. Page, either followed or went with him to
Philadelphia, where the American Congress was sitting, of which
Mr. Page was a member. Mr. Peale was then a most eminent
painter.

ARTICLE XXX.

Gloucester.—No. 4. Supplement to the Articles on Gloucester.

According to a purpose expressed in one of my previous numbers,
I have visited some places in Gloucester, with a view of obtaining
the most accurate information concerning some antiquated places
which have interest in them for more than mere antiquaries. My
first visit was to the old stone chimney which tradition says belonged
to the house built by Captain Smith for King Powhatan at
or near his residence on York River, in Gloucester. I acknowledge
that I had never placed much confidence in this tradition; for, though
I did not doubt but that Captain Smith had built a log room with
a stone chimney for the King, yet I did doubt whether any remains
of the room or chimney could now be seen. I am sure that there
is now no other remnant of such architecture, either in stone or
wood, to be found in Virginia. I went therefore to the spot with
no little of skepticism on the subject. On a high point of land,
divided by Timberneck Creek from Mr. Catlett's farm, the former
seat of the Manns, there is a wooden frame room, of more recent
construction, attached to a low, Dutch-built chimney intended only
for a single-story house. The chimney has recently been covered
on the outside with a coat of plastering. The fireplace within was
eight feet four inches wide—that is, the opening to receive the
wood—and four feet deep, and more than six feet high, so that the
tallest man might walk into it and a number of men sit within it
around the fire. All this was royal enough; but as many of the old
chimneys in Virginia, especially of the negro quarters, were as
large in former days, when wood abounded, my skepticism was not
entirely removed until I perceived, in the only crack which was to
be seen outside of the wall, something which showed that the material
was of no ordinary kind of stone, but like that of which the
old church at York was built,—viz.: marl out of the bank, which
only hardens by fire and by exposure. To render this more certain,
I asked the owner of the house if he could not get me a small block
of the material from the bottom of the chimney, near the ground,
so as not to injure it. He obligingly consented, and, bringing an
old axe, by repeated and heavy blows disengaged from the chimney a

fragment of it, which I found to be what I conjectured,—a particular
kind of marl, composed of shells, and which abounds on some of
the high banks of York River, on both sides. I am now satisfied
that this is really the stone chimney built by Captain Smith.
There is no other kind of stone—if this may be called stone—in
this region; and it was much easier for Captain Smith to use this
than to make and burn brick. It is, moreover, more durable than
brick or stone. It is impossible to say how many generations of log
or frame rooms have been built to this celebrated chimney. There
is a contest between this spot and Shelly for the honour of being
Powhatan's residence; and it is thought by some that the old chimney
decides it in behalf of this. Shelly, in a straight line, is little more
than a mile from this, and may have been the residence of the
King and his tribe (and there are some strong marks of this) at the
time, though he may have preferred to have this house built on the
high and commanding bluff on which it stands. Moreover, Smith
and his men may have preferred, while at their work, to be at a
little distance from his royal majesty and his treacherous people.

Bearing away with me the piece of marl-stone from Powhatan's
chimney, to be kept in proof of what I now believe to be fact, I
crossed the creek, and sought at the old homestead of the Manns
for some sepulchral monument showing that tradition was true in
relation to the residence of a family whose name is only to be
found incorporated with other names, inheriting an estate which
not only once covered the half of Gloucester, if report be true, but
was scattered in large parcels over numerous other counties. In
or near the stable-yard, in an open place, there is to be seen a pile
of tombstones lying upon and beside each other in promiscuous
confusion, on which may be read the following inscriptions:—

Also,—

Their daughter and only child married Matthew Page, son of
John Page, the first of the family. They buried a child at this
place, whose tombstone is a part of this pile, and reads as follows:—

THE TOMBS AT ROSEWELL.

My next visit was to Rosewell,—the mansion of which I have
spoken in one of the preceding articles.

Mr. Matthew Page moved to this place from Timberneck. Three
of his young children—Matthew, Mary, and Ann—are buried here
before the month of August, 1704. This appears, or did appear,
from their tombs. The following is the inscription on the heavy
ironstone tomb of Matthew Page:—

I.

II.

III.

There were tombstones with inscriptions over each of the wives
of this, the first Mann Page,—one in Latin and the other in
English. The latter was first broken and then crumbled away.

One of the sons of the above-mentioned Mann Page was named
Mann, and inherited Rosewell. The following is the inscription
over his first wife:—

IV.

His second wife was Miss Ann Corbin Tayloe. Two of their
sons, who died young, are buried at Rosewell, having tombs and
inscriptions. Governor Page, of Virginia, was a son by his first
wife, Alice Grymes. There is no tombstone over the second Mann
Page. Governor Page died in Richmond, and was buried in the
old churchyard around St. John's.

My next visit was to the old seat of the Burwells, about two
miles from Rosewell, on Carter's Creek, and in full view of York
River. It was formerly called Fairfield, and is so marked on
Bishop Madison's map of Virginia. It has for some time past been
called Carter's Creek only. The house, as appears by figures on
one of the walls, was built either in 1684 or 1694. A portion of
it has been taken down: the rest is still strong and likely to endure
for no little time to come. The graveyard is in a pasture-lot not
far from the house. Being unenclosed, it is free to all the various
animals which belong to a Virginia farm. Hogs, sheep, cows, and
horses, have free access to it; and, as there is a grove of a few old
trees overshadowing it, the place is a favourite resort in summer.
The tombs are very massive. The slabs on which the inscriptions
are engraved are of the same heavy ironstone or black marble with
those at Rosewell, Timberneck, and Bellfield, of which we have
spoken. The framework underneath them has generally given way,
and they lie in various positions about the ground. A large honeylocust,
around which several of them were placed, having attained
its maturity, was either blown down by the wind or struck by lightning,
and fell across them, breaking one of the largest into pieces.
The young shoots of the tree, springing up, have now themselves
become trees of considerable size, and afford shade for inanimate
tombs and living beasts. None of the family have for a long time
owned this ancient seat.

TOMBS AT CARTER'S CREEK, OR FAIRFIELD.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

Copies of inscriptions on the tombstones of Ware Church, which sto
were covered by the erection of a new chancel-floor in said church in
June, 1854.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

Doubtless there are other tombstones in the county bearing the
names of the old worthies of former days; but no information concerning

them has been furnished me. There is, I am told, an old
graveyard, with tombstones, at the old seat of the Washingtons,
in Gloucester, on the Piankatank, from which I have been desirous
to hear, but have failed. One of the sons of the first John Washington
married a Miss Warner, of Gloucester, and settled at the
above-mentioned place. Hence sprung the combination of the
names Warner and Washington, so common in these families.

ARTICLE XXXI.

Parishes in Middlesex.—No. 1.

Middlesex county was originally a part of Lancaster county,
when the latter covered both sides of the Rappahannock River for
an indefinite distance. Between the years 1650 and 1660 it is
probable that it was made a separate county. Until that time one
minister served the whole county, although it is probable there
were two parishes on either side of the river before the division of
the county. Those on the south side were called Lancaster and
Piankatank. They were originally one, and called Lancaster;
and, in 1666, became one again, under the name of Christ Church,
Lancaster county.

I have before me the vestry-book of the parish, from the year
1663 to the year 1767, commencing two years before the reunion.
There is reference to a Rev. Mr. Cole, who was minister of both
of the parishes in the year 1657; also to a Mr. Morris, as being
minister previous to the reunion. A short time afterward, some
dissensions as to the bounds of the two parishes and other matters
led to the reunion.

The first entry states the appointment of Mr. Henry Corbin to
keep the register of the parish, according to a late Act of Assembly.

The next is the vestryman's oath:—

Previous to the reunion, the vestry of Lancaster parish had determined
to build a church, after the model of that of Williamsburg,
either on the north or south side of Sunderland Creek. By
lot it fell on the north side; but it was never done.

In the reunion, in 1666, it was agreed by the vestry to build a
mother-church,—by the name of Christ Church,—at a place about
midway the parish, after the model of that at Williamsburg, the
glass and iron to be gotten from England. It was accordingly
built about midway between Brandon and Rosegill, the seats of the
Wormleys and Grymeses, not far from the Rappahannock River,
and was used until the year 1712, when a new one was built in the
same place.

On the 29th of January, 1666, it was resolved to continue Mr.
Morris as the minister, but that he be not inducted. On the following
day, at a meeting of the vestry, his salary was paid, and
he was dismissed. I suppose he would not consent to serve without
induction, or that some difficulty arose between himself and
the vestry. Major-General Robert Smith and Mr. Henry Corbin
were directed to write to Richard Perrott, then in England, for a
minister. Measures were also taken for the purchase of a glebe.
In the year 1668 it was agreed to employ the Rev. Mr. Shephard
for six months. At the end of that time he was chosen for twelve
months, and so on until the year 1671, when he was elected as
rector for the future. Mr. Shephard continued their minister until
his death, in 1683. The following extracts from the proceedings
of the vestry will show their estimate of his character, and their
desire for a worthy successor:—

In the interval between the death of Mr. Shephard and his suc
cessor, the parish was supplied by the Revs. Mr. Superiors and Mr.
Davis. In November of that year, Major-General Robert Smith
appears on the vestry-book, having returned from England and
brought with him the Rev. Duell Read, who was chosen their
minister for one year; and in proof that the earnest desire and
endeavour of the vestry were rewarded of God, by sending a
faithful minister, I adduce the following extract from the vestry-book
the year after his entrance on the ministry:—

The duty of more frequent communions in the churches of Virginia
was evident. By Act of Assembly, which was only the renewal
of one of the canons of the English Church, it was only
required that the sacrament be administered twice a year at the
parish churches, the chapels of each not being provided for. Even
in this case it is only proposed to have it at the mother-church, which
was about midway of a parish forty miles in length. There were
two chapels or churches toward either end of the county, not less,
we suppose, than twelve or fifteen miles distant from the central
one. Those communicants who lived at either end of the parish
must have had twenty miles to travel in order to partake of the
communion. At a later date the communion was administered at
all the churches. Mr. Read's services continued seven years,—at
the end of which time he returned to England; cause not known.
That he did not forget his parishioners is evident from the following
entry on the vestry-book:—

Should any smile at the value and character of the bequests, they
should remember that they were, in all probability, his whole property,
not to be despised until the widow's mite has lost its value
with heaven. Nor were they so valueless as some might suppose.
In those days a few such animals were of great use and worth.
In proof of which I adduce the following act of the vestry in this
parish, in the year 1665:—

In the year 1692 the Rev. Matthew Lidford was chosen minister
of the parish for one year, but soon died. He was succeeded by
the Rev. Mr. Gray, who agreed, in 1698, to relinquish, for a certain
amount of tobacco, all claim on the parish arising from his induction.
Mr. Gray was a most unworthy minister. The records of
the court show him to have been much engaged in lawsuits,—either
suing or being sued for property. At length he caused the death
of one of his slaves, by severe whipping, and was tried for his life.
This, it is presumed, was the occasion of his resignation.

In the year 1699 the Rev. Robert Yates is minister, and continues
so until the year 1703 or 1704, when he returned to England
in ill health. He appears to have been esteemed by his vestry,
who continued his salary for some time in the hope of his return.
The Rev. Bartholomew Yates (believed to be his son) succeeded

him. After eighteen years of faithful service, the parish of York-Hampton,
a more desirable one, endeavoured to obtain his services.
The vestry of Middlesex, however, raised his salary to twenty
thousand pounds of tobacco, and enlarged and improved his house.
The following entry shows that, in order to raise his salary, they
thought it necessary to make application to the Legislature:—

Such were the manifestations of regard for him that he continued
their minister until his death, in 1734, being more than thirty-one
years their pastor. Having sons in England at college, the vestry
waited for two years until his son Bartholomew was ordained. In
the interval the parish was served by the Revs. John Reade and
Emanuel Jones, from neighbouring parishes. He served them
until the year 1767. In 1758, we also find the Rev. William
Yates and the Rev. Robert Yates, ministers of the adjoining
parishes of Petsworth and Abington, in Gloucester county, believed
to be either sons or grandsons of the elder Bartholomew
Yates, and grandsons or great-grandsons of the Rev. Robert Yates.
All of them are believed to have been worthy ministers of the
Gospel. They have been often quoted as proof that there were
some deserving ones among the old clergy of Virginia, and that
ministers' sons are not always the worst in the parish, as some
enemies of religion say. A large tombstone was placed, by the
parishioners, over the grave of the elder Bartholomew Yates,
which is still in good order and the inscription legible. It is as
follows:—

The descendants of Mr. Yates are numerous, and scattered over
the State. One of them—the late Mr. Yates, of Jefferson county,
Virginia—charged all his children in turn to protect and preserve
this tomb.

The Rev. John Klug succeeded to Mr. Yates in 1767, and, it is
believed, continued until his death, in 1795. His name appears on
the list of delegates to the two first Conventions of the Church in
Virginia, in 1785 and 1786. He is represented to have been a
pious and efficient minister. He was followed by the Rev. Mr.
Heffernon, who was a dishonour to the Church for eighteen years.
To him I have alluded in my first article. He married into one
of the most respectable families of that part of Virginia, but,
happily, left no posterity to be ashamed of their father's name,
which was a by-word and proverb at that day, and continues so to
the present time. Hunting, gambling, drinking, were his constant
occupations. I have before me the following copy of an extract
of the will of Mr. William Churchill, in 1711:—

Mr. Heffernon, with all his vices, preached—or professed to
preach—these sermons in one of the churches, and received the
benefit of this bequest. I have often heard old Mr. Nelson, my
father-in-law, say that the last time he saw Mr. Heffernon was in

a tavern-porch in Urbanna, reeling to and fro with a bowl of toddy
in his hand, inviting the passers-by to come and drink with him.[99]
From the year 1813—the time of Mr. Heffernon's death—no
effort was made to have any services in that church. Indeed, it
is presumed that there were none for many years before his death.
The prostration of the church seemed to be complete. There was,
however, a kind of farce following that sad tragedy, to which I
must refer. In the year 1836, at the Convention in Fredericksburg,
a person calling himself Robinson, and professing to be a
minister of the Episcopal Church of England, presented himself
to Bishop Moore and myself, and produced some worn and dingy
papers, purporting to be letters of Orders. We neither of us were
pleased either with him or his papers. Bishop Moore soon turned
him over to me. He expressed a wish to unite with the Church in
Virginia; said that he did not care for salary, being in abundant
circumstances; that he wished to settle in some good society, and
not far from the ocean; that he had some of the best English
breed of sheep and Durham cattle, and wished to purchase a
farm. I told him plainly my opinion as to his course of duty;
that, if he wished to be useful in the ministry, he had better dispose
of his cattle and engage earnestly in the duties of it. He
expressed surprise that I should seem to think an attention to fine
cattle inconsistent with the duties of the ministry, and spoke of
one or more of the English Bishops who were great patrons of
cattle. We soon parted, mutually dissatisfied with each other, and
I never met him again. He took a fancy to the lower part of
Middlesex, in sight of the bay, bought or rented a farm there, and
moved some cattle to it, I believe. He had quite a library and a
great deal of English plate. He invited company, and entertained
at late fashionable hours. He also preached, either at some old
church or the court-house. His robes were those of English Fellows
or Doctors, having several pieces of different colours, besides
the gown and surplice. The same dress, I am told, he used when
performing the service at the White Sulphur Springs, in Western
Virginia, making changes in it during the service. How long he
continued in Virginia I know not; but, determining on a visit to
England, he wrote me a long letter, containing many questions
concerning the Church in America, which he said would doubtless
be proposed on his return to England, and to which he wished for
answers. My reply to him was very short, and such as he would
take care not to show. A few months after this, we received intelligence
that he was taken up as an impostor and swindler in Liverpool,
and was then on his way to Botany Bay. All that he had
brought with him to America was stolen, and he went back to replenish
his treasury, and had wellnigh, by a forged note, robbed
the bank at Liverpool of a very large sum of money. Indeed, he
had it in his possession, and was on the point of sailing to America,
when pursued and overtaken. This closes, I hope, forever,
the disgrace of the Church in Middlesex. Henceforth we look for
better times. But before we enter upon those I wish to add something
concerning the laity of the old Middlesex parish.

P.S.—A recent communication states that this impostor got
away from his place of exile and reached California, where he
died a few years since

ARTICLE XXXII.

Parishes in Middlesex.—No. 2.

Hitherto we have been entirely occupied with the history of
the clergy of this county. This being an early settlement,
lying on one of the finest rivers in Virginia, and near the
bay, we might expect to find here many of the ancestors of
some of the most respectable families of Virginia. As the vestrymen
were chosen from the leading citizens of each parish, we
shall give, in the order in which they appear on the vestry-book
for more than one hundred years, a full list of all who served the
parish in that capacity. Those who have any acquaintance with
the Virginia families, and with many who have dispersed themselves
throughout the West and South, will readily trace great
numbers to the parish of which we are treating. For the sake of
brevity we shall only mention the surnames, and afterward be more
specific as to a few of them. Corbin, Perrott, Chewning, Potter,
Vause, Weeks, Willis, Cock, Curtis, Smith, Dudley, Thacher, Skipwith,
Beverley, Wormley, Jones, Miller, Scarborough, Woodley,
Whitaker, Robinson, Warwick, Gordon, Chichester, Midge, Churchill,
Burnham, Wormley 2d, Kemp, Smith 2d, Cary, Dudley 2d,
Smith 3d, Daniel, Price, Mann, Seager, Vause 2d, Cock 2d, Cant,
Skipwith 2d, Wormley 3d, Thacher 2d, Grimes, Beverley 2d, Kilbee,
Kemp 2d, Corbin 2d, Robinson 2d, Walker, Jones 2d, Wormley
4th, Standard, Churchill 2d, Robinson 3d, Walker 2d, Robinson 4th,
Hardin, Wormley 5th, Corbin 3d, Smith 4th, Grymes 2d, Stanard
2d, Reid, Carter 2d, Elliot, Miles, Montague, Grymes 3d, Nelson,
Smith 5th. (The figures 2, 3, 4, 5 signify how many of the same
name and family held the office of vestrymen at different times.
They were probably sons, grandsons, &c.) The old English aristocracy
is apparent on the vestry-books. Sir Henry Chichely, Baronet
and Knight, (he was once Deputy-Governor of Virginia,) Sir William
Skipwith, Baronet and Knight, appear always at the head of the
vestrymen as written in the vestry-books, these titles giving them
the precedence. They appear to have been active and liberal, giving

land and plate to the churches. John Grymes and Edmund Berkeley
appear to have been churchwardens for a longer period than any
others. The Thackers and Robinsons were also constant attendants
and active churchwardens for a long time. So also the Smiths,
Churchills, Curtises, Corbins, and Beverleys. Many of the above-mentioned
vestrymen were members of the Council, and held other
offices in the Colonial Government. The first Beverley on the list
was the celebrated Robert Beverley, so noted in the early history of
Virginia as a martyr in the cause of liberty. He was Clerk to the
House of Burgesses, and father of Robert Beverley, the historian of
Virginia, and ancestor of the other Beverleys. There were always
three lay readers, one to each of the churches,—the middle or mother,
or Great Church, and the upper and lower. We read the names of
Chewning, Baldwin, and Stevens, among the lay readers. They
were required not only to read Homilies, but to catechize the children
and see that every thing about the churches was kept clean
and in order, that the leaves around the churches (which were built
in the woods) should be burnt, in order to preserve the churches
from being destroyed by some of the great fires which were common
in the woods. It was not always easy to get suitable persons as
lay readers. We find at one meeting an express act of the vestry,
requiring that they be sober and reputable men; and this was only
an echo of the Act of Assembly. Complaints appear on the vestry-books
of the irregular attendance of the members, and a fine was
imposed of so much tobacco for each failure. The vestry appear
on several occasions to have taxed themselves with something extra
for the clergyman, though for every thing done and furnished for
the church, even the wealthiest made charges, as for communionwine,
putting up a horse-block, &c. The duties of the vestrymen
were to see that the salaries of the ministers be collected, which
was no easy matter, seeing that it must be gotten from the whole
country. They also took care of the poor, of orphan and illegitimate
children, imposed fines, and appointed persons to procession
the lands,—that is, renew the landmarks from time to time. Certain
offences against good morals were sometimes punished by them. In
one instance a lady of respectable family was fined five hundredweight
of tobacco for breaking the seventh commandment.[100] The
greatest difficulty which they appear to have had was with the hired
servants, of whom, at an early period, great numbers came over to
this country, binding themselves to the richer families. The number
of illegitimate children born of them and thrown upon the
parish led to much action on the part of the vestries and the legislature.
The lower order of persons in Virginia, in a great measure,
sprang from those apprenticed servants and from poor exiled culprits.
It is not wonderful that there should have been much debasement
of character among the poorest population, and that the negroes
of the first families should always have considered themselves a
more respectable class. To this day there are many who look upon
poor white folks (for so they call them) as much beneath themselves;
and, in truth, they are so in many respects. The churchwardens
in this parish, among other things, were directed to assign seats in
the churches to the different families, which they no doubt did with
some reference to family and wealth, as in England. Mr. Matthew
Kemp, as churchwarden, received the commendation of the vestry
for displacing an unworthy woman, who insisted on taking a pew
above her degree. Four of the families of Wormley, Grymes,
Churchill, and Berkeley, obtained leave of the vestry to put an
addition of twenty feet square to one of the churches (the lower
one) for their special use. It was very common, as we shall see
hereafter, for certain families to build galleries for themselves after
the manner of their forefathers in England, and it was hard sometimes
to dislodge their descendants, even when their position was
uncomfortable and not very safe. There was one very important
duty which the vestries had to perform, and which was sometimes
a subject of dispute between them and the Governor of Virginia,—
viz.: to maintain their rights, as representing the people, in the
choice and settlement of ministers. In the English Church the
congregation have no part in the choice of their ministers. Patrons
appoint them, and livings support them. In Virginia, as the salary
was drawn directly from the people by the vestries, the vestries
sometimes claimed not only the right to choose the ministers, but
to turn them away at pleasure. In the absence of Bishops and
canons to try the ministers, it is evident that there would be a strong
temptation on the part of the vestries to act arbitrarily if the power
was entirely vested in them. To prevent this, the Governor claimed
to be the ordinary, and to act as Bishop in relation to this point.
He, appealing to an English canon, allowed the vestries the right
of choosing their minister and presenting to him for induction.
Being inducted, the minister could not be displaced by the vestry:
he had a right to the salary, and might enforce it by an appeal to
law, unless, indeed, for misconduct, he could be deprived by some
difficult and tedious process under the direction of the Governor.
Should the vestry not appoint a minister within six months after
a vacancy, then the Governor might send one, and induct him as
the permanent minister, not to be removed by the vestry. The
Governor of Virginia in 1703, Mr. Nicholson, at the time about
which I am writing, maintained also that he had a right to send a
temporary supply to any parish immediately on the occurrence of
a vacancy, which supply might be superseded by one of their own
choice within the six months. It is the same power which some
have proposed to vest in our Bishops in relation to a temporary
supply of vacant parishes. It is evident that such a power would
very much interfere with the free choice of ministers by the vestries,
since the minister thus sent as the supply would have a great advantage
over others who might be obtained. To refuse him after
trial would be to condemn the choice of the Bishop, and be an offence
to himself. The above is the view taken of the relative
power of the vestry and Governor, in an opinion of the Queen's
Attorney-General, Mr. Edward Northy, which was sent by the
Governor to all the vestries of the Church, and directed to be put
on record.[101] The action of the vestries uniformly show their determination
to defend themselves as well as they could against the
evils consequent upon such a construction of the law. As to the
immediate temporary supply of the vacancies, that does not appear
to have been attempted by the Governor, although the right was
claimed. In order to prevent the minister being suddenly inducted
and put upon them for life, (whether one of their own choice or
of the Governor,) who might soon prove unworthy, while in reality
there was no method of getting rid of him, since no civil Governor
could depose a minister, the vestries fell upon the expedient of employing
ministers for a limited time, generally twelve months,
sometimes less, repeating the same again and again until they were
sufficiently satisfied of their worthiness and suitableness, and then
of presenting him to the Governor for induction and permanent
settlement. Against this there was no law, and the Governor
acquiesced in it. And who can blame them for adopting such a
course? Bad as the state of things was even under that wise precaution,
how much worse would it have been, if the choice of the
vestry or the appointment of the Governor, after such a slight
acquaintance as either of them were likely to have with foreigners,
must be perpetuated for better for worse, even as the marriages of
some in that day, who imported their wives from England without
knowing them! It is but justice to the vestries to say, that as a
general thing, when they secured the services of a respectable
minister, they retained him during life. Although I shall shortly
show one instance to the contrary, I shall also show a number in
confirmation of it. It is also due to the vestries to say, that, in
compliance with the decision of the Governor, they always allowed
to the ministers who were not inducted the same rights, perquisites,
and privileges with those who were inducted. This principle is, I
believe, confirmed by one of the canons of our General Convention.

If now it be asked what was the state of morals and religion in
the parish where the leading men, the nobility and the gentry, took
such an active part in support of the public service of God, and
when the moral character of the ministers appears to have been
good, whatever may have been the substance and style of their
preaching, I must point to the fact that a pious man, Mr. William
Churchill, being a churchwarden, by his last will, in the year 1711,
left a sum of money, whose interest was to be used for the encouragement
of the minister to preach "against the four reigning vices
of atheism and irreligion, of swearing and cursing, fornication and
adultery, and drunkenness." They must have been prevalent in
that day to have prompted such a bequest. That they increased
more and more, even to the time of the French Revolution, is but
too probable. It was so with all ranks of the community. The
seats of the rich and the educated were the scenes of a more refined
voluptuousness, while many of the abodes of the poor were filled
with the lowest vices. And what has been the end of these things?
But for the uneducated and sometimes fanatical ministers, who, in
the providence of God, were after a time permitted to preach the
Gospel to the poor in Middlesex, where would have been the Church

of God in that region, during a long, dark period? What has
become of the old Episcopal families, the Skipwiths, Wormleys,
Grymeses, Churchills, Robinsons, Berkeleys, and others? What
has become of, or who owns, those mansions where were the voluptuous
feasts, the sparkling wine, the flowing bowl, the viol and the
dance and the card-table, and the dogs for the chase, and the
horses for the turf? I am told, and I believe it, that the whole of
that county was at one time in possession of some few of these old
families, and that now not a rood of it is owned by one of their
name, and scarcely by one in whom is a remnant of their blood.
Old Brandon, the seat of my maternal ancestors, the Grymeses, is
gone, except a small part of it. Rosegill, where the Wormleys
lived in English state, has passed from hand to hand, and is reduced
to less than half its size. Even the places of many others
cannot now be found. The ploughshare has been over them, as it
has been over the ruins of many an old church in Virginia. But
still there were good and holy men and women there, in whom the
spirit of the Gospel and of the Prayer Book reigned, and that spirit
has possessed many of their exiled posterity. While some of the
descendants of those whose names I have recorded have been but
too well known in Virginia as unworthy, there have been a good
number of both sexes who have proved themselves to be an honour
to the State, and active agents in rebuilding the Church of their
fathers. Old Middlesex, too, once about to be deserted of its inhabitants
by reason of disease, exhaustion, and barrenness, has of
late years entered upon a new and unexpected career. Resting as
it were on a bed of richest marl, her agriculture has been revolutionized,
and she bids fair one day, and that not a distant one, to
compare with some of the fairest portions of our land. And what
has become of the old Mother-Church—the Great Church, as she is
styled in her journal—standing in view of the wide Rappahannock,
midway between Rosegill and Brandon? More perhaps than fifty
years ago it was deserted. Its roof decayed and fell in. Every
thing within it returned to its native dust. But nature abhors a
vacuum. A sycamore-tree sprung up within its walls. All know
the rapidity of that tree's growth. It filled the void. Its boughs
soon rose above and overspread the walls. In the year 1840, when
it pleased God to put it into the hearts of some, in whom the spirit
of old Virginia Episcopalians still remained, to seek the revival of
the Church's dry bones in Middlesex, that huge, overspreading tree
must first be removed piecemeal from the house, and the rich mould
of fifty years' accumulation, to the depth of two feet, must be dug
up, before the chancel-floor and the stone aisles could be reached.
The walls—faithful workmanship of other days—were uninjured, and
may still remain while generations of frail modern structures pass
away. The house is now one of our best country-churches. The
graves of our ancestors are all around it. In scattered fragments
some of the tombstones lie; others, too substantial to be broken, too
heavy to be borne away, now plainly tell whose remains are protected
by them. To the attention and kindness of a young female near
the spot, I am indebted for the following inscription, selected from
many others, and which will not be without interest to some Virginians,
and to others who have long since left the old homes of
their fathers for the Far South or West:

EPITAPH OF MR. JOHN GRYMES.[102]

"Here lies interred the body of the Honourable John Grymes, Esq.,
who for many years acted in the public affairs of this Dominion, with
honour, fortitude, fidelity to their Majesties King George I. and II. Of
the Council of State, of the Royal Prerogative, of the liberty and property
of the subject, a zealous asserter. On the seat of judgment, clear, sound,
unbiassed. In the office of Receiver-General, punctual, approved. Of the
College of William and Mary an ornament, visitor, patron. Beneficent to
all, a pattern of true piety. Respected, loved, revered. Lamented by his
family, acquaintance, country. He departed this life the 2d day of November,
1748, in the 57th year of his age."[103]

The following have also been sent me:—

There were also buried within the church Sir Henry Chichely,
Knight, Deputy-Governor of Virginia in 1682. The Rev. John
Shephard in the same, and the Honourable Lady Madam Catharine
Wormley, wife of the Honourable Ralph Wormley, (the first Ralph
Wormley,) in the year 1685. The following is a communication
from the present minister of our partly-resuscitated Church in
Middlesex, (the Rev. Mr. Carraway.)

A few words will suffice for the history of efforts for the revival
of the Church in Middlesex. The Rev. Mr. Rooker was employed
as missionary, in this and the adjoining county of Mathews, for a
few years after 1840. His preaching and labours excited a considerable
zeal in the few remaining members of the Church in those
counties. He was succeeded by its present minister, the Rev. Mr.

Carraway, who has devoted himself now for about ten years most
faithfully and laboriously to those two counties. Though the fields
be large and comparatively unproductive, requiring great toil and a
large amount of itinerancy, and the salary small, still, no invitations
to more promising and less laborious positions have tempted him to
leave them. Himself and companion are now, and have been for
some years, the welcome inmates of the family of Captain Bailey,
who, with his excellent wife, (a pious member of the Church,) is
living at old Rosegill, the ancient seat of the Wormleys, on the
high banks of the Rappahannock, a few miles from Christ Church.
Captain Bailey, (the relative of our old friend Colonel Chewning,
of Lancaster, one of whose descendants was vestryman and another
lay reader in Middlesex, whose dwelling is on the opposite shore,)
when an orphan boy, in a spirit of independence, left Lancaster to
seek his fortune in the wide world. He launched forth for Baltimore
in a merchant-vessel, traversed many seas, visited many lands
and experienced many dangers and hardships, was shipwrecked
often, (Mrs. B. being with him in one shipwreck,) but still preserved
by a kind Providence. Occasionally, in the midst of his various
efforts to realize a fortune, in which he was at length most successful,
he would return to his native place, and, as Colonel Chewning
has often told me, cast a wishful eye on old Rosegill, towering on the
high banks of the Rappahannock, and declaring his determination,
if Providence spared his life and prospered his efforts, that he
would spend the evening of his days as the owner of that mansion.
Providence has spared his life and prospered his efforts in laying
up a fortune gathered from various seas and countries, and he and
his wife are now the hospitable owners of Rosegill. More than
half of the huge pile has been removed by him, and the remainder
exalted, beautified, and improved. Hospitality, though modified
and improved from former times, still distinguishes the place.
Captain B. and his excellent wife are glad to have the society of
Mr. and Mrs. Carraway as permanent guests, free of all charge.
Besides patronizing old Christ Church on the one side of him, he
has recently purchased the old court-house in Urbanna on the other,
and converted it into a neat and comfortable house of worship.
Mr. Carraway's services are very acceptable, and the Episcopal
Church is gradually rising in the estimation of the inhabitants of
Middlesex.

ARTICLE XXXIII.

Parishes in King and Queen and King William.—Stratton Major.

This is one of our oldest parishes, being established in 1664-65.
Of the ministers previous to the year 1724 we know nothing. In
that year the Rev. Mr. Skaife, who had been its minister for thirteen
years, and continued to be so for twelve years longer, informs
the Bishop of London that his parish was eighteen miles in length
and thirteen in breadth; that there was only one church, and that
open every Sunday; that there were three hundred attendants, two
hundred and twenty communicants; that his salary was eighty
pounds. In answer to the question, Are there any infidels in your
parish? the reply is, Generally negroes are unbaptized; they
that desire it have it; the church is open to all. In 1736 the Rev.
John Reade becomes minister, and either dies or resigns in 1743.
The following year the Rev. Mr. Robinson becomes the minister,
and so continues until his death in 1767 or 1768. Of him we shall
speak more in a little while. On the 4th of April, 1768, the Rev.
William Dunlap is received as their minister. In the year 1773 a
letter is received from Mr. Dunlap,—in the West Indies,—asking
leave of six months' absence longer, which is granted, and the Rev.
Mr. Dixon, from a neighbouring parish, is employed every other
Sabbath. In the year 1778 the vestry and their minister, Mr.
Dunlap, seem to be involved in a difficulty. The Rev. Mr. Dunlap
writes them a letter, which they wish to consider as a resignation,
and so record it, directing the churchwardens to advertise his resignation
three times in the Virginia Gazette. This is in April;
but in September of the same year we find the following record:—
"Ordered that churchwardens make application to the Rev.
William Dunlap and the Rev. Arthur Hamilton about moving from
the glebe; and, provided they refuse to move, the churchwardens
are hereby authorized to commence suit against them." In the
following year I find the following order:—"That the churchwardens
wait on the Rev. Mr. Hamilton, offering him the use of the
glebe, house, garden, &c., on condition that he preach once a month
and be ready to remove whenever required, and that the churchwardens
rent out the glebe." These unhappy notices are the last

on the record about the ministers of this once flourishing parish.
There are subsequent records of vestry-meetings and proceedings,
but not a word is written about even an effort to secure the services
of a minister. The last entry was in 1783. In vain do we turn
over the pages of our journals of Convention from the year 1785
and onward in search of some clerical or lay delegate from this
parish. The name of Stratton Major is nowhere to be found upon
them.

About twenty-five years ago, for the first and last time, I passed
through that part of the county where I think it probable that this
old church, of which I shall soon speak, stood. At a little distance
from the road I saw (for I had not time to stop, having to travel
thirty-five miles that day across three counties to my appointment)
a large and venerable old church, which had long been in possession
of others. One of the noble trees which almost touched its walls,
and gave shade to the house and those around and within, had a
short time before been cut down, by some idle and wanton ones,
merely to obtain a small quantity of wild honey which was supposed
to be in some hollow part of it. Whether its walls are still standing,
or what is its condition, I know not.

There never were, so far as the vestry-book shows, but two
churches in this parish, called in the entries of the book the Upper
and the Lower. In the year 1768, as soon as the new church of
which we are about to speak was finished, the vestry order that
the Upper Church should have the doors and windows studded and
boarded if necessary. It is probable that, after this, the new church,
which may have been in some central position, was the only one used.

This new church was probably the largest and best church built
in Virginia before that time, and for years after. That in Petsworth
parish, built a few years before, cost eleven hundred pounds,
and far exceeded any thing before seen; but this was contracted for
with Mr. Henry Gaines, for thirteen hundred pounds. Its dimensions
were fifty by eighty feet, and of corresponding height, with
galleries. When finished, the pews were not rented or sold as now,
but were assigned by the vestry to the individuals and families of
the parish. On two pages of the large folio vestry-book are the
names of two hundred and seventy-five individuals or heads of
families to whom these pews, or seats in them, are assigned. The
Hon. Richard Corbin's and John Robinson's (Speaker Robinson,
though he was just dead) families seem to be assigned the highest
seats. Commissary Robinson and family had one near the pulpit.
Then come the Merediths, Roots, Shacklefords, Gaines, Whitings,

Taliaferos, Metcalfs, Andersons, Hunts, Dudleys, Wares, Wedderburnes,
&c., though it does not appear whether the aristocratic
principle was adopted in the general distribution. Whoever would
see the names of half the families in King and Queen one century
ago would probably find them on this vestry-book.

The following list of vestrymen, commencing in 1739, will show
who were the leading men in all the civil and ecclesiastical matters
of the parish and county:—Richard Roy, Richard Johnson, Henry
Hickman, Edward Ware, Thomas Foster, Thomas Dudley, John
Collier, Gawin Corbin, Valentine Ware, Roger Gregory, Richard
Anderson, John Robinson, Benjamin Needler, Robert Dudley, John
Livingston, Robert Gaines, Philip Roots, John Ware, Richard
Shackleford, William Taliafero, John Strakey, William Lyne,
Charles Collier, Thomas Thorpe, Thomas Langford, John Shackleford,
John Foster, Philip Roots, Francis Gaines, John Whiting,
Thomas Reade Roots, John Whiting, James Prior, Thomas Dillard,
Lyne Shackleford, Hon. Richard Corbin, William Hall, John Taylor
Corbin, Benjamin Robinson, Humphrey Garrett, Richard Bray,
James Didlake, Philip Taliafero, Lyne Shackleford, Jr., Thomas
Dillard, John Kidd.

It is painful to see in this and other vestry-books, how, as the
Church began to decline and dissent to increase, and some of the
old friends disappeared from the vestries, it was difficult to supply
their places. Some who were elected refused to serve, and even
some who had served resigned their places. It must be said, however,
of the vestry of Stratton Major, from its first beginning to
its close, that it seems to have been attentive to all its duties, especially
in providing for the comfort of its ministers. While most
of the vestries purchased miserable glebes for eighty or a hundred
pounds, and were content with glebe-houses in proportion, this vestry
gave seven hundred pounds for one glebe, and when it was expedient
to dispose of that bought another for six hundred pounds,
and provided all necessary houses upon them of a comfortable kind,
even to a hen-house twenty feet long, and a dairy suitable for the
purpose. Mr. Richard Corbin is the first instance I have met
with who furnished the bread and wine for sacrament gratuitously.
He also presented a marble font to one of the churches, and the
land on which the new church was built was his gift. It was built
on a place not far from his residence, called "Goliath's Field." Its
size and walls were answerable to that name. The walls began
with five bricks at the foundation, and ended with four at the top,
and were twenty-seven feet high.

The Rev. William Robinson, as appears by the following extract
of a letter to the Bishop of London, and the records of the vestry-book,
was ordained in 1743, and became minister of Stratton Major
in 1744, continuing to be so until his death in 1767 or 1768. He
became Commissary in the year 1761. Governor Fauquier was
much dissatisfied with his appointment, and so expressed himself
in a letter to England. The opposition of the Governor was no
sure proof of the unworthiness of Mr. Robinson. He was an arbitrary
and high-tempered man, who could not brook opposition, and
Mr. Robinson was no negative submissive character to crouch before
authority. They had had one or two serious rencounters. During
the six or seven years of his Commissaryship, his correspondence
with the Bishop of London on the affairs of the Church was lengthy
and able. He espoused the cause of the clergy on the occasion
of the Two-Penny Act, or Option Law, with zeal and fearlessness,
though without success. He had an independent fortune of his
own, and was therefore the less liable to be charged with mercenary
motives. The following extract from a letter to the Bishop of London
in 1765 shows that he had reason to believe that he still had
enemies whose communications to the ears of the Bishop were unfavourable.
The continuance of his labour during the whole of his
ministry, for twenty-four years in the same parish, and where there
was much of character and wealth and talent, and such zeal and
liberality in regard to all Church matters, speaks well in his behalf.

ST. STEPHEN'S PARISH, KING AND QUEEN.

This parish was probably established in 1691, there being no
certain account of it.[106] In the years 1754 and 1758, and again in
the years 1773-74 and 1776, the Rev. Mr. Dunbar was minister of
this parish. No minister appears on our journals to represent this
parish until the year 1793, when the Rev. Thomas Andrews appears
from St. Stephen's parish, but whether St. Stephen's of King
and Queen, or of Northumberland, does not appear; but there
were some faithful laymen in that parish, who steadily adhered
to its falling fortunes. Anderson Scott and Henry Young appear
as lay delegates in 1785 and 1786. Mr. Thomas Hill and William
Fleet are lay delegates in 1796. Mr. Thomas Hill had attended
alone, without minister or associate layman, during several of the
preceding Conventions; but, after 1796, St. Stephen's parish appears
to be deserted.

Of the churches in this parish I know nothing, unless the following
is a description of one of them:—"In the northwest of the
county, in an old and venerable grove, stands St. Stephen's Church,
I think in the form of a cross. There is no wall around it, but it
is in good repair. It is principally used by the Baptists, but Episcopal
services have sometimes been held in it of late years, and
one of the Bishops has visited it, I believe."

From this whole county Episcopalians have nearly disappeared,
either by death, removal, or union with other denominations.

KING WILLIAM COUNTY AND THE PARISHES IN IT.

King William was taken out of King and Queen in 1701. At
that time St. John's parish was the only one in the county. In
1721, St. Margarett's parish was established. A part of this
being in Caroline, when that county was established in the year
1744, St. Margarett's was divided, and that part in Caroline was
called St. Margarett's still, and that in King William called St.
David's, so that the two parishes in King William were henceforth
St. John's and St. David's. In the year 1754, the Rev. Alexander
White, afterward minister in Hanover county, and one of those

who opposed the Two-Penny Act by a lawsuit, was the minister of
St. David's, and Mr. John Robertson of St. John's parish. The
same continued in these parishes in 1758. In the years 1773-7476,
the Rev. Alexander White is still the minister of St. David's,
and the Rev. William Skyren of St. John's. At the first Convention
in 1785, the Rev. William Skyren is still the minister of
St. John's, attended by Mr. Carter Braxton as lay delegate, Mr.
William Temple being the lay delegate from St. David's. In 1786,
the Rev. Mr. Skyren is still in St. John's; Mr. Carter Braxton
the lay delegate from the same, and Mr. Benjamin Temple and
William Spiller from St. David's. In 1787, Mr. Skyren still from
St. John's, and his lay delegates, William D. Claiborne, William
Spiller, and Benjamin Temple, from St. David's. In the year
1790, Rev. Reuben Clopton appears in Convention from St. David's,
with Nathaniel Burwell as lay delegate. There was no
representative from St. John's, the Rev. Mr. Skyren having removed
to Hampton. In 1791, Mr. Clopton is still the minister of
St. David's; also in 1792, with Mr. Nathaniel Burwell as lay delegate.
St. John's is once more represented by Carter Braxton, Jr.
as lay delegate, in 1792. In 1794, St. David's is represented by
Mr. Joseph Guathney as lay delegate, and in the following year
by Mr. Thomas Fox and Mr. William Dabney. In the year 1797,
the Rev. Thomas Hughes and Mr. Benjamin Temple represent St.
David's, and the Rev. John Dunn and Mr. James Ruffin represent
St. John's. In the year 1799, the Rev. Thomas Hughes and Mr.
Thomas Fox represent St. David's, and Mr. Edward Chamberlayne
and John Lord represent St. John's. In the year 1805, the Rev.
Duncan McNaughton and Mr. John Hull represent St. Stephen's
parish, but whether the parish of that name in Northumberland or
King William is not known. This concludes the list of ministers
of King William county, until the Rev. Farley Berkeley was sent
there as missionary, who remained one year.

The Rev. John McGuire, while minister in Essex, often visited
one or more of the old churches in King William, and since his
removal the Rev. Mr. Temple has done the same; but the revival
of the Church in that county is at this time very unpromising, the
old Episcopal families having long since either removed or united
with other denominations.

Of the old churches in King William I have received the following
account:—

POSTSCRIPTS TO THE ARTICLES ON THE PARISHES OF KING AND
QUEEN, AND KING WILLIAM.

Two letters from brethren who are well acquainted with these
counties enable me to correct some errors in the preceding account.
As to King and Queen, I was mistaken in supposing that I may
have once passed by the large church in Stratton Major parish,
which was built on Mr. Corbin's land, called Goliath's Field. The
one I saw was in St. Stephen's parish, and is still standing, being in
possession of the Baptists. The Stratton Major Church has been
sold, some years since, and the bricks entirely removed. There is
still one church standing in Stratton Major parish. A third was
destroyed by fire. There was also another church in St. Stephen's
parish, called the Apple-Tree Church. Among the families belonging
to St. Stephen's parish may be mentioned the Temples,
Hoskins, Scotts, Youngs, Hills, and Fleets.

The following account of the Rev. Henry Skyren, the last of the
ministers who regularly officiated in the churches of King William
and King and Queen, will be read with deep interest:—

During the ministry of the Rev. Mr. Dalrymple in New Kent,
in the years 1843 and 1844, he made an effort to revive the old
churches in King William, by preaching there, and the parishes
were received into the Convention. The Rev. Edward McGuire,
who succeeded him, also officiated occasionally, I believe; but sufficient
encouragement was not afforded for the settlement of a
minister among them. We will not, however, despair.

ARTICLE XXXIV.

Parishes in New Kent.—St. Peter's and Blissland Parishes.

New Kent was cut off from the upper part of York county in
1654. It commenced on Scimon's Creek, on the north of York
River, some distance above Williamsburg, and extended to the
heads of Pamunkey and Mattapony Rivers, and returned again on
the north of Mattapony to the Prepotanke Creek, north of York
River, including what are now King William and King and Queen
counties, as well as Hanover county to the west. On the north
of the York and Pamunkey Rivers there was a parish called St.
John's; on the south, one called St. Peter's. About the year 1684
or 1685, a parish, east of St. Peter's, on Pamunkey and York Rivers,
toward Williamsburg, was formed, by the name of Blissland, which
continued to have a minister until after the Revolutionary War.
We shall begin with such notices as we have been able to obtain of
St. Peter's parish. We have an old vestry-book, which probably
commenced in 1682, though we can only use it from 1685, the previous
pages having been torn out. A friend, however, has supplied
the deficiency in some measure. Our materials from English
archives enable us to go back yet further, and furnish us also with
some information of a later date, not to be found in the vestry-book.
We begin with these. In the year 1699, Governor Nicholson addressed
the following letter to the High-Sheriff of New Kent
county, ordering a meeting of the clergy in Jamestown. It will
not only show the spirit of the age and of those in authority, but
the peculiarly dogmatic spirit of the man:—

The first notice I find of the religious condition of the parish
and of the neighbouring parishes is from a letter in the year 1696,
from the Rev. Nicholas Moreau, who was the minister of St. Peter's
for two years. He appears to have been a pious man, and was probably
one of the French Huguenots who were driven to America
about this time by the persecution growing out of the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes.

The following extract is from a letter to the Bishop of London:—

The next information is from the report of the condition of this
parish to the Bishop of London in 1724, by the Rev. Henry Collings.
His parish had two hundred and four families in it, forty
or fifty communicants, only one church, (St. Peter's,) about one
hundred and seventy or one hundred and eighty attendants. His
salary eighty pounds, more or less. Glebe and parsonage rented
out for six pounds five shillings per annum. Catechizing had been
much neglected: he intended to introduce it.

The next is from the Rev. Mr. Lang, who succeeded Mr. Collings
in 1725 and continued two years.

The Rev. Mr. Lang came highly recommended from England to
Governor Drysdale and Commissary Blair, and by them as highly
to the parish of St. Peter's, in New Kent. On the 7th of February,
1725-26, he writes thus to the Bishop of London:—"I observe
the people here are very zealous for our Holy Church, as it is established
in England, so that (except some few inconsiderable
Quakers) there are scarce any Dissenters from our communion,
and yet at the same time supinely ignorant in the very principles
of religion, and very debauched in morals. This, I apprehend, is
chiefly owing to the general neglect of the clergy in not taking
pains to instruct youth in the fundamentals of religion, or to examine
people come to years of discretion before they are permitted to
come to Church privileges." He speaks of the gross ignorance of
many, who on their death-beds, or on Christmas-day, desire to receive
the sacraments; of the great ignorance of those who offer
themselves as sponsors; of the evil lives of the servants who have
been presented by their owners to baptism. "The great cause of
all which" (he says) "I humbly conceive to be in the clergy, the sober
part being slothful and negligent, and others so debauched that
they are the foremost and most bent on all manner of vices.
Drunkenness is the common vice." He goes on to specify instances
among clergy and laity of great unworthiness, concluding
as to the former by saying:—"How dreadful it is to think that
men authorized by the Church to preach repentance and forgiveness
through Christ should be first in the very sins which they reprove!"
It is not wonderful that this should be among the first parts of our
State in which dissent began, as we are informed was the case under
Samuel Davies, some twenty or thirty years after the date of Mr.
Lang's letter.

I now proceed with a list of the ministers of St. Peter's Church
from the year 1682. The Rev. William Sellake was minister in
1682. Rev. John Carr from 1684 to 1686. Rev. John Hall from
1686 to 1687. The Rev. John Page from 1687 to 1688. The
Rev. Mr. Williams officiated for a short time in 1689. Rev. Jacob
Ward from 1690 to 1696. Rev. Nicholas Moreau from 1696 to
1698. Rev. James Bowker from 1698 to 1703. Rev. Richard
Squire from 1703 to 1707. Rev. Daniel Taylor from 1707 to 1708.
Rev. Daniel Gray from 1708 to 1709. Rev. Benjamin Goodwin
from 1709 to 1710. From the year 1710 to 1720 the Rev. William
Brodie. During the two following years the Revs. Thomas Sharp,

Broomscale, Brooke, Forbess, and Francis Fontaine, officiated there.
From 1722 to 1725 the Rev. Henry Collings. From 1725 to 1727
the Rev. Mr. Lang. He was succeeded by the Rev. David Mossom,
who continued the minister for forty years. He was the person
who officiated at the nuptials of General Washington, at the White
House, a few miles from St. Peter's Church. It was in that parish,
and under the ministry of Mr. Mossom, that the Rev. Devereux
Jarratt was born and trained. In his Autobiography he gives a
poor account of the state of morals and religion in New Kent. He
considers himself as a brand plucked from the burning by the grace
of God. Illustrative of the condition of things, he mentions a
quarrel between Mr. Mossom and his clerk, in which the former
assailed the latter from the pulpit in his sermon, and the latter, to
avenge himself, gave out from the desk the psalm in which were
these lines:—

Nevertheless, from the long continuance of Mossom in this parish,
we doubt not that he was a more respectable man than many of his
day. He was married four times, and much harassed by his last
wife, as Colonel Bassett has often told me, which may account for
and somewhat excuse a little peevishness. He came from Newburyport,
Massachusetts, and was, according to his epitaph in St. Peter's
Church, the first native American admitted to the office of Presbyter
in the Church of England.

Mr. Mossom was followed by the Rev. James Semple, who continued
the minister of the parish for twenty-two years. The Rev.
Benjamin Blagrove was the minister in the year 1789. The Rev.
Benjamin Brown was the minister in the year 1797.

After a long and dreary interval of nearly fifty years, we find
the Rev. E. A. Dalrymple the minister from 1843 to 1845.[107] Then
the Rev. E. B. Maguire from 1845 to 1851. Then the Rev. William
Norwood from 1852 to 1854. Then the Rev. David Caldwell
from 1854 to 1856.

Having disposed of the ministers, we now give a list of the vestry
so far as furnished by the vestry-book from the year 1685 to the
year 1758. They are as follows—George Jones, William Bassett,

Stephen Carlton, Henry Wyatt, Thomas Mitchell, John Park,
William Paisley, J. Renor, Cornelius Dabnee, (Dabney,) Gideon
Macon, Matthew Page, George Smith, George Joands, John
Rojor, (Roger,) David Craford, James Moss, John Lydall, Mr.
Forster, W. Clopton, John Lewis, Nicholas Merriwether, John Park,
Jr., Richard Littlepage, Thomas Butts, Thomas Massie, William
Waddell, Henry Childs, Robert Anderson, Richard Allen, Samuel
Gray, Ebenezer Adams, Charles Lewis, Charles Massie, Walton
Clopton, William Macon, W. Brown, W. Marston, John Netherland,
William Chamberlayne, David Patterson, Michael Sherman,
John Dandridge, Daniel Parke Custis, Matthew Anderson, George
Webb, W. Hopkins, Jesse Scott, Edmund Bacon, William Vaughan,
William Clayton, John Roper.

It deserves to be mentioned to the credit of the vestry, that it
does not appear to have been unmindful of its duty as guardian
of the public morals. On more than one occasion, at an early
period, it enjoins on the churchwardens to see that the laws are
enforced against such as violated the seventh commandment; and in
the year 1736, when some unworthy persons disturbed the congregation
during service, an order was passed that a pair of stocks
should be put up in the yard, in order to confine any who should
thus offend.

It appears also from the vestry-book that the parish was divided
in 1704, and St. Paul's, in Hanover, taken off.

St. Peter's Church was built in 1703, at a cost of one hundred
and forty-six thousand-weight of tobacco. The steeple was not
built until twelve years after. If the early history of this parish
be not creditable to its piety, let not those unto whom in the wonderful
providence of God it has been transmitted, and who are permitted
to worship in the venerable church of St. Peter's, be discouraged.
The first sometimes become last and the last first. So
may it be with this parish! May its latter end greatly increase in
all that is good! That it yet survives is proof that God has a
favour toward it, and will strengthen the things which seemed ready
to perish.[108]

OF BLISSLAND PARISH.

A few words will suffice for the little we have to say of this. No
vestry-book remains to tell its history.

Though a small parish, yet being near to Williamsburg it was
doubtless continually supplied, from its establishment in 1684 or
1685, until the year 1785, when we lose sight of it from the list of
clergy and parishes and the journals of Conventions.

In the year 1724 the Rev. Daniel Clayton was the minister, and
had been for twenty years, as he writes to the Bishop of London.
There were two churches in it. The parish had one hundred
and thirty-six families. His salary was eighty pounds per annum.
The glebe was worth nothing. No school or library was in the
parish.

In the year 1758 the Rev. Chichely Thacker was the minister.
In the years 1773, 1774, 1776, and 1785, the Rev. Price Davies
was the rector. In the latter year he appears in the Convention
at Richmond, attended by Mr. Burwell Bassett as lay delegate,
while the Rev. James Semple and Mr. William Hartwell Macon
represented St. Peter's parish. What has become of the churches
of Blissland parish I am unable to say. Perhaps I may yet learn.
I think one of them was an old brick church, on the roadside from
New Kent to Williamsburg, about twelve miles from the latter, and
which I have seen in former days,—the walls still good, and nothing
else remaining.

ARTICLE XXXV.

Parishes in Essex County.—No. 1. South Farnham.

This parish was erected in 1692. It was called South Farnham
to distinguish it from one in Richmond county, on the north
side of the Rappahannock, called North Farnham.

There were two churches in this parish, called Upper and Lower
Piscataway. The first minister of the parish of whom we have
any account was the Rev. Lewis Latane, a Huguenot, who came
to this country and settled in this parish in the year 1700. He
must have taken charge of the parish very soon after his arrival,
as a letter from Governor Spottswood to the vestry of South
Farnham — found among his papers, and bearing date 17th December,
1716—speaks of Mr. Latane as having been the minister
of the parish for nearly sixteen years. This letter is in relation
to an attempt on the part of the vestry to displace Mr. Latane,
and severely reprehends their conduct, and threatens to interpose
the authority of the Governor if persisted in. It must have been
abandoned, as appears from the journal of a Mr. John Fontaine,
who, travelling from Williamsburg through this region of country,
heard Mr. Latane preach at the parish church, as he called it, in
1717, and speaks of his sermon and himself in high terms of commendation.
This was the year after the date of the letter referred
to. Mr. Latane seems to have been a quiet man, moving
on in the even tenor of his way, but feeling keenly the injustice
done him by his vestry. The opposition to him was not on the
ground of immorality or ministerial unfaithfulness or inefficiency,
but on account of his dialect, to which Mr. Latane thought they
ought now to have become accustomed. He felt aggrieved that,
after preaching for them so many years, the objection should be
made at so late a day. An anecdote connected with this matter
is related of him, which seems to be characteristic of the man.
He was riding with one of his parishioners, when the subject of his
removal was talked over by them. The other expressed his sorrow,
but thought it better on the ground that Mr. Latane's sermons
were rendered unintelligible by his foreign brogue. Before
separating they came to the minister's gate. "Go by," he said,

"and get something to drink;" which was readily agreed to.
This he said to prove him. "Now," said the minister, "you can
readily understand me when I tempt you to do wrong, but you
can't understand me when I counsel you to do right."

How long he continued to officiate in the parish church cannot
be ascertained. No records of the parish pertaining to the church
are to be found, even after diligent inquisition made. The proceedings
of the vestry of South Farnham, in relation to the work
of processioners who were appointed by the vestry under authority
and by direction of the court of Essex, have been found; but they
only show who were the ministers and who the vestrymen of the
parish at each meeting for that business. The first meeting was
held in 1739, when the Rev. William Philips was present. Nothing
but the name of this person can be gathered from this or any other
source. He is mentioned as being present at subsequent meetings
up to 1744.

An interval of eight years occurs, and the Rev. Alexander Cruden
appears in 1752 and continues until 1773. There is no one living
in the parish who can remember any thing of Mr. Cruden. Vague
tradition represents him as having been a fine preacher in his day.
Nothing is known as to his piety. He was a native of Aberdeen,
Scotland, as is believed, and returned to that country during the
Revolutionary War. He must have relinquished his charge two
years before the war commenced. There was no minister in the
parish from that time till 1792, when the Rev. Andrew Syme,
of Glasgow, Scotland, came to the village of Tappahannock as
tutor in the family of Dr. John Brockenbrough, and preached in
the churches of South Farnham. He received a small salary
raised by voluntary contribution. What were the fruits of his
ministerial work: whether the scattered sheep were collected
and their drooping spirits revived, or the tide of infidelity which
was then rising and afterward spread over this region was
stayed by his labours, does not appear. Being the first minister
after the Revolution, he doubtless had many difficulties to
contend with, and his usefulness must have been lessened by
his school. He removed from Essex to Petersburg in 1794.
More than twenty years elapsed before there were again any regular
services in the parish. The Rev. Mr. Mathews, of St. Anne's
parish, Essex, the Rev. Mr. Carter, of Drysdale parish, King and
Queen county, and the Rev. Mr. Krew, of Middlesex county, officiated
in South Farnham for the rites of baptism, marriage, and
burial, when sent for by the few remaining followers of the Episcopal

Church. When regular services were again resumed, it was
under the ministry of the Rev. John Reynolds, in 1822, who came
to this country from England a Wesleyan Methodist and afterward
entered the ministry of the Episcopal Church. He was
called by the two parishes of Essex united. The parishes continued
so under the ministry of the Rev. J. P. McGuire, who was
called to the rectorship of St. Anne's and South Farnham parishes
in 1825. When he resigned, in 1852, the parishes were each able
to support its own minister. During the dreary interval in the
history of the Church in South Farnham parish referred to, the
influence of the Church had waned until it seemed almost lost.
That it should be revived, humanly viewed, seemed more improbable
than that it should become extinct. It was "the Lord's
doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes." The few remaining
friends were now without minister or temple. Both churches in
the parish had been destroyed,—one being pulled down, the other
burned. The feeling of hostility to the Church engendered by
the establishment under the Colonial Government, and transmitted
from generation to generation, was greatly increased in this
vicinity by the imprisonment of some of the Dissenting ministers,
—a proceeding which was unjustly identified with the Episcopal
Church. This feeling, at its height when the influence of the
Church was at the lowest, joined with the stronger feeling of
rapacity, led, as may be supposed, to wholesale plunder of the
churches and church-property. The destruction in this parish
has been complete. Nothing is to be found but the durable materials
of which the buildings were made. The bricks may be recognised
where seen; but they are nowhere found except in other
buildings. The flagstones, too, from the aisles, may be seen in
walks and in hearths; but not a whole brick, much less one upon
another, nor a piece of timber, is to be seen where the temples of
the living God stood. The monuments of the dead were not even
spared in the general depredation. These were dragged from their
resting-places and made into grindstones, and may still be identified
by parts of the original inscriptions.

As mentioned, no vestry-book is to be found belonging to the
parish, no Bible, Prayer Book, font, nor Communion-table; and
the strange fact can only be accounted for by supposing that they
shared one common ruin with the churches.

One of these buildings was preserved from destruction by a
worthy old gentleman who is said to have watched, with his
servants, night after night, to protect the house of God. When

he died, the work of destruction went on, nor ceased till nothing
was left to tempt the cupidity of the plunderers. The other was
spared, to meet, if possible, a worse fate. The bricks and nails
were the most tempting materials in this house; and, as the
readiest way to obtain these was to fire the building, this was
done accordingly. But the first attempt to burn it was unsuccessful;
the fire, after burning for a time, went out of itself. No
one of sensibility could see this house of God as it then stood—
charred and blackened by fire, hacked by axes, and otherwise
injured by Vandal hands—and not have his feelings deeply
moved. But this condition did not suffice the spirit that was bent
on its destruction. It stood a short time longer, was again fired,
and burned to the ground. It had been a noble structure of the
kind, must have been one of the oldest Colonial churches, and, until
within a few years of its destruction, had much of venerable grandeur
in its appearance. Having, up to the time of its destruction,
so far withstood the influence of three natural elements, and a
still worse and more cruel in the bosom of man, with no guardians
left but the venerable oaks which had watched over it in better
days, and were still stretching out their arms toward it as if to
afford help in its fallen state, it was an object of peculiar
interest. Few indeed must have been the friends then to ask,
"Who saw this house in its first glory, and how do ye see it now?"
or they had not had so soon to take up the lamentation, "Our holy
and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned
up with fire, and all our pleasant things are laid waste." But
there was "a remnant, according to the election of grace," who
"sighed for the abominations" they could not prevent, mourned
over the desolations of Zion, "who took pleasure in her stones,
and favoured the dust thereof." They were as the "two or three
berries on the top of the uppermost bough" left after the vintage.
But they were "mothers in Israel," and nourished a seed for the
future Church. The glebe belonging to the parish, together with
the plate belonging to both churches, was sold, and the fund accruing
invested for the support of the parish poor. The fund
yields about one thousand dollars per annum. The plate was
massive, and sold, at a sacrifice, for some three hundred or four
hundred dollars.

The glebe was a donation from Rev. Lewis Latane, the first
minister of the parish. Had this plea been urged, after proper
steps to establish it,—as might have been done in the bar of the
sale,—it had no doubt been prevented. The following are the

names of persons who constituted the vestry of South Farnham
parish from 1739 to 1779:—

Faithfully have the descendants of this upright and conscientious
man followed the example of his integrity. Perhaps there is no
instance to be found in Virginia, where a whole family have been
more remarkable for truth and fidelity in all their dealings and
character. John, his only surviving son, married a Miss Mary
Allen. William, his only surviving son, married a Miss Ann
Waring, leaving a large number of sons and daughters. His
daughter Lucy, third in descent from Mr. Latane, married Mr.
Payne Waring, of Essex, so well known as the zealous and liberal
friend of the Church in that county and in the diocese, and father
of the present Mrs. Richard Baylor. His son Henry, now seventy-three
years of age, has several children who are members of the
Church, one of whom is preparing for the ministry. His daughter
Mary married Mr. John Temple, one of whose sons is the minister
of Old South Farnham parish at this time, and one of whom died at
the University in the year 1829, a model of piety and all excellence.
A brief tribute is due to his memory. In the year 1829,

a most pestilential and fatal disease broke out in the village of
Charlottesville and at the University. Nine of the students in the
latter fell victims to it, and among them young Temple. Being
invited by the authorities of the University to improve that most
afflictive dispensation, I prepared and delivered a discourse, which
was published. From it I extract the concluding sentences, which
will show in what high esteem young Temple was held:—

The following documents explain themselves:—

ARTICLE XXXVI.

Parishes in Essex.—No. 2. St. Anne's Parish.

This parish was established in 1692, the same year with the
neighbouring parish of South Farnham, of which we have just given
some account. We are unable to ascertain[109] who were its ministers
previous to 1725. We learn from his own journal that the Rev.
Robert Rose became its minister in February, 1725. Nor do we
learn any thing of his ministry until the year 1746, as his journal
does not commence until that year, which he says was the twenty-first
of his incumbency in the parish of St. Anne. This journal has
been an object of great interest and desire to the antiquaries of
Virginia. Mr. Charles Campbell, of Petersburg, in his valuable
History of Virginia, laments its supposed loss in the Western wilds,
whither it had been carried by some of his descendants. I am so
fortunate as to have it in temporary possession, through the kindness
of Mr. Henry Carter, of Caroline county, Virginia, who has
recently gotten it from the West,—Mr. Carter being one of the posterity
of Mr. Rose. It will, in one important respect, disappoint

the expectations of those who have longed for it. It only covers
the last five or six years of his life,—from January 21, 1746, to
June 13, 1751, soon after which he died. It is, however, in some
respects an interesting narrative, exhibiting the character of its
author to the life, and casting light on men and things of that early
period. Mr. Rose came from Scotland early in the last century.
It is confidently believed that he came under the auspices of Governor
Spottswood. There was certainly a great intimacy between
them to the day of General Spottswood's death. Mr. Rose was, I
presume, from a large account-book bound up with his journal, or
to which his journal is appended, going back to the year 1727, his
executor. He certainly had much to do with the settlement of the
estate, and with his widow and children after the death of General
Spottswood in 1737. Mr. Rose partook very much of the character
of General Spottswood, being a man of great labour, decision, benevolence,
and of extraordinary business-talents. If the previous years
of his life partook in any good degree of the character of the last
five or six, he must have done an amount of labour such as few men
ever accomplish,—too much indeed of a secular kind to consist with
that spirituality which ought ever to characterize a minister of the
Gospel. He was the executor of various persons besides General
Spottswood. It is due to him to say that a benevolent feeling
seems to have prompted to this, for the widow and the orphan were
the objects of his care. At an early period after his settlement in
Essex, we find him taking charge of the estate and family of the
Rev. Mr. Bagge. It is also due to him to say that he never seems
to have neglected the duty of preaching. Wherever he was on the
Sabbath, whether in his own parish or on his journeys, he records
his preaching. Very often also he speaks of preaching during the
week at private houses, and baptizing children. About the time
his journal commences, he was preparing to move into Nelson
county, where he had purchased lands at a cheap rate, and where
he settled his four sons, Hugh, Patrick, Henry, and Charles. His
journal mentions all his visits to and fro between Nelson and Essex;
in making which he passes through Stafford, Spottsylvania, Louisa,
Orange, Albemarle, Culpepper, and calls on all the first families in
these counties, sometimes preaching, sometimes marrying, at other
times baptizing. Wherever he went, accounts are brought out to
him for examination and settlement, as though there was none other
capable of it. His judgment as to farms is often consulted. He
would not only visit them, but sometimes help to survey them. He
was equally good at settling family disputes, and was often engaged
in it. He was also a man of much public spirit. He once visited
Western Virginia with some friends, going as far as the Cow Pasture,
sleeping out at nights in cold weather, and drinking, as he
records, wretched whiskey for want of something better,—though
he was still a sober man. He was the first to descend James River,
with one or two others, in an open canoe, as far as Richmond, and
thus establish its navigability. At that and at other times, when
travelling by land, we find him passing through all the counties
lying between Nelson and York, stopping at all the chief places on
James River,—at Colonel Jefferson's, in Goochland, (father of the
President,) at Tuckahoe, Curls, Westover, &c. We find him repeatedly
at Williamsburg,—having business with the court and
Legislature,—dining or supping with the Governor and Council,
with Commissary Blair, President Burwell, Speaker Beverley, with
the Nelsons and others at York,—then passing through Gloucester
to Middlesex,—visiting at Brandon and Rosegill,—thence to his
parish in Essex. About twice a year for five years he seems to
have made excursions of this kind, more or less extensive. He
was doubtless a very popular man in Virginia, and enjoyed the
affection and confidence of the first men and families in the State.
The manner and place in which he terminated his life is one proof
of this. When the city of Richmond was about to be laid out, he
was invited, by those to whom the duty was intrusted, to meet with
them and aid by his counsel. It was while thus engaged that he
sickened and died. He lies buried in the graveyard of the old
church on Richmond Hill, with the following inscription:—

He must have entered on his charge in Essex when he was but
twenty-one years of age, for in his journal of February 1, 1746,
he says that that was the twenty-first year of his incumbency in
St. Anne's parish. If ordained Deacon during the year preceding
his entrance into the parish, he must have been in his forty-third
year at the time of this entry on the journal; and he lived five years
and five months after this. It is difficult to reconcile these dates,
and there may be a mistake either in the entry or the inscription.

I doubt not but that the inscription is far more just to his character
than most of the records of that period. I have not been
able to meet with any of the sermons of Mr. Rose, and therefore
cannot speak of his theology or style of preaching; and there is
nothing in his entries which give us any light into his religious character
and sentiments, or the state of religion at that time. He only
records his sermons, their texts, and the times and places of their
delivery, and some baptisms and communions. Once only does he
mention meeting with a Baptist,—an ignorant ploughman,—who
tried to get him into a controversy about election and reprobation,
and to whom the only advice he gave was, as he says, that of John
the Baptist, that every man attend to his own business. The Baptists
were then making considerable progress in Virginia, and I have
no idea that Mr. Rose or any of the clergy of the Episcopal Church
of that day were calculated to oppose them successfully. The style
of the sermons and the delivery of the same were altogether too
tame for that purpose. They were written, in almost every instance
that I have seen, in a very small hand, and with very close lines,
as if paper was too scarce and dear to admit of any thing else.
They must have read very closely in order to get through with such
manuscripts. The location and form of their pulpits were also such
as to show that they kept their eyes very near to the manuscript,
and did not care to look at the congregation. The pulpits in the
old churches were always either on the side of the church, if oblong,
or on one of the angles, if cruciform. The aisles were wide, and a
cross aisle and door nearly opposite the pulpit, so that only a small
portion of the congregation could be seen by the minister. It was
also so deep, that unless he were a very tall man his head only
could be seen. In the earlier part of my ministry I have often
been much at a loss how to elevate myself in many of these old
churches which I visited, and have sometimes hurried to church before
the congregation assembled, in order to gather up stones, bricks,
and pieces of plank to raise a little platform under me, and which
was not always very steady. I have preached repeatedly in two of

the old churches, built under the auspices of Mr. Rose, whose pulpits
were remarkably deep. In one of them, a large round block
sawed from the body of a tree, more than a foot high, had been
provided by some one of his successors, and stood in the centre of
the pulpit; and even on this I found it uncomfortable to stand and
preach. All of these old pulpits have been lowered and their location
changed.

But I have something more to say of Mr. Rose from his journal.
He was a kind of universal genius. Now he is in the house reading
Cicero's Orations, now on the farm engaged in all kinds of employment,
now at his neighbours', instructing and helping them in various
operations. Now he writes in his journal a recipe for the best mode
of curing tobacco.[111] His visits to friends in neighbouring parishes
are recorded. We find him in the Northern Neck, at the Fitzhughs'
and Stewarts'; then going over to Maryland, visiting at Dr. Gustavus
Brown's, five of whose daughters married clergymen, as we
shall see hereafter; at Dr. John Key's, who married another; associating
with some of the Romish clergy, who treated him very
kindly. His association with numbers of the clergy of Virginia
is mentioned. He speaks of Mr. Stewart, of King George,—then
Stafford,—as an eloquent preacher, as being an exception to the
scriptural rule, for he was a prophet who had honour in his own
country. He mentions in an account-book Mr. Alexander Scott,
of Stafford, as being minister in 1727, and Mr. Moncure, his successor,
at a later period. He visits Mr. Mayre, of Fredericksburg,

—Mr. Dixon, one of the successors of Mr. Latane in South Farnham
parish,—mentions Mr. Thompson, of Culpepper, who married
the widow of General Spottswood, and between whom and the
family, who opposed the marriage, he effected a reconciliation. He
speaks particularly of the Rev. Mr. Smelt, who, through his influence,
succeeded him in Essex. In his journal, after hearing him
preach, he thus writes:—"Rev. Mr. Smelt preached on John,
4th chap. 8-36 verses, (Tillotson's,) delivered modestly and distinctly."[112] Borrowing sermons was very common in those days.
Other ministers also are mentioned, as Mr. Maury, of Albemarle,
Mr. Douglass, of Goochland, Mr. Barrett, of Louisa, Mr. Yates, of
Middlesex, Mr. Camm, of Williamsburg, Mr. Stith, of Curls Neck,
and Mr. Cruden. With the leading families of his parish he appears
to have lived on the most intimate terms. He is continually
breakfasting, dining, or staying all night, at Colonel Brooke's, at
Mr. Beverley's of Blanfield, at Mr. Tarent's, Mr. Fitzhugh's, at Mr.
Garnett's, Mr. Rowzie's, Fairfax's, Parker's, Mercer's, and Lomax's.
He appears to have been a man of energy and business in Church
matters also. When elected minister in Nelson, then part of Albemarle,
and in what was called St. Anne's parish, at one meeting of
the vestry in 1749 he had an order passed for four new churches,—
the Forge, Balinger's, Rooker's, and at New Glasgow, the two former
on the Green Mountain, and the latter in what is now Amherst,
though he did not live to see them all finished. The habits of Mr.
Rose were doubtless temperate. He speaks of turning away an
overseer for getting drunk on a certain occasion; and yet, in evidence
of the habits of the times, he speaks of bringing home with him
one day from Leighton's, on the Rappahannock, "rum and wine
and other necessaries," and at another time of carrying a quarter-cask
of wine into Nelson, the first that ever crossed Tye River,
although the Cabels, Higgenbottoms, and Frys then lived there.[113]
In further proof of the manner and habits of the age, I mention
the entry of a visit to one of the leading families of his parish, when
he found that the head of it had gone to Newcastle (which was in
another county, and a considerable distance off) to a cockfight. I
read of him also as being at a horse-race at Tye River, (probably
at New Market, where were races afterward,) but then he adds:—
"Memorandum: suffer it no more," as though he had power to prevent
it and would do so. I bring this notice to a close by stating
that Mr. Rose was twice married. Who his first wife was, or
whence she came, I know not. At the death of a daughter in 1748,
there is the following entry:—"Buried my daughter's body by the
side of her mother and brother Robert, at Mr. Brooke's plantation."
His second wife was Miss Ann Fitzhugh, of Stafford, not far from
Fredericksburg. With all the families of Fitzhughs in Stafford,
King George, and Essex, he seems to have lived on the most affectionate
terms. His last wife survived him, but how many years I
am unable to say. His four sons, Hugh, Patrick, Henry, and
Charles, settled on the farms in Nelson and Amherst left them by
their father. His son Colonel Hugh Rose was a man of great decision
of character, and for many years acted as lay reader in two
of the churches of Amherst,—viz.: Rooker's, and that at New
Glasgow. After the war of the Revolution, and when the church
was without a minister, a young preacher of another denomination,
coming from a distance, and understanding that there was no minister
in the parish, gave notice that on the following Sunday he
would officiate in the church at New Glasgow. On the Sabbath
morning he took possession of the pulpit. Soon after, Colonel
Hugh came in, prepared to execute his office. Seeing the pulpit
occupied, and learning by whom, he ascended and politely informed
him that it was his church, and that he could not give place to
another. Whereupon the occupant came down, and the lay reader
performed his part. Being an accomplished gentleman, however,
as well as staunch Churchman, he insisted on his going home with
him, where he treated him with so much kindness and hospitality
as to make a deep impression on the young preacher, who took
pleasure ever after in speaking of the whole affair.

As to the successors of Mr. Rose in Essex, we are unable to
speak fully, for want of documents. Mr. Smelt succeeded him in
1749, and was there in 1758, according to a list which I have from an
English paper. I have no other lists of ministers until the year
1774 and 1776. In two Virginia almanacs of those dates, the Rev.
John Matthews is set down as the minister of St. Anne's parish.
From 1776 to 1814 there is no account of it. No delegation, either
clerical or lay, appear in any of the Conventions from 1784 to 1805.
After the renewal of our Convention, in 1812, two years elapsed

before there was any representative. In 1814 the Rev. Mr. Norris
and myself passed through the Northern Neck and Essex, on our
way to Richmond, when the Hon. James Hunter and Thomas
Mathews were appointed delegates. In the year 1817 the Hon.
James Garnett was sent, and, in the year 1820, Mr. Robert Beverley.
In the year 1822 the Rev. John Reynolds took his seat as
minister of both of the parishes of Essex. In the year 1826 the
Rev. John P. McGuire appears as minister of the same. He continued
faithfully serving them for twenty-four years, and performing
a large amount of missionary labour in the adjoining counties.
During his ministry the old and venerable brick church called
Vauter's (built most probably about the year 1731) was repaired,
and two others built in St. Anne's parish,—one a very handsome
frame building in Tappahannock, the other about ten miles off.
The Rev. Mr. Temple, fourth in descent from Mr. Latane, is the
minister of the latter, and the Rev. E. C. McGuire, son of the Rev.
Dr. McGuire, of Fredericksburg, and nephew of the former minister,
the Rev. J. P. McGuire, is the rector of the former,—viz.: Vauter's
Church, St. Anne's parish. Some of the descendants of the
old families mentioned in Mr. Rose's journal still help to sustain
the Church in this region. Many of them are scattered far and
wide through the land.

The following communication concerning Old Vauter's Church,
from Mr. Richard Baylor, of Essex, is worthy of a place in an
article on St. Anne's parish:—

A friend has furnished me with the following information and statistics,
which are well worthy of insertion as a supplement to the two
articles on the parishes in Essex county. It will be remembered that,
from 1652 to the year 1695, what is now Essex was a part of Rappahannock
county, and what are now South Farnham and St. Anne
parishes were part of Littenburne parish. The only list of vestrymen
in Rappahannock parish is that of the first vestry after its
establishment, under a minister by the name of Francis Doughty.
In place of the names of vestrymen, the old records of the court
furnish us with a list of the magistrates and clerks; and a friend
has transcribed the following, who acted from 1680 to 1800:—

"This Joshua Fry mentioned above (continues my friend) married
Mrs. Mary Hill, who was a daughter of Paul Micou the first. I have
heard from my father that this Joshua Fry was connected with William
and Mary College. He has numerous descendants in Virginia.
One of this family accompanied General Washington in the Indian
wars. John Lomax was the ancestor of Judge John T. Lomax; Paul
Micou and Mungo Roy, the ancestors of the Roys and Micous in this
State. The Dangerfields mentioned above were lineal descendants of
John Dangerfield, the first settler in the county of Rappahannock,
who resided at Greenfield, and to whom it was granted in 1660.
The last proprietor was Colonel John Dangerfield. Most of the
other justices have descendants in this section at this time. Archibald
Richie, the ancestor of this family in Virginia, was a Scotchman,
and a merchant in Tappahannock."

THE DANGERFIELD FAMILY.

The history of the Dangerfield family in this country, so far as
I have been able to ascertain, is contained in the following statement.
"The first of the name who emigrated to America were two
brothers, John and William, who came to this country early and
settled on the James River: one or both of them intermarried with
the Blands and Robinsons, and held a high social position in that

section. The residence of John Dangerfield, in New Kent, retained
the family name within the memory of one living at this time. It
is not known whether they held any office or not. In 1660, John
Dangerfield, a descendant of John, located a patent in the county
of Rappahannock, and at Greenfield, which remained in the family
till 1821. He married in Rappahannock, and left a son, William.
He became a justice and colonel, and married a member of the
Batherst family of England,—a Miss Meriwether, of Batherst, Essex
county. He left a son William, who married a Miss Fauntleroy,
of Nailor's Hold. He was also a justice, and left three sons,—John,
William, and Leroy. William inherited the greater portion of his
estate, including the family residence, and was one of the seven
colonels appointed at the commencement of the Revolution. He
married a Miss Willis, of Fredericksburg, and died during the
Revolution, at his seat,—Coventry, Spottsylvania,—and left a large
family. John, the eldest, inherited the estate in Essex, and succeeded
to the offices, civil and military, held by his ancestors. He
married, first, Miss Southall, of Williamsburg, and secondly, Miss
Armstead, of Hess. Leroy, the brother of the last William, filled
the office of justice for several years, and married a Miss Parker,
daughter of the first Judge Parker, of Westmoreland county, and
descendant of Alexander Parker, a justice of Rappahannock. He
removed to Frederick county, Virginia.

To the above contributions from Mr. Micou, the worthy Clerk of
Essex, and another friend, I have something more to add. The father
of the first Lomax who came to this country was one of the silenced
and ejected ministers in the time of Charles I. of England,—a pious,
conscientious, and superior man. His son John, who came to this
country, intermarried with the Wormlys of Middlesex. Lunsford
Lomax, son of John, married Judith Micou, daughter of the first
Paul Micou, who settled in Virginia, and who was a French surgeon
and Huguenot. Major Thomas Lomax, father of the present Judge
Lomax, was his son. The family seat is that beautiful estate
situated on Portobago Bay, a few miles below Port Royal, on the
Rappahannock. The eldest sister of Judith Micou, who married
Lunsford Lomax, married Moore Fauntleroy. One of her daughters
married the Rev. Mr. Giberne, of Richmond county. Another
of this connection, who was the grandmother of Mr. Micou, the
present Clerk of Essex, married the Rev. Mr. Mathews, one of
the ministers of St. Anne's parish, Essex.

I have been furnished by a worthy friend with some notices of

the connection and relatives of the Rev. Mr. Mathews, the substance
of which I take pleasure in adding to what has been written
concerning St. Anne's parish, Essex. The families of Mathews
and Smith and Bushrod intermarried at an early period. The Rev.
John Mathews also married a Miss Smith. His son Thomas was a
member of one of our earlier Conventions; his daughter Mary
married Dr. Alexander Somervail, of Scotland; his daughter
Fanny married James Roy Micou, father of the present Clerk of
Essex; his daughter Virginia married Dr. William Baynham, of
Essex. There were also two other daughters.

The two physicians who married daughters of the Rev. Mr.
Mathews were most eminent men in their profession, and of very
high moral character.

Dr. Somervail, though brought up in the Kirk of Scotland, was
for some time an avowed infidel. It is said that some remarks
dropped by Mrs. Hunter, mother of the present Senator in Congress,
during a religious discussion she had with the celebrated Dr.
Ogilvie and one of his Virginia followers, in the presence of Dr.
S., made an impression on his mind, and led him to a serious examination
of Christianity, which resulted in his conversion. He
was most eminent in his profession, contributing largely to Dr.
Chapman's Medical Journal, and being the author of an important
discovery, by which one of the most painful diseases of the human
frame is relieved. He was the physician of the poor as well as
the rich. On leaving Scotland his father said to him, "If you
ever oppress the poor my curse is upon you." Neither the curse
of his earthly or heavenly Father came down upon him for neglecting
the poor. On the very day of his death, in his seventy-sixth
year, he paid friendly visits to some of his poor patients. Dr.
Somervail, after his conversion, connected himself with the Baptist
Church, but was beloved and esteemed by all. The Hon. James
M. Garnett sent an extended obituary of him to the National
Intelligencer at the time of his death.

Not less eminent was the other son-in-law of the Rev. Mr.
Mathews,—Dr. William Baynham. He was the son of an old
vestryman of the Episcopal Church in Caroline county, who was
also an eminent physician. The son, after studying seven years
under his father, completed his preparations for the practice of
medicine under the celebrated Dr. William Hunter, of London.
Young Baynham distinguished himself while in England, and had
he remained there would certainly have attained to the highest

station in his profession. He also was the discoverer of something
very important in the medical department. The eulogies bestowed
upon him, both at home and abroad, for moral character and great
medical attainments, of which I have specimens before me, prove
that he was a man of great celebrity. The Hon. Robert Garnett,
of Essex, furnished the press with a high encomium on his
character.

ARTICLE XXXVII.

Parishes in Caroline County.—St. Mary's, St. Margarett's, St.
Asaph, Drysdale

In the year 1827 Caroline county was formed out of the heads
or upper parts of Essex, King and Queen, and King William, and,
soon after, the parishes of Drysdale and St. Margarett's were
formed, it is believed, for I can find no certain account of the
time. The parish of St. Mary's had previously, I think, been
established in Essex county, most probably soon after the county
was established in 1701. Wherefore we find that, in 1724, when
the Bishop of London sent his circular to the clergy, an answer
was returned from the Rev. Owen Jones, minister of St. Mary's
parish, Essex. He had then been twenty years in the parish.
The parish was about twenty miles long, extending from below
Port Royal up toward Fredericksburg, I suppose, as it now does.
There were one hundred and fifty families, one hundred and fifty
attendants at church, one hundred communicants; servants neglected,
and particular means for their instruction discouraged; no
public school, no parish library.

In the year 1754 one of the three John Brunskills was the
minister. In 1758 the Rev. Musgrave Dawson was there. In
the years 1773-74 and 1776 the Rev. Abner Waugh was minister.
In the years 1785 and 1786, after our Conventions commenced,
we find Mr. Robert Gilchrist the lay member, but no clergyman,
although Mr. Waugh was still the minister of the parish. Nor
does he appear until the year 1792, and never again after that.
It will be seen that, in the close of life, he was for a short time
minister of the church in Fredericksburg.

A friend has furnished me the following tradition concerning
some of the old churches in Caroline county: whether all of them
were in St. Mary's parish is doubtful:—

I have also received a letter from a clerical brother who has
long ministered in this region, and from which I make a few
extracts:—

This may be good poetry, but in the second line there is un
sound theology. I suppose we must make a liberal allowance for

the poetica licentia. Mr. Boucher was also, at one time, the
minister of Hanover parish, in King George, on the other side of
the river. I have often heard my old friend, Mr. Addison, of
Maryland, speak of him. He was connected with the Addisons
and the Carrs, of Maryland, but in what way I know not. The
name of Boucher is still in use among the Carrs of Virginia.
The following account of him I take from the third volume of
that interesting, laborious, and impartial work of the Rev. Mr.
Anderson on the Colonial Churches:—

The foregoing extract from Mr. Anderson's work shows the
author to be a man of candour and a lover of America, though a
good English Churchman too. I hope his work will be patronized
in this country.

To these notices of the Rev. Mr. Boucher I add something more
from my clerical correspondent in Caroline:—

In relation to Old Mount Church, where this lady was interred,
we conclude with an extract from our report to the Convention
of 1838:—

ST. MARGARETT'S, CAROLINE COUNTY.

This parish, as we have seen, was established soon after the
year 1727.

In the years 1754 and 1758, the Rev. John Brunskill—one of
three ministers of the same name—was in charge of St. Margarett's.
By another document in my possession, I find that he was
in this county before the year 1750. From 1758 to 1773 we
have no means of ascertaining who ministered in this parish.
From 1773 to 1787, the Rev. Archibald Dick, who was ordained
in 1762, was the minister of St. Margarett's. After the disappearance
of Mr. Dick from the journals in 1787, we know of no other
regular minister in St. Margarett's until the year 1829, when the
Rev. Caleb Good represents this parish,—as also in 1830. His
zealous labours contributed not a little to revive the hopes of the
Episcopalians in that parish. Services were from time to time
afforded to Bull Church, or St. Margarett's, by neighbouring
ministers; and after some time a church was built at the Bowling
Green, which, whether in St. Margarett's or St. Mary's parish, was
connected with the congregation in St. Margarett's. In 1833, the
Rev. Mr. Friend became the minister of St. Margarett's, and continued
so for some years, until his removal to St. Mary's of the
same county. Since the removal of Mr. Friend, St. Margarett's
has been connected with Berkeley parish in Spottsylvania county,
first and for some years under the charge of the Rev. Mr. Ward,
until his removal to Westmoreland, and then of the Rev. Dabney
Wharton, its present minister. We have no old vestry-books from
which to learn who were the early friends of the Church in this
region. We can only mention the names of a few families known
to ourself,—the Temples, Tompkinses, Swans, Hallidays, Rawlings,
Minors, Hills, Harts, Keans, Leavills, Phillipses, Dickensons, Harrises,
Nelsons, Fontanes,—as now belonging to this part of Caroline
and Spottsylvania.

PARISHES OF DRYSDALE AND ST. ASAPH, IN CAROLINE COUNTY.

These parishes have long since been deserted of Episcopalians,
and can soon be disposed of. That of Drysdale was, it is supposed,
cut off from St. Mary's in 1713. St. Asaph was taken
from Drysdale, which lay partly in Caroline and partly in King

William, in the year 1779. Drysdale parish, thus reduced, lay
alongside of Essex and St. Asaph, toward Hanover county.

In the years 1754 and 1758, we find the Rev. Robert Innes
minister of Drysdale parish. In the year 1774, the Rev. Andrew
Moreton. In the year 1776, the Rev. Samuel Shield. In the
years 1785 and 1787 and 1789, the Rev. Jesse Carter represents
the parish in the Convention, since which time we hear nothing of
the parish. Mr. William Lyne appears during this time to have
been a faithful lay delegate.

St. Asaph parish, as we have seen, was established in 1779,
during the war of the Revolution. We can only look for any account
of this parish, in the absence of a vestry-book, to the journals
of our Conventions, which began in 1785, after the close of
the war. In the year 1785, we find it represented by the Rev.
Samuel Shield and Mr. John Page, Jr. In the year 1786, by the
Rev. James Taylor and Mr. John Page. In the year 1787, by the
Rev. James Taylor and Mr. John Baylor. In the year 1796, by
the Rev. George Spirrin and Mr. John Woolfolk. St. Asaph only
appears these four times on our journals.

Within the bounds of this parish after the separation, and in
Drysdale before that time, lived Mr. Edmund Pendleton, President
of the Court of Appeals, of whom we have previously spoken as a sincere
Christian and steady friend of the Church. Were any vestry-books
of Caroline county to be found, there can be no doubt his name
would be there. He was the clerk of the vestry, he himself informs
us, when a mere boy. Should it be asked why his name never appears
on our journals of Convention with those of Governors Wood
and Page, and the Nelsons and Carys, and other patriots of the
Revolution, it would be sufficient to conjecture that his heavy duties
as judge prevented; but it is made certain by the following letter
to Richard Henry Lee, which has been sent me by a friend:—

I am happy also to be able to furnish another document from the
pen of Judge Pendleton, toward the close of his life, on a subject
of as deep interest at the present as at that time. It is a petition, in
his own well-known handwriting, and with his own name at the head
of it, from the inhabitants of Caroline, addressed to the Legislature,
praying it to take into consideration the evils of treating the voters
at annual elections with intoxicating drink. The names of the
signers are those of the most respectable citizens of Caroline
county. The committee to whom it was referred in the House
were also the most eminent men of Virginia, viz.:—Messrs. Venable,
Mathews, Ellzey, Jennings, Hill, Shield, and John Taylor.

The petition is as follows:—

Let us consider the above petition, and think upon its signers for
a moment. If such a paper were now drawn up and signed by a
number of persons, no matter how conscientiously, there are those
who would regard it either as fanatical or as an assault on individual
rights and liberty, and say, We will sign no such paper and come
under no such pledge, but will vote for whomsoever we please, even
though they or their friends liberally treat with the intoxicating
draught. But how encouraging and strengthening it is to know
that old Edmund Pendleton and many of the best men of Caroline
county and Virginia, who had just come out of the war of the
Revolution, and certainly had some just views of true liberty, did
thus denounce an approaching evil, and call upon the Legislature
to enact rigid laws against it, promising to sustain the same by
their voices on the day of election! There is something of a moral
grandeur about this movement of the venerable Pendleton and of
his most respectable countymen which is worthy of admiration
and imitation. Were he now living, we might surely calculate on
his support of any wise and practical measure for the prevention
not only of the one mentioned in the memorial, but of the numerous
and most destructive evils of intoxicating drinks.

The following extract from the letter of a friend furnishes some
additional information concerning St. Margarett's parish:—

The following letter from the Rev. H. M. Denison, formerly of
Virginia, deserves a place in the article on Drysdale parish:—

ARTICLE XXXVIII.

Parishes in Hanover County.—No. 1. St. Paul's and St. Martin's.

This was separated from New Kent county in the year 1720, and
the parish called St. Paul's. Its first minister was the Rev. Zachariah
Brooke, who was still vicar of Hawkston and Newton in England,
leaving a curate there. In 1724 he informs the Bishop of
London that his parish is sixty miles in length and twelve in width,
(before Louisa county was cut off;) that there were twelve hundred
families in it; two churches and two chapels, at the former of which
he preached on the Sabbaths, and at the latter during the days of
the week; that there were about one hundred communicants at the
churches,—at each church, I suppose, though it is not clear; that
the glebe and glebe-house were only worth the casks,—that is, the
hogsheads in which the tobacco was put up, and which he received
in lieu of them. Of the previous ministers we shall speak when
treating of the parish of New Kent, from which it was divided in
1720. How long Mr. Brooke continued, I cannot ascertain. In
the year 1738, fourteen years later, I find the following letter from
the Rev. Charles Bridges, whose spirit breathes something of that
which animates the present minister of our Mother-Church bearing
the same name. It is addressed to the Bishop of London:—

From this it would seem that he was much interested in the welfare
of the servants, and doubtless made efforts in their behalf, as

others of the clergy (from the reports to the Bishop of London
in 1724) appear to have done, though, it is to be feared, feebly
and with but little success. Many of the coloured children were
baptized, and some of them taught the catechism. How long
Mr. Bridges continued the minister in St. Paul's parish, Hanover,
I cannot say, or who was the minister in the other parish,—St.
Martin's,—for another had, in the year 1726, been cut off from
it by that name; but in the year 1754 we find that the Rev.
Patrick Henry was the minister of St. Paul's, and the Rev. Robert
Barrett of St. Martin's. They continued such until the year 1776.
Indeed, the name of Robert Barrett appears as the minister of St.
Martin's in the year 1785. How long Mr. Henry continued after
1776 does not appear. In the year 1789 the Rev. Peter Nelson,
of the same name, though of a different family, from those who
formed a part of his congregation, was the minister of St. Martin's,
and the Rev. Mr. Talley was minister of St. Paul's. Mr. Nelson,
according to the journal, was minister in 1799, and some time
after that united himself to the Baptist Church. The Rev. Mr.
Talley became a Universalist, and died the death of the drunkard.
The Rev. Mr. Boggs, of Spottsylvania, occasionally officiated in
St. Martin's parish and at the Fork Church after this for some
years; but so low was the condition of the Church, and so few disposed
to respond, that he used to read only such parts as needed
no response, and not all of them. Such was the case in other
parishes also. The Rev. Mr. Hopkins, of Goochland, during a part
of the same destitute period preached in Hollowing Creek Church,
and perhaps Allen's Creek Church. With the commencement of
the resuscitation of the Church in 1812, the hopes of the Episcopalians
in Hanover began to revive. In 1815 the Rev. John
Philips became their pastor. He was an Englishman of the Wesleyan
school, and was ordained for our Church by Bishop Moore.
There were some things so peculiar in the person and character of
Mr. Philips, that they deserve notice. His person was the most
diminutive I ever saw or heard of in the pulpit, but it was remarkable
for its quickness and energy of action. He required to be
elevated on a high block or platform to be seen at all in the pulpit.
When praying in private houses he always knelt in the chair, not
by it. He was very animated in preaching, putting his soul and
voice into his extempore sermons. He was ultra Arminian in doctrine,
and could not tolerate Calvinists. Had he lived in the days
of Calvin, or even later, and possessed the power, he would have
served him as he (Calvin) did Servetus. As it was, he could not
refrain from denouncing such in the most violent and offensive terms,
in private and public, much to the injury of his usefulness and to the
grief of his friends. But he was a faithful and conscientious man,
and urged to repentance and faith and the new spiritual birth in
the most earnest and effectual manner, on the Sabbath and from
house to house. Religion was with him the fixed idea,—the one
thing needful. He could talk of nothing else, for he knew nothing
else, being a child in all other things. Wherever he was, this was
the only theme. Nobody expected any thing else. He never left
a house, though only calling for a few moments, without what he
called a word of prayer. On his visits to Richmond, no matter
into what house he entered, (and he entered many of the gay and
fashionable, as well as of the serious,) he would say at parting, "Let
us have a word of prayer;" and then, kneeling in a chair, would offer
up a most fervent and special prayer for the members of the same.
Of course, there were those who amused themselves at this novel
mode of proceeding, but there were those who felt it in their hearts,
and if the old man caused smiles in some, he drew tears and sighs
from others. The old and the young in Hanover felt the power
of his ministry. They who embraced religion as presented by him
embraced it as the power of God to the salvation of the soul. His
converts were genuine, faithful, true-hearted ones. They saw his
defects, but felt and imitated his virtues. They saw that there was
such a thing as being entirely taken up with the service of God.
During the few years he spent in the parish an entire change took
place there, the effects of which are felt to this day. The manner
of his death, which took place after his removal to Lunenburg, was
as remarkable as that of his life. While riding in a plain conveyance
with Mrs. Philips, who always drove him about, as she did
many other things for him, he expired without her knowledge,
until, stopping at a tavern to water the horse which carried them,
it was discovered that he was sitting by her side a lifeless corpse.
Although it would be great folly for all ministers to copy after
the example of Mr. Philips in all things, yet it would be well for
us all to be ever seeking after his entire devotedness of spirit to
the work of our calling. It is this spirit which insures the favour
both of God and man, and makes those of humblest talents able
ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit.
Mr. Philips was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. Wydown, who continued
two or three years, and was followed by the Rev. Mr. Barns,
who, after labouring two years, was obliged to desist from ill health.
To him succeeded the Rev. Mr. Cook, who was the minister from
1825 to 1834. The next was the Rev. Mr. Bowers, whose ministry,
commencing soon after the resignation of Mr. Cook, continued
until a few years since. The present minister is the Rev. Horace
Stringfellow. There being no remnant left of the old vestry-book
of this parish, I am unable to furnish a list of those who in its
earlier days took the most active part in its concerns, and whose
families composed its congregations. I can only speak of some few
from my own recollection and knowledge. In my first visits to the
parish, the aged forms of old Captains Shephard and Price presented
themselves as the last of a race of old lovers of our communion.
Their memory is held in high esteem, and many of their
descendants honour them by adhering to the Church of their ancestors.
Dr. Carter Berkeley, whose name may be so often seen on
the Convention journals of the last and present century, and also
on those of our General Convention, is too well remembered to be
more than mentioned. Of his mother, of Airwell, a descendant of
the Carters, inheriting all their devotion to the Church, one circumstance
is too interesting to be omitted. Airwell, the family
seat of the Berkeleys, was the place where the communion-plate
was kept. After the death of Mr. Berkeley, and death or resignation
of the minister, by which, under the law, the glebes were
forfeited, the overseers of the poor wished to do what was done in
some other parishes,—viz.: bring the sacred vessels under the operation
of that act, but which in other parishes was scorned to be
done. Those in Hanover, however, well knowing not only the
pious attachment of Mrs. Berkeley to every thing belonging to the
Church, but that she was a lady of dignity, firmness, and authority,
instead of appearing in person to demand the plate, sent an embassy
to her for the purpose, through whom she returned this answer:—"Tell
the gentlemen to come and take them." They never
came, and the vessels are now in use on every communion-day, in
St. Martin's parish, Hanover. I cannot forbear remarking that
there is no part of the conduct of the opponents of the Episcopal
Church which appears so unamiable and unjustifiable as that in
regard to the Church plate. It was almost always a private donation,
as the vestry-books and the inscriptions show, and even if it
had not been, the framers and supporters of the law would have
felt themselves insulted, if the insinuation had been made at the
time of its passage that such an application of it would be made.
But numerous instances have occurred in which such application
has been made, while too many have been the cases where individuals
have seized upon them and made way with them for their
private benefit. Returning from this digression, I would add to
the list of true friends of religion and our Church the families of
the Fontaines, descendants of the good old Huguenot of whom I
have yet to speak; of the Nelsons, connected with the minister of
whom I have already spoken, but who did not follow his example;
of the Morrises, the Wickams, Taylors, Winstons, Pollards, Robinsons,
Pages, Prices, Shepherds, and others.

I must also add a few words concerning the widow of General
Nelson. The old lady (who was blind for the last seventeen years
of her life, and who lived a much longer period than that in Hanover)
was an example of the sweetest piety. We have said on a
former occasion that we often administered the Holy Communion to
her and numbers of her descendants in her room, and on one occasion
to more than forty, in that and the passage adjoining, nearly
all of whom were her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
I omitted to mention one constant recipient of the sacrament,—her
old and venerable servant, the only property she had
in the world, for the house in which she lived, humble as it was,
was not her own, and the small funds she annually received were
the interest of a few thousand dollars which at her death belonged
to some kind creditors of General Nelson, who allowed her the use
of it during life. This servant was a member of the Baptist Church,
who thought the rule which forbade intercommunion with others
was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Having
been taught to read, and reading well, she was a great comfort to
her mistress, and read to her all the best books on religious subjects
as they appeared, during many of the last years of her life. At
her death, she bequeathed to this servant all she had to bequeath,—
her freedom,—well knowing that the whole family would see that
freedom should not become poverty and want to her. There was,
indeed, one small legacy she had been saving; it was twenty dollars,
which was found carefully enfolded, with a direction that it be
given to her minister. In proof of the rigid economy she had
practised, and the strict principle on which she had practised it, it
is not unworthy of being told, that only a few nights before her
death, and when a number of her children and descendants were
sitting around the fire, and supposing she was asleep, the silence
was broken by her saying, "Don't bury me in my new gown,"
to which one of them playfully replied, "Oh, no; don't be troubled:
we will put all the old rags around you that we can find." Her
remains lie buried at the east end of the Old Fork Church in the

midst of a number of the family.[114] As my object is to seek to do
good, by referring to excellent traits in the character of some of
the best members of our Church, I must add a few words concerning
one of the sons of this venerable lady. There are still some
of us remaining who remember old Mr. Francis Nelson as the frequent
delegate from this parish. He married one of the descendants
of the old Mr. Page of whom we have spoken. They had fourteen
children, to whom by good management they contrived to give
respectable educations, though living on a poor Hanover farm.
Unable to afford other conveyance than a farm-wagon with four
mules, his family was punctually at church in that, when the
weather would allow, himself being on horseback. The great secret
of his bringing up such a family on such a farm was, a conscientious
determination to live on its proceeds and never run in
debt. He was himself an example of that self-denial which he required
of his children. If the allowance of tobacco raised on his
own farm and set apart for his own use failed before another crop,
and he had not the money to pay for more, he did without it. If
tea or coffee could not be had for the elder members of the family,
as was often the case, milk served in their stead; if there was not
milk enough for the children, water supplied its place. Thus did
he live and die without debt. And, what is more worthy of notice
than any thing else, all of his fourteen children entered into full
communion with the Church of their parents. I conclude this part
of the article on Hanover by stating that this parish, though small,
has furnished four ministers to the Church,—the Revs. W. N. Pendleton,
Washington Nelson, Robert Nelson, and Farley Berkeley.
It ought to have furnished many more, but I could wish they had
all done as well. In my next, I shall consider what occurred in
this county in relation to the Rev. Samuel Davies, and the establishment
of the Presbyterian Church in the same, with a review
of what is ascribed to the Episcopal Church in the way of intolerance.

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.

ARTICLE XL.

Parishes in Prince George, Martins Brandon, and Bristol.

Martins Brandon was a very early parish in Charles City
when that county extended across the river. How long before we
know not. Prince George county was taken out of Charles City
in 1702. Bristol parish was cut off from Martins Brandon in
1642. We have already seen that the parish of Martins Brandon
had been enlarged, in 1720, by the addition of those parts of
Westover and Weynoake parishes which lay on the south side of
James River. We have neither an old vestry-book nor register of
this parish, nor even a report to the Bishop of London, in 1724,
from which to gather any materials for a notice of it in early
times. The first minister of whom we have any record is the Rev.
Alexander Finnie, whose name is on the list of clergy on the
Lambeth Record, for 1754, as rector of Martins Brandon. From
our worthy citizen, the elder Mr. Edmund Ruffin—who, from his
age and extensive acquaintance with many much older than himself,
and laudable curiosity about former days and men, is well
qualified to speak on the subject of tradition—I have received
some interesting accounts of Mr. Finnie. Although perhaps not
so strict in some things as becomes one in so serious a profession,
yet he was a conscientious and upright man, doing and saying
whatever he considered his duty. Being also independent in his
circumstances, and somewhat eccentric in character, he was the
more fearless in preaching what he thought to be his duty. This
eccentricity and independence were remarkably displayed in one
department of the pastoral office,—the preaching of funeral sermons.
He considered this to be an occasion in which he must make
full trial of his ministry, by declaring the whole truth about the
deceased for the benefit of the living. The old Roman maxim,
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum," he eschewed in theory and practice.
Whether they were rich or poor, high or low, he recommended
their good qualities and warned his hearers against their evil ones.
Some memorable instances are handed down. One wealthy lady
left in her will a positive prohibition of a funeral sermon; but
without avail, for he never departed from this practice. He regarded

it as his great instrument for doing good. Even this custom,
which we do not mean to defend, is better than those unfaithful,
flattering, and fulsome eulogies which are so often uttered on
such occasions. Better far have none at all, in most cases, and
let "expressive silence" speak both the praises and censures of
the dead. How long Mr. Finnie had been in the parish before
1754, and continued afterward, is not known. He was in other
parishes besides this, and has left a respectable posterity in Virginia.
In the years 1773, 1774, and 1776, I find the Rev. William
Coutts on the list as minister of Martins Brandon. In the years
1785 and 1786, the Rev. Benjamin Blagrove. In the years 1790
and 1794, the Rev. John Spooner. After this, the parish seems to
have been deserted, as no delegation—either clerical or lay—appears
on the journal until the year 1829, when the Rev. Mr. Cole
is a delegate from Surrey and Prince George.[119] Since that time,
the parish has enjoyed the services of the Rev. Mr. Denison, Mr.
Minnegerode, Mr. Murdaugh, and, being recently divided, has the
benefit of the labours of the Rev. Mr. Johnson in the upper parish,
in addition to those of Mr. Murdaugh in the lower.

I have no means of ascertaining what — if any—were the
churches in Martins Brandon besides the Old Brandon Church,
near the estates of the Harrisons at the two Brandons, and Old
Merchant's Hope. A new church has recently been erected in
place of the Old Brandon Church, and very near to it. At City
Point also, some years since, the Rev. Malcoim McFarland, now
of Baltimore, in some measure at his own expense, erected a neat
brick church, and, for some years, served the people of that place
and vicinity gratuitously. He was succeeded by the Rev. Mr.
Okeson. The Rev. Mr. Murray now occupies it. A parish by
the name of St. John's has been organized at City Point.

BRISTOL PARISH.

I am now brought, in the order of time and geography, to
Bristol parish. This parish was formed in 1662, on either side
of the Appomattox River, beginning at its junction with James
River, at City Point, and extending to the Falls. By the Falls

we presume must be meant those at or a little above Petersburg,
though, as we shall see hereafter, the vestry, in the course of time,
seem to have acted for a much larger territory.

It was called Bristol parish, because the river was then called
Bristol as well as Appomattox. Within the bounds of this parish
was the old settlement of Sir Thomas Dale, in 1611, called Bermuda
Hundred, at the junction of James River and Appomattox.
Settlements were, from time to time, formed along the river up to
the Falls, where is now the town of Petersburg. The mother or
parish church was at Bermuda Hundred, opposite to City Point,
and it was desirable to organize a parish and provide for those who
were settling higher up the Appomattox or Bristol River. That
the mother-church was at this place is evident from an early entry
in the vestry-book, where, for the first and only time, the mother-church
is mentioned,—and then in connection with the ferry at the
Point, (City Point,) which is directed to be kept in good order for
persons, on Sunday, going over to the "mother-church," called,
in the Act of Assembly, the "Parish Church." The next place
of worship in the parish was probably the "Ferry Chapel," near
the Falls, and not far from the Old Blandford Church, which took
its place in the year 1737 or 1738. From the year 1720, when
the vestry-book begins, to the year 1737, the vestry-meetings are
invariably held at the Ferry Chapel, and afterward at the Brick
Church, on Wills's Hill, or Blandford Church. There was a church
built, it is believed, in 1707, according to some marks on it, and
called Wood's Church, about five miles from Petersburg, on the
north side of the Appomattox. Of this we shall speak when
treating of Dale parish, in Chesterfield, in which it now stands.
The first and most accurate account we have of Bristol parish is
from a letter to the Bishop of London, by its incumbent, the Rev.
George Robertson, in the year 1724. He had been, at that time,
its minister for nearly thirty-one years, and so continued for sixteen
more, making in all forty-six years. The extent of the parish
was twenty-five miles wide and forty miles long. It, of course,
must then have extended up the Appomattox into Brunswick and
Amelia. He complains that but a few of the masters send their
servants to be catechized, as he exhorts them to do, though some
do it at home and then bring them to baptism. He had one church
and one chapel, at which he alternately preached, and had full
congregations in good weather,—sometimes more than the pews
would hold. His tobacco being of inferior quality, his salary was
not more than forty-five or forty-six pounds sterling. His glebe

had forty acres of barren land, with no house on it, and not cultivated.[120] No public school nor library. His services were confined
to the Ferry Chapel, at Petersburg, and to the mother-church, at
Bermuda Hundred. Although Mr. Robertson had only these two
places at which he officiated in 1724, we find the vestry determined
to build chapels in the year 1721, three years before, at Saponey
Creek and Nansomond Creek, a considerable distance up the river.
These, however, were not built until the year 1727. Meanwhile, a
chapel was built elsewhere—and, as we believe, lower down the
parish—in the year 1723. The person contracting for it was a
Mr. Thomas Jefferson; and we suppose it to be the same building
spoken of by Mr. Stith, in his "History of Virginia," in 1740, as
being in Chesterfield, and which was so near to James River that a
minister of Henrico parish connected it at a later period with his.
It was called Jefferson's Church,—probably after the builder: I
am not sure but that there are remains of it to this day.

In the year 1727, it appears that four surplices were ordered,
which shows that there must have been at least four churches then
in the parish. In the year 1729, additions are made to each of the
churches recently built at Saponey and Namoisen Creeks. In the
year 1730, another church—between Smacks and Krebbs—is determined
upon, for "the remote inhabitants" of the parish, on Flat
Creek, near Samuel Cobb's, to be built by Richard Booker, with
the privilege of putting up a pew for his family by the side of the
communion-table. In 1733, a committee is appointed to examine
the Ferry Chapel and see whether it is worthy of being repaired.
The report being unfavourable, in 1734 it was determined to build
a new one, on Will's Hill, of the best materials and workmanship,
—sixty feet by twenty-five,—the aisle to be laid of white Bristol
stone. Thomas Ravenscroft contracted to build it for four hundred
and eighty-five pounds sterling. The building of this church
involved the vestry in great pecuniary difficulty, so that the minister,
Mr. George Robertson, agreed to serve them gratuitously until
they were relieved. The vestry seems also to have been tempted
to resort to very doubtful means of discharging their engagements.
The Assembly had established two new parishes in the year 1735,
—viz.: Dale parish, in Chesterfield, taking in that part of Bristol
parish lying north of the Appomattox, and Raleigh parish, now in
Amelia, but then parts of Bristol and St. Andrew's parishes. After

the passage, but before the execution, of the law, a levy was made
on these new parishes for the means of paying for Blandford Church.
Complaint being made, the next Assembly declared the levy improper,
and ordered it to be refunded.

In proof of an increasing population and desire for places of
worship, we state that petitions for two new chapels were addressed
to the vestry in the year 1737. In the year 1738 one was ordered
to be built on the north side of Hatcher's Run, which was undertaken
by Isham Eppes for one hundred and nineteen pounds and fifteen
shillings; and in the year 1739 one was ordered to be built for the
convenience of the lower parts of the parish, and Mr. John Ravenscroft
undertook to build it for one hundred and thirty-four pounds
and ten shillings, on Titmassie's land. That on Hatcher's Run
being burned down, another is ordered in 1740. Another at Jones's
Hole was also completed that year. An addition being found necessary
to Blandford Church, in the year 1752 it was ordered that one,
thirty by twenty-five feet, be put to it, and that a brick wall be
placed around it. Since the completion of Blandford Church in
1738, the vestry appears to have been duly attentive to the wants
of the minister as to a glebe and glebe-houses. In the year 1761
we find another entry of an order for building a small church in
the outward part of the parish. Again, in 1769, we find an order
for one sixty feet by twenty-eight, in the upper part of the parish
that lies in Dinwiddie county. On the approach of the war the
vestry resolved to pay a salary of one hundred and forty-four
pounds, instead of tobacco, and Mr. Harrison, their minister, agrees
to wait three years for a balance due him, on account of the distress
of the country.

In the year 1789 we find Jones's Hole Church forcibly entered,
through the windows and doors, for the purpose of worship,—the
vestry giving notice that if this be again done, or the church entered
without leave, the offending persons shall be dealt with according
to law, which proves that the Episcopalians were the subjects
of some persecution at that time. This forcible entry of some of
our churches has continued ever since. Surely, in view of such
forcible entries, when the Legislature confiscated the glebes, it
would have declared the churches common, in the plainest manner,
had such been the design of the law. Mr. Chapman Johnson once
told me that, after the fullest investigation of the subject, he was
well convinced that the law never contemplated any interference
with the entire right of Episcopalians with the Church buildings.
Nevertheless, we have not, like the dog in the manger, refused to

use them ourselves or let others do it, but when reduced in numbers
so as to have only irregular or infrequent services, or having
utterly failed in the neighbourhood of many of the old churches,
have either allowed the partial use of them, or quietly surrendered
them to others. With the above act in 1789 the records of the
old vestry-book of Bristol parish terminate. To other sources we
must be indebted for any information touching the churches in this
parish after this. As to the numbers which, as we have stated,
were built in different parts of the parish, without the towns of
Petersburg and Blandford, we are unable to give any account of
them, save that, with the exception of Old Saponey Church,—Mr.
Jarratt's Church, as it has been often called,—they are gone, and
the places thereof know them no more. Being of framework, they
were not destined to much duration, and, being occupied and abused
by all, soon came to desolation. Old Blandford Church also began
to experience the effects of age, and the increasing prosperity and
numbers of Petersburg, standing on the adjoining hill, made it expedient
to begin to think of deserting her, and preparing a place
of worship more convenient to the majority of the worshippers.
Accordingly, in the year 1802, measures were taken for building a
church in Petersburg near the court-house. This answered the
purposes of the congregation until the year 1839, when another
and larger one was built in a more convenient place. That having
been consumed by fire a few years since, another larger and more
expensive one has recently been erected. Two other churches have
also been built in Petersburg under the auspices of the Rev. Mr.
Gibson within a few years past, the first of them being disposed of
when the second was erected. A small missionary chapel was also
erected in another part of the town, but has failed of its object.

We have thus, contrary to our usual order, given in the first
place an account of the churches of Bristol parish, and now proceed
to state what we have been able to collect of the history of
its ministers. After the early mention of Alexander Whittaker,
Mr. Wickham, and Stockam, who, from the year 1611 and onward,
officiated at Bermuda Hundred, in connection with the church at
Henrico City, about five or six miles off, on the north side of James
River, we have no record of even the name of a minister until the
year 1693, when Mr. Robertson came to it, and continued to be the
minister till 1740.

At the death of Mr. Robertson in 1740, an agreement was made
with a Rev. Mr. Hartwell to become the minister; but, misunderstandings
taking place as to the terms, it was never carried

into execution. Mr. Robert Ferguson was then chosen, and continued
to be the minister for ten years,—until 1750. He was succeeded
by the Rev. Eleazer Robertson, who continued two years,
and was succeeded by the Rev. Thomas Wilkinson, who resigned
in 1762, and was succeeded by the Rev. William Harrison, who
resigned in 1780, though continuing to reside in Petersburg until
his death in 1814, being eighty-four years of age. The parish
being advertised as vacant, the Rev. Mr. Kennedy and the Rev.
Dr. Cameron were candidates in 1784. The latter was chosen, and
ministered in the parish until 1793, when he resigned. Of him I
shall speak in another place. In the following year the Rev. Andrew
Syme was elected, and continued until his resignation in 1839,
—a period of forty-five years. He continued to reside in Petersburg
until his death, esteemed and beloved, by all who knew him, as "an
Israelite in whom there was no guile." For further particulars of
him the reader is referred to my article on South Farnham parish,
Essex county, from which he removed to Bristol parish, and to the
Rev. Mr. Slaughter's full and very interesting pamphlet on Bristol
parish. For some years previous to his resignation of the parish,
Mr. Syme, on account of increasing infirmities, had called for an
assistant, and obtained the services of the Rev. Hobart Bartlett,
from New York, whose fine talents, popular preaching, and agreeable
manners contributed much to the increase of the congregation.
In the year 1839 I was induced, under peculiar circumstances, to
take the temporary charge of the congregation, but soon accomplished
the object had in view, and procured for the congregation
the services of the Rev. Mr. Cobbs, now Bishop of Alabama. His
ministry, during the few years of its continuance, was very prosperous
in all respects. During that period a general awakening of
the souls of the people of Petersburg took place, and the ministers
of all denominations laboured faithfully in prayer, and sermons,
and exhortations, private and public. Instead of discouraging such
extraordinary efforts for so extraordinary an outpouring of the
Spirit of God as was granted, Mr. Cobbs came behind none, and
went beyond some, in the frequency and continuance of his religious
exercises. The result was, that no congregation was more highly
blest in the results thereof. I laid my hands on the heads of ninety-three
at that time, who, for the last three months, had been receiving
the daily instructions of their minister, either public or private,
and of such other ministers as he was able to bring to his help.
During Mr. Cobbs's ministry the ladies of the Wilmer Association—
who had for so many years been the most active of all in supporting
beneficiaries at our Seminary, sending at times to the amou
of five and six hundred dollars to the treasury—began to divert their
funds from this to the promotion of missionary labours in the town
of Petersburg. The result has been the establishment of the prosperous
church under the care of the Rev. Mr. Gibson. In the year
1843 the Rev. Mr. Slaughter accepted a call to this parish, after
the resignation of the Rev. Mr. Cobbs. His services were so acceptable
to the people, that at the end of the six months which he
had proposed to himself as a trial, he agreed to continue, nor did
he cease to labour there until his health so failed as to make it
improper to add further efforts. He was succeeded by the Rev.
Horace Stringfellow, who continued until the year 1854. His place
has been supplied during the present year (1856) by the Rev. Mr.
Platt, from Alabama.

A few words concerning Petersburg and Blandford will close my
remarks. We naturally like to know the origin of the names of
places in which we take interest. In looking over documents which
have been furnished me, I find the name of Petersburg ascribed to
the fact that a great number of persons by the name of Peter,
especially of the family of Jones, were among the first settlers.[121]
As to Blandford, which was, as to the time of its settlement, considerably
in the advance of Petersburg, the name is supposed to
have been given it because so much of the property around was
once in the possession of the family of Blands. Concerning the
venerable old church at Blandford, now and for a long time past
only used for funeral services of those who are buried around it,
and which reminds the traveller of the "moss-grown battlements
and ivy-mantled towers" of our fatherland, I need only present
to the reader the following lines of some unknown one, which are

OLD BLANDFORD CHURCH, PETERSBURG, VA.

"Lone relic of the past! old mouldering pile,

Where twines the ivy round its ruins gray."

engraven on its walls, and refer them to the not less exquisite ones
to be found in Mr. Slaughter's pamphlet,

The following is a list of the vestrymen whose names are in the
record from the year 1720 to 1788. For the continuation of the
list, reference is made to the fuller sketch of this parish by the Rev.
Mr. Slaughter:—Robert Bolling, Robert Munford, A. Hall, L.
Green, Henry Randolph, Thomas Bott, William Kennon, G. Wilson,
Peter Jones, George Archer, Robert Kennon, I. Herbert, Drury
Bolling, William Poythress, Theophilus Field, A. Bevell, Charles
Fisher, William Starke, D. Walker, F. Poythress, J. Bannister,
William Hamlin, Theodoric Bland, T. Short, W. Eppes, G. Smith,
L. Dewey, J. Gordon, J. Boisseau, J. Murray, A. Walker, T. Williams,

Alexander Bolling, William Eaton, Roger Atkinson, G.
Nicholas, Sir William Skipwith, N. Raines, John Ruffin, R. Bolling,
William Kall, Dr. Theodoric Bland, (afterward Colonel Bland of
the Revolution,) Richard Taylor, Thomas Jones, Peter Jones, J. P.
Wheat, Robert Skipwith, W. Brown, William Robertson, John
Kirby, R. Bolling, James Field, William Diggs, B. Kirby, R. Turnbull,
John Shore, T. G. Peachy, A. G. Strachan, J. Hull, J. Geddy,
R. Gregory, J. Bonner, E. Harrison, A. Gracie, T. Bolling, J.
Campbell, R. Williams, D. Hardaway, John Grammar, Sr., George
Keith Taylor, Thomas Withers, A. Macrae, W. Prentiss, E. Stott,
J. Osburne, R. Moore, D. Maitland.

To this we add, that, on examining the list of baptisms from 1720
and onward, we find the following names, among many others:—
Birchett, Bolling, Hardaway, Jones, Poythress, Buchan, Peebles,
Hinton, Vaughan, Pegram, Peterson, Walthall, Sturdivant, Stith,
Rowlett, Bragg, Batte, Bannister, Guilliam, Hammond, Bland,
Chambliss, &c.

THE GENEALOGY OF THE BLANDS.

From the genealogy of the Blands preserved at Jordans, we take
a few extracts, sufficient to comply with the character of these
sketches,—their religious character. It is an old and highly-respectable
English family. I leave it to others to speak of the gallant
conduct and fatal end of Giles Bland in Bacon's Rebellion, and begin
with Theodoric Bland, who settled at Westover, in Charles City,
in 1654, and died in 1671. He was buried in the chancel of the
church, which church he built and gave it, with ten acres of land, a
court-house and prison, for the county and parish. His tomb is
now to be seen in old Westover graveyard, lying between those of
two of his friends, William Perry and Walter Aston. The church is
fallen down. He was one of the King's Council for Virginia, and
was both in fortune and understanding inferior to none in the Colony.
He left three sons,—Theodoric, Richard, and John. We confine
ourselves to his son Richard and his posterity. He was born at
Berkeley, the neighbouring estate, in 1665, and married first a Miss
Swan, and secondly Elizabeth, daughter of William Randolph, of
Turkey Island. His daughters, three in number, married Henry
Lee, William Beverley, and Robert Monford. His sons were Richard
and Theodoric, who moved to Prince George and lived at Jordans
and Causons, near City Point. Richard was the one who took so
active a part in the affairs of both Church and State before and
during the war of the Revolution. He wrote a treatise on Baptism

against the Quakers, of which sect some of his ancestors or relatives
in England had been. He died in 1776, and was buried at Jordans.
He married a Miss Poythress and had twelve children. The other
son of Richard Bland, Sr., was Theodoric, who lived at Causons.
He married a Miss Bolling, descendant of Pocahontas, and had
one son Theodoric, and five daughters, who married Messrs. Bannister,
Ruffin, Eaton, Haynes, and Randolph of Roanoke, father
of John Randolph, member of Congress. At Mr. Randolph's death
she married St. George Tucker, who was afterward Judge of the
Court of Appeals. His son Theodoric was Lieutenant of the county,
Clerk, Burgess, and vestryman. He was active to the close of the
war, as his letter to Colonel Theodoric Bland, his son, shows. His
son received a complete English education, being in England eleven
years, and returning a thorough-bred physician. But, not liking
that profession, and engaging warmly in the dispute with England,
he entered the army and signalized himself. He attained to the
rank of colonel, and stood high in the esteem of Washington. His
letters to Lord Dunmore, at the opening of the war, have not a
little of the spirit and genius of Junius in them. In the year
1769, while living at Blandford, or Petersburg, and practicing medicine,
we find his name on the list of vestrymen, thus following his
father's footsteps.

Of old Mr. and Mrs. Grammar, on whom for a considerable time,
by general consent, the very existence of the Episcopal Church in
Petersburg seemed to hang, I need not speak, or seek for any
epitaph. They live in the hearts of children and children's children
yet alive, and in the memories of many others who revere
their characters and endeavour to follow their example. The social
prayer-meetings held at their house, when the old lady was unable
any longer to go to the house of God, were refreshing seasons to
ministers and people.

ARTICLE XLI.

Parishes in Chesterfield, Dale, and Manchester.

Chesterfield was originally part of Henrico shire and parish,
as established in 1632. In —, that part of the parish lying
some miles north of the Appomattox was taken into Bristol parish,
but at the establishment of Dale parish was incorporated into it.
Dale parish, therefore, included the whole of Chesterfield until
Manchester parish was separated from it. In this region were
some of the earliest settlements. Bermuda Hundred was established
in 1611, by Sir Thomas Dale. A large portion of the
College Lands were laid along James River, on its northern bank,
toward Manchester. Here the Indian massacre in 1622 was great.
On Colonel Berkeley's plantation alone—at Falling Creek—himself
and twenty others were destroyed. At an early period settlements
were made on James River and the Appomattox, from City
Point to what are now Manchester and Petersburg.

The first ministers were in one corner of the county, at Bermuda
Hundred, Whittaker, Wickham, and Stockham, of whom we have
already spoken. In the sketch of Bristol parish we have given
the names of those who have ministered in this part of the State
from 1693 to the time of the establishment of Dale parish.

The first of whom we read after this is the Rev. George Frazer,
in 1754, who was also minister in 1758. How long he continued
afterward cannot be ascertained. In the years 1773-74-76, the
Rev. Archibald McRoberts is on the list of clergy as minister of
this parish. Having been ordained in 1763, he may have been
there some years before. He was the bosom-friend of Mr. Jarratt
for a number of years, but left the Church about the year 1779,
during the war, and after the Church had become very unpopular.
His defence of this act will, I think, be considered by nearly all as
a very weak one. He was not the minister of Dale parish at the
time, but of one in Prince Edward. His letter in reply to two
written to him by Mr. Jarratt, inquiring into the truth of his reported
change, and as to his reasons for it, is dated Providence,

July 13, 1780. This was the name of the glebe near Prince
Edward Court-house. In it he says,—

It appears that, failing to attach his old Episcopal congregations
to the Independent Church, which he was endeavouring to establish,
he afterward connected himself with the Presbyterian, which was
then gaining ground in that region, as we find him spoken of as a
minister of that communion. Of his subsequent history we know
little. That he was a pious and conscientious man we are well convinced.[123]

After Mr. McRoberts, in 1776, we have no records to inform us
who was the minister of Dale parish until the Convention of 1785,
the first after the Establishment was put down, when the Rev. William
Leigh, who was ordained by the Bishop of London in 1772,
was the clerical delegate. His name does not appear after this, and
I am informed that he died in the year 1786 or '87, aged thirty-nine
years. In the year 1776, I find he was the minister of Manchester
parish in the same county. He was the only son of Ferdinand
Leigh, of West Point, in King and Queen county, Virginia.
His father early dedicated him to the ministry. He was educated
at William and Mary College. He married the daughter of Benjamin
Watkins, Clerk of Chesterfield county. He lived at Dale
glebe, near Petersburg, and preached at Wood's Church and Ware
Bottom, or Osburne's, alternately, and sometimes at Saponey Church,
of Chesterfield. Mr. Leigh was the father of Judge William Leigh,
of Halifax county, and Benjamin Watkins Leigh, of Richmond,
both of them so well known in Virginia,—the one as lawyer and
judge, the other as lawyer and statesman; also of two sisters,
Mrs. Finnie and Mrs. Harris, zealous members of our Church.[124]

Of the Rev. Mr. Leigh, the testimony of children and of many
others speaks nothing but what is good. He was succeeded by the
Rev. Needler Robinson, whose name first appears on our journal
as its minister in 1790. He continued to be its minister—nominally
at least—until his death, in 1823. The Episcopal Church
in Chesterfield nearly disappeared during the period of his ministry.
Indeed, his time and labours were chiefly devoted to a school from
the first. Although he lived so many years after our Conventions
in Richmond were renewed, and was so near the place, he never
attended them.

I have been furnished with a few leaves from the vestry-book of
Dale parish, from the years 1790 to 1799, from which I am able
to give a list of the vestrymen during that period. They are as
follows:—Jerman Baker, John Botts, George Robertson, Richard
Bosker, Blackman Morly, Thomas Bolling, King Graves, Arch.
Walthall, Arch. Bass, Jesse Coghill, Daniel McCallum, Charles

Graves, George Woodson, Henry Winfree, Roger Atkinson, Thomas
Friend, Charles Duncan, Daniel Dyson, John Hill, Henry
Archer.

On the same loose leaves we have a number of subscription-lists,
on which are names well known to us at this day. The object, we
presume, was for repairing the churches about the year 1790.
Among them, besides the above-named vestrymen, were the following,—a
few among many:—Osborne, Rowlett, Burton, Roisseau,
Taylor, Gibbs, Royall, Shore, Worsham, Branch, Tanner, Randolph,
Burwell, Goode, Ward, Clarke, Hardaway, Walke, Barber,
Donald, Bragg, Epps, Belcher, Hodges, Marshall, &c.

Nothing is heard of this parish for a long and dark period.

In the year 1835, the Rev. Farley Berkeley takes charge of
Raleigh parish, Amelia, and extends his labours to Old Saponey
Church, in the neighbourhood of a few zealous friends of it,—the
Thweats, Johnsons, and others. He has been succeeded for some
years by the Rev. Mr. Tizzard, who devotes his whole time and
labours to the county of Chesterfield.

The Old Saponey is deserted: a new church has been erected
some miles off, in a more convenient location. Wood's Church is
still standing. The following communication in relation to it comes
from such a source that I feel sure I shall not do injustice to any
one in publishing it:—

In regard to the right of property I have before said, that that
most eminent jurist, Mr. Chapman Johnson, after the most thorough
examination of the question, gave it as his opinion that the
right of the Church to the old houses of worship was not impaired

by any Act of the Virginia Assembly. It would appear very unlikely
that such a body would pass an act so well calculated to
engage all bodies of Christians in such disgraceful broils as must
ensue from declaring them common property, to be used as art or
violence might determine. It would have been far better to offer
them to the highest bidder,—as was done in regard to the glebes
and parsonages, which were, as the churches, built by levies on
all the tithables. As when Episcopalians have abandoned their
churches and others take possession, so, when these in turn have
abandoned them, and we, under altered circumstances, repair and
re-enter them, it would seem just and reasonable that we be allowed
so to do.

MANCHESTER PARISH, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY.

This parish was taken from Dale parish in 1772. The dividingline
commenced at the mouth of Falling Creek, on James River,
and ended at the mouth of Winterbock Creek, on the Appomattox.
In the following year the line was altered; the upper part, including
Manchester, was Manchester parish. At Falling Creek there
are, I believe, still the remains of an old and venerable church,—
whether built before or after the division I am unable to say, but
most probably before. I presume there must also have been one in
or near Manchester. The troublous times of the Revolution being
at hand when it became a parish, it is probable that nothing was
done toward building churches in it after the division.

As to ministers, we read of the Rev. William Leigh, who took
charge of it in 1773 and kept it until 1777; how much longer we
cannot say, as we have no lists of the clergy after that until 1785,
and in 1786 he was minister of Dale parish. In 1785, the Rev.
Paul Clay is minister for one year. In the year 1790, the Rev.
William Cameron, brother of Dr. John Cameron, was minister, and
continued so for four years. In the year 1799, the Rev. John
Dunn is the minister. After this there is no delegation from this
parish, except when the names of Mr. David Patterson and James
Patterson appear as laymen in 1805. I remember the former well,
as a constant attendant at our Conventions in Richmond after their
revival in 1812. He took a deep interest in all the movements of
the Church until his death. If not a reader at Falling Creek
Church before, he was appointed such by Bishop Moore, and continued
to the last to officiate to the few who remained in our communion
around the old temple.

I conclude the little I have to say of the parish of Manchester
and Falling Creek Church with the following notice of it by a
young brother in the ministry, who visited them both a few years
since:—

FALLING CREEK CHURCH.

There was a warm friend of the Church living near this place,
of whom it becomes us to make some mention. Mr. Archibald

Cary, of Amphill, in Chesterfield, appears in the Episcopal Conventions
in the years 1785 and 1786, as delegate from Dale parish.
In the last of these years he died. I refer my readers to Mr.
Grigsby's work on the Convention of 1776, for a sketch of the political
character and patriotic services of Mr. Cary. He was among
the very foremost of the patriots of Virginia. "It was from his
lips, as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, that the words
of the resolution of Independence, of the Declaration of Rights,
and a plan of government, first fell upon the public ear." The
following is a brief sketch of one branch of the Carys, from Mr.
Grigsby's book:—

This branch has been denominated the Iron Carys, from the fact
that Archibald Cary was called "Old Iron," either, says Mr.
Grigsby, because of his "capacity of physical endurance" or
"his indomitable courage," or because he had an iron furnace
and mills at Falling Creek, on the site of one established by
Colonel Berkeley, who, with a number of his men, was murdered
by the Indians in 1622. Mr. Cary's mills were burned by Colonel
Tarleton in the American war.

ARTICLE XLII.

St. James Northam, Goochland County.

Goochland county was cut off from Henrico in 1727. In the
year 1744 the parish of St. James Northam, was restricted to the
north side of the river, and that on the south side was called St.
James Southam, both of them being in Goochland, which still lay
on both sides of the river, and extended from the Louisa line to
Appomattox River. Albemarle county and parish were also in this
year taken from Goochland, by a line from Louisa to the Appomattox.
We shall now speak of the parish of St. James Northam,
in Goochland, on the north of James River. The vestry-book
which we have commences at its division in 1744. How long it
had been supplied with services before this we are unable to ascertain.
The vestry-book begins with stating that, the parish being
divided into three parts, each parish was at liberty to choose its
own minister, and since the Rev. Mr. Gavin, who had been the
minister of the undivided parish, was disliked by many, the vestry
would procure another. To this Mr. Gavin did not agree, but insisted
on choosing this part, and did continue the minister until his
death in 1749. There is no charge brought against the character
of Mr. Gavin, but only that he was not acceptable to many of the
people. The following letter of Mr. Gavin to the Bishop of London
may perhaps throw some light upon the subject:—

From the foregoing it may be inferred that he was a zealous and
laborious man, and very plain in his speech. His views of slavery
were sufficient, if expressed, to make him very unacceptable to many
of his parishioners. It would seem, also, that there had been
ministers in the parish before him, but they confined their labours
to the lower church,—probably that at Dover, nearest to Richmond,
—whereas he extended his to the mountains, at least fifty or sixty
miles farther up.

Immediately after his death the Rev. Mr. Douglass was chosen.

He entered on his duties in 1750. His history and character de
serve some notice, and must be acceptable to his numerous and respectable
descendants. They are gathered chiefly from a large register
of baptisms, funerals, marriages, sermons, &c., interspersed with
other notices, throwing some light upon the peculiarities which distinguished
him. The Rev. William Douglass was from Scotland.
In the year 1735 he married Miss Nicholas Hunter, by whom he
had only one child,—a daughter named Margaret. In the year
1748 or 1749, leaving them behind, he came over as teacher in the
family of Colonel Monroe, of Westmoreland, father of President
Monroe, who was one of his pupils, as was also Mr. Jefferson afterward,
in Goochland. After some time, returning to England, he
was ordained, and brought back his wife and daughter in the year
1750, and in the same year settled himself in Goochland. His
daughter Margaret, whom he always called Peggy, married Mr.
Nicholas Meriwether, of Albemarle, and they were the ancestors
of many of that name in Virginia. He brought with him, or had
sent to him, two nephews from Scotland, whom he adopted, educated,
and called his children. He had a brother named James,
who settled in New York and left a numerous posterity there.
Perhaps some of that name who have ministered in our Church
may be his descendants. A few years since a Mr. George Douglass
and two daughters from this family in New York paid a visit to
Albemarle to see their relatives in that county, when a happy
family meeting occurred. One of the adopted sons of Mr. Douglass
(William) returned to Scotland and inherited a title. The other
(James) went to New York and became a successful merchant.
One of his daughters married James Monroe, (the nephew and
adopted son of President Monroe,) who some years since represented
the city of New York in Congress. After this biographical notice
of himself and family, I return to his register, from which we learn
some things concerning the early history of this parish nowhere
else to be found. He states, as coming to him from good authority,
that the church at Dover was undertaken by Mr. Thomas Mann
Randolph in 1720; that it was finished in 1724 at a cost of fifty-four
thousand nine hundred and ninety pounds of tobacco; that it
was fifty by twenty-four feet in size; that the Rev. Mr. Finnie
was employed during those four years to preach once a month; that
the Rev. Mr. Murdaugh was then received as a minister; that he
was to preach the last Sunday in every month alternately at the
plantation of Mr. Robert Carter, on the south side of James River,
and of Major Bolling, on the north side of James River. We learn,
also, that in the year 1727 the Rev. Mr. Brooke preached once per
month for them; and that in the same year the Rev. Mr. Beckett
was received into the parish as a minister. We learn also, from his
diary kept in this register, that ministers were very scarce in the
surrounding counties, so that Mr. Douglass had much duty to perform
in the way of funerals, marriages, &c. He records one thousand
three hundred and eighty-eight marriages and four thousand
and sixty-nine baptisms. His views of doctrine and ministerial
character may be seen from the favourable notice taken of Turretine,
Doddridge, Walker, Hill, and Whitefield,—also, of Shower's
Sacramental Discourses. In one of Doddridge's works—his Sermons
to Young Men—he has written on a blank leaf these lines to
his children:—

To this I add an extract from a letter to one of his nephews, just
married, not long before his death:—

As to the time in which the churches were completed, with
the exception of that at Dover, it is not easy to determine. The
three churches at which Mr. Douglass officiated were Dover,
Beaver Dam, and Licking Hole. In the year 1777, after a ministry
of twenty-seven years, he resigned his charge, and settled on
a farm in Louisa, where he spent the remainder of his years,
which were not many. In that year the Rev. Mr. Hall was appointed
for twelve months, to be continued or rejected at pleasure
when the time expired. In the year 1781 the Rev. Mr. Hill was
minister. In that year the glebe rented for only five hundredweight
of tobacco. In the year 1787, a tax of three pounds and
ten shillings was levied, or called for, in order to defray the expenses

of the Rev. Mr. Griffith's consecration as Bishop, of which
Mr. Thomas Mann Randolph paid three pounds. So many of the
parishes failed of their contributions that the consecration did not
take place. In the year 1789, the Rev. Mr. Hopkins was chosen
minister, and continued such until his death, in 1807, when the
old vestry-book ceased. All the accounts received of the Rev.
Mr. Hopkins are of the most favourable kind. His first ministerial
years were spent among the Methodists; but in consequence
of some dissensions among them, or their separation from
the Episcopal Church, he entered into the ministry of the latter.
Tradition says that he was ordained by Bishop White, at a time
when the Congress of the United States and the General Convention
of the Episcopal Church were both sitting in Philadelphia:
that, being called on to preach before civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries,
and especially with General Washington full in view, he
was for a time overwhelmed, but roused himself up to boldness
by remembering "that a mightier than Washington was there."
Soon after his ordination he became the minister of Hollowing
Creek and Allen's Creek Churches, in Hanover county, supplying
also the Manakin and Peterville Churches, in Powhatan. In
1787, he became minister of Beaver Dam and Licking Hole
Churches, Dover Church being left out. He died in the seventieth
year of his age, universally esteemed and beloved. He was married
twice, and had eleven children by each wife. His first wife
was a Miss Pollard, the second a Miss Anderson.[125]

After a long and dreary interval of utter destitution, the hopes
and efforts of the few remaining friends and members of the
Church in Goochland and the neighbouring counties were aroused,
in the year 1726, by the missionary labours of the Rev. William
Lee. As to body, Mr. Lee being little more than thin air, or a

light feather, as he galloped over these counties, his horse felt not
the rider on his back; but the people felt the weight and power
of a strong mind and will, and the pressure of a heart and soul
devoted to the love of God and man. He laid the foundation
anew of the churches in Goochland, Powhatan, Amelia, and
Chesterfield, and, like another Allen, lived to see them all supplied
by ministers. His physical power being incompetent to
these itinerant labours, he took charge of the Church of St. John's,
in Richmond, and afterward of that in the Valley, now a missionary
church. His health failing even for this, he devoted himself
to the press, and was the first editor of the Southern Churchman,
establishing it in Richmond. He continued to edit the same until
his part of the work was performed, when lying on a sick-bed, his
proof-sheets corrected, his selections made and editorials written,
while propped up with bolsters and pillows, thus, to the last, spending
and being spent in his Master's service. During his stay in
Richmond, he was as a right hand to Bishop Moore, who not only
loved him for his amiable qualities and zealous piety, but respected
him for his good judgment, which he often consulted.

In April, 1839, the Rev. Mr. Doughen took charge of the
parish, but only continued a short time. He was succeeded, in
the same year, by the Rev. Richard Wilmer, who continued, with
a short interval, until the summer or fall of 1843. In the year
1844, the Rev. Joseph Wilmer took charge of it, and continued
until the year 1849; and he was succeeded by the Rev. Francis
Whittle, who resigned in 1852. The Rev. Mr. Rodman has recently
become its pastor.

The following list of vestrymen is copied from the vestry-book,
beginning in the year 1744. The Christian names are omitted, for
the sake of brevity, except where necessary to distinguish from
those of the same surname:—

To this it is proper to add, that Mr. William Bolling, in the year
1840, presented a house and fifty acres of land to the church for
a parsonage. St. Paul's, a brick church, was built in the same
year, and, being burned down some years since, was rebuilt in
1855.

ARTICLE LXIII.

King William Parish, or Manakintown, the Huguenot Settlement
on James River.

This parish was originally in Henrico county, which extended
thus far and far beyond it on either side of James River. It is now in
Powhatan county, whose name is taken from the ancient name of
the river and the old King Powhatan. By Act of Assembly in 1790,
it was assigned to the French refugees who were driven from their
country by the persecutions of Louis XIV., and sought an asylum in
Virginia, as hundreds of thousands did in all the various countries
of Protestant Christendom. Before giving that brief detail of the
parish which its tattered records afford, it will be proper to allude
to the history of that most cruel persecution. Though the Reformation
had so far succeeded in France as to number one million
of its most resolute converts, yet there were twenty millions of
bigoted adherents to the Papacy. By uniting their influence and
arms with other Protestants around, the Huguenots, however, had
for a century been a terror to the monarchs of France and the
Papal throne. The bloody massacre of St. Bartholomew's eve, in
1572, only served to increase their resolution. By their aid was
Henry IV. placed upon the throne of France. Out of policy he declared
himself a Romanist, though it was believed he was more of
a Protestant at heart. He soon determined to put a stop to the
persecution and wars which had been carried on, and while declaring
the Papal the true and established Church, and the Protestant the
"Pretended Reformed Religion," secured them both in their religious
privileges, by the Edict of Nantes, in the year 1685.[126] This
continued in force during the reign of Louis XIII. and the minority
of his son, Louis XIV. On his accession to the throne, he determined
on a different course. The dupe of Jesuits, confessors,

Madame Maintenon, and Cardinal Mazarin, he set about converting
the Huguenots to the Catholic Church. He did not for some time
repeal the Edict of Nantes by a formal decree, but set it aside by
various acts which rendered it of no avail. He declared his determination
to convert all his subjects to the true faith of Rome.
This he attempted by bribery, using large sums for the purpose;
by persecution of various kinds; by destroying their churches and
requiring them to attend the Romish worship. Immense numbers
stole away from the country, though death and confiscation were
the penalties. At length the formal decree was passed. The Edict
of Nantes was revoked. The Protestant clergy must be converted,
or leave the kingdom in fifteen days, or be sent to work in the
galleys. Great numbers of false-hearted ones, chiefly of the laity,
were converted, either by gold or the sword,—for dragoons were the
chief ministers of the King, therefore converting was called dragooning.
It is computed that by emigration alone not less than
three hundred thousand were lost to the country. All the nations
of Protestant Christendom, and even Russia, were shocked at the
scene, and, deeply sympathizing with the sufferers, threw open their
doors to receive them, and vied with each other who should afford
most succour and most immunities and privileges. They thus found
their way into every Protestant country of Europe, and into many
parts of the United States, especially into New York, Virginia,
and South Carolina, where their names are to this day the names
of some of the most respectable families of the land. Dearly has
France and the Romish Church paid for the inhuman treatment of
these brave soldiers of the cross. Ardent lovers of religious liberty,
they have been in every land the most strenuous asserters of it;
and, sound in the faith, they have boldly contended against the false
docrines of Rome. Trained from generation to generation to contend
for their rights on the battle-field, in gratitude to those who
have afforded them an asylum, they have on many a field of Europe
revenged their own and their fathers' wrongs. Nor did Louis succeed
in his design to banish them from the land. The blood of the
martyrs was again the seed of the Church. Some faithful ones
were kept there by the arm of the Lord, as in the hollow of his
hand, who have increased and multiplied to this day; and it is believed
that at this time the proportion of Protestants in France to
the Catholics is as great as in the days of Louis the persecutor.
Then there was one million to twenty, now one million eight hundred
thousand to thirty-four millions; and the same policy by the
Bonapartes has been found necessary as that adopted by Henry
IV. In the providence of God, who can bring good out of evil, it
has also come to pass that the banished Huguenots have been benefactors
to all countries where they have gone, by contributing to
the improvement of the same, not only in religion, but in all the
arts and sciences,—being remarkable for their industry, skill, and
integrity. The very best of the old ministers of Virginia were
from this stock. Moncure, Latane, the two Fontaines, the two
Maurys, and others who might be mentioned, were among them.
To these, I am told, may be added one of recent date,—the pious
William Duvall, of Richmond. If we extend our view, and look
to the patriots and statesmen of the Revolution, where shall we find
better men than Chief-Justice Jay, of New York, Elias Boudinot,
of New Jersey, the Bayards, Legare, the Laurenses, the Grimkys,
Marion, Neuvilles, Gervais, Rutledge?

THE FONTAINE AND MAURY FAMILIES.

In connection with these notices of the Manakin settlement,
some account of the Fontaines and Maurys may very properly
come in, not merely because they were descendants of the Huguenots,
but because one of them—the Rev. Francis Fontaine—was at
one time its minister. Whoever would see a full and most interesting
account of the ancestors of these families must examine
that deeply-touching history of them, entitled "The Huguenot
Family," prepared by the Rev. Dr. Hawks and Miss Ann Maury,
of New York. I can only briefly refer to some of the children
and grandchildren of those remarkable persons, James Fontaine
and his wife, who were so signally rescued from destruction on the
coast of Ireland. Their five sons and two daughters were well
educated. John entered the army, and came over to this country
to explore it for his brother. He returned, and with Morris remained
in England. Peter, Francis, and James settled in Virginia.
Peter became minister first, for one year, at Weynoake, Martins
Brandon, and Jamestown, then settled in Westover parish. Francis
lived for one year at Manakintown, then settled in York-Hampton.
Their sister, Anne Fontaine, married Strother Maury,
from Gascony, in England. They came to Virginia, and settled in
King William. Their son, James Maury, was ordained in 1742,
and was for one year minister in King William county, then went
to Louisa to Fredericksville parish, which was afterward added in
part to Albemarle. He married a daughter of Mr. Walker, of
Albemarle. He had numerous sons and daughters, of whom more
hereafter. His son Matthew succeeded his father as minister.

I will now speak more particularly of those Huguenots who settled
in Virginia. As early as the year 1660 some few came over,
fleeing from the earlier persecutions. They were sufficient in
number to induce an Act of the Assembly granting them the privilege
of citizens. Toward the close of the century we read of some
settling themselves on the Rappahannock. In the year 1790, so
many had settled on the south side of James River, in Henrico
county, (which was then on both sides of the river,) that the Assembly
passed an act giving them a large tract of land along the
river as their possession, exempting them from all county and
State taxes for seven years, and then extending the privilege indefinitely.
They were required to support their own minister in
their own way. Accordingly, in dividing the grant into farms, all
running down to the river in narrow slips, a portion of the most
valuable was set apart for the minister, and continued for a long
time to be in possession and use of the minister, while one was
resident in the parish, and after that to be rented out, and the
proceeds paid for such occasional services as were rendered by
neighbouring ministers. At length, as it could not be seized and
alienated by the act for selling the glebes, it got into private hands,
and has been thus held for many years. As service is now regularly
held in the old church in Manakintown settlement, it is believed
that the glebe originally consecrated to the support of a
minister will be restored to its first design and long use. The
service of the Episcopal Church was used, and sermons preached
for some time in both French and English, as some of both nations
attended the church at Manakin.[127] In the year 1714 a list of the
little Colony was sent to England of men, women, and children,
amounting to nearly three hundred. The list is before me. The
minister was the Rev. Jean Caison. In the year 1728 the Rev.
Mr. Niern, who had been their minister for a year or two, left them
and took with him to London a letter showing that there had never
been more than thirty tithables in the parish, and that they could
not support a minister by themselves. Dr. Hawks speaks of a body
of six hundred coming over with their minister, Philippe de Richebourg,
and settling there. It may be that these are the same of
whom we read as first settling at Manakin and then moving to
South Carolina. I have the old register of baptisms, &c. of this

parish, written in French, and beginning in the year 1721 and
continuing to 1753, from which it would appear that a Rev. Mr.
Fontaine was minister in 1720 and 1721, baptizing a child by the
name of Morris, establishing that to be a Huguenot name. In
the year 1726 a Mr. Murdock, minister of St. James Northam,
Goochland, officiated by baptizing at Manakin. In the year 1727
the Rev. Mr. Brooke, of Hanover, did the same. In that same
year and the next Mr. Niern was the minister. In the year during
which Mr. Niern went to England Mr. Massamm was minister. In
the years 1728 and 1729 the Revs. Mr. Swift and Deter baptized.
In the years 1731 and 1732 the Rev. Mr. Marye was minister. In
the year 1739 the Rev. Mr. Gavin baptized in the parish. From
the year 1750 to 1780 the Rev. Mr. Douglass, of Goochland, and
other ministers around, occasionally served it. After this the Rev.
Mr. Hopkins, of Goochland, was their minister. Since the revival
of the Church in Virginia, it has been partially supplied by various
other ministers to the present time, when the Rev. Mr. Tizzard, of
Chesterfield, is the pastor, in connection with the Church in Chesterfield.
One thing is worthy of remark in relation to the baptisms
in this parish,—that those of the negro children are far more in
number than those of the whites. Their names are regularly registered.
This shows their sense of duty as to the religious dedication
of the children of Africa. To the foregoing brief statistics I cannot
forbear adding the following extract from a letter received
from one of the descendants of the family of Dupuys. She writes:—

From the family of Dupuys I have gotten the old church register,
which, though rotten and torn and in fragments, has been kept
so as to enable me to obtain the statistics given in this article.
The foregoing account of the escape of Bartholomew Dupuy and
his wife is a true picture of the methods resorted to by the persecuted
Huguenots to fly from the kingdom. Nothing now remains
but that I mention the names of those families still remaining in
Virginia who derive their descent from the Huguenots. From
information coming through books and individuals they are as
follows:—Marye, Fontaine, Dupuy, Harris, Sublett, Watkins,
Markam, Sully, Chasteen, Duvall, Bondurant, Flournoy, Potter,
Michaux, Pemberton, Munford, Hatcher, Jaqueline, Bernard,
Barraud, Latane, Moncure, Agie, Amouet, Chadouin, Dibrell,
Farrar, Fuqua, Jeter, Jordan, Jouette, Le Grand, Ligon, Maupin,
Maxey, Pasteur, Perrou, Thweatt, Maury, Boisseau, Fouche, Lanier,
Le Neve. Concerning a few of these it may be questioned whether
they be not of Welsh descent, while there are doubtless others who
might be added.

ARTICLE XLIV.

Parishes in Dinwiddie and Brunswick Counties.—Bath Parish.

This parish was established in 1742, being cut off from Bristol
parish. Its dividing-line, however, was changed in 1744, so as to
enlarge Bristol parish. Dinwiddie county was taken from Prince
George in 1752. A part of Bristol parish—that in which Petersburg
lies—is still in Dinwiddie. The first minister of whom we
have any account was a Mr. Pow, once a chaplain of his Majesty's
ship Triton, who was succeeded in 1755 by the Rev. James Pasteur,
who was also the minister in 1756; whether after this, and how
long, is unknown. In 1763 the Rev. Devereux Jarratt, who had
been ordained in London on Christmas-day the preceding year,
became minister of the parish. In his autobiography he says,—

It is to be feared that about this time, and some years before, a
number of the clergy of Virginia were not only wanting in seriousness,
but were immoral and ignorant. A pious member of the
Church, from somewhere in this region, I believe, writes to the
Bishop of London of the gross ignorance of four clergymen, mentioning
them by name, and the immorality of one of them, comparing
them with the learning and piety of two Presbyterian
ministers who had just come into the State, and prophesying the
result of these things unless arrested. He, however, adds that
there were some of a different character. With one of these Mr.
Jarratt himself soon became acquainted.

As Mr. Jarratt was the minister of this parish from this time
(1763) to the time of his death in the year 1801,—thirty-eight years,
—and was a man of no ordinary character, it is proper that we give
some sketch of him. The only difficulty in doing this will be the
selecting, from the materials furnished by himself and the Rev. Mr.
Coleman, to whom he addressed his autobiographical letters, the
most important, so as not to exceed the bounds prescribed by the
character of this work. Devereux Jarratt—so called, as to his Christian
name, from Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, in whose army
his grandfather served—was born in New Kent county, Virginia,
January 6, 1732-3. His father, like the reputed father of our
Emmanuel, was a carpenter. "We were accustomed," he says,
"to look upon what were called gentlefolks as being of a superior
order. My parents neither sought nor expected any titles or great
things either for themselves or their children. Their highest ambition
was to teach their children to read and write and to understand
the fundamental rules of arithmetic. They also taught us short
prayers, and made us very perfect in repeating the Church catechism."
When he was seven years of age his father died, and he
was left to the care of his elder brother Robert, who inherited all
the landed estate, as there was no will. The share of the other
children was twenty-five pounds current Virginia money. At an
early age Devereux discovered a turn for books, and was sent to a
plain school. But, when not at school, his time was spent in
keeping race-horses, taking care of game-cocks, and working on
the farm. He seldom went to church, where he says old Mr. Mossom
preached "wholly from a written sermon, keeping his eyes
continually fixed on the paper, and so near that what he said
seemed rather addressed to the cushion than to the congregation."
At the age of nineteen, after spending some time in learning the
trade of a carpenter, and disliking it, he determined to become a
teacher of what he did know. Hearing of a place in Albemarle—
now Fluvanna—at a Mr. Moon's, he set out,—his all, excepting only
one shirt, being on his back, and that which was in his hand was
lost soon after. In Albemarle there was no minister of any persuasion,—the
Sabbath being spent in sporting. His salary was nine
pound and seven shillings. Being sickly on that part of James River
where he lived,—near Bremo Creek,—he changed his place of
labour, and got still less the second year. The third year he lived
with a Mr. Kennon, whose wife was a pious woman and greatly
promoted his spiritual welfare. His reading and intercourse with
Mrs. Kennon strongly inclined him to the Presbyterian Church,

which was then gaining ground in those parts. After some backslidings,
and many doubts and misgivings, and some severe contests
with the evil one, he determined on the ministry. Having meanwhile
examined some excellent Episcopal writers, and considered
well the question of Churches, he resolved to take Orders in the
Established Church. Having improved himself much in literature,
especially in the languages, during his engagements as a teacher,
and having obtained commendatory papers, and a title to some
parish, in October, 1762, he sailed for England to obtain Orders.
There he was detained until the spring,—not being able to obtain
Orders at once,—and being attacked by the smallpox. During
this time he placed all his money in the hands of the friend with
whom he stayed, who spent it. Other and better friends being
raised up by Providence, he was supplied with the means of returning
to Virginia. In that year he entered upon the duties of
the ministry in Bath parish. There were three churches in it,—
Saponey, Hatcher's Run, and Butterwood,—to whose congregations
he devoted himself. Of his preaching he speaks thus:—

During his years of travelling, when he visited twenty-nine
counties in North Carolina and Virginia, he regularly attended the
three churches in his own parish on Sundays, devoting the days
of the week to itinerant labours, except on occasions when his
visits were very distant. The journal of his labours shows that for
some years he averaged five sermons a week. He was, of course,
very obnoxious to many of the clergy. One of them charged him
with violating an old English canon by preaching in private houses.
To this he replied that no clergyman refused to preach a funeral
sermon in a private house for forty shillings, and he preached for
nothing. Moreover, that many of the brethren transgressed the
75th canon, which forbids cards, dice, tables, &c. to the clergy,
and yet were not punished. Some complained of his encouraging
pious laymen to pray in his presence, which he answered by reminding
them how often they permitted ungodly laymen to swear
in their presence, without even a rebuke. Mr. Jarratt adduces in
proof of the low state of religion the small number of communicants,—none
but a few of the more aged—perhaps seven or eight
at a church—attending. The rest thought nothing about it, or else
considered it a dangerous thing to meddle with. The first time he
administered it there was only that number. About ten years after
he entered the ministry, there were, at his three churches, including
a number who came from other parishes, about nine hundred or
one thousand, although he endeavoured faithfully to guard the table
against unworthy receivers. For many years this happy state of
things continued; but, after a time, a melancholy change appeared.
During the war, the clergy, deprived of their salaries, had in great
numbers deserted their parishes. Dissenters were multiplying
through the State. An irresistible tide was sweeping away the
Episcopal Church. What could the single arm of Mr. Jarratt do
to avert its ruin? The Baptists made the first inroads on his flock.
The Methodists came on soon after, and Mr. Jarratt availed himself
of their aid to oppose the former. They professed to be, and
doubtless at the first in sincerity, the true friends of the Episcopal
Church, who only desired its reformation; but, when increased in
numbers, they established a separate and rival communion. Mr.
Jarratt encouraged their private meetings, and, not deeming it
right or canonical to throw open his churches to their lay preachers,
tendered his own barn to their use, and was present at some of

their meetings. The issue of this is well known. His own services
were after a time deserted for the more popular modes of the Methodists.
But the same result occurred throughout the State, only
that those who adopted a different mode, and made violent opposition
to them, were the sooner deserted. The fact is, that a
thousand circumstances contributed to render the downfall of the
Church at that time inevitable. Had there been such men as Jarratt
from the first, it would not have been. Had there been a
hundred such men as Jarratt in the Church of Virginia at that
time, numbers would have remained in it, who would have made
the Episcopal Church at this day the largest, instead of the smallest,
of the Churches of Virginia. Mr. Jarratt, though thus deserted
and discouraged, continued steadfast, predicting, even to the last,
the resuscitation of the Episcopal Church, believing that it had the
Divine favour, and the redeeming principle in it. In his letter to
his old friend Mr. McRoberts, who was like-minded with himself
for many years, and with whom he had taken sweet counsel, but
who at length abandoned our ministry and sought to establish a
Church in Virginia on the Independent plan, he writes like a true
descendant of the English Reformers as to the doctrines and policy
of the Church, assuming, as to the latter, the ground taken in our
Articles and Ordination Services, affirming its apostolic origin,
though not denouncing others as destitute of authority. Mr. Jarratt,
though looked upon with an evil eye, as he says, by the old clergy,
and having little intercourse with them, still attended some of their
Conventions. At one, in 1774, held in Williamsburg, he says that
he was treated so unkindly, and heard the true doctrines of Christianity
so ridiculed, that he determined to attend no more of them.
In the year 1785, however, he attended one in Richmond, which
was called for the purpose of organizing a Diocesan Church and
adopting canons; but he was again so coldly treated, that, after
remaining a few hours, he returned home. In the year 1790, the
Convention which elected Bishop Madison was called, and he, being
present, was better received. On the following year he was appointed
to preach the opening sermon at the Convention of 1792.
That noble sermon stands first in his volume of sermons. On his
return home he stopped in Petersburg, where Bishop Madison had
appointed an ordination. Mr. Jarratt, being requested to take
part in the examination, refused two of them as unfit for the office.
"But what did that avail?" he says: "another clergyman was called
in, and I had the mortification to hear both of them ordained the
same day. I say hear, for it was a sight I did not wish to see."
The explanation of this was as follows:—Mr. Jarratt took his place
in a pew on one side of the pulpit, in a corner, where he sat with
a handkerchief over his head. The excuse which Bishop Madison
offers for ordaining one or more of them, whom he admitted to be
unworthy, was the same which Governors and Commissaries formerly
did for not disgracing such,—viz.: that "ministers were so scarce,
we must not be too strict." The Convention of 1792 was the last
Mr. Jarratt attended. In the year 1795, he says, "I have now
lived in the world just sixty-two years." Infirmities of body were
now coming over him. The use of one eye had long been lost to him.
A tumour on his face, which ultimately proved to be a cancer, began
to make its appearance. Notwithstanding this, he says, "old and
afflicted as I am, I travelled more than one hundred miles last
week, was at three funerals, and married two couples. Within less
than three months, I think, I wrote about nine hundred pages in
quarto. Part of them I copied for the press; part I extracted and
abridged; part I composed in prose and poetry. But now it is
probable I have wellnigh finished my work." Still, he went on
with his public duties. "I wish," he says, "to go to church every
Sunday at least, and join in her most excellent system of public
worship,—a system to which I am particularly attached, because it
is noble, beautiful, and complete in all its parts, and, in my judgment,
well calculated to answer the end designed. And will such a
system ever be permitted to fall to the ground? I fondly hope it will
not; though, alas! the prospect here in Virginia is gloomy enough.
Churches are little attended,—in most places (I judge from report)
not more than a dozen, one Sunday with another; and sometimes
half that number. By a letter from a Presbyterian minister, I learn
that religion is at a low ebb among them. The Baptists, I suppose,
are equally declining. I seldom hear any thing about them. The
Methodists are splitting and falling to pieces." As to himself, he
says, "I have yet tolerable congregations, but the people have sat
under the sound of it so long, that they appear gospel-hardened."
He speaks of the condition of a minister in Virginia as most discouraging.
He was labouring without any compensation; and yet, he
says, "it is pretended that I have an itching palm." This he
disproves by declaring that from 1776 to 1785 he received not one
farthing, and that after the Church was organized in Virginia, and
a subscription was set on foot in his parish, he only received about
thirty or forty shillings the first year, and nothing since.

To this brief sketch, taken from his own letters to Mr. Coleman,
I only add the following remarks by the editor:—

Mr. Jarratt died on the 29th of January, 1801, in the sixty-ninth
year of his age and the thirty-eighth of his ministry. His excellent
widow survived him a number of years. She was the daughter
of a Mr. Clayborne, of Dinwiddie or Brunswick. They had no
children. Mrs. Jarratt was one of the first and most liberal contributors
to our Theological Seminary.

Though fifty-five years have elapsed since the death of Mr.
Jarratt, the history of his successors is brief. With one exception
all are now living, and therefore my pen is hindered. The Rev.
Wright Tucker, like-minded with Mr. Jarratt, succeeded him.
In the year 1805, he is in the Convention at Richmond. There
had been no Conventions, or else no journals of them, since 1795.
Another interval of seven years elapsed without Conventions. Mr.
Tucker was not at the Convention of 1812, but appeared in 1813.
How long he lived and ministered after this is not known to the
writer. His name is not on the journals afterward. Nor is it
known that there were any regular ministrations there, until the
year 1827, when the Rev. John Grammar—a son of the two props
to the church in Petersburg, already mentioned, one of whom was
an old parishioner of Mr. Jarratt—took charge of the parish, in
connection with that of St. Andrew's in Brunswick. From the
time of his settlement to the present, there have been six ministers
besides himself,—the Rev. Thos. Castleman, the Rev. Mr. Massie,
the Rev. Mr. Banister, the Rev. Mr. Webb, and the Rev. Thomas

Ambler. A new brick church has been built at the court-house
Old Saponey still stands, and is the only one of the three in which
Mr. Jarratt officiated that has any existence so far as we know
and believe. No bishop or other minister can enter that plain but
venerable building without associations of the most sacred character.
Although only a very few now live who remember to have seen old
Father Jarratt, even in their early years, yet his name and memory
have been handed down from generation to generation with the
highest respect, and not only the Old Saponey, but the Episcopal
Church itself in that region, used to be known and called by some
of the inhabitants "Old Father Jarratt's Church."

As to the families which once dwelt around that spot and worshipped
in that house, where are they? One at least remains to
remind us of former days. Hard by the old church still lives the
aged widow of Mr. Thomas Withers, the friend of Mr. Jarratt, the
prop of Old Saponey in many ways. To the old mansion, as by
instinct, the clergy always repair, when the service is over, and
love to ask and hear of former days and of Father Jarratt. The
descendants and relatives of old Mr. Withers and his still surviving
widow are numerous, and many of them active members of the
Church, and one of them in the ministry: but where are they?
Old Saponey knows them no more.

BRUNSWICK COUNTY AND ST. ANDREW'S PARISH.

The county of Brunswick and parish of St. Andrew's were established
in 1720, being cut off from the counties of Isle of Wight and
Surrey and the parishes of the same, by Act of Assembly. Being a
frontier-county, arms and ammunition were assigned to the settlers,
taxes remitted for ten years, and five hundred pounds given to Nathaniel
Harrison, Jonathan Allen, Henry Harrison, and William
Edwards, to be by them laid out in building a church, court-house,
prison, pillory and stocks, where they shall think fit. Twelve years
after this, in the year 1732, other portions of the Isle of Wight and
Surrey were added to Brunswick. Having had access to the vestry-book
of this parish, which commences in the year 1732, when the
county and parish were then completed, we are able to give a
more accurate account of the church and its ministers than of some
others. It is evident that there had been previous vestries, and
that the church ordered by the Assembly had been built, (where
is not known,) and there may have been a minister or ministers
before the commencement of this vestry-book. But in 1733 the
vestry met and chose the Rev. Mr. Beatty, at the recommendation

of the Governor. He was to preach at the church already built,
and some place on Meherrin, where a chapel was to be built. At
a meeting in 1734, two chapels, instead of one, were ordered, and
the places selected, but objection, it is supposed, being made, and
complaints sent to the Governor and Council, that body gave directions
where they were to be placed. The one was to be on Meherrin,
and called Meherrin Church, and the other on or near
Roanoke, to be called Roanoke Church, the old church to be called
the Mother-Church. In the year 1739, another church is determined
on, and in 1742, mention is made of the new church. In
1744, it is resolved to build a church on the south side of Roanoke.
In 1746, it is resolved to build a church on the south side of
Meherrin. In the year 1750, mention is made of Duke's Chapel,
and Rattlesnake Chapel. These, we presume, were additional to
the two on either side of Meherrin, and the two on either side of
Roanoke, and the Mother-Church,—being seven in all. As to their
location I can form no conjecture. The problem must be solved
by the citizens of Brunswick and Greensville, the latter county,
with one or more of the churches, having been cut off from the
former at a later period. In the year 1750, the Rev. Mr. Beatty
disappears from the record, having served the parish seventeen
years. In the same year the Rev. George Purdie is elected
minister for six months. At the end of the year the Rev. William
Pow,—the same no doubt who was soon after the minister in Bath
parish,—being recommended by the Hon. Lewis Burwell, President,
and the Commissary, is chosen. In six months after, the Rev.
Mr. Purdie is again the minister, though with the remonstrance
of four of the vestry. In November, 1752, the name of another
chapel—Reedy Creek—appears, and in the year 1754 another by
the name of Kittle Stick. At the same date the Rev. Mr. Purdie is
allowed to preach once in three months at Red Oak School-House,—
probably the place where Red Oak Church afterward stood.

At a vestry-meeting in 1755 the following entry is found:—

Under the same date we find mention of the Old Court-House
Church, and an order that the Surveyor of the county make a
plan of it, as it will be necessary to build three other chapels.

In the year 1757, we find the case of Mr. Purdie before the
vestry, the Commissary having ordered a trial. The witnesses
appear, when Mr. Purdie acknowledges guilt and resigns his
charge, but the vestry agree to try him for one year more. At
the end of that time, one month's trial was allowed him. They
are not relieved from him until April, 1760. His case is mentioned
in other documents which I have. The Rev. Patrick Lunan and
the Rev. Gronon Owen next present themselves as candidates, and
are both admitted on trial for one year, the salary to be equally
divided between them. The Rev. Mr. Lunan was doubtless the
one who gave such trouble to the parish in Suffolk soon after this.
The Rev. Mr. Owen had been recommended by the Governor, but
the recommendation did not come until the application of Mr.
Lunan had been made. Therefore they were both put on trial,
but at the end of the year neither was chosen. Governor Fauquier
then presented Mr. Owen, who was accepted. There was probably
some understanding between the vestry and Governor to this effect,
or else the Governor, being an authoritative man, insisted upon his
right of presentation and induction,—a thing seldom done by any
of his predecessors. Mr. Owen continued to be the minister until
1769, and died there. We should have had no knowledge whatever
of Mr. Owen but for a recent communication from a literary
society in London, from which it appears that he was a man of
talents and worth. The communication referred to makes inquiry
concerning him and his posterity, and their history in this country.
It seems that he was a Welshman, a man of great genius and a fine
scholar, who wrote one of the best poems in the Welsh language,
concerning Wales; and a Welsh society in England is desirous to
erect some monument to his memory in that country. All the
information which could be returned was, that some worthy grandchildren—two
females—were living in Brunswick in reduced circumstances.
No tombstone, no inscription, exists. Perhaps the
place of his interment is unknown. In the year 1769, the Rev.
Mr. Lundie produces a certificate from the Bishop of London of
his ordination, and is received as the minister.

The entries in the vestry-book now become irregular and brief.
The war of the Revolution was at hand. The best men were on
the field or in the councils of the country. Henry Tazwell, an
active member of the vestry, was taking an active part in the

affairs of the country. The ministers lost their salaries; the glebes
were for the most part scarcely worth having, and the glebe-houses
tumbling over their heads. The Rev. Mr. Lundie was among the few
who continued at his post during the war. His name is seen on
the Journal of the Convention in 1785, which met in Richmond to
organize the diocese and unite in the general confederation of the
Church in America. He was then the minister of the churches in
Greensville as well as Brunswick. After this he became a minister
of the Methodist communion. The names of Drury Stith,
John Jones, Thomas Claiborne, appear among the lay delegates.
They were probably among the last who despaired of the Church
in this region. It is believed that the Rev. Mr. Grammar in 1827
was, longo intervallo, the regular successor to Mr. Lundie. The
Rev. Messrs. Jarratt, Tucker, and Cameron, from the adjoining
counties of Dinwiddie and Lunenburg, doubtless performed many
ministerial offices there during their ministries.

In giving a list of the clergy in Bath parish, from Mr. Grammar's
time to the present, we have given the list of the ministers of St.
Andrew's parish, as they were under the same ministry, with the
exception of the three last,—the Revs. Messrs. Berger, Johnson, and
Mower, whose services have been confined to Brunswick, while Bath
parish had its own. Under the auspices of these ministers of our
resuscitated Church in Brunswick, three new churches have been
built, one at Lawrenceville, another about twelve miles off, called
Wilkin's Chapel, from the name of him who built it at his own expense,
and the third about eighteen miles from Lawrenceville.

The following is the list of vestrymen from the year 1732 to
1786:—Henry Embra, John Wall, Richard Burch, Wm. Machen,
Wm. Wynne, Charles King, Wm. Smith, Thomas Wilson, Robert
Dyer, Nicholas Lanier, Wm. Hagwood, Batt Peterson, Nathaniel
Edwards, James Mitchell, Clement Read, George Walter, John
Ligleport, Littleton Tazwell, Nicholas Edmonds, John Clack,
Thomas Switty, Henry Edmonds, Robert Briggs, Edward Goodrich,
Heagle Williams, John Petway, Samson Lanier, William
Thornton, W. Edwards, Henry Cocke, Alexander Watson, Thomas
Stith, Frederick Machen, Francis Willis, Henry Tazwell, Joseph
Poeples, Richard Elliott, William Batte, Thomas Edmonds, Wm.
Machen, Buckner Stith, Benjamin Blick, Birrus Jones, Andrew
Meade, John Stith, John B. Goldsberry. Among the above-mentioned
vestrymen we read the names of Clement Read, Littleton
and Henry Tazwell. Of the first we shall speak when we find
his name on the vestry-book of Cumberland parish, Lunenburg, when

separated from Brunswick. For notices of the two Tazwells, we
refer to Mr. Grigsby's book on the Convention of 1776. The
first was descended from William Tazwell, who came from Somersetshire
in 1715, and married a daughter of Colonel Southey
Littleton. His son Littleton resided in Brunswick and was an
active vestryman and churchwarden. His grandson Henry was
born there, and became a lawyer of eminence. He married a Miss
Waller. He was the father of the present Littleton Waller Tazwell.
After distinguishing himself as a statesman and patriot in
the House of Burgesses, and in other causes during and after the
war, he was raised to the bench of the Court of Appeals, and then
appointed Senator of the United States in the place of Mr. John
Taylor, of Caroline, and in opposition to Mr. Madison.

MEHERRIN PARISH IN THE COUNTY OF GREENSVILLE.

This parish was separated from St. Andrew's parish, Brunswick,
in 1753. No vestry-book being extant or in our possession if
extant, we can only ascertain, from such lists of the ministers as
we have, who belonged to this parish. In the year 1754 we find
the name of John Navison, and also in 1758, as the pastor of this
parish. In the years 1773-74-76, the Rev. Arthur Emmerson
was the minister. In the year 1791 the Rev. Stephen Johnson
was the minister for that year, and that only. From that time
it is supposed a deathlike silence pervaded the churches, so far as
Episcopal services were concerned, until of late years. The Rev.
Edward E. McGuire was sent as missionary to Greensville, Sussex,
and Southampton, in 1842. The Rev. Mr. Withers succeeded him
in Sussex and Southampton, and was succeeded in Greensville by
the Rev. Mr. Sprigg in 1846. The Rev. W. D. Hanson also spent
one year in Greensville. In the time of Mr. Sprigg, in the year
1848, a neat and comfortable house of worship was formed out of
a large barn or stable, and, under the ministry of the Rev. Mr.
Robert and of his predecessors, a tolerable congregation has been
raised up in this waste place of our Zion. I am further informed,
by a letter which had escaped my notice when writing the foregoing,
that before the division of Meherrin from St. Andrew's there
were two churches in it, to which two more were added, one near the
Carolina line, and one on the Meherrin River, three or four miles
west of Hicksford. A third was Grassy Pond Church, the traces
of whose foundation may yet be seen; the fourth was near Poplar
Mount. All of them being cheap churches, of wood, as nine-tenths
of the Colonial churches were, soon perished. There is a

tradition, that, besides the above, a Mr. Fanning was the minister
of this parish, and was too favourable to the British; but I cannot
find his name on any of my lists, before, during, and after the war,
and do not believe that there was one of his name in Virginia.
That the British under Arnold did not receive favour in the whole
of the parish is proved by the fact that there is a place near one
of the churches to this day called Dry Bread, because they would
let them have nothing else to eat there. There are two churches
now in the county, of recent erection,—Christ Church, Hicksford,
and Grace Church, twelve miles off.

ARTICLE XLV.

Parishes in Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, and Charlotte Counties.
Cumberland Parish.

In the year 1745, Lunenburg county and Cumberland parish
were cut off from Brunswick. In the year 1764, Lunenburg county
embraced all that is now Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, and Charlotte.
There had been, previous to this, three parishes in it,—viz.: Cumberland,
St. James's, and Cornwall. In that year it was divided
into three counties also, commensurate with the above-mentioned
parishes,—Cumberland parish being in Lunenburg, St. James's in
Mecklenburg, and Cornwall in Charlotte. We shall now present
what information we have about the parish of Cumberland, in Lunenburg.
The vestry-book which we have commences in 1746,
just after the parish and county were cut off from Brunswick, and
when they embraced all of Mecklenburg and Charlotte, and that
which was afterward, in 1752, cut off and made Halifax county
and Antrim parish, which, as we shall see, was again divided into
Pittsylvania and Halifax. At the time we commence with Cumberland
parish, it therefore comprehended all the territory which
is now Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Charlotte, Halifax, and Pittsylvania,
to which we may add Henry, Franklin, and Patrick.

In the first year after the establishment of the parish,—viz.:
1746,—the vestry ordered a chapel forty-eight feet by twenty-four
to be built near Reedy Creek. This was near Lunenburg
Court-House. It was consumed by fire between thirty and forty
years since, during the ministry of Rev. Mr. Philips. Committees
also were appointed to select places for a chapel and reading-house,
near Otter River and the Fork of Roanoke; and another
committee the following year for purchasing a site for a chapel on
Little Roanoke. In the year 1748, the following communication
between the vestry and the Governor confirms what I have previously
said as to the relation between vestries and Governors:—

This was signed by Lewis Deloney, Clement Read,[128] William
Howard, Lyddall Bacon, David Stokes, Thomas Bouldin, Abraham
Martin, John Twitty, Matthew Talbot, vestrymen.

It would appear that the vestrymen had not been inactive in the
erection of churches during the two years since entering on their
office, for the contract with Mr. Brunskill, to preach at the four
churches already built, and at another place on South River, and
two others, are determined on this year. Mr. Brunskill remained
but one year; and, if he was the man who so disgraced himself and
the Church in Fauquier soon after this, the vestry did wisely in
their mode of engaging with him. There were three John Brunskills
in the Church of Virginia at this time,—one of whom died in
Amelia. The Rev. George Purdie is the next minister. They
are yet more careful in their contract with him; for, although recommended
by the President of the Council, Mr. Burwell, and Commissary
Dawson, they will only receive him on trial for six months,
and agree with him that either party may dissolve the connection
by giving six months' notice. He remained about eighteen months,
and, having occasion to visit England, resigned his charge. The
vestry, however, speak well of his conduct while he was their minister.
On his return from England, (if he went,) he became in the
following year minister of St. Andrew's in Brunswick, as we have
seen. In the year 1751, the Rev. William Kay, of whom we shall
have more to say in another place, became the minister on a probation

of two years, with the understanding that either party might
be released at the end of one year. Mr. Kay, being a worthy
minister, remained with them until his death in 1755. In 1756, the
Rev. Mr. Barclay became the minister, on the condition that he
or the vestry might dissolve the relation at a moment's warning
After continuing one year and some months, Mr. Barclay resigns,
and recommends to the vestry to give a title to the parish to
Mr. James Craig, student of divinity, in order that he might obtain
Orders,—that being necessary according to the English canons.
They agree to this, as they did a few years after to Mr. Jarratt,
but only on condition of his entering into bond, with proper security,
that he shall not by virtue of this title insist upon being the
minister of this parish if he shall not be found agreeable to the
gentlemen of the vestry and the parishioners, after trial. This
was the common custom of the vestries in Virginia in regard to
those who were only candidates for the ministry and wished to be
able to comply with the canon and obtain Orders. In the year
1759, the Rev. James Craig becomes their minister. About this
time several other chapels are ordered.

After a few years Mr. Craig thinks of leaving the parish; and
the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, who was about to go to England for Orders,
receives a title on the same condition which had been agreed on
with Mr. Craig. Mr. Craig, however, still continues in the parish
until his death in 1795. He appears to have had the esteem of
the people. A good glebe and glebe-house are prepared for him,
and he was allowed to practise medicine in connection with his
ministry. At one time—about 1790—he appears to have left the
parish, or to have been officiating in some parish or parishes around,
as the vestry pass an order that if he will return to the parish and
preach every Sabbath they will raise sixty pounds for him. Whether
the sixty pounds was raised or not, he appears to have laboured
in his old parish until his death. His ministry was of thirty-five
or thirty-six years' duration in this one parish.

Mr. Craig united the practice of medicine with the duties of
the ministry. Whether it was from the necessity of obtaining a
support for his family, or from charity to the poor, I cannot say.
He prospered in his worldly matters. His glebe was larger and
better than most of those in the State, and he was a better
manager. He had a mill of his own, and during the war it was a
kind of storehouse for public provisions. Tarleton, knowing this,
and that Mr. Craig was a true American and zealous in the cause
of the Revolution, took the mill in his route, and, after he and

his men had feasted on Mr. Craig's good mutton and fed their
horses on his corn, caused all the barrels of flour to be rolled into
the mill-pond and the whole establishment to be burned down.

To Mr. Craig the Rev. John Cameron succeeded. He was one
of four brothers who came from Scotland,—one of them, besides
himself, being in the ministry. The family was ancient and highly
respectable. He was educated in King's College, Aberdeen, was
ordained by the Bishop of Chester in 1770, and came over that year
to Virginia. His first charge was St. James's Church, Mecklenburg.
From thence, in 1784, he went to Petersburg, and, after
spending some years there, removed to Nottoway parish. Mr.
Jarratt, in speaking of the migratory course of the clergy for want
of support after the Revolution, says,—

His new quarters not being in this respect sufficient for his
support, he was obliged to resort to school-keeping, and had a
select classical school, for which, by his scholarship, he was eminently
fitted. He was made Doctor of Divinity by William and
Mary College. If for his strictness he was even then complained
of, how would such a school as his be now endured, by either
parents or children? By nature stern and authoritative, he was
born and educated where the discipline of schools and families
was more than Anglican. It was Caledonian. But he made fine
scholars. There is one at least now alive, who is an instance of
this, and bears testimony to it. His sincere piety and great
uprightness commanded the respect of all, if his stern appearance
and uncompromising strictness prevented a kindlier feeling. I
never saw him but once, and then only for a few hours around a
committee-table at our second Convention in Richmond, and then
received a rebuke from him; and, though it was not for an unpardonable

sin, yet I sincerely thanked him, and have esteemed him
the more for it ever since. The father's piety and integrity have
descended to more than one of his posterity. Judge Duncan
Cameron, of North Carolina, was his son, and educated by him.
Of him it might be said in some good degree, as of Sir Matthew
Hale, "A light saith the Pulpit, a light saith the Bar." Judge
Walker Anderson, of Florida, is his grandson, and was his scholar,
and but for ill health would have been in the ministry. I might
speak of others, but it enters not into my place to enlarge more.

Dr. Cameron continued the minister of Cumberland parish until
his death in 1815. He was buried beside his daughter, Anna M.
Cameron. A tombstone has been erected to their memory by his
son, of whom we have just spoken,—the late Hon. Duncan Cameron,
of North Carolina.

About three or four years after the death of Mr. Cameron, the
Rev. Mr. Philips, of whom I wrote in the article on Hanover, took
charge of this parish and continued in it until his death. During
the interval between the death of Mr. Cameron and the coming of
Mr. Philips, Mr. Ravenscroft, of Mecklenburg, then a candidate
for Orders in Virginia, was recommended by Bishop Moore and
accepted by the vestry as lay reader in the parish.

The Rev. Charles Taliafero, after an interval of some years,
succeeded Mr. Philips in 1831, and for six years laboured most
diligently and successfully, being the means under God of rousing
up the slumbering energies of the old parish. St. John's Church
was the only one standing in the parish at that time. Reedy Creek
Church had been consumed by fire. Being deserted of worshippers,
it was filled with fodder, and said to have taken fire while some
negroes were playing cards in it by night. Old Flatrock Church
had been disposed of and the proceeds applied to the building of
St. John's. St. Paul's was built during the ministry of the honest
and zealous Mr. Taliafero. At his entrance upon duty there were
only seven regular attending communicants in the parish. During
his brief ministry forty-six were added to the communion. Mr.
Taliafero was succeeded by the Rev. Thomas Locke, who has continued
to be the minister until within the last two years. The Rev.
Mr. Henderson is its present rector.

I take from the old vestry-book the following list of vestrymen:—

It will be seen that the name of Buford often occurs on this list.
At one time four of the name were in the same vestry. To Mr.
Thomas Buford, a pious member of the Church, the parish is now,
and has been for a long time, indebted for its ability to support a
minister. About sixty years ago he left an estate to the parish,
which, though badly managed, has rendered effectual aid to the
vestry in the support of a minister.

To the above list I add the first election after the effort at reviving
the Church began:—David Street, Colonel John Street,
William Overton, Roger Atkinson, Thomas Atkinson, James McFarland,
Charles Smith.

ST. JAMES'S PARISH, MECKLENBURG COUNTY.

This parish was separated from Cumberland parish, Lunenburg,
in the year 1761. The county of Mecklenburg was cut off from
Lunenburg in 1764. The City Church, as it is called, is still standing,
being an old frame building with a number of old Episcopal
families around it, who, I trust, will ever be as willing as they are
able to sustain a minister. Where the chapels stood I am unable
to say. There was an old house of worship, in the time of Bishop
Ravenscroft's ministry, called Speed's Church, which I believe was
one of former days. In later days one was built in a more central
place and called St. James's, and then removed to another position,
and then abandoned and sold for the purpose of building one at
Boydton. Another has been built about twelve miles from Boydton
by the name of St. Andrew's, another near the Carolina line
called St. Luke's, and, lastly, one at Clarksville, on the Roanoke.

The first minister of this parish was Mr. John Cameron, of whom

we have recently spoken. He is on our list of clergy from this
parish in 1774-76, the only one we have between 1754 and 1758
and 1785. It is probable that he was minister in Mecklenburg
from his first coming into this country, in the year 1770, until
1784, when he moved to Petersburg; though one of his descendants
informs me that he was living in Charlotte in 1771, where he
married a Miss Nash. He may have settled there first and after
a year or two removed to Mecklenburg. It has generally been
supposed that the Rev. George Micklejohn succeeded to Mr. Cameron,
but I can find no evidence that he ever was the regular
minister of the parish. Although there were Conventions from the
year 1785 to the year 1805, and then from 1812 to the present
time, his name never appears as the minister. He was ordained
for North Carolina by the Bishop of London in 1766, and removed,
no doubt, from thence to Virginia and settled in Mecklenburg. He
had either taught school in Carolina or Virginia before the Revolution,
if that anecdote be true which is related of him,—viz.: that
on being solicited by some of the gentlemen, after the war, to resume
his occupation and take some of their sons, he replied that
"he would have nothing to do with their little American democrats,
for that it was hard enough to manage them before the Revolution,
and now it would be impossible." He lived to a great age, was a
man of peculiar character, and never calculated to be useful in the
ministry. He preached very often in Mecklenburg, but to very
small congregations, not always to two or three, himself and an old
brother Scotchman being on one occasion the whole assembly:
nevertheless, the sermon was preached. He lived some years after
Mr. Ravenscroft's ministry commenced. The latter tells the following
anecdote of him:—On a certain occasion, when he (Mr. R.)
was preaching on the various testimonies to the truth and excellency
of religion, he alluded to the comfort of it to the aged and to their
dying witness to it, and, pointing to old Mr. Micklejohn, who was
present and before him, told the congregation that there was the
testimony of a century to our holy religion, supposing him to have
lived his century; but Mr. M. immediately corrected him, crying
aloud, in broad Scotch, "Naw, naw, mon,—ninety-aught, ninety-aught."
But he outlived a century. Mr. Ravenscroft was the first
minister of the parish after the relinquishment of it by Mr. Cameron
in 1784. He was of an ancient Virginia family, to be found about
Williamsburg and Petersburg, according to the records of the House
of Burgesses and the vestry-books. He himself was related to old
Lady Skipwith, of Mecklenburg. He was educated at Williamsburg.
John Randolph, who was there at the same time, used to
say that his nickname was Mad Jack while there, and that he deserved
it long after by reason of the vehemence of his temper,
speech, and manners. The religion of Christ took strong hold of
him, and made a great change in his views and character, so that
he felt necessity laid upon him to preach the Gospel. He at first
united himself to the Methodists, but, on examination, gave the
preference to the Church of his fathers, and became a lay reader
in Mecklenburg and Lunenburg, producing no little effect by his
most impressive and emphatic manner. In the year 1817 he was
minister of St. James's parish, in which he continued until his
election to the Bishopric of North Carolina. He was succeeded
by the Rev. William Steele, who was followed by the Rev. Francis
McGuire. He continued its minister until obliged to retire from
full duty by reason of ill health, though he still lives in it and
performs some services. The Rev. Mr. Chesley took the place of
Mr. McGuire, and was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. Rodman. It is
now vacant.

Although there is no vestry-book of the church in Mecklenburg
from which to give a list of the early vestrymen from the year
1761, we cannot forbear the mention of a few names of persons well
known to us, who contributed much to its revival after the year
1812. Major John Nelson, son or grandson of old Secretary
Thomas Nelson, of York, settled toward the close of the last
century in Mecklenburg, on the Roanoke. The Rev. Alexander
Hay, of whom we shall read when we come to Halifax county, resided
as teacher in his family. The old man and his numerous
sons entered zealously into measures for the revival of the Church.
Mr. John Nelson, Mr. Robert Nelson, and Major Thomas Nelson,
especially, were the active coadjutors of Mr. Ravenscroft and his
successors in raising up the prostrate Church in Mecklenburg.
The names of all of them are to be seen on the journals of our
State Conventions, and those of two of them on the list of delegates
to the General Convention. Major Thomas Nelson signalized
himself in the last war with England, and was for some time a
member of Congress from his district. He recently died at Columbus,
in Georgia, to which State he removed some years since,
beloved and esteemed by all who knew him. To these I might add
the venerable name of Goode and his descendants, and the Lewises,
Cunninghams, Baskervilles, Alexanders, Colemans, Sturdivants,
Tarrys, Daily, and others.

CORNWALL PARISH, IN THE COUNTY OF CHARLOTTE.

The county of Charlotte was taken from Lunenburg in the year
1764. The parish was separated from Cumberland parish, Lunenburg,
in the year 1755, nine years before. On the list of clergy
for the years 1773, 1774, and 1776, we find the Rev. Thomas
Johnson assigned to this parish. We cannot ascertain that any
other ever was the regular pastor of this parish; but from the
family Bible of old Colonel Carrington, of Charlotte, we ascertain
that the following ministers officiated in baptizing between the
years 1755 and 1762:—The Revs. William Key, John Berkeley,
James Garden, William Craig, and Alexander Hay. Some of them
were certainly ministers of surrounding parishes; some of them may
have been ministers of this.

END OF VOL. I.