 |
| XLVI. |
| XLVII. |
| XLVIII. |
| XLIX. |
| L. |
| LI. |
| LII. |
| LIII. |
| LIV. |
| LV. |
| LVI. |
| LVII. |
| LVIII. |
| LIX. |
| LX. |
| LXI. |
| LXII. |
| LXIII. |
| LXIV. |
| LXV. |
| LXVI. |
| LXVII. |
| LXVIII. |
| LXIX. |
THE REV. DAVID GRIFFITH. |
| LXX. |
| LXXI. |
| LXXII. |
| LXXIII. |
| LXXIV. |
| LXXV. |
| LXXVI. |
| LXXVII. |
| LXXVIII. |
| LXXIX. |
| LXXX. |
|
| I. |
|
| II. |
| III. |
| IV. |
| V. |
| VI. |
| VII. |
| VIII. |
| IX. |
| X. |
| XI. |
| XII. |
| XIII. |
| XIV. |
| XV. |
| XVI. |
| XVII. |
| XVIII. |
| XIX. |
| XX. |
| XXI. |
| XXII. |
| XXIII. |
| XXIV. |
| XXV. |
 | Old churches, ministers and families of Virginia. |  |
THE REV. DAVID GRIFFITH.
Concerning the Rev. David Griffith we have something more
particular to record. He was born in the city of New York, and
educated, partly in that place and partly in England, for the medical
profession. After taking his degree in London, he returned
to America and entered on his profession in the interior of New
York about the year 1763. Determined to enter the ministry of
the Episcopal Church, he went to London in the year 1770, and
was ordained by Bishop Terrick, August the 19th of that year, and
returned as missionary to Gloucester county, New Jersey. He
could not have continued there long; for, in the close of the next
year, he accepts the charge of Shelburne parish, Loudoun county,
Virginia. Governor Johnson, of New York, was very anxious to
obtain his services in that State, where he was regarded as a "man
of uncommon merit." The Governor of Virginia, also,—either from
personal knowledge or report,—recommends him very highly to
being an American not only by birth but in heart—he entered the
service as chaplain to the 3d Virginia Regiment. In this service
he continued until some time in the year 1780. He appears as the
minister of Christ Church, Alexandria, during that year,—though
he was elected the previous year. He is represented as a man of
good size and fine appearance and pleasing manners, and as
enjoying the confidence of General Washington and the army.
Tradition says that, on the night before the battle of Monmouth,
he sought an interview with General Washington, and, in the presence
of his aids, bade him beware of General Charles Lee, though
he was not at liberty to give his reasons or authority. When Lee
unnecessarily and ingloriously retreated on the field of Monmouth,
and almost lost America the battle, there were those who believed
that he wished only to diminish the reputation of Washington and
receive the supreme command to himself. We only give this as
tradition. From the year 1780 to his death, in 1789, Mr. Griffith
was the much-esteemed pastor of Christ Church, Alexandria, and
that called Little Falls, higher up on the Potomac. During the
greater part of this time General Washington was his parishioner—
having a pew in Christ Church—and Mr. Griffith was a welcome
visitor at Mount Vernon. Mr. Griffith was not merely attentive to
his duty as a parish minister, but, in the dark and distressing days
of the Episcopal Church in Virginia and in the other States, took
a deep interest in the measures proposed for her welfare. When
a number of the clergy from the Northern States met—of their own
motion, in New York, in October, 1784—to consult about those
measures, Mr. Griffith appeared of his own accord from Virginia.
But before that time, I have letters to and from him, showing that
he was earnestly engaged in correspondence, both North and South,
with a view to promoting both State and General Conventions, as
the instruments of saving the Church from ruin. The following
letters which passed between himself and Dr. Buchanon of Richmond
will show how deplorable was the condition of things in Virginia
at this time, and also establish the fact that Dr. Griffith was
the first mover of the proposition to have a Convention in Virginia
after the war. I have also a letter in August, 1784, from the Rev.
Mr. West, dated from Baltimore, in which he delivers a message
from Dr. Smith, of Philadelphia, to Mr. Griffith, showing his estimate
of the latter in relation to this movement. It is probable that
this Mr. West was the same who preceded Mr. Griffith in Alexandria,
as he speaks of being there.
The following letter of Dr. Griffith to Dr. Buchanon, of Richmond,
must have been written in the fall of 1783, before any meeting
of Episcopalians, in any part of the land, had occurred with a
similar object. Dr. Buchanon's reply was not until the February
following, except so far as a verbal message went:—
You may recollect the conversation we had when I had
the pleasure of seeing you at Richmond; that we mutually lamented the
declining state of the Church of England in this country, and the pitiable
situation of her clergy,—especially those whose circumstances are not
sufficiently independent to place them beyond the reach of want. I am
satisfied our Church has yet a very great number of powerful friends who
are disposed to give it encouragement and support, and who wish to see
some plan in agitation for effecting a business so important, and at this
time so very necessary. It is (and very justly) matter of astonishment to
many, that those whose more immediate duty it is to look to the concerns
of their religious society should show so much indifference and indolence
as the Church and clergy do, while the leaders of almost every other denomination
are labouring with the greatest assiduity to increase their influence,
and, by open attacks and subtle machinations, endeavouring to
lessen that of every other society,—particularly the Church to which you
and I have the honour to belong, in whose destruction they all (Quakers
and Methodists excepted) seem to agree perfectly, however they may differ
in other points. Against these it behooves us to be cautious. But, unless
the clergy act conjointly and agreeably to some well-regulated plan, the
ruin of our Church is inevitable without the malevolence of her enemies.
Considering her present situation and circumstances,—without ordination,
without government, without support, unprotected by the laws, and yet
labouring under injurious restrictions from laws which yet exist,—these
things considered, her destruction is sure as fate, unless some mode is
adopted for her preservation. Her friends, by suffering her to continue in
her present state of embarrassment, as effectually work her destruction as
her avowed enemies could do by their most successful contrivances.
"In the late contest for a stake of the last importance to this country, it
would have been imprudent to enter on a regulation of ecclesiastical affairs,
or to attempt any thing that might interrupt that union which was so
necessary for our mutual security and preservation. But that time, God
be thanked, is happily over, and those reasons no longer exist. It seems
to be high time for those whom it concerns to be engaged in the important
business of regulating the affairs of the Church. I have been for some
time in the hope that some of my brethren near the seat of government
would have set on foot this necessary business; and my reason for addressing
you at this time is to be informed whether any thing of the kind
is begun or intended,—the time when, the place where, and manner
how,—and, if nothing of the kind should be yet determined upon, to
request of you, as your situation renders it noway inconvenient, to undertake
to promote a Convention of the clergy for that purpose. I shall
also presume to offer my advice. In order that the measures agreed on
may be generally acceptable to the clergy and no objection remain to impede
their future execution, it will be necessary to have as numerous a
meeting as possible. I would recommend to have the clergy summoned to
this Convention both by public notice and private information; for, as
perhaps the end would be best answered by sending printed circular letters
to all quarters of the State: if circular letters were not sent, many of the
clergy might not have timely notice. I would recommend this Convention
to be called on the authority of the few clergy contiguous to the seat of
government,—the notices to be signed by the whole of them, or one as
chairman. I would advise the notices to be couched in general terms, to
avoid, as much as possible, assigning reasons for it, especially such as may
alarm the Dissenters and rouse them into opposition. The time for sending
and publishing these notices should be near three months before the
intended Convention, that the clergy might with certainty be informed of it
and be prepared to leave their homes. As Richmond is near the centre of
the State, I think it is the properest place to hold the Convention at. The
time for holding the Convention I would recommend to be about the 20th
of April next. It will be impossible to have any thing like a full meeting
in the winter season; and, about the season I have mentioned, the weather
is generally fine for travelling and the roads settled. Besides, our plans
should be agreed upon previous to the session of Assembly, as we must
necessarily have recourse to it for the repeal of those existing laws which
made a part of the old Establishment, and which, while they do exist, must
prove ruinous to the Church in spite of any regulations the clergy may
adopt. I have not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Blagrove, chaplain to the
House of Assembly, but I think his name, or yours, or both, would not
appear improperly at the bottom of the notices, or any thing that will answer
the purpose. If the above proposal should be adopted, I shall be much
obliged to you for informing me of it as soon as it is determined on.
Please direct to me at Alexandria, either by post or some private hand.
If a meeting is likely to take place, it would not perhaps be amiss if yourself
and our brethren in your neighbourhood were to digest some plan for
the consideration of the Convention. If it was well considered by sensible
men what regulations were wanting and what reform necessary, it would
save abundance of time. If I have timely notice, I will cheerfully devote
all the spare time I have to this service. And if the Convention is resolved
on, I will engage to send the notices to all the clergy in the Northern
Neck above Falmouth, if the copies or a form are sent me in time. You
may remember that when I had the pleasure of seeing you I expressed a
wish that a coalition might take place between us and the Dissenters: it
is still my most earnest wish, but I am now satisfied it is a vain one: and
I think our Church has no chance of preserving any of its ancient and excellent
forms of worship, but from the united zeal and efforts of her clergy,
I think it is this alone that can preserve her very existence. I am, &c.
The following is Dr. Buchanon's answer:—
I received your letter, favoured by Mr. Fairfax, which
reminded me of a conversation which passed between us respecting the
low state of the Church whereof we are members, and in which you make
inquiry whether any thing has been attempted by any of its clergy to raise
it from its distressed situation, and inform me that reflections have been
thrown out against them for their remissness and want of zeal in an affair
of so much consequence. In order to remedy these evils, you propose
a plan for convening the clergy in the month of April next, to the end
a mode of ordination; and that an application might be made to
the Assembly for redress of grievances and a legal support.
"As I had nothing of consequence to write you by Mr. Fairfax, I desired
him verbally to acquaint you that your brethren in this neighbourhood
had done nothing to forward the re-establishment of our Church: indeed,
they seemed to despair of any thing being done effectually without its
originating in the Assembly. I showed them your letter: they approved
highly of your zeal, but were by no means sanguine in the result of a
convocation. It was agreed among us that we should meet on some day
most convenient for Mr. Leigh, who lived the greatest distance from this
city,[45]
to take into further consideration the subject of your letter. Thus
matters stood until the 29th of December, when Mr. Selden received a
letter from the above gentleman,—a copy whereof is herein enclosed that
you may have a full view of the argument he offers against your plan of a
convocation. For my own part, before I was favoured with your ideas I
was firmly of opinion that the reformation should first take place in the
Legislature;—that, if they thought public religion essential not only to the
good order but to the very existence of government, it behooved them to
make a legal provision for its teachers, and to raise them from that state
of indigence and dependence which, I will not scruple to say, they themselves
were the cause of, otherwise they cannot reasonably expect that
religion will flourish in a country where its ministers are reduced to a
state of beggary and contempt. I remember, in a conversation at Wilton,[46]
on this very subject, a Mr. Douglass, lately from England, expressed his
surprise that the clergy of our Church had never presented a memorial to
the House respecting the state of religion; in which he was joined by the
Speaker of the Senate. I gave my opinion as above, and further added,
that such an application would give the alarm to the Sectaries, who would,
no doubt, throw every obstruction in the way, if not render totally abortive
every measure we should adopt. The present Governor thought my
argument had weight, and said that it was a reproach on Government that
they had done nothing in support of religion. I am apt to think that some
who are no well-wishers to our persuasion had got intelligence of our design;
for, soon after Mr. Fairfax's appearance here, some scurrilous publications
appeared in the papers concerning the importation of clergy
at forty or fifty pounds a head, according to certain qualifications specified,
and other stuff to that purpose. I am told that a petition was last session
preferred to the House, representing the fatal decline of religion, and of
consequence the great depravity of morals resulting from it, and praying
that the House would take into their most serious consideration a subject
of so much importance. Some were for putting it off `to a more convenient
season,' but Mr. Henry thought it of too much moment to be deferred to
another session. Notwithstanding this, the matter was dropped, and when
it will be resumed I know not. At the beginning of the session, you
would think that most of the House, from their speeches without-doors,
were for doing something effectual; but they no sooner get involved in
secular matters, than the idea of religion is obliterated from their minds.
"You observe Mr. Leigh expresses a willingness to meet us at any appointed
time, to put into execution the plan you propose, or, if we think
brethren.
"As we have been so long undetermined, nothing, I think, can be done
this winter. Should business, or your inclinations, lead you to this city in
April, pray send me previous notice of it, that I may inform some of the
gentlemen in this neighbourhood. Your presence may rouse us from our
lethargy; and for my own part, if you should think a memorial to the
House expedient, I will give it my hearty concurrence, or any other plan
you may adopt.
"Your most obedient servant,
Nothing could better exhibit the true condition of things in Virginia
than this correspondence. Dr. Buchanon acknowledges that
the clergy had brought this ruin upon themselves by their own misconduct.
Guilt-stricken, they were afraid and ashamed to come
forward boldly and call upon the Legislature to do something for
the cause of religion and morals, which were both declining. It never
seemed to enter into the thoughts of some, as a possibility, to do
any thing on the voluntary principle, independent of the State, so
accustomed were they to the old English system. Whether any
such meeting as that proposed by Dr. Griffith ever took place, I
have not the means of ascertaining. In the winter of 1785, the
Legislature incorporated the Episcopal Church, tendering the same
privilege to others, and in the preamble states that it was done at
the petition of the Episcopal clergy. How many united in it, and
whether it was done at a general meeting called for the purpose,
I know not. In May of that year, 1785, the first Convention of
clerical and lay deputies met in Richmond, under the Act of incorporation.
Mr. Griffith, being there, was appointed a delegate to
the General Convention in Philadelphia that fall. The second Virginia
Convention was held in May, 1786, when the Rev. Dr. Griffith
was chosen Bishop, by a vote of thirty-two members. Dr. Bracken
received ten, and Mr. Samuel Shield seven. An assessment was
made upon the parishes for funds to bear the expenses of his visit
to England for consecration; but such was the depressed condition
of the Church, that a sufficiency was not raised, either in that year
or the two succeeding ones. In May, 1789, Mr. Griffith resigned
his claim upon the office, and in the summer of that year died at
the house of Bishop White, while attending the General Convention.
At the following Convention, the Rev. James Madison was chosen
Bishop by a vote of forty-five,—the Rev. Samuel Shield having
nine. To the shame of the Church of Virginia, in that day be it
A part was drawn from his private resources, and that
worthy man, Graham Franks, of London, of whom we have before
spoken as the warm friend of the Church of Virginia, and whose
wife lies buried in old York graveyard, contributed five guineas
toward it.
List of the Vestrymen.
John West, Wm. Payne, Jr., Wm. Adams, John Dalton, Thomas Wren,
Edward Duling, Daniel French, Thomas Shaw, Townshend Dade, Richard
Sanford, Charles Broadwater, Edward Blackburn, James Wren, Henry
Gunnel, John West, Jr., Richard Conway, Henry Darne, John Hunter,
Charles Alexander, Presley Cox, Wm. Chapman, Townshend Hooe, Wm.
Herbert, Thomas Triplett, George Gilpin, Wm. Browne, Bryan Fairfax,
Robert Powell, Wm. Syles, David Stewart, John Courts, Wm. Hunter,
Roger West, John Jackson, Benjamin Harris, Lewis Hipkins, George
Gilpin, Nicholas Fitzhugh, Robert T. Hooe, Baldwin Dade, Philip R.
Fendall, James P. Nicholls, Ludwell Lee, Wm. Fitzhugh, George Taylor,
John Roberts, George Deneale, Daniel McClean, H. Smoot, John Tinker,
Edmund I. Lee, Charles Simms, Charles Alexander, Jr., John Tucker,
James Kieth, Wm. S. Moore, Cuthbert Powell, John Muncaster, Jonah
Thompson, Thomas Swann, Tristam Dalton, Augustin J. Smith, William
Hodgson, Anthony Crease, Richard M. Scott, Francis Adams, Wm. H.
Fitzhugh, James Kieth, Jr., James H. Hooe, Craven Thompson, Thomas
Semmes, Horatio Clagget, Noblet Herbert, Newton Keene, John Roberts,
Bernard Hooe, Wm. Herbert, Peyton Thompson, John Lloyd, J. J. Frobell,
Wm. Fowle, J. A. Washington, James Atkinson, J. H. Crease, W.
C. Page, Edward Latham, R. H. Claggett, W. F. Alexander, Daniel
Minor, George Johnson, Guy Atkinson, Cassius F. Lee, Solomon Masters,
Wm. Morgan, Richard C. Mason, George Fletcher, James Irwin, J. Grubb,
General John Mason.
The following names, not in the old vestry-book, have been furnished
me:—
Louis A. Cazenove, William W. Hoxton, William L. Powell, Edgar
Snowden, Edward C. Fletcher, William G. Cazenove, Henry C. Neale,
John J. Lloyd, Reuben Johnston, Charles H. Lee, William C. Yeaton,
Richard C. Smith, Thomas C. Atkinson, Lawrence B. Taylor, Henry W.
Vandegrift, John Crockford, Douglass R. Semmes.
Concerning two of the above-mentioned vestrymen I may be
permitted to say a few words. Mr. George Taylor and Edmund
I. Lee were churchwardens when I took charge of Christ Church
in 1811, and so continued until the removal of one by a change of
residence, and the other by death, after a long term of service.
They were both of them members of the Standing Committee during
the same period. I think I knew them well, and knew them to be
sincere Christians, and useful, punctual business-men. Mr. Taylor,
and form erect and countenance fine and temper unruffled,—walking
between Washington and Alexandria without weariness almost
to the last, and lifting up a distinct voice in the utterance of those
prayers in which he delighted,—dying, as he had lived, in the faith
of the Gospel. Mr. Lee generally attended on State Conventions,
and sometimes the General Convention. He was a man of great
decision and perseverance in what he deemed right,—obstinate, some
of us thought, even to a fault, when we differed from him. There
was no compromise at all in him, with any thing which he thought
wrong. He was as fearless as Julius Cæsar. On a certain Sabbath,
while I was performing service in Christ Church, a certain
person in the gallery disturbed myself and the congregation by
undue vociferation in the responses, and also at the opening of the
sermon. I paused, and requested him to desist, and was proceeding,
but Mr. Lee, who was near him, arose and asked me to suspend
the sermon. Walking toward the offender, he told him that he
must leave the house. As he approached to enforce it, the person
raised a loaded whip and struck at him. Mr. Lee, nothing moved,
took him by the arms and led him out of the house, and deposited
him in the town jail. When mayor of the town, he was a terror to
evil-doers. Ascertaining that there was much gambling going on
among the gentlemen of the place, and some of the principal ones,
he took effective measures for their discovery, brought between
thirty and forty before the court, and had them fined. The prosecuting
attorney was his particular friend, and was slightly implicated
in the evil practice; but he did not spare him. Nor did he
wish to be spared, but, coming forward and paying his fine, then
did his duty with all the rest. Mr. Lee was of course not a popular
man, nor did he seek or care to be, but did his duty entirely regardless
of all others. He kept our Conventions in good order, by
always insisting upon the observance of rules of which the clergy
are not always mindful. He was the great advocate of our Bishops'
fund, and defended it from all invasions. I not only knew Mr.
Lee from my youth up, but I saw him in his last moments, and
heard him with the truest humility speak of himself as a poor sinner,
whose only hope was in Christ. And can I speak of him
without remembering that meek and holy woman to whom he was
so long a most affectionate husband? She was the daughter of that
Christian patriot, Richard Henry Lee. For more than thirty
years she was gradually dying of consumption, and yet in such a
way as to admit of the exhibition of all her Christian graces in
the purest specimens of humanity sanctified by the grace of God.
P.S.—It was in this parish that the question of the right of the
Church to the glebes, which had been determined against the Church
in the Virginia courts, was reconsidered. Being brought before
the Supreme Court, the former decision was reversed, so far
as the glebe in Fairfax parish was concerned. The opinion of the
court, which was drawn up by Judge Story, of Massachusetts, may
be seen in the Appendix.
From Sparks's Life of Washington.
"After the French War, while in retirement at Mount Vernon, Washington
took a lively interest in Church affairs, regularly attending public
worship, and being at different times a vestryman in two parishes.
"The following list of votes for vestrymen in Fairfax parish and Truro
parish is copied from a paper in Washington's handwriting, and shows
that he was chosen a vestryman in each of those parishes. How long he
continued in that station, I have no means of determining. The place
of worship in Fairfax parish was at Alexandria; in Truro parish, at Pohick;
the former ten, the latter seven, miles from Mount Vernon."
| John West | 340 |
| Charles Alexander | 309 |
| William Payne | 304 |
| John Dalton | 281 |
| George Washington | 274 |
| Charles Broadwater | 260 |
| George Johnston | 254 |
| Townshend Dade | 252 |
| Richard Sandford | 247 |
| William Adams | 244 |
| John Posey | 222 |
| Daniel French | 221 |
| George Mason | 282 |
| Edward Payne | 277 |
| George Washington | 259 |
| John Posey | 259 |
| Daniel McCarty | 246 |
| George William Fairfax | 235 |
| Alexander Henderson | 231 |
| William Gardner | 218 |
| Tomison Ellzey | 209 |
| Thomas W. Coffer | 189 |
| William Lynton | 172 |
| Thomas Ford | 170 |
| Old churches, ministers and families of Virginia. | |