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:—
"It was not, I am persuaded, the result either of covetousness, infidelity,
or sectarianism, but proceeded from the same spirit which gave
rise to the bill of rights and the Constitution bottomed upon them. I
remark, further, that it is manifest, from the history of the day and the
journal of the Legislative proceedings, that a great majority of both
Houses were, at the time of passing these statutes, Episcopalians, and
they clung to the Episcopal clergy as long as they could properly do so
under the pressure of public opinion. As an individual I was opposed
to the sale of the glebes, because I wished the Episcopal Church to be
predominant; and, as no direct injury was done to the Dissenters by keeping
the glebes as appendages to the Church, I thought it was prudent to
preserve this property in the channel in which it had passed for so many
years, as an encouragement to the clergy of the Episcopal Church, to
whom the people had been mainly attached by habit and education. But
I cannot admit that the Legislature illegally seized and violated the
rights of the Episcopal Church. The property belonged to the parish,
and not to the clergy; and it is certainly now known that in very many,
if not the larger number, of parishes in Virginia, the Episcopalians were
not the majority, but a small minority at the time when this law was
enacted."—
Letter to Dr. Hawks.
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.
