University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER III.

Religion is natural to man. Were he now perfectly
pure and upright, it would be his most
eagerly sought privilege to look to the Great First
Cause, and with warm love to acknowledge dependence.
Even his present depravity has not
shut his mind entirely to the claims of Deity.

There is a ceaseless struggle between the intellect
and the heart, the first admitting the existence of
a God and ascribing to him all conceivable perfections,
the last abhorring his holiness, and turning
away from the light so unwelcome to its own
darkened impulses. Atheism is the fault not of
the head, but of the heart;[180] and it has seldom been
avowed, and never fully believed. Man has not
been able to resist the convictions of his own judgment,
strengthened by the voice of conscience, the
mystic witness for the truth, who lives in his
bosom. And therefore throughout all ages, however
dark, and among all nations however savage,
the belief in the existence of a God has been found
to prevail, and to keep alive the prominent motives
of religion. But on this subject the sophistries of
depraved affections have never been silent. They
have been constantly pleading against the truth,
and though they have not availed entirely to cover
it, yet they have obscured its lustre, and degraded
its majesty. Hence it is that no nation, however
enlightened, has been able by its own wisdom to
provide a religion which would either restrain from
vice or guide to virtue.

Had Christianity been of human invention, it
would have borne the marks distinguishing all religious
systems of man. The same lowering of
the Divine character; the same arguments from
human frailty; the same compromise of the claims
of reason and appetite would have been found,
which attend the most refined theories of heathen

philosophers. The religion of Christ stands alone
in its holiness, and as it is the only true religion,
so does it carry in its own teachings the infallible
evidences of its truth. It has indeed its external
demonstrations; miracles proved by testimony
above the possibility of falsehood, or of undesigned
error, and prophecy which gathers power with the
unfolding of each successive page in history; but
these are evidences which can only be appreciated
by the learned, and which may convince the intellect
without moving the heart. The Author of
Christianity designed that it should carry with it
power to convince by its intrinsic authority. The
man who will apply his mind to its teachings, will
believe as certainly as the man who will open his
eyes in the sun's rays will see the light around
him. It is because it provides an adequate remedy
for every ill, that the recipient of its benefits knows
it is from the Author of good. Pardon for sin;
purity for corruption; comfort for sorrow; unerring
precepts for doubt in duty; a life of usefulness; a
death of peace, and an eternity of happiness: these
are gifts offered by the religion of Christ, in a form
which no man resists who desires to know the
truth. But to accomplish its object, it must be
pure as when it was first taught by its inspired
originators. Mixed with human devices, it loses
its force for good, and becomes the more dangerous
because of its exalted claims.

Among the unhallowed inventions which have
been applied to this system, none has produced so
unhappy results as its union with civil government.

Christianity, if truly possessed, will make a man a
good citizen, but the law of the land can never
make a man become a Christian. It was a sad
day for religion when the Emperor Constantine
adopted the church as his ward, and began to
enforce her lessons by the arm of civil authority.
The fires of persecution were better than the
splendours of a seeming prosperity, which deadened
her soul, and threatened to destroy it. From
this time we trace the decline of virtue and the
growth of corruption; but power was too sweet to
be rejected; and in the old world Christianity has
not yet thrown off the shackles which have so
long confined her. The church is linked to the
state, and, like the dead body chained to the living
victim, it gains no vitality for itself, and gradually
destroys its hapless companion.

At the time when the settlement of Virginia
commenced, England had laid, broad and deep,
the foundations of her Episcopal Church establishment.
The dominion of Rome had been rejected,
Popery was discarded, and English reformers had
striven to give to their country a system of religious
rule which would secure her welfare. But their
reformation fell below the demands of liberty.
We may not be surprised at this when we remember
how long the human mind had been
moulded by habit, and how far the boldest reformers
of Europe then sank beneath the principles
of true religious freedom. Two remnants
of a corrupt age were unhappily retained in remodelling
the ecclesiastical system of England.

These were, first, the principle of church establishment,
the King himself became the head of
Christ's kingdom on earth; clergymen, as such,
sat among the peers of the land, and voted for
her laws; and men, whatever might be their
opinions, were compelled to pay tithes to support
their spiritual teachers. Secondly, an order of
clergy superior to the rectors or pastors, who
overlook particular congregations. This superior
order has long been distinguished by the title of
bishops, but they are not the bishops designated
and appointed by the New Testament;[181] they are
the successors of the Apostles of the primitive
church. It is true the Apostles were all inspired
men; were all distinguished by having seen Christ
in bodily form, and were so exalted in their duties
and character, that, to a common understanding, it
would seem impossible that they should have successors;
but this difficulty has been removed in
England and in Rome. The bishops of the Episcopal
Church bear the same relation to the Apostles
that the Pope does to Peter, and few who acknowledge
the exclusive claims of the first will be long
disposed to deny those of the other. History,
whose province it is to search for the truth, discovers
with surprise that there was a time when
the claims of each were equally unknown; that in
the first and purest ages of Christianity, Pope and
Prelate had no existence; that bishops were then
what the New Testament requires them to be,—
overseers of a single flock,—humbly ministering
the bread of life to a single congregation, and
uniting together when the interests of the Church
required it; and that centuries of darkness and vice
were necessary to make men believe that the
Apostles needed successors, and that the Pope held
the keys of St. Peter.[182]

But definite form, though important for the perfection,
is not essential to the being of a church.
Her diocesan bishops might not have injured the
Church of England on her own soil and ruined her
in Virginia had no other causes operated to her detriment.
The unholy link which bound her to the
state was the iron that entered her soul and continued
to corrode until life was destroyed.

The first ship which conveyed settlers to the
banks of the Powhatan, brought a minister of the
Gospel to promulgate Christianity among the heathen.
This was the Rev. Robert Hunt, who, in
many things, proved himself to be possessed of the
spirit of his divine Master.[183] King James, in his
articles of instruction, required that the Church of
the mother country should be established for her
Colony, and nominally, at least, the settlers claimed

the character of Christians. How far they conformed
to the precepts of their creed, may be inferred
from the review of their course already presented,
their folly and riot, sedition and debauchery.
Yet, for the crimes and wretchedness of the early
Colonists, we may not blame their preachers. We
have reason to believe that the ministers did their
duty, and that, as they had braved a life of self-denial
for the sacred cause of their adoption, so did
they afterwards persevere in efforts for its progress.

Such men as Hunt and Thorpe would now be
welcome accessions to the ecclesiastical bodies of
the United States.

Among the first buildings commenced at Jamestown
was a church, and though its structure was
rude, a sanctity seems to have surrounded it, perhaps
more imposing, because of the wild turbulence
which it sought to check in its worshippers. It
was destroyed by a fire, which, at the same time,
burned up the books and clothing of Mr. Hunt,
and left him even more destitute than his companions
in trial. The church, however, soon rose
from its ashes; it survived the miserable scenes of
the "starving time," and, when Lord Delaware
arrived in 1610, he assembled the people in the
sacred edifice, and Mr. Bucke, the chaplain of the
Somer Islands, "made a zealous and sorrowful
prayer, finding all things so contrary to their expectations,
so full of misery and misgovernment."[184]

Except the instructions of the King, the first
Colonists had been left without positive written law,
and in the times of trouble they encountered, it
would have been impossible to do more than leave
them to their own wishes as to religious worship.
But when Sir Thomas Dale assumed the Government,
in 1611, he introduced the stringent laws provided
by the Treasurer, and on no subject was this
system more arbitrary than in its government of
the Church. It commanded that military and civil
officers should take care that "Almightie God be
duly and daily served;" it required that blasphemy
against the Trinity should be punished with death;
that cursing and swearing, or the irreverent use of
God's name, should be punished by a bodkin thrust
through the tongue, for the second offence, and by
death for the third: that any one who behaved improperly
to a preacher, should be openly whipped
three times, and publicly ask forgiveness. The
tolling of the bell was to be the signal for all men
and women to repair to church; and stripes, the
galleys, and finally death itself, visited its neglect.
Men were required to give account of their faith
and religion, and to submit to catechising by their
minister, and if they refused, daily whipping was
to be inflicted until they gave signs of repentance.[185]

These were times when religion was to be taught
with the whip, when the heart was to be affected
by the punishment of the body, and when prayer

was the only means of escaping the gibbet. This
code was too cruel to be rigidly enforced, yet we
have reason to believe it was not entirely a dead
letter. When Argal became Governor, he took
special delight in reviving it, and many Colonists
learned in sadness that the Church was the occasion
of stripes and slavery, rather than of freedom
and happiness.[186]

Though the martial code soon fell into disuse
and was repealed, yet the laws of the Colony never
recognised the rights of conscience. The first acts
of the General Assembly which are now recorded
in our statute book, gave permanent establishment
to the Episcopal Church, by erecting bounds corresponding
with parishes, and laying a tax on the
people for the support of their ministers. Each
male over sixteen years of age wero to be liable for
ten pounds of tobacco and one bushel of corn, and
each minister was to receive fifteen hundred pounds
of tobacco and sixteen bushels of corn.[187] It is
thought that at this time there were but five clergymen
in Virginia, Messrs. Whittaker, Bargrave,
Wickham, Mease, and Stockham, yet the people
found it difficult to yield to them the required support,
and it was ordered that six tenants should be
placed on every glebe in order to its cultivation.
The Bishop of London undertook to provide for the
spiritual wants of the settlement, and without any
express authority, his jurisdiction as their diocesan
seems to have been thenceforth admitted by the
churches of Virginia.[188]

As the settlements advanced up the rivers and
embraced belts of fertile land running back from
the Bay, the number of parishes gradually increased.
We may suppose that outward regularity appeared
in the progress of the Church; that on the Sabbath
the preacher was at his stand, clothed with a surplice,
and armed with an English prayer-book, and
that the people complied with the letter of the law,
and attended worship rather than pay fines.[189] We
find no mitigation in the system which required
conformity to the teachings of the establishment.
Papists and Puritans were alike proscribed, and
Quakers were visited with open persecution. During
the reign of Charles the First, the principles of
Archbishop Laud were openly approved by the
rulers of Virginia, and his example was proposed
as worthy of all acceptation. From an individual
case we may form some idea of the intense bigotry
of soul which distinguished Sir William Berkeley
In 1642, Stephen Reek was brought before the
General Court on grave charges. Indignant at the
insolence of the Archbishop, and the favour with
which Charles regarded him, Reek had been heard
to say that "his Majesty was at confession with my
Lord of Canterbury." For this, he was tried, condemned,
and punished. He was set in a pillory
for two hours, with a label on his back on which
his offence was described; he was fined fifty pounds
and imprisoned during the pleasure of the Governor.[190]

It may be unjust to blame the Episcopal Church
for all the tyranny which the law-makers of Virginia
inflicted in her name, but it is natural that
men should have revolted at a rule which was
manifested in so many odious forms. We have no
reason to believe that any one was put to death
either for religious opinions or for witchcraft,[191] but
cases of individual wrong were so numerous as to
excite indignation even among those who had been
friendly to the Church. Immediately after the
punishment of Reek, we find a solemn application
sent from Virginia to Massachusetts, to implore
that ministers of the Gospel might be sent, that the
people "might be privileged with the preaching
and ordinances of Jesus Christ." This message
was sent, not from Puritans, or Quakers, or Dissenters
of any kind, but from men who had grown
up under the eyes of the Establishment, and who
yet saw enough to make them hate her oppression.[192] Under this invitation three Congregational
preachers came to Virginia, but the Governor was
prepared to salute them with a law forbidding any
man to preach in the Colony, who did not bring a
certificate of conformity from some Bishop in England,
and authorizing his Excellency to silence all
others, and if necessary to compel them to decamp.[193]
The private people kindly entertained the strangers,

but finding that the arm of the law would
soon be upon them, they returned to the north.[194]

During the administration of Governor Spotswood,
the Church attained a permanency of outward
position which it had not before enjoyed.
The settlements in the Colony had then covered
the eastern lands running nearly to the first range
of mountains; each neck of country between the
great rivers was well peopled, and it is believed
that nearly one hundred thousand souls were to be
found in Virginia. Twenty-nine counties composed
the state, and these were subdivided into
fifty-five parishes. The bounds of the parishes
did not, however, correspond with those of the
counties, and were not often laid out with reference
to them. In the northern neck, between the Potomac
and Rappahannoc Rivers, were eleven parishes;
between the Rappahannoc and York there
were thirteen; between the York and James, fifteen
parishes complete, and the part of Bristol
lying in Henrico County, north of the river; and
between the James and the Carolina boundary,
thirteen, together with the remainder of Bristol.
On the eastern shore there were two parishes,
which bore the names of Hungers and Accomac.[195]
These church divisions were unequal in size,
some being more than sixty miles long, while
others were not one-fourth so large, but their capacity

was estimated rather by the number of tithables
they embraced, than by the acres of land over
which they were spread.

From this time until the opening of the Revolution,
the exterior advance of the Church was nearly
in proportion to the progress of the Colony. As
the number of inhabitants increased, so did the
number of churches and parishes. In 1771, there
were in Virginia more than one hundred churches,
and nearly that number of ministers.[196] It was at
this time that a serious attempt was made to procure
from the British monarch an American Episcopate.
The Churchmen of New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut, had long desired it, and
Professor Camm, of William and Mary College,
was known to be its ardent advocate. But it is
believed that a majority of the clergy of Virginia
were opposed to it, and it is certain that the Convention
assembled to consider the question, consisted
of but twelve ministers, that a favourable
vote was obtained with much difficulty, and that a
solemn protest was entered against the scheme by
Rev. Messrs Henly and Gwatkin, whose action
drew a vote of thanks from the General Assembly.[197] It is strange that such a proposition should
have been made just at the time when the influence
of the mother country became most oppressive,
and when acknowledgment of dependence
upon her was growing odious to every patriot; but

Episcopacy was so linked with England, that it
seemed to draw its life only from her favour.

There had long been, and was still, an appearance
of prosperity thrown like a veil over the
Church in Virginia, which might have deceived a
casual observer. Nearly every parish contained a
glebe, generally consisting of two hundred acres of
land, for the support of the rector; each glebe had
a church or chapel, and commonly a parsonage,
where the incumbent should dwell. The stranger
who would pass through the Colony without pausing
to remark closely upon her features, would be
charmed with the prospect of her religious character.
After a ride through thick forests or uninviting
plains of tobacco, he would see before him a
modest church, contrasting in snowy whiteness
with the green foliage around, or overrun with
moss and creeping vines. His eye would be refreshed
by the cultivated fields of the glebe, and
the humble dwelling of the pastor would bring
warmly upon his heart, hopes of piety and domestic
bliss.[198] And it is not to be denied, that the liturgy
of the Church of England contains many wholesome
exhortations, many pertinent prayers, many
scriptural remonstrances, which ought to improve
her worshippers, and that the practice of regularly
reading this liturgy, which was required by law,
may have spread among the people knowledge
which ought to have guided them to virtue. But
with this seeming life there was actual death, and
not death merely, but all the ghastly consequences

of death,—the bones of the whited sepulchre—the
corruption beneath the gilded tomb—the worms
which prey upon the corpse when the soul is gone.

Let the evils attendant upon the Church establishment
of Virginia be fairly stated. First, it deprived
men of the free exercise of the rights of conscience.
It is vain to say that men may think as
they please, when they are compelled by law to
attend on the ministrations of one religious sect, or
to endure fines for non-compliance. The privileges
of citizenship itself were denied to Dissenters,[199] and
the person who chose to depart from the requirements
of the established religion, was met by innumerable
vexations which would goad almost to
madness a soul sensitive to freedom. It was with
delay and reluctance that the Courts of Virginia
construed the "toleration laws" of England to
have any operation in the Colony, and when they
were admitted, their efficacy was confined within
the narrowest limits possible.[200]

Secondly, it compelled every man, whatever
might be his opinions or his scruples, to contribute
to support the Episcopal ministers. He might be
a Quaker, or a Baptist, or an Independent, but his
fate was the same. After induction by the Governor,
the rector had a freehold claim upon his
glebe, and a right to demand at law the stipend
granted to him by enactments of the Assembly. It
is true, that the regular process of induction was

not always performed: often the minister was
only received by the vestry of the parish, and was
considered as only having title to his rents and profits
from year to year; but even in such cases the
tithes were to be paid by all liable to them, and he
might sue trespasses on the glebe lands. And by
a law passed in 1748, it was enacted, that even
where a minister was only received without induction,
he should have a right to all the spiritual and
temporal benefits of his place, and might maintain
an action against any who attempted to disturb
him.[201] This act, in great measure, removed the
distinction between the two modes of possessing a
benefice, and armed the rectors with legal authority
to collect their dues. The effect was obvious:
on no subject are men less willing to be forced
than in religion, and many who would voluntarily
contribute to its support, feel it to be tyrannous,
that they shall be compelled to pay teachers with
whose ministry they would willingly dispense.

Thirdly, it produced many overt and shameful
acts of intolerance. We have already noted some
of the laws requiring conformity, and have seen
that they were not inoperative. If Virginia never
was stained with the blood of Dissenters, it was due
to peculiar circumstances, rather than to the mildness
of her code, or the tolerant spirit of her churchmen.
Stripes, fines, and imprisonment, were often
inflicted; individual examples have been heretofore
mentioned, and more oppression will be seen
as we pass through the history of other denominations.

It is vain to say that the Church was not
responsible for these cruelties. The establishment
unquestionably was, for without it there could have
been no such thing as dissent, and therefore no
laws against it. These oppressive acts affected
strongly, though silently, the whole body of the
people, and contributed, with other causes, to reconcile
nearly all men to the heavy strokes which
finally levelled the Established Church with the
ground.

Fourthly, it introduced into Virginia a body of
ministers without piety, and by necessary reaction,
the people were as graceless as their pastors. We
will do full justice to the good men who from time
to time adorned the Episcopal Church in the
Colony. Such men as Hunt and Thorpe, Whittaker,
Jarratt, and Morgan, need no apologists, for
their conduct was above suspicion. Even Mr.
Blair, the commissary, has left behind him evidences
of personal religion which may lead us to
deal gently with his clerical aspirings, and his exclusive
admiration of his Church. Had he not
loved purity, he would not have chosen Christ's
Sermon on the Mount as a subject for a series of
discourses, and had not his thoughts been worthy
of their subject, they would not have drawn praise
from the conscientious Doddridge.[202] But it is a

point beyond denial, that the great body of the
Episcopal preachers in Virginia were men whose
lives were any thing but illustrations of the Gospel.
It could not have been otherwise under the system
which brought them from the mother country.
Men of high character and consecrated learning
had little inducement to leave England and come to
the Province; and accordingly, those who offered
themselves to the Bishop of London, were generally
unfit for preferment at home. Cases are not
wanting, in which candidates who had been
solemnly rejected in Britain, were afterwards sent
with full certificates to the Colony.[203] The result of
this system was soon apparent.

The clergymen contented themselves with a
sleepy performance of their duties on the Sabbath,
and on other days pleased the flesh with much
worldly entertainment. To read the service became
mechanical, and the hearers grew weekly
in apathetic indifference. Virginia has always
abounded in temptations to doubtful pleasure, and
her churchmen of the colonial period did much to
cultivate this taste. Her Episcopal divines frequented
the race-field and the ball-room. They
baptized children amid scenes of hilarity, where
wine flowed in streams, and the dance enabled
them to display their clerical grace.[204] Many of
them betted freely at cards, and rattled dice in a

way which would have put Governor Fauquier to
shame. One clergyman was known for a long time
to be president of a jockey-club,[205] and doubtless his
services in this capacity were adjudged more important
than in the pulpit. One reverend gentleman
laid aside his spiritual armour, and having
taken carnal weapons, fought a duel within sight
of the very church where his own voice had often
been heard praying to be delivered "from battle,
murder, and sudden death."

The effect of such a ministry upon the people
may be readily conceived. An utter want of the
spirit of piety, and a hatred of the truth, can be
detected in many of the manifestations of this
period. If a minister ever rose above the dead level
of his peers, and preached against popular vices,
vestry and people both fell upon him, and ceased
not to annoy him, until he was driven from his
place.[206] So glaring was the wickedness of the
clergy, that the General Assembly, at an early
period found it necessary to enact that "ministers
shall not give themselves to excess in drinking or
riot, spending their time idly by day or night."[207]
Even Sir William Berkeley complained that, as of
all other commodities, so of ministers, the worst
only were sent to the Province;[208] and as late as
1751, the Bishop of London, in a letter to Dr.
Doddridge, speaks of the clergymen of Virginia
as "willing to go abroad to retrieve either lost fortunes

or lost character."[209] The commissary had no
power to depose; distance from the diocesan in
England prevented discipline, and cases of enormous
delinquency occurred among the clergy of
the Province which were never visited with punishment.[210] Thirty years ago, eye-witnesses were alive
who had seen ministers of the Church enter the
pulpit in a state of intoxication, so disabling, that
their tongues refused to pronounce the oft-repeated
words of the liturgy.

Thus the religious establishment of Virginia was
weakened by its own inherent vices. It had the
sanction of law, the support of learning, and the
countenance of men in high places. Nevertheless
it tottered to its fall, and even had it not been
attacked by other sects, it would at last have been
crushed in the general struggle between tyranny
and freedom, of which America was the scene.

The earliest traces of Dissenters in Virginia are
found in the year 1619. A small band of Puritans
then inhibited her soil,[211] but they soon disappeared
under the sinister influences bearing upon them.
After the Quakers were introduced, they were for
a time active and numerous, but their efforts
were gradually relaxed, and their numbers rather
dwindled than increased. In 1690, King William
sent a large body of French Protestants to Virginia.
During the presecutions which were at last consummated
by the revocation of the Edict of Nantz,

in 1685, under Louis XIV.; it has been estimated
that two hundred thousand Huguenots suffered
martyrdom, and seven hundred thousand were
driven from the kingdom. But the cruelty of
France furnished citizens for America. Besides
those who came in 1690, nine years afterwards
another body of six hundred, under Philippe Da
Richebourg, came to Virginia, and were assigned
lands on the south side of James River, about
twenty miles above the present site of Richmond.
They were rigid Calvinists in doctrine, but their
misfortunes and industry alike commended them
to the favour of the government. They spoke no
language except their own, and could have appreciated
no religious services except from their own
pastors. The Assembly passed laws for their encouragement;
gradually they became assimilated
to the people around, and lost their national peculiarities:[212] yet their influence is still felt. While
the names of Lacy, and Fontaine, and Maury, shall
be found in her borders, Virginia will be reminded
of the Huguenots of France.

When the Congregational preachers from New
England visited the southern Colony in 1642, it
was thought by them that many people could be
found favourable to the independent mode of religious
worship; and six years after, the number of
such was stated at one thousand, by a Congregational
divine who had been driven from Virginia
by her intolerant laws.[213] This was a mere conjecture,

and we have reason to believe it was
exaggerated. It is certain that early in the administration
of Spotswood, dissent was almost unknown.
Four churches not connected with the
establishment were all that could be found in the
whole Colony, east of the Blue Ridge, and the
strong denomination soon to be spoken of had not
yet commenced its career in the beautiful valley of
Virginia.

About the year 1714, a small number of Baptists
from England settled in the southeastern part of
the Colony, and nearly thirty years afterwards,
another body came from Maryland, and occupied
one of the northern counties, then thinly inhabited.[214]
These were the regular Baptists, and though they
were not without zeal, they were speedily eclipsed
by more enthusiastic brethren.

In 1739, a prodigy of religious energy and eloquence
appeared in America. George Whitefield
crossed the Atlantic, and lighted in the New World
the flame which had been kindled by the fire of
his heart among his countrymen in Britain. To
use the thought of one who had appreciated his
labours, he was the angel of the Apocalypse flying
through the land, having with him the everlasting
gospel to preach to all people.[215] Wherever he came,
he roused men who had long slumbered in apathy.
His influence was not confined by colony, or state,
or sect, or party. He sought for souls with a
singleness of purpose, which excluded minor distinctions.

Independents and Presbyterians, Baptists
and Churchmen, alike glowed beneath his
words. When he came to Virginia in 1740, no
opposition was made to his preaching, as he was
an ordained minister of the Church of England,[216]
but though some who loved the Establishment
heard him gladly, there were others who regarded
him as an enthusiast, and would afterwards willingly
have closed his mouth.[217]

Whitefield's appearance was a new era in the
religious history of America. Even before he came,
deeper interest had been felt by some northern congregations
as to the personal effects which Christianity
ought to produce, but his breath kindled this
feeble spark into a brilliant flame. The doctrine of
the "new birth," preached with power and earnestness
by the reformers of the eighteenth century,
was so novel to those who had been slumbering
beneath the establishments of Congregationalism
and Episcopacy, that its advocates were called
"New Lights."[218] This title was not applied to any
particular sect, but to all, of every denomination,
who followed the disciples of Whitefield. Extensive
divisions occurred among the prevailing denominations,
and a large number of Baptists at the
north, inspired by the zeal of the times, left their
brethren, and were afterwards known as Separate
Baptists.[219] Between the years 1744 and '55 many

of these passed through Virginia, and taking their
places on her borders, in North Carolina, commenced
preaching to such congregations as they
could gather. In a short time their success was
great. From twelve or fourteen, their communicants
swelled to more than six hundred. They began to
extend their labours into Virginia. In August,
1760, the first Baptist Church of this order was
planted on the soil of the Old Dominion;[220] but soon
the number was greatly increased.

Samuel Harriss was one of the strongest supports
of the early Baptists in the Colony. He was born
in Hanover, but was a resident of Pittsylvania, and
had filled many dignified stations. He had been
Sheriff and Colonel of militia, Justice of the Peace,
and Burgess for his county; but, laying aside temporal
honours, he was baptized by immersion, and
became a preacher.[221] Meanwhile, zealous exertions
in the same cause were made by others, and their
progress grew with their efforts. The counties of
the North Carolina border were visited, and Goochland,
Louisa, Fluvanna, Orange, and Spotsylvania,
witnessed the rise of large Baptist churches. If
we may trust to tradition, an influence approaching
the supernatural urged on the work, and directed
certain preachers to particular parts of Virginia, in
which they were specially called to labour. James
Read lived in North Carolina, sixty miles from the
border. His own account states that powerful impulses
moved his heart to preach in the neighbouring

Colony; dreams often pictured to him immense
congregations there hanging upon his words, and
in his sleep he was sometimes heard by his family
to cry out "O Virginia, Virginia, Virginia!" At
this juncture he was visited by Samuel Harriss and
three others, urging him to come to Orange County,
and preach the Gospel. Faith, whether misguided
or otherwise, found in this message a resemblance
to the call of Peter from Joppa to Cesarea;[222] he
obeyed the summons, and although uneducated,
his zeal seems to have supplied the want both of
learning and prudence.

Whatever view we may take of the above case,
and of similar accounts from others, it is certain
that the Baptists increased rapidly in numbers
and power in the Province. Fervent declamation
distinguished them; the prominent motives
of the Gospel were presented in language
made strong by its earnestness; the joys of heaven
and the torments of hell were opened to the eyes of
the hearers, and men were urged to immediate repentance,
faith, and baptism. The practice of immersion
forcibly addressed the senses, and gave
something more substantial upon which to dwell
than the simple rite of other churches. The people
heard the Baptists gladly; day after day added
fresh accessions, and it was apparent that they could
no longer be without weight in the counsels of the
Colony.

Their beginnings may have been seen with indifference
by Churchmen, but, as they grew, this
apathy was disturbed, and at length was converted
into stern opposition. At first it was hoped they
might be conquered by the weapons of argument;
the rectors of parishes began to preach against them,
and Episcopal disputants sometimes attended their
meetings and opened controversy. They argued
that the new sect were followers of the Anabaptists
of Germany, whose horrible excesses in Munster,
and other places, had made their name odious
throughout Christendom.[223] They urged that the
Baptists were novel, both in their doctrines and their
origin; they were rude and unlearned, and so incapable
of understanding church order; that they
operated only on the lower classes of society; that
they disturbed the peace of the Establishment which
had so long existed; and that they were wolves in
sheep's clothing, coming in humble garb for purposes
of violence. But the Baptists were ready to
render a reason for their course. They utterly disclaimed
connexion with the Anabaptists, whom
they resembled in nothing save in the mode of administering
baptism; they declared that their doctrines
were not novel, but were found in the Word
of God; they admitted that they were unlearned,
but urged that so were the early disciples of Christ,
who received from him authority to preach; they
gloried in proclaiming the Gospel to the ignorant
and the poor; and declared that if they disturbed
the calm of the Establishment, it was a deathlike

lethargy, which ought to be broken; and, finally,
they asked, why, if they were really wolves in disguise,
were they so grievously hunted and trodden
down by the true sheep of the fold?[224]

Finding that argument availed them little, the
friends of Episcopacy drew the sword of persecution.
It is believed that at this period no express
statute of Virginia authorized the imprisonment of
any man for preaching without being ordained, or
being licensed according to the Act of Toleration;
but pretexts have never been wanting for religious
cruetly. In June, 1768, John Waller, Lewis Craig,
and James Childs, all zealous Baptists, were seized
by the sheriff in the county of Spottsylvania, and
carried before three magistrates, who stood ready
in the yard of the meeting-house. The victims
were bound over to appear at court two days afterwards,
and when they appeared accordingly, they
were told they should be released if they would
promise to preach no more in the county for a year
and a day. This they positively refused to do, and
they were immediately ordered to jail. As they
passed through the streets of Fredericksburg, they
sang in solemn concert the hymn beginning "Broad
is the road that leads to death." The people listened
in awe, and sympathy began to move many
hearts, in view of persecution.[225]

While they were in jail, they preached to the
people through the gratings of the windows and
doors. The effect of such scenes may be imagined.
The mob might deride, but there were sensitive
spirits upon whom the very semblance of oppression
would have its effect, and the new denomination
gained daily in numbers. Craig was kept in jail
four weeks, and his companions for forty-three days,
and when they were discharged, no concessions
were made on either side.

A well-supported tradition has told us that when
these three Baptists were brought to trial in Fredericksburg,
the Prosecuting Attorney had drawn
up an indictment against them "for preaching the
Gospel contrary to law." Patrick Henry had
heard of the case, and rode fifty miles to hear more.
He kept his seat while the indictment was read,
and while the prosecutor opened the cause, then
rising, he solemnly addressed the court: "May it
please your worships, what did I hear read? Did
I hear it distinctly, or was it a mistake of my own?
Did I hear an expression that these men, whom
your worships are about to try for misdemeanour,
are charged with—preaching the Gospel of the Son
of God?" The tone, the manner, the subject, sent
an indescribable thrill to every heart. Then continuing,
the orator carried home his appeal with
such power that the Prosecuting Attorney turned
pale with agitation, and the court was hardly restrained
from directing the sheriff at once to discharge
the prisoners.[226] Yet even Patrick Henry

was not strong enough to arrest the tyranny caused
by an Established Church.

Similar persecutions were again and again exhibited.
In 1770, William Webber and Joseph
Anthony were seized and imprisoned in Chesterfield
County. They invited hearers to the outer
walls of the jail, and in the language of the reverend
gentleman who has described them, "they
did much execution by preaching through the
grates."[227] In Middlesex and Caroline Counties,
many Baptist ministers were arrested and confined.
They were lodged in jails swarming with vermin,
and were treated like criminals; yet their spirits
were buoyant, and persecution did nothing but increase
the zeal and number of the sect. Insult was
often offered to their ministers during service, and
frequently mounted men would ride into the water
while they were administering immersion, and attempt
to turn the ceremony into a farce.[228] There
were few in the Established Church who did not
oppose them. In 1772, a letter appeared in the
Virginia Gazette, addressed to the Anabaptists imprisoned
in Caroline.[229] The writer justifies their
imprisonment, on the basis, not of any statute, but
of the English common-law. He charges them
with teaching heresy and hateful doctrines, and
with disturbing the peace of religion. He admits
that the English Act of Toleration applies to the
Colony, but denies that the Baptists are entitled to
its benefit.

Religious tyranny produced its accustomed effect:
the Baptists increased on every side. If one
preacher was imprisoned, ten arose to take his
place; if one congregation was dispersed, a larger
assembled on the next opportunity. Twenty years
before the Revolution, few of this sect could have
been found in the Colony, and yet, in 1774, the
Separates alone, had thirty churches south of
James River, and twenty-four on its north;[230] and the
Regulars, though not so numerous, had grown with
rapidity. The influence of the denomination was
strong among the common people, and was beginning
to be felt in high places. In two points they
were distinguished. First, in their love of freedom.
No class of the people of America were more devoted
advocates of the principles of the Revolution;
none were more willing to give their money and
goods to their country; none more prompt to march
to the field of battle, and none more heroic in actual
combat, than the Baptists of Virginia. Secondly,
in their hatred of the Church establishment. They
hated not its ministers, but its principles. They
had seen its operation and had felt its practical influence.
Common sense pointed out its deformities,
and clamoured against its injustice. To a man
they were united in the resolve never to relax their
efforts until it was utterly destroyed.[231]

While one body of Dissenters thus advanced to
undermine the temple of the Established Church,
another arose, and laying a hand guided by learning,
and nerved by devotion, upon the pillars of the

temple, shook them to their very foundations. Early
in the eighteenth century, a single Presbyterian
congregation was all that could be found in Virginia.
It had been planted by Francis Makennie,
on the eastern shore, and maintained a feeble existence,
notwithstanding the ungenial air surrounding
it.[232] But, west of the Blue Ridge, the influence of
the followers of Calvin and Knox became greater
every year. Pennsylvania had received a large
number of settlers from the north of Ireland. These
were not the Irish, but were, in general, purely
Scotch, who had filled up the inviting province of
Ulster, after it had been emptied of its half-barbarous
native inhabitants.[233] The Scotch-Irish were a
strong and active race, hardy in body, vigorous in
mind. They were deeply imbued with religious
feeling, and were almost without exception attached
to the doctrines which are taught in the Westminster
Confession of Faith. From Pennsylvania they
passed into the beautiful valley of Virginia, and
settled in many places running nearly from the
head waters of the Potomac to the southern branch
of the James, as it cuts the mountains near the
Natural Bridge. The northern part of this region,
now composing the counties of Frederick, Shenandoah,
and Rockingham, was indeed chiefly occupied
by German settlers, but the Scotch were spread
through the fertile lands of Rockbridge and West
Augusta.

As early as 1719, a Presbyterian congregation

had been gathered near the site of the present town
of Martinsburg. It is said that here the Gospel
was first publicly preached west of the Blue Ridge.[234]
The people earnestly asked for a preacher, and the
Synod of Philadelphia having sent to them the
Rev. Daniel Magill, he organized the congregations
of Falling Water and Tuscarora, and the next year
reported them to the Synod.[235] After this, other
churches were opened, and ministers were tempted
from the northern settlement to preach in the Valley.
The Stone Church of Augusta is among the oldest
in Virginia. It is built of materials so firm that it
has resisted the hand of time, and promises to endure
for centuries to come. After the defeat of
Braddock it became a fortress of defence against
the Indians; a deep trench surrounded it, and
redoubts guarded its approaches; its pastor exhorted
to courage, and its people came to worship armed
with rifles, and posting sentinels to give the alarm.[236]
The church at Tinkling Spring is not far from
that of Augusta, and is little inferior to it in antiquity.[237] These churches were united, and were
under the pastoral care of Rev. John Craig, from
1739 to 1764. He was from the north of Ireland,
and was a just specimen of his class. Diligent in
study, persevering in labour, firm even to obstinacy,
a rigid Calvinist in doctrine, and withal a pious
and devoted minister, he received his churches
feeble in numbers and influence, and left them
strong, united, and possessed of much temporal
wealth. Thus the Presbyterians of the Valley
grew. In 1738 Governor Gooch gave them his
express written permit to preach and worship, provided
they complied with the terms of the English
Act of Toleration.[238] They were not pressed down
by immediate contact with the Establishment. A
season of unwonted interest for religion was enjoyed
by them,[239] and, before the Revolution, it is believed
they had at least twelve ministers, and a much
larger number of churches scattered through the
region between the Alleghanies and the Blue Ridge.[240]

Meanwhile, in eastern Virginia, a series of singular
events had conducted Presbyterianism from
obscurity to power. There was little intercourse
between the Valley and the east; they were under
the same political rule, but the manners and habits
of the people were as different as their origin. In
the year 1730, in the northern neck between the
Potomac and Rappahannoc Rivers there lived one
John Organ, a pious schoolmaster from Scotland.
He found nothing congenial to his taste in the
stagnant services of the Establishment, and gradually
withdrawing from the church, he collected
around him a few neighbours, to whom he read
books of devotion. Their numbers gradually increased
so much, that they sought a regular preacher.
The Synod of Philadelphia, to whom they applied,

sent to them a minister named Anderson, who organized
a church that was alive early in the present
century.[241] In the county of Hanover, about
the same time, lived Samuel Morris, a planter
possessed of wealth and influence. It is remarkable
that his mind was directed to religion not by
the accustomed agency of preaching, but by reading
the works of men who had made the Scriptures
their particular study. An old copy of "Luther
on the Epistle to the Galatians" fell into his hands.
He read, pondered, felt. This short epistle furnished
to the great Reformer all the weapons he
needed, to cut Popery to the heart. Justification
by faith alone, and a holy life to prove that faith,
are its prominent doctrines. Morris believed, and
hastened to impart to others the means of his own
happiness.[242]

His friends were assembled, and he began to
read to them the much-prized volume; they heard
again and again with interest and pleasure. Gradually
their numbers swelled; other books were
introduced; the thoughts of old John Bunyan
became familiar, and in 1743, a copy of Whitefield's
sermons fell into their possession. Mr. Morris
caused to be erected a "reading-house" for the
accommodation of the hearers, and this was filled
to overflowing on every Sabbath. He never attempted
to preach, or to exhort, or to introduce
prayer, or any regular worship; he did nothing

but read;[243] yet the word of God, explained by consecrated
minds, kindled in the hearers a flame of
which they had known nothing theretofore. The
interest thus excited became so general that the
friends of the church felt alarm. Morris and his
principal adherents were summoned before the
Court of Magistrates to answer for the crime of
absenting themselves from the regular services.
They were asked to what denomination they belonged.
Here was a difficulty: they were any
thing but Churchmen; they were not Quakers;
they were not Baptists; they knew nothing of
Presbyterians. Suddenly a bright thought flashed
upon them. Knowing that Luther was a great
reformer, and remembering their obligations to
him, they declared that they were Lutherans. The
magistrates were puzzled; they could find no laws
against such a sect, and the men were accordingly
dismissed without punishment. But persecution
was not thus easily satisfied; finding that their
meetings were continued, informers again brought
them before the court; fines were inflicted and
greater rigour threatened. Mr. Morris himself
paid more than twenty fines under the systematic
opposition to which he was exposed.[244]

Still their march was onward. In 1743, a
member of one of the Augusta congregations
crossed the Blue Ridge to barter his grain for iron
and salt. Meeting with some of Morris's hearers,

he conversed with them, and was astonished to
find that their views of religion coincided with his
own. He advised them to send to the Valley, and
invite a minister whom he had left there, to come
and preach to them.[245] This was the Rev. William
Robinson, an evangelist ordained by the Presbytery
of New Brunswick, and a man to whom the Presbyterians
of Virginia owe a heavy debt of love.
Embarrassments caused by youthful indiscretion
had driven him from England, but soon after
coming to America, he professed himself a Christian,
and devoting his life to the ministry, he carried
into his sacred duties the ardour which had
distinguished him in the pursuit of vicious pleasure.[246] He obeyed the call of Mr. Morris, and
coming to Hanover, preached his first sermon on
the 6th of July. The people attended in crowds,
and recognising from his lips the same doctrines
which they had long heard from the books read by
Morris, they received him with open arms. Deep
seriousness prevailed at their meetings, and gradually
an interest was awakened such as men feel
when they begin to compare sin with holiness, and
time with eternity.[247] The lives of many were changed,
regular congregations were formed, proper modes
of worship were introduced; the people took the
name of Presbyterians, and formed a connexion
with the Presbytery of New Brunswick, whose
ministers were then a part of the Synod of New
York.[248]

Mr. Robinson was soon followed by other clergymen
of the same creed. John Blair was his immediate
successor, and under his labours the churches
were increased. In 1744, Rev. Mr. Roan was
sent by the Presbytery of Newcastle. He was a
zealous man, but somewhat indiscreet. He spake
openly against the vices of the Episcopal clergy,
and by his boldness so provoked his enemies, that
an indictment was made out against him by a
grand jury, on a false charge of blasphemy made
by some man after the accused left the Colony.[249]
(1745.) It was at this time that the attention of the
Governor was called to the progress of dissent in
Virginia, and Gooch delivered to the Grand Jurors
of the General Court the memorable charge, which
has gone farther to convict him of intolerance than
any other act of his life. The deep interest exhibited
by the people; the distress occasioned by
conviction for sin, and the exciting appeals founded
by the preachers on the doctrines they proclaimed,
altogether constituted a "New Light" which the
Governor could in no sense understand, and hence
his desire to quench it by applying the law.[250]

William Gooch was not naturally either a bigot or
a persecutor; when, during this year, the Synod of
New York sent to him Rev. Messrs. William
Tennent and Samuel Finley, to represent the interests
of their church in Virginia, he received
them kindly, and permitted them to preach. He
could not refuse his homage to genius, learning,
and piety united. Had his council been as liberal
as himself, it is not probable that Dissenters would
have felt oppression in "the Ancient Colony."[251]

Just at the time when the infant churches which
Morris and Robinson had planted, most needed a
minister at once zealous and learned, their wants
were supplied. It is not extravagant to say that
Samuel Davies was in many respects the greatest
preacher that America has ever known. He was
born in Newcastle, Delaware, Nov. 3, 1724. His
mother devoted him in infancy to the sacred cause
in which he was to be so distinguished, and gave
him a name that indicated her design.[252] From the
age of fifteen he was a professed Christian, and
sought the duties of the ministry with hallowed

ardour. He was licensed by the Presbytery of
Newcastle in 1745, and ordained two years after.
He came to Virginia in 1747, and finding that the
laws then in force, rendered certain steps necessary
before a Dissenter could preach with safety, he
complied with all the terms of the Act of Toleration.
He took the usual oath of fidelity to the
government, and subscribed to the thirty-nine
articles of the Church of England, with four exceptions,
expressly made. These were the articles
concerning the "traditions of the church," "the
authority of the homilies," "the consecration of
bishops and ministers," and "the power of the
church to decree rights and ceremonies, and to
decide controversies of faith."[253] He then obtained
licenses for four churches,—three in Hanover, and
one in Henrico, and early in the spring of 1748,
he entered with his whole heart upon his career as
an evangelist.

His bodily health was delicate, but the strength
of his soul carried him over every obstacle. Though
yet young, he had acquired a store of systematized
knowledge, which fitted him to combat error in
whatever shape it might come. His personal appearance
was mild and benevolent, yet august and
imposing.[254] But it was in the pulpit that his true
power was seen and felt. His heart glowed under
the fervent majesty of truth, and his lips seemed to
be touched as with a live coal from the altar of
God. Having studied the volume of revealed religion
in all its length and breadth, his zeal never

approached fanaticism, yet he wielded the "sword
of the spirit" with an effect that has seldom been
equalled. Under his words the objects of faith
drew near to the listener; heaven opened, and
celestial melody was wafted from its portals; the
world of despair was unlocked, and shown to the
impenitent. He applied the divine law with such
pungency that he pierced the conscience as with a
thousand barbed arrows, yet no spiritual physician
was ever more ready than he to soothe the wounded
soul with atoning blood, and to lead the stricken
penitent to the bleeding victim of Calvary. Few
who ever heard him preach could entirely resist
his influence; it is well known that he was the
means of kindling the hidden fire of eloquence in
other bosoms. Patrick Henry has declared that by
hearing him he was himself first taught what an
orator should be,[255] and James Waddel, the "blind
preacher," is said to have caught from Davies the
inspiration which afterwards made him almost his
equal in sacred pathos.[256]

When Mr. Davies returned to Virginia in 1748,
he was accompanied by John Rodgers, a young
minister whose aid he wished for in his new field.
As they rode in the night-time through one of the
thick forests of the river counties, a terrible storm
overtook them. Incessant lightnings flashed around
them, and bursts of thunder seemed to rend the
heavens; rain poured down in such floods that
they were unable to ride in safety, and alighting
by the roadside, they waited until the fury of the

storm should be over.[257] Davies had a heart too
resolute to feel any thing but reverence in such a
scene, and his young companion, who had, before,
been remarkably timid under displays of lightning,
is said from this time forth to have lost all his fear,
and to have emulated the boldness of his friend.
The storms of the natural world were not the only
difficulties which Rodgers encountered in Virginia.

When Davies and his comrade presented themselves
before Governor Gooch, he received them
politely and introduced them to the General Court,
which now claimed the exclusive right of granting
licenses to Dissenters. Jealousy had crept into
this tribunal, in view of the rapid progress of the
new denomination. In vain did the Governor
exert himself to procure a liberal judgment. They
positively refused to permit Mr. Rodgers to preach,
and even expressed regret that they had licensed
Mr. Davies. A minister of the Established Church
complained to Gooch that Rodgers had preached
in Virginia since his arrival, and advised severe
measures, but the good Governor rebuked him in
most cutting terms, and declared that he deserved
to be stripped of his office for his intolerance.[258] Yet
the court was inexorable. With saddened feelings
Mr. Rodgers was compelled to return to the north,
and Davies was left alone to speak for his church
in Eastern Virginia.

If the rulers of the land looked on him with little
favour, the people more than compensated by their

love. In less than a year three more churches
were added to his number, and the counties of Caroline,
Louisa, and Goochland, witnessed his labours.[259] Three hundred communicants were under
his care; his places for preaching were sometimes
forty miles apart, and, in traversing this wild tract
of country, he was brought in contact with all
classes, and nearly all learned to respect and love
him. As his work advanced, the opposition of
Churchmen increased; the question was raised
whether the English Act of Toleration had any
force in the Colony, and Mr. Davies was permitted
to argue the point before the General Court, in answer
to Peyton Randolph, the Attorney-General.
The divine, for a season assumed the lawyer, and
is said to have sustained himself with remarkable
power.[260] The Attorney-General delivered a speech
distinguished in legal learning, and when the young
preacher rose to reply, many in the assembly exchanged
smiles of derision. But, as he opened his
subject, the hearers were astonished at his skill,
and before he concluded, lawyers present were
heard to whisper, "The Attorney-General has met
his match to-day."[261] There can be no doubt that
Mr. Davies was right, for an Act of Assembly
passed in 1705, had expressly taken notice of, and,
by necessary implication, had given effect to the
Act 1 William and Mary, ch. 18, which was the
existing law of toleration in Great Britain.[262] When
Davies visited England in 1753, to ask subscriptions
to Princeton College, he obtained from the Attorney-General,
Sir Dudley Rider, an opinion confirming
his argument, and thus the question was
settled for ever in favour of the Dissenters.

This great man was as patriotic as he was pious
and eloquent. After the defeat of Braddock, volunteers
were needed to drive back the Indians on
the frontier. Mr. Davies delivered two soul-stirring
addresses to the people in Hanover. In the
first he spake of George Washington, and uttered
a memorable prophecy of his future greatness,
which was fulfilled to the letter. The effect of the
last was such, that immediately on its conclusion,
more volunteers were enrolled than were needed,
and the people followed him in crowds from the
muster-ground to the tavern, still eager to hear his
thrilling appeals.[263] The influence of such a minister
upon those among whom he laboured, may
be estimated by his success. Every where, at his
approach, serious attention was awakened, lives
were reformed, churches were organized, and the
principles he cherished took vigorous root.

In 1755 the Presbytery of Hanover was formed,
embracing all the Presbyterian churches in Virginia,
and some in North Carolina. Four years
afterwards, Mr. Davies was called to preside over
Princeton College; but, though no one in all respects
his equal has arisen in his Church, he left
behind him in the Old Dominion, men eminent in
piety, learning, and zeal. The foundations of his

work had been well laid; in the Valley, and through
the lower counties of the Colony, his denomination
gained many accessions. With their increase, they
felt the necessity for securing to their youth education
in which science and religion should be
united, and, in 1774, under their auspices, two
colleges arose, which yet exist. One was located
in Prince Edward County, and bore the name of
Hampden Sydney; the other was in Rockbridge,
in the Valley, and was named Liberty Hall.[264] Each
of these titles will recall to our minds thoughts of
freedom and patriotism, and may assure us that the
founders of these schools of learning were the
lovers of their country. With what disapprobation
they regarded the restraints of conscience, yet
sanctioned by law in Virginia, may be readily
conceived.

Previous to, and during the Revolutionary War,
the Methodists, as composing a distinct Church,
had no existence in America. It is true, the followers
of Mr. Wesley were numerous and active.
Traces of their labours in Virginia may be found
as early as 1745,[265]
and in 1773, their exertions became
uniform and efficient. In this year Robert
Williams entered the town of Norfolk, and, standing
on the steps of the court-house, sang aloud. A
crowd assembled, and he preached to them zealously,
urging a salutary fear of hell and the devil.

So seldom had they heard any thing of these startling
subjects from the pulpits of the Establishment,
that they at first thought Mr. Williams either mad
or impious;[266] but, after a time, his earnestness had
its reward, and a considerable number of converts
were collected in Norfolk. Their preachers then
spread themselves abroad through the counties of
Sussex, Brunswick, Prince George, Lunenburg,
Amelia, and Mecklenburg, and through a series of
years they gathered increasing congregations. Great
excitement prevailed. "Many sinners were powerfully
convinced, and Mercy! Mercy! was their
cry."[267] The vehement exhortations of which Mr.
Wesley approved wrought their accustomed effect,
and while we have reason to fear that the religion
of some vanished with their tears, others gave proof
of permanent reform.

But though their numbers thus swelled, the Methodists
did not withdraw from the Established
Church. When the Revolution opened, their condition
was one of perplexity and hazard. Their
great leader, instead of being friendly to freedom,
had published a pamphlet in which he condemned
the Americans, and justified the course of the
British Ministry.[268] Four of their most distinguished
preachers in America were from England, and were,
with good reason, suspected to be attached to the
cause of their native land, and, in many cases, both
leaders and people did so imprudently declaim

against the measures of Congress, that they drew
down upon themselves the merited contempt of all
patriots.[269] They considered themselves as only "a
society within the Church;" their preachers were
expressly forbidden to administer the sacraments,
and in Virginia their followers were to be earnestly
exhorted to attend the Episcopal churches, and
there receive the ordinances.[270] Although Mr.
Wesley professed to have been long convinced by
Lord King's Account of the Primitive Church that
bishops and presbyters were equal in authority,
yet not until 1784 did he ordain Dr. Coke and his
assistants, and send them to America to establish a
separate Church.[271] Under these circumstances, we
are not surprised to find the Methodists of Virginia
co-operating with the Establishment, and using
all their influence for its support, instead of endeavouring
to destroy it.[272]

Thus were forces arrayed when the first free
Legislature of Virginia commenced its session in
Williamsburg, on the 7th day of October, 1776.
Nearly two-thirds of the people had become, either
openly or in feeling, dissenters from the Church
of England;[273] yet a majority of the Legislators
were Churchmen, and the triumph of religious
liberty was due to its own commanding claims
rather than to the prepossessions of the members.

Hardly had the body been in session a week, before
memorials began to appear urging action on the
laws affecting conscience. The Bill of Rights had
proclaimed abstract principles, but now something
practical was sought. Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians,
and men holding no special creed, united
in asking for a repeal of the oppressive laws which
had grown up under the old régime. Few opposed
this reform except Churchmen and Methodists,
but, it is worthy of remark, that an earnest plea for
the Establishment was published by a writer who
seems to have been an open infidel. His address
appeared in print during the session of the Assembly.
He declares that, when tested by truth,
every system of religion, except simple Deism, will
be found equally "false and foolish." Yet he is in
favour of a strict establishment, to depress sectaries,
and to make the evils of religion as small as possible!
Following out his principles, he says, that
"Toleration carries satire in every letter of it; literally,
it means the suffering an abuse," and, therefore,
he intimates that Trajan and Pliny merited
praise for endeavouring to destroy the Christian
sect in its infancy![274] From such an ally, it is to be
hoped the friends of the Established Church derived
little advantage.

The Dissenters urged the glaring injustice which
had long been done to them. In the frontier counties
of the state they had been compelled to contribute
money to purchase glebes and to build
churches, when in fact very few Episcopalians lived

within their bounds.[275] And in the eastern counties,
contributions were yet levied upon them where
they were more numerous than Episcopalians,
never attended their churches, and had their own
ministers, from whom they heard the Gospel.
Among these memorials one appeared from the
Presbytery of Hanover, which strongly commended
itself by the power of its argument, the elegance of
its composition, and the dignity of its tone.[276] It
asked that all sects might be placed on the same
ground with regard to the state; that the Established
Church should be abolished, and that the
support of religion should be left to the voluntary
offerings of the people. Its doctrines were bold
and original; if adopted, they would at once level
with the dust the huge fabric which centuries have
built in Christendom; "there is no argument in
favour of establishing the Christian religion, but
what may be pleaded for establishing the tenets of
Mohammed by those who believe the Koran, or, if
this be not true, it is at least impossible for the
magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among
the various sects which profess the Christian faith,
without erecting a chair of infallibility which would
lead us back to the Church of Rome."[277]

In opposition to these protests, memorials were
presented from the Methodists and the Episcopalians,

urging a continuance of the Established
system.[278] They argued that the clergy of the
Church had accepted cures in Virginia, trusting to
the laws which provided for their support, and to
the good faith of the public for their countenance.
They considered that they had thus acquired a
vested right to a legal provision. It might have been
answered that these very laws constituted the unjust
system of which Dissenters complained. They
argued farther that true wisdom required that the
state should provide religious instruction for their
people, and that the best mode of doing this was by
an Established Church. While, therefore, they
approve of the system generally, "they are more
particularly convinced of the excellency of the religious
establishment which has hitherto subsisted
in this state;" "the experience of one hundred and
fifty years," they said, "had tested it;" and it had
been productive of "order and internal tranquillity,
true piety, and virtue." That these opinions were
sincere we may not doubt, but that they were correct,
neither the past history of their state, nor their
own experience would authorize the Legislature to
believe. Finally, these memorialists asked that the
question should not be immediately decided, but
should be referred to the people, that they might
speak from the polls. Had this been done, we have
reason to believe the cause of dissent would have
triumphed, but the Legislature did not think proper
farther to delay.

The memorials and petitions, after passing under

review of a special committee on religion, were
referred to the whole House, forming a committee
on the state of the country. A severe contest immediately
commenced. Edmund Pendleton was
the speaker, and was justly revered for his age, his
integrity, his power in argument. He was the
strenuous advocate of the Established Church, and
he was ably seconded by Robert Carter Nicholas.
Mr. Jefferson was the great champion of religious
freedom. He found something so congenial to his
own taste in the views of the Dissenters, and particularly
in the doctrines of the memorial from
Hanover Presbytery, that he willingly adopted
and sustained them. Scepticism and Christianity
may alike condemn the ruinous union of church and
state. The struggle in committee was desperately
maintained from the 11th of October to the 5th
day of December. Mr. Jefferson has himself declared
that the contests were the most severe he
had ever engaged in.[279] At length, however, the
triumph of the friends of liberty, if not complete,
was decisive. A bill passed, repealing every law
which denounced punishment for maintaining
opinions in religion, or for not attending the Episcopal
Church; exempting Dissenters from contributions
for the support of the Episcopal clergy, and
suspending the legal assessments of members of
the Church until the next session. The salaries
of the clergy were, however, continued to them
until the 1st of January succeeding, and the glebe
lands, churches, books, and plate which had been
provided by law for the Establishment, were still
secured to it.[280] The question whether there should
be a general assessment on the people for the support
of pastors of their own choice, was expressly
reserved to be decided thereafter.

When we remember how long the church establishment
of Virginia had existed, how deeply it
had planted its roots in the social system, and how
strong were the habits which taught men to revere
it, we should be surprised rather that so much was
done for its destruction, than that so much remained
to be accomplished. The very first Legislature
under the new constitution, struck a fatal blow,
from which the victim did not recover. Death was
not instantaneous; the wound was mortal, but
though the principle of life was driven from the
heart, it continued to linger in the extremities, until
exhaustion and renewed attacks finally extinguished
it. The Act of 1776 went far to establish
religious freedom. Men were no longer compelled
to attend the worship of a particular sect, or to pay
fines for disobedience; the rights of citizenship
were no longer confined to Churchmen; the authority
to exercise private judgment in religion
was recognised; the state pretended not to decide
which church taught the truth, and which was
guilty of schism or heresy; Dissenters were released
from the unjust burdens they had so long
borne, and were allowed to build churches when
and where they pleased, and to support their pastors
as they thought best; even members of the Episcopal

churches were released from legal obligation
to support their rectors, and were left to the
guidance of conscience. These were important
results; they proved that the eyes of men had at
length been opened to the truth, and gave an
earnest that all that liberty demanded should finally
be done.

But it is not to be denied that Virginia had not
yet been completely disenthralled. Even after the
late acts, the Legislature, by many expressions in
its laws, continued to show special favour to the
Episcopal Church. As late as to the year 1778, it
was called the "Established Church," the word
"toleration" had not ceased to be used, and the
name of "Dissenters" was still applied to all who
rejected the surplice and the prayer-book. Such
expressions should be banished from the language
of a free people, except to explain antiquated evils.
Where man is at liberty to worship God as he
pleases, he asks no toleration from human government,
and he cannot be called a dissenter, whatever
may be his creed. At this time, those who
belonged to denominations other than the Episcopal,
composed two-thirds of the people; the faith
of the Church of England was no longer the religion
of the country, and with some propriety
those who adhered to that church, might have been
called "Dissenters" in Virginia. Yet it continued
to enjoy certain immunities which were not limited
to an empty name.

The ministers of the Episcopal sect were considered
as authorized to perform the marriage ceremony

without special license. They were ex officio
clergymen, and might tie the matrimonial knot
whenever and wherever called upon through the
state. But ministers of other sects had not this
privilege; they were compelled by law to seek a
license in the county in which they lived, and for
this and the oath attending it, the clerks were empowered
to demand certain fees, which often bore
heavily on the poor pastors of country flocks.
Again, the old parish system was yet alive in law;
their vestries, as such, were considered as still
having power to collect a class of fees allowed by
various statutes, and in the absence of express
legislation, the courts looked upon these church
officers as clothed with their former authority; and
farther, the glebe lands remained in exclusive possession
of the Episcopal clergy. Property amounting
to several hundred thousand pounds in value, a
large proportion of which had been taken from men
who never entered a church of the establishment,
and all of which had accumulated under a system
of injustice, was continued in the hands of a small
number of ministers, whose teachings were attended
by the most insignificant of minorities among the
people.

As we advance in the history of our state, we
shall see each one of these evils successively removed.
The patriots of Virginia were not content
with victory half-won. They knew that their
principles were sound, and they followed them out
even to their extreme results. While life lingered
in any severed limb of the Establishment they did

not feel safe. They renewed their attacks until
they had not merely hewn down the tree, but had
torn it up by the roots, and had destroyed the last
germ from which it might be reproduced. It will
not be necessary any longer to separate the history
of religion from the general narrative of Virginia's
fortunes. The time was soon to come when absolute
religious liberty was to be enjoyed by her
people. We may be startled in view of a state in
which civil government grants the same rights and
the same protection to the Christian, the Mohammedan,
the Jew, the disciple of Brahma, and the
Bhoodist from Siam; yet such is the case in Virginia,
and such should be the case in every nation
pretending to be free. On the soil of the "Ancient
Dominion," the believer in the Koran has the same
right to build his mosque, to preach his creed, and
to exercise civil functions, that the believer in the
Scriptures claims for his own privileges. All are
at liberty; all are protected. But while this is so,
let it not be supposed that Christianity has ceased
to be the religion of our people, or that any of her
divine claims have been forgotten. Never has she
been cherished with zeal so ardent, and with love
so devoted as since the divorce was declared between
church and state. She is now sustained, not
by legal establishment, but by the voluntary offerings
of people who feel that they depend upon her
for happiness in time and eternity. She has been
restored to that position intended for her by her
Author, who declares that his "kingdom is not of
this world." Her weapons are no longer the penal
statutes made by human governments; they are
more noble, more powerful, more holy. Her defence
is The Truth. With this, her advocates
may meet error in its worst forms, and with the
certainty of ultimate success. The victory thus
gained will be permanent and glorious; it will not
have been achieved by bloodshed and oppression,
but by the silent march of that power which is
destined at last to conquer evil, and to establish the
reign of the Prince of Peace.