James City County, Virginia
A Proud Member of the Genealogy
Trails Group
Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (extract)
By Bishop William Meade, Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott Company. 1891, pgs 146-166
Transcribed for Genealogy Trails by Debora Reese
ARTICLE XI.
Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.-No. 1.
THIS parish was carved out of the counties of James City and Charles River. The latter county was, in 1642, changed into York county. The parish of Bruton, in the year 1723, was reported to the Bishop of London as ten miles square. At one time a parish called Marston was within these bounds, being the upper part, toward New Kent; but that was soon dissolved and added to Bruton. Of the early history of Williamsburg, or the Middle Plantation, we know but little. That there was a church there in 1665 is certain from an entry in the vestry-book of Middlesex parish, in that year, which directs a church to be built in this parish, after the model of that at Williamsburg,-probably a wooden one. How long that at Williamsburg had been in existence before this time is not known. The vestry-book of Bruton parish commenced in 1674, and continues until 1769,-a few years before the Revolution. The first minister was the Rev. Rowland Jones, who continued from 1674 to his death, in 1688. Besides vestrymen and churchwardens, there were, after the English custom and canons, two officers, called sidesmen or questmen, who were especially appointed to present unworthy persons to those in authority, for civil and ecclesiastical discipline. I have not met with these in any other parish. It appears that there were at this time, and had been, no doubt, for a considerable period, two other churches in this parish, an upper and lower, both of which needed repair; and the vestry resolved, in the year 1678, not to repair either of them, but to build a new brick church at Williamsburg, to answer for all. Free donations were solicited before a levy was resorted to. A list of some of the donors is recorded. At the head is John Page (first of the name) for ,£20, and the ground for the church and graveyard; Thomas Ludwell, ,£20; Philip Ludwell, £10; Colonel Thorp, ,£10 ; and many others, £5,-among them the minister, Mr. Jones. A pew was put in the chancel for the minister, and Mr. John Page and Edward Jennings were allowed to put up pews for their families within the same. The church being finished, the Rev. Mr. Jones was requested to dedicate it.
The vestry now caused it to be proclaimed throughout the parish, that the law against those who absented themselves from church would be enforced. It seems that, though much violated, it had not been enforced, and perhaps never was. The penalty was so many pounds of tobacco, after the laws "martial, moral, and divine" had been repealed. It was during Mr. Jones's ministry that the salary of £100, which had been paid him, was commuted for sixteen thousand-weight of tobacco, the minister consenting, as the people complained that they were not able to pay the £100. At the death of Mr. Jones, the Rev. Mr. Sclater was employed for six months, to preach every other Sabbath afternoon, and then the Rev. Mr. Eburne for the same time every other Sunday morning. It is probable that these were ministers of neighbouring parishes. At the close of Mr. Eburne's engagement they elected him for seven years, instead of inducting him for life. Lord Effingham, Lieutenant-Governor, then addressed them the following letter:
"GENTLEMEN:- I understand that upon my former recommendation to you of Mr. Samuel Eburne, you have received him, and he hath continued to exercise his ministerial functions in preaching and performing divine service. I have now to recommend him a second time to you, with the addition of my own experience of his ability and true qualification in all points, together with his exemplary life and conversation And therefore, holding of him in esteem, as a person who, to God's honour and your good instruction, is fit to be received, I do desire he may be by you entertained and continued, and that you will give him such encouragement as you have formerly done to persons so qualified. "
October 25th, 1688. EFFINGHAM."
The meaning of the foregoing is plain,-viz.: that the vestrymen apply to the Governor to induct Mr. Eburne for life, and so have him fixed upon them, unless by process of law he could be discarded for some great crime or crimes. The vestry, however, at the end of the seven years, passed a resolve never to elect a minister for move than one year at a time, and invited him to remain on these terms; but he, getting old and infirm, preferred going to some milder climate. Here is the first recorded conflict of a vestry with the Governor on the subject of inductions. We shall very soon have occasion to consider the subject at some length. In the year 161)7, the Rev. Cope Doyley was chosen minister. In the year 1700, Governor Nicholson appears on the vestry-book., in a manner characteristic of himself. He demands of-the vestry, under their own hands, whether the Rev. Mr. Doyley reads the service of the Book of Common Prayer in the church. It is answered in the affirmative. In the year 1702, Mr. Doyley dies, and Mr. Solomon Whately is chosen from some other parish,not, however, without the Governor's leave being asked for his removal. After having preached his trial sermon, and being called, some objection was raised, and he is requested to preach again, for the satisfaction of those who were not present at his first sermon. His election for one year was confirmed, at the end of which time his call was not renewed; but he was invited to continue for a few months while looking out for another parish. One of the vestry was directed to see the Rev. Isaac Grace, who had just arrived in the colony, and get him to preach. Mr. Grace expressed a willingness to come, but said that his cast- was in the hands of the Governor, who had forbid him to come into the parish. It seems that Mr. Whately was a favourite of the Governor, and that he was offended with the vestry for not choosing him as their permanent minister. Mr. Whately was the most active minister in sustaining Governor Nicholson when, on various accounts, he had become so unpopular that, at the petition of the Council and some of the clergy, he was withdrawn from Virginia. This case of the vestry and Mr. Whately led Mr. Nicholson to get the opinion of Mr. Edward Northy, one of the King's high legal advisers, as to the relative powers and privileges of the Governors and vestries in presenting and inducting ministers, and to order it to be entered upon all the vestry-books. I have seen it on a number of them, and find it on that of Bruton parish, from which I am drawing these statements. On receiving it, the vestry passed some resolutions, and directed Mr. John Page, (grandson of the old vestryman of that name, who was now dead,) an eminent lawyer and member of the Council, to draw up something on the subject, with the view of presenting it to the House of Burgesses, requesting them to take action on the question. We hear nothing more of the dispute, and the Governor was recalled in 1705; but this is evident:-that the vestry never yielded the point; for although they thought it expedient to retain Mr. Whately until his death; yet it was under a solemn declaration of their determination to elect their minister every year, which was done in the case of Mr. Whately and his successors, during the Colonial Government, so far as the vestry-book shows.
The history of the case is this : In theory, the Governor claimed to be the representative of the King, in Church and State, and patron of all the parishes; also to be the representative of the Bishop of London, having the disposal of the ministers and the exercise of discipline over the clergy, thus making the office of the Commissary a nullity. Nor did the Commissaries object; for they were, with one exception. Presidents of William and Mary College, and fully employed. Dr. Blair did sometimes act. It was evident that if such was to be the construction put upon the power of the Governor, as claimed by Effingham, Nicholson, and Spottswood, the vestries would have little power to prevent the settlement for life (with legal power to enforce their salaries) of many most unworthy ministers ; for although the law allowed them the right of choosing a minister within six months after a vacancy occurred, yet if they did not so do the Governor might send one and induct him for life. Now, such was the scarcity of ministers that they must wait the arrival of some new and untried one from England, or else take some indifferent one who was without a parish in this country. To save the congregations from imposition under such a system, the vestries adopted the method of electing from year to year, not presenting to the Governors for induction, by which induction so many unworthy ministers might be settled upon them. Induction did take place in some cases where, after years of good conduct, it \v,-is safe to conform to the law; and in some few others. Who could blame them for this act of self-defence against such mighty power in the hands of one man, when the consequences of induction were so evil, and when the circumstances of the parishes, the small salaries and extensive districts to be served, and the state of the Mother-Church, made it so difficult to get worthy ministers? This was the practice of the vestries almost from the first and to the very last of the Colonial establishment. In vain did the clergy complain to the Bishop of London, and even to the Crown, of the uncertain and precarious tenure by which they held their livings from year to year. In vain did the Governors and Commissaries speak of this custom of the vestries, as preventing more and better ministers from coming over. In vain were the sympathetic responses from England. The vestries were unmoved. The Governors and Commissaries were wise enough to attempt nothing more than complaints; for they must have seen that the vestries had much reason for their conduct, and that any rigid interpretation of the law and effort to enforce it would meet with effectual resistance from the vestries. The Crown and the Bishop of London dared not issue any injunction of the kind. On the contrary, whatever was done in England from time to time was in modification of any supposed high rights of Governors and in favour of vestries, and the nearer the Revolution approached the more fearful were the authorities in England of doing any thing against the vestries. The vestries were the depositaries of power in Virginia. They not only governed the Church by the election of ministers, the levying of taxes, the enforcing of laws, but they made laws in the House of Burgesses; for the burgesses were the most intelligent and influential men of the parish, and were mostly vestrymen. It is easy to perceive why the vestry of Williamsburg wished the question between them and Nicholson referred to the Assembly; for it was only referring it to the other vestries, who were pursuing the same course with themselves. Nor were the vestries represented in the popular branch of the Government only. We will venture to affirm, and that not without examination, that there was scarce an instance of any but a vestryman being in the Council, although, as the Council was chosen by the Governor and the King, there was more likelihood of some being found in them who might favour high views of prerogative.
In the history of the vestries we may fairly trace the origin, not only of that religious liberty which afterward developed itself in Virginia, but also of the early and determined stand taken by the Episcopalians of Virginia in behalf of civil liberty. The vestries, who were the intelligence and moral strength of the land, had been trained up in the defence of their rights against Governors and Bishops, Kings, Queens, and Cabinets. They had been slowly fighting the battles of the Revolution for a hundred and fifty years. Taxation and representation were only other words for support and election of ministers. The principle was the same. It is not wonderful, therefore, that we find the same men who took the lead in the councils and armies of the Revolution most active in the recorded proceedings of the vestries. Examine the vestry- books, and you will find prominent there the names of Washington, Peyton Randolph, Edmund Pendleton, General Nelson, Governor Page, Colonel Bland, Richard Henry Lee, General Wood, Colonel Harrison, George Mason, and hundreds of others who might be named as patriots of the Revolution. The principle for which vestries contended was correct,-viz.: the choice of their ministers. I do not say that it must necessarily be by annual election; but there must be a power of changing ministers, for sufficient reasons. The Governors and the clergy, who came from England, did not understand how this could be, so used had they been to a method widely different. It was reserved for the Church in America to show its practicability, and also to establish something yet more important, and what is by most Englishmen still thought a doubtful problem,-the voluntary principle, by which congregations not only choose their ministers but support them without taxation by law. It may be wise to provide some check to the sudden removal of ministers by the caprice of vestries and congregations, as is the case in the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches, where some leave of separation is required from Presbyteries and Bishops; but neither of them are ever so unwise as to interpose a veto where it is evident that there is sufficient reason for separation, whether from dissatisfaction on either side, or from both, or any strong consideration. The people have it in their power, either by withholding support or attendance, and in other ways, to secure their removal, and the ministers cannot be forced to preach. Either party have an inalienable right to separate, unless there be some specific bargain to the contrary. In one denomination in our land, it is true that ministers are appointed to their stations and congregations are supplied by its chief officers; but it must be remembered that this is only a temporary appointment,-for a year or two at most. Let it ever be attempted to make it an appointment for life, or even a long term of years, and the dissolution of that Society would soon take place. In the first organization of our general Church in this country, after the separation from our mother-country, an office of induction was adopted, with the view of rendering the situation of the clergy more permanent; but such was the opposition to it from Virginia and some other States, that it was determined it should only be obligatory on those States which chose to make it so. Very few instances of its use have ever occurred in the Diocese of Virginia.
From this digression, should it seem so to any, I resume the history of Bruton parish. At the death of Mr. Whately, the Rev. James Blair, Commissary to the Bishop of London, and President of William and Mary College, was chosen minister, with the understanding that there was to be an annual election. He continued the minister for thirty-three years, until his death, in 1743. Mr. Blair came over to Virginia in 1685, and was the minister of Henrico parish for nine years, and then moved to Jamestown, in order to be more convenient to the College which he was raising up. In the year 1710. he became the minister of Bruton parish. The history of Mr. Blair during the last forty-three out of the fifty-three years of his ministry is so connected with the history not only of Williamsburg and the College, but of the Governors, the Council, the Assembly and Church of Virginia, that it will require some time and labour to do it any thing like justice. Indeed, with all the documents I possess, consisting of numerous and most particular communications made by him and others to the Privy Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of London, as to the personal difficulties between himself and the Governors and the clergy, communications never published, and which would form a large volume,-I find it very difficult to form a positive opinion as to some points in his character. I begin with that which is most easy and satisfactory, his ministerial life. It commenced under the administration of Governor Spottswood, and with a tender from the Governor to the vestry of aid in building a new church; the plan of which was sent by him, and is, I presume, the same with that now standing. Its dimensions were to be seventy five by twenty-two feet, with two wings, making it a cross as to form. The governor offered to build twenty-two feet of the length himself. Mr. Blair, so far as the vestry-book shows, lived in uninterrupted harmony with his vestry during the thirty-three years of his ministry. As to his preaching, we have a full opportunity of deciding upon the style and doctrine, in four printed volumes upon the Saviour's Sermon on the Mount, containing one hundred and seventeen sermons. These sermons went through at least two editions in England. Dr. Waterbury published a preface to the second, in high praise of them. Dr. Doddridge also has spoken well of them. I have gone over these discourses with sufficient care to form a just judgment of the same. As an accurate commentary on that most blessed portion of Scripture, I should think it can never have been surpassed. Since it was reserved for the apostles, under the dictates of the Spirit, to dwell on the power of the resurrection, or justification by faith, on the cleansing by the blood of Jesus Christ, so Christ, in this discourse, was not setting forth the faith
and doctrines of the gospel, but expounding the law, in opposition to the false glosses of the Jews, and showing the superior spirit of the gospel. Mr. Blair does not, therefore, enter fully into some of the doctrines of the gospel, though he recognises them sufficiently to show that he held them according to what may be termed the moderate Arminian scheme. A faithful exposition of the Sermon on the Mount must necessarily condemn all evil dispositions and practices, and Mr. Blair does not soften any thing. His congregation was often composed of the authority and intelligence, fashion and wealth of the State, besides the youth of the College; nor does he spare any. I do not wonder that some of the Governors and great ones complained of this being personal. From many sources of information, I fear that swearing was most common among the gentlemen of that day, those high in office setting a bad example. In concluding his sermon on the third commandment, as explained by our Lord in his Sermon on the Mount, he thus speaks:-
"Thus, now I have done with my text; but I am afraid I have done no good all this while, and that the evil one, from whom the spirit of lying and swearing comes, will be abundantly too hard for all that I can say or do to fortify you against his devices. Learn, I beseech you, this easy part of Christianity, to be men of your word, and to refrain from the evil custom of swearing; and to refrain from it from a right principle,-the fear of God. I know no vice that brings more scandal to our Church of England. The Church may be in danger from many enemies; but perhaps she is not so much in danger from any as from the great number of profane persons that pretend to be of her; enough to make all serious people afraid of our society, and to bring down the judgments of God upon us, for ' by reason of swearing the land mourneth. But be not deceived: our Church has no principles that lead to swearing more than the Dissenters; but, whatever Church is uppermost, there are always a great many who, having no religion at all, crowd into it and bring it into disgrace and disreputation ; but the time is coming that the tares must be separated from the wheat; and they shall be cast with the evil one-the devil that loved them-into hell; but the angels shall carefully gather the wheat into God's barn. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."
In speaking of the lusts of the flesh, he hesitates not to call things by their right names and to threaten the Scriptural penalties. In warning against the temptations and provocations to the same, he speaks in different terms from many of that day of theatres, balls, frolics, rendezvous, promiscuous dances, interludes, and clatter of company, the intoxication of drink, the lulling the thoughts asleep by music, gaming, &c. In warning against the love of dress, from our Saviour's allusion to the flowers of the field being clothed with more glory than even Solomon, he says:-
"I doubt not but it was designed to cast a slur upon the vanity of apparel, since it is a thing of so little estimation in the sight of God that he bestows it in the highest degree on the meanest of his creatures. For it is to be presumed, had it been a thing of any great worth in itself, instead of bestowing these admirable varieties of colours, gildings, and embroideries upon tulips, he would have bestowed them upon creatures of higher dignity. Whereas, on mankind he has bestowed but very sparingly of these gaudy colours and features; a great part of them being black, a great part of them being tauny , and a great part being of other wan and dusky complexions, show that it is not the outward gaudy beauty that he values, but the ornaments of the mind-Christian graces and virtues-which, in his sight, are of great price."
He is throughout a faithful reprover of sin. He admits that there is little or no infidelity known in the Colony, as in England, but a great deal of wickedness. As to Church principles, as some call them, he was no Sacramentarian , and denounces Romanism in no measured terms, but is still conservative. He admitted Mr. Whitefield into his pulpit, but, on hearing that the Bishop of London had proscribed him, made a kind of apology for it, and asked the Bishop's opinion about him.
ARTICLE XII.
Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.-No. 2.
WE have now to consider Mr. Blair as Commissary, and having, with the Governors, the superintendence of the clergy and the affairs of the Church; as representative of the Bishop of London, with no defined limits of authority; as the founder and President of William and Mary College, having joint action, with visitors, professors, and others, in all things belonging to the College, and of course often coming in collision with them; as member of the Council, consulting and deciding with the Governor and others - the first men of Virginia - on all the concerns of the State, civil and religious, and forming the great judicial body to whom all important causes were referred
for final decision. That a man of his active character and superior mind should, for more than half a century, have been thus associated in matters of such importance, without frequent collision and without having many enemies, is not to be supposed. That he should be charged with worldliness and management, with being an informer to the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he must have had intimate correspondence, was to be expected; that he should be misunderstood by many, and be very unpopular with some good men, through that misunderstanding, and perhaps through want of conciliatory manners, and a tact in the management of men:-all these things might be expected. He was involved in difficulties with Governors and clergymen, more or less, during almost the whole period of his Commissaryship and Presidency of the College. I have the whole of these controversies spread before me in long and tedious letters, from himself and his opponents, to the authorities in England, which have never been published. His first controversy was with Governor Andros, who came to Virginia, under no good character, from New York. By royal instructions Andros was not only Governor of Virginia, but the ordinary, the representative of the King and Bishop of London in Church matters, the Commissary being comparatively a very negative character. Where these complaints were made, which ended in his disgrace. Dr. Blair, then in England, about his College, preferred the charges against him as an enemy to religion, to the Church, the clergy, and the College, bringing proofs of the same. The charges cover thirty-two folio pages of manuscript, and are well written. But Blair had formidable foes to meet in London. Governor Andros sends over in his defence Colonel Byrd, of Westover, Mr. Harrison, of Surry, Mr. Povey, a man high in office in the Colony, and a Mr. Marshall, to arraign Dr. Blair himself before the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Two days were spent in Lambeth Palace in the examination. The charges and the answers are set down, and fill up fifty-seven folio pages of manuscript. Never were four men more completely foiled by one. The accusers seem to feel and acknowledge it, and doubtless wished themselves out of Lambeth Palace long before the trial was over. One of the chief charges was Mr. Blair's partiality to Scotchmen, whom they said he -brought over to fill the churches, contrary to the wishes of the people. But, being called on to specify names, it was found that they had made egregious blunders as to facts; that some whom they supposed to be Scots were Englishmen. Great was the prejudice against Mr. Blair, as being a Scot. This was the time when that unhappy feeling was at its height in England, when a "beggarly Scot" was the common phrase. A number of the private letters which I have show the prejudice to have been very strong. The result of it all was, that Mr. Blair came home with a good sum of money for his College, and Andros was sent back to England to stand his trial, from which he came out but badly. Governor Nicholson succeeded him. He had been Deputy-Governor before Andros came over, and there was then a good understanding and friendship between him and Mr. Blair. During the government of Andros he was Governor of Maryland, and disagreed with the good Commissary Bray not a little. On returning to Virginia he seemed to be a changed man. A disappointment in love was thought to have much to do with it. He was vain, conceited, fickle, passionate, and acted sometimes like a madman, though still professing great zeal for the Church. After a year or two Dr. Blair and himself were open foes. Letters on both sides were written to England. Blair wrote four, covering in all forty-four pages folio, charging him with interfering with his province and with private and public misconduct: dwelling on his furiousness in relation to the affair of Miss Burwell, and the Rev. Mr. Fouace. The Council and some of the clergy joined with him in petitioning the recall of Nicholson, which petition was successful. The Church and State were in an uproar. A number of the clergy, with whom Mr. Blair was unpopular, and whom Mr. Nicholson had ingratiated by taking part with them against the vestries and representing Mr. Blair as less favourable to their cause, took part with Mr. Nicholson. Mr. Nicholson ordered a Convocation to be assembled for general purposes, and during its sitting had private meetings of those friendly to him, at his house or lodging, who signed a paper denying the charges of Mr. Blair and the Council. A great dinner or supper was given them at the hotel in Williamsburg, which was satirized in a ballad, in which their hilarity was set forth, and some of them depicted in rather unfavourable colours. It soon appeared in London. Mr. Blair, with his few friends, however, (for a large majority of the clergy present were against him,-17 to 6,) triumphed again, and Mr. Nicholson was recalled. In his place Mr. Nott, an amiable man, came out, and the Bishop of London sent with him a severe-letter to the clergy, begging them not " to play the fool any more." Mr. Nott died in a short time, much esteemed and regretted.
In 1710, Colonel Spottswood was appointed Governor,-an old soldier, a man of resolute character, of liberal views on many points, but a most ultra man for the royal prerogative, and for the transfer of it to the Governor of Virginia. For some years he and Mr. Blair agreed well. They both were in favour of efforts for the Indians. Mr. Blair advocated the Governor's favourite enterprise, - the ascending the Blue Eidge and looking upon the valley beyond. At length the Governor became unpopular with the House of Burgesses for some measures supposed to be high-handed, and again Colonel Byrd is sent over, with others, to bring charges against him, and was more successful than in the case of Mr. Blair. About this time Governor Spottswood got into a difficulty with the vestry of St. Anne's parish, Essex, on the subject of the rights of the vestries and Governors in the matter of induction, in which lie claims higher powers than had ever been claimed before. The Rev. Hugh Jones had been in England and reported some things to the Bishop of London unfavourable to the rubrical exactness of Mr. Blair and others; and evil reports also as to the moral character of some of the clergy were rife in the mother- country. In 1719 the Bishop of London addressed a letter to the Governor and Commissary, directing a convocation of the clergy to receive a communication from him. At their meeting the letter is read. It referred to some reports as to the evil conduct of the clergy and the violation of the rubrics. Commissary Blair opens the meeting with a sermon and address. The Governor calls upon him for his sermon, which he immediately sent. The Governor was offended at something in it touching Government. Perhaps the Commissary, even at that day, had a little of the spirit of American independence in him. The Governor also sends in an address to the clergy in reference to the Bishop of London's letter, which he had previously read. He opens with a direct assault on Commissary Blair, saying that he knew of no clergyman who transgressed the rubrics except the Commissary, who sometimes let a layman read the service for him in church, and even the burial-service in his presence, and wished to establish lay-readers in the parishes. He also charged him with injuring the clergy by opposing their induction, &c. To all this the Commissary had an easy answer. Once or twice, when unable to go through the service through sickness, he had gotten a lay-reader to assist him. On some occasion he may have passed the churchyard when a clerk or lay-reader was burying some one,-a thing very common in Virginia at that time by reason of the scarcity of clergymen, and when lay-readers were common and commanded by law. As to the discouraging of induction, he shows that he had always advised it; but that the vestries would not present ministers for this purpose to the Governor, and that the Governors would not use the privilege granted and perform the duty enjoined upon them by the royal institution,-viz.: after six months vacancy to present and induct if the vestry did not supply the place. As to his own example, he said that he could not help it, for the vestry in Williamsburg would not present him to the Governor for induction: and that he, (the Governor,) though on the spot, had never remonstrated against it, but, on the contrary, when he communicated the fact of his election to the Governor he only received the assurance of the pleasure it gave him; not one word being said about induction. The manuscript of the journal of this convocation is before me, covering some forty or fifty pages. Neither this nor any other journal of the Colonial convocation has ever been in print. It is one of the most interesting documents of the kind I ever read,
and exhibits in a clearer light the true condition of the Church, and character of the clergy, and peculiarities of the two great combatants, Spottswood and Blair, than can be seen anywhere else. The whole history of the dispute about induction is also there seen. The persevering determination of the vestries as to their defensive measures, and the fearfulness of the Governor, the Council, the Bishop of London, and the Crown, to come into collision with the vestries, is there plainly seen. Though the vestries
doubtless often made the position of the ministers a painfully-precarious one, and that doubtless prevented some good men from coming over, yet these were lesser evils than would result from allowing the Governor to be the patron of all the livings, with authority to send to and keep in parishes any and all whom he should choose. So interesting and instructive is this journal beyond that of any meeting ever held by the clergy of Virginia, that I shall subjoin the document in an appendix. There is one question,
proposed by the Bishop of London, which was very difficult to be managed,-viz.: whether any of them knew of the existence of evil livers among the clergy. It was first proposed in the meeting from the chair. The answer was, that none of them were personally acquainted with any notorious evil livers, and the same was introduced into an answer to the Bishop of London, drawn up by the committee. It was a trying question, and was doubtless evaded by denying that they were personally acquainted with such. It is probable that the notorious evil livers did not attend convocations, especially this, as they might have heard the special object of it. As this seems to be a proper place for considering this painful question, I will adduce from letters addressed to the Bishop of London, from Governor Drysdale, Dr. Blair, and others, some passages which may give us a correct view of it. In 1723, Mr. Blair, in writing to-the Bishop of London, says:-
"Bishop Compton directed me to make no further use of my commission than to keep the clergy in order; so that I have never pretended to set up any spiritual court for the laity, though there are enormities among them which want to be redressed; and, as to the clergy, unless they are notoriously scandalous, I have found it necessary to content myself with admonitions; for, if I lay them aside by suspension, we have no unprovided clergymen to put in their place. At present we have about ten vacancies and no minister to supply them."
He complains of the precariousness of the ministers, by reason of their dependence from year to year on new elections by the vestries. "This (he says) has gone on so long, by the connivance of Governors, that though our present Governor (Drysdale) is very willing of himself to redress it, yet thinks it not prudent to do it without an instruction from his Majesty." Dr. Blair wished the Governor, when a vacancy of more than six months occurred, to send and induct a minister, as by law directed. But neither the Governors-not even the brave Spottswood-dared to do it, nor did his Majesty dare order it to be done. In another letter from Mr. Blair to a worthy clergyman, Mr. Forbs, he says:-
"I met with the Rev. Mr. Baylye (the one referred to by Governor Spottswood) and admonished him pretty sharply, but I do not hear that it has had the desired effect. I doubt I must proceed to greater severity with him, and some others. But the difficulty is to find proof; there being many who will cry out against scandalous ministers, who will not appear as evidences against them. I hear a very bad character of Mr Worthen, and I understand that you have mentioned him in a letter to the Governor. T shall take it kind if you will help me to any clear proofs of those scandals; for, although for want of clergymen to fill the vacancies I prefer to lean to the gentle than to the severe side, yet certainly the behaviour of some men is so flagrant, that we had better be without ministers than to be served with such as are scandals to the
Gospel. I wish you your health and success in the ministry, in which you set so good an example."
In a letter to the Bishop of London, in 1724, on the same subject, he says, "I have never made but two examples (that is, of withdrawing their licenses during the Bishop's pleasure) in all the time I have been Commissary, now thirty-four years; and, indeed, for want of clergymen, we must bear with those we have much more than we should do." In the same year a joint letter from Governor Drysdale and Mr. Blair, and others from worthy clergymen, confirm the above. About the same time, several lengthy communications are sent over to England, containing schemes for a supply of more and better ministers for Virginia, and offering some suggestions as to their government and discipline. The reigning vice among the clergy at that time was intemperance; as it probably has been ever since both among the clergy and laity of all denominations, having given great trouble to the Church of every age. The difficulty of proof is stated in one of these schemes for reformation ; and the following mortifying tests of intoxication are proposed to the Bishop of London, for the trial of the clergy in Virginia. They were these:
"Sitting an hour or longer in the company where they are drinking strong drink, and in the mean time drinking of healths , or otherwise taking the cups as they come round, like the rest of the company ; striking, and challenging, or threatening to fight, or laying aside any of his garments for that purpose ; staggering, reeling, vomiting; incoherent, impertinent, obscene, or rude talking. Let the proof of these signs proceed so far, till the judges conclude that the minister's behaviour at such a time was scandalous, indecent, unbecoming the gravity of a minister."
It was found then, as it ever has been, that one great source of the scandal brought upon the Church of God by the intemperance of clergy and laity, is to be found in the difficulty not only of witnesses and prosecutors, but of deciding when excitement from intoxicating liquors has reached that point which must be regarded as the sin of drunkenness. And what an argument this should be with both clergy and laity, but especially the former, to abstain altogether, lest they should appear to be, or be charged with, or suspected of this sin!
I have thus brought to a close my remarks on the chief incidents in the life of Dr. Blair, and the peculiar points of his character. Our impression of him is, that, though he could not be otherwise than busy, considering all the offices he held and the relation he bore to others, yet that the charge brought against him by some, that he was too busy, had truth in it. His most minute details of things said and done, in his long and tedious though well-written letters to England furnish proof of this. Still, we must esteem him a sincere Christian and a most laborious man in the performance of duty in all his official relations. The College owed its existence to him, and was probably as well managed by him as times and circumstances allowed; and it is probable that his faithful preaching and correct moral deportment did much to stem that torrent of wickedness which, in his day, flowed over England and America. Few men ever contended with more difficulties or surmounted them better than Dr. Blair. Few clergymen ever were engaged with such fierce opponents in high stations, and who not only bore up manfully against them, but actually overcame them. Governors of distant provinces have ever been proverbially corrupt and tyrannical men. Such were Andros and Nicholson. Spottswood was a nobler spirit, but he was brought up a soldier, and rose to high command in the English army, and had there learned both to obey and command. As Governor of Virginia, he thought it was his province to command, and that of all others to obey; but Dr. Blair thought there were limits to submission. They were both of them benefactors to Virginia. Had there been many such before and after, it would have been well for the State. Of Dr. Blair I have nothing more to say, but that, in a letter from Governor Gooch to the Bishop of London, at his death, he informs him that the Commissary left his library and five hundred pounds to the College, and ten thousand pounds to his nephew and the children of his nephew, besides some smaller legacies. His nephew was Mr. John Blair, who was so long President of the Council, and whose character was of the highest order. The son of this John Blair (whose name was also John) was distinguished as a patriot, statesman, and jurist. He represented the College of William and Mary in the House of Burgesses for a long time, took an active part in all the Revolutionary movements, was a member of the great Convention which met to revise the Articles of Confederation, and, finally, was one of the Supreme Federal Court.
GOVERNOR SPOTTSWOOD AND HIS FAMILY.
The following sketch has been furnished me, at my request, by one of the descendants in Virginia, and I take pleasure in adding it to this article.
"Sir Walter Scott, in his History of Scotland, says :
"'The Parliament, consisting entirely of Covenanters, instigated by the importunity of the clergy, condemned eight of the most distinguished Cavaliers to execution. Four were appointed to suffer at St. Andrew's, that their blood might atone for the number of men (said to exceed five thousand) which the county of Fife had lost during the Montrose wars. Lord Ogilvey was the first of these, but that young nobleman escaped from prison and death in his sister's clothes. Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, one of the best soldiers and bravest men in Europe, and six other Cavaliers of the first distinction, were actually executed. We may particularly distinguish the fate of Sir Robert Spottswood, who, when the wars broke out, was Lord-President of the Court of Sessions, and accounted a judge of talent and learning He had never borne arms; but the circumstance of having brought Montrose his commission of Captain-General of Scotland was thought quite worthy of death, without any further act of treason against the estates. When, on the scaffold, he vindicated his conduct with the dignity of a judge and the talent of a lawyer, he was silenced by the Provost of St. Andrew's, who was formerly a servant of his father's when Prelate of that city. The victim submitted to that indignity with calmness, and betook himself to his private devotions: he was soon in this last act interrupted by the Presbyterian minister in attendance, who demanded of him if he desired the benefit of his prayers and those of the assembled people. Sir Robert replied, that he earnestly desired the prayers of the people, but rejected those of the speaker; for that, in his opinion, God had expressed his displeasure against Scotland by sending a lying spirit into the mouth of the prophets, a far greater curse than those of tire, sword, and pestilence. An old servant of his family took care of his body and buried him privately; and it is said of the faithful domestic, that, passing through the market-place a day or two afterwards, and, seeing the scaffold still standing and stained with his master's blood, he was so much affected that he sunk down in a swoon and died as they were lifting him over his own threshold '"
"His son, Alexander Spottswood, was aide-de-camp to the Duke of Marlborough. Afterward, he was Governor of Virginia. He married Jane Butler, sister of the Duke of Ormond, by whom he had two sons-John and Robert; and two daughters-Catherine and Dorethea: Catherine married Bernard Moore, and Dorethea, Nathaniel Dandridge. Robert was killed by the Indians ou an expedition with his father beyond the Alleghanies. Whom John, my grandfather, married, I am not certain; but I think she was Mary Dandridge, the sister of Nathaniel Dandridge. He had two sons-Alexander and John; and two daughters-Mary and Ann. Mary married Mr. Peter Randolph. John married Mary Rouzey, of Essex
county, by whom he hail numerous children. Alexander (my father) married Elizabeth Washington, daughter of Augustine Washington, and niece of General George Washington, by whom he had seven children, myself the youngest. My father was a Brigadier-General in the Revolution: his brother John was a captain. I think I have given you a correct account of the genealogy of the Spottswood family. There is a difference in spelling the name in this and the Old World, the original name being spelt Spottiswood. "
Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (extract)
By Bishop William Meade, Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott Company. 1891, pgs 167-179
ARTICLE XIII.
Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.-No. 3.
WITH the death of Mr. Blair closed all conflicts, so far as is shown, between Commissaries and Governors. The Rev. William Dawson was chosen Commissary and President of the College,
while his brother, the Rev. Thomas Dawson, was called to the rectorship of the church, Mr. Gooch being Governor. All the letters of Governor Gooch and Commissary Dawson to the Bishop of London show them to be truly anxious to promote the best interests of the colony, though many difficulties seem to have impeded its prosperity and prevented a supply of worthy ministers. One thing is set forth in praise of William and Mary College, which we delight to record,-viz.: that the hopes and designs of its founders and early benefactors, in relation to its being a nursery of pious ministers, were not entirely disappointed. It is positively affirmed by those most competent to speak, that the best ministers in Virginia were those educated at the College and sent over to England for ordination. The foreigners were the great scandal of the Church. No vigilance on the part of the Bishop of London, the Governor or Commissaries, could altogether prevent this. Nor was the discipline exerted over the clergy, whether foreign or domestic, calculated to be a terror to evil-doers. We have seen what Dr. Blair acknowledged as to his forbearance; and yet there was more of clerical discipline under his supervision than at any subsequent period. We read of none under the first of the Dawsons. When Mr. Thomas Dawson, who succeeded his brother as Commissary, (Mr. Stith being called to the Presidency of the College, was in office, a most flagrant case called so loudly for notice that Governor Dinwiddie summoned the offender (the Rev. Mr. Brunskill, of Prince William) to Williamsburg, and on trial dismissed him from his parish. Mr. Dawson, however, shrunk from the proceeding, expressing a doubt whether they were authorized to exercise discipline. If what his successor, Mr. Robinson, stated to the Bishop of London be true, there must have been a secret consciousness of unworthiness which operated upon the mind of Mr. Dawson,-viz.: that he himself in his latter years became addicted to drink, to such an extent that the Visitors of the College arraigned him for it, but let it pass on the plea that his troubles in office, as President and Commissary, so pressed upon him as to make him resort to this wretched refuge for consolation. It was in the time of the first of these brothers that the troubles about the Rev. Mr. Davis, the Presbyterian minister, took place; and in the time of the second, that the great tobacco-question agitated the Church and State, and about each of which I shall have something to say in the proper place. The huge folio volume of manuscripts from Lambeth and Fulham Palaces which lie before me contains a number of letters and memorials on these subjects from which to draw materials. At the death of the second Mr. Dawson, the Rev. William Yates, of Gloucester, one of that family which so abounded in ministers, succeeded to the rectorship (sic) of the church and Presidency of the College, while the Rev. William Robinson, of King and Queen, was made Commissary. Mr. Yates, dying in 1764, was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. Horrocks, in the College and the church, and about the same time, at the death of Commissary Robinson, he was appointed to that office also.
In the year 1771, a meeting of the clergy was called by Mr. Horrocks, at the request of some of the Northern clergy, to consider the subject of applying for an American Episcopate. The desirableness of this, in order to complete the organization of our Church for the benefit of Episcopalians, without requiring others to be subjected to it, had been felt by its friends on both sides of the water for a long time. Various plans had been proposed for its accomplishment; but difficulties, civil and religious, (of whose force it is impossible that we, at this distance of time, should be proper judges,) interposed and prevented. Enemies to the scheme, both in England and America, were always ready to rise up against it with political and religious objections. At length, when Episcopalians began to increase in the Middle and Northern States, (though still a small band,) the press was resorted to in advocacy of the measure. Dr. Chandler, an eminent divine of our Church in New Jersey, took the lead in defence of the measure. An effort was made to combine the Episcopalians of Virginia with those of the North, in a petition to the throne for an American Episcopate. Mr. Horrocks, the Commissary of Virginia, induced by various pressing letters from the North, called a convocation of the clergy, to be held in Williamsburg on the 4th of May, 1771, without mentioning the object of it. But few attended, and they, on being informed of the object, determined that it was too grave a matter to be decided on by so small a number, and that another call should be made, specifying the object of the meeting. Another call was accordingly made for the 4th of June, when only twelve appeared, a smaller number than before, although many more than these lived very near the place of assemblage, and about one hundred were in the diocese. There must, of course, have been some serious objection, in the minds of the great body of the clergy, to taking any
part in it, for the subject was not new, having been under discussion for some time in the Northern papers. After some deliberation, it was determined not to address the crown, but to ask advice of the Bishop of London,-the good Bishop Porteus,-who, in a sermon, recommended the measure, but only in the event of the Government, in its wisdom, favouring the plan. It was thought proper, therefore, first to apply to him as the Diocesan and the warm friend of Virginia, where his parents had resided and he was perhaps born. This was passed by a unanimous vote. And yet, by one of those. unaccountable revolutions which sometimes takes place in public bodies, before the final adjournment, the question was reconsidered, the vote reversed, and a direct petition to the King determined upon, two only dissenting, who were afterward joined by two others in a protest, with the reasons thereof. It was resolved that the votes of a majority must be obtained in some other way. But we hear nothing more of it. This protest of the Rev. Messrs. Gwatkin and Henly, Professors in the College, and Bland and Hewitt, ministers of parishes, called forth a pamphlet from the united Conventions of the clergy of New York and New Jersey in condemnation, and a reply of the protesters in defence. These were followed by various others, of the most severe and bitter character, by different persons in the Northern and Middle States. I have seen them all bound up in a number of volumes, and read some of them. Many of those, in small pamphlets or in newspapers, were written by those of other denominations, who were entirely opposed to the introduction of Episcopacy; and I feel confident that the Stamp Act, and the tax on tea and other articles, did not draw forth more violent denunciations and threatenings than were spread throughout the Northern States against this proposal. All New England was in a flame. It may well appear strange that so many Episcopal clergyman as were in Virginia should appear indifferent to a measure so suitable and necessary to the perfect organization and effectual working of our system, and it is right that their reasons, not only for indifference, but even opposition, should be stated. It appears, from what was written in their defence, that there was but one opinion as to the propriety and desirableness of the object, but only diversity as to the time and manner of effecting it. It was declared that all things were unfavourable to it at that time. The difficulties about the Stamp Act were not over. There was a root of bitterness still remaining in consequence of some deceptive measures charged on the British ministry in connection with its repeal. Other causes of dissatisfaction were arising. There was a filial feeling in Virginians toward the mother-country and Church, which made them averse to war and separation, and they wished to avoid every thing which would hasten it; and yet there was a strong and firm determination not to continue the union except upon honourable terms. Their just rights they would maintain at all hazards. They believed that the
proposition for an American Episcopate, no matter how modified the plan, was so offensive to all other Protestant bodies, both in this country and England, that, united with other causes which were increasing every day, it must decide the question of war if agreed to. The violent tones of the press on this subject were enough to justify the apprehension. But there was another very general source of fear throughout the land. It was believed that if Bishops should be sent they would be men, like the Governors, favouring the royal pretensions instead of American rights, and thus weakening the cause of proper independence. On this account, Bishop White, in his Memoirs, expresses the belief " that it would have been impossible to have obtained the concurrence of a respectable number of laymen in any measure for obtaining an American Bishop." lie appeals to the conduct of Virginia, where, if anywhere in the land, such concurrence might be expected. And yet, nowhere was opposition greater than in Virginia, and among Episcopalians, under existing circumstances. We have seen the jealousies of the vestries as to the attempt of Governors and wishes of Commissaries and clergy to deprive them of the right to choose and displace their own ministers. The Governors
claimed to be Bishops, or in the place of Bishops, and to have the right of inducting ministers for life, and, in many instances, of choosing them and presenting them. If Bishops should be sent, they would assuredly claim as much, if not more, and be more likely to obtain it, and also to have greater power of discipline. The laity, therefore, were on this account fearful of the experiment, and preferred losing the benefit of the rite of confirmation for a time, than be saddled with a power greater than Governors Commissaries had been able to erect. In proof of this general aversion of the laity in Virginia to the proposal of a Bishop or Bishops, we find that soon after the small meeting of the clergy at Williamsburg which voted a petition to the Crown, the House of Burgesses met and unanimously passed a vote of thanks to the few who protested for the course they pursued. The thanks were carried them by two gentlemen whose attachment to the Church cannot be questioned,-Colonel Bland and Richard Henry Lee, the latter of whom was our most active agent with the Court of St. James in obtaining our Episcopacy immediately after the Revolution. In proof that it was not a want of due regard to the Episcopal office, but a conviction that it could not be obtained in such a manner at that time as to comport with our civil and religious liberties, which made the Virginia laity and very many of the clergy to object, we would mention the fact that, so soon as we were free to establish it on right principles, the very men who, in the House of Burgesses and elsewhere, were most opposed to it, now came forward to our Episcopal Convention and zealously advocated the establishment of Episcopacy. There can be no doubt that the general feeling of the nation, and of no part of it more than of Virginia, was that America was destined to independence, though it was not wished to hasten it by a bloody war. Can any one doubt that the thought was often in the minds of our truest men, that the time for establishing our Episcopacy would not be until we could do it untrammelled by our connection with and subjection to England? She, said some, is illy (sic) able to establish her own Episcopacy aright, much less one for us. Trammelled as the Church of England is by the State, her Bishops are almost powerless for discipline, so complicated and expensive the machinery by which they must exercise it. Few as were the instances of clerical discipline under our Commissaries and Governors, it was believed that they
were far more numerous than during the same period under the Bishops of England; and if we had Bishops, they of course must be governed by the same laws as in England, whereas the Governor,
acting under some general instruction from the crown, has more liberty, especially when such a spirit as that of Spottswood ruled the Colony. A candid investigation of the whole subject will therefore lead to the same conclusion to which Dr. Hawks, an able jurist as well as eloquent divine and faithful historian, did, when he say.-, in his work on Virginia, "At this distance of time, it will probably be acknowledged that, on the question of expediency, the Virginia clergy judged wisely. In the temper of the times, the application could not but have proved unsuccessful: to make it, therefore, could only serve to exasperate a large portion of the Colonists, without the prospect of obtaining the end desired."
That the laity of Virginia, as represented by the Burgesses, had reason to complain of the attempt of the clergy to manage this delicate and important matter without any conference with them,
seeing that they were so deeply interested in the matter, cannot be denied. In their meeting was no lay element whatever. One of the protesters stated this, and proposed consulting with the Governor,
Council, and Burgesses; but one of the leaders of the measure acknowledged that they would certainly be opposed to it, and therefore objected to the reference. The protesters, in their defence (sic), make use of this argument, and say that, to establish a measure of this kind, without the co-operation of the laity, would be to adopt the Popish system of a spiritual dominion within the State, entirely independent of it and dangerous to the liberties of the people. The lay element in England was the King, Parliament, and mixed courts; the lay element here had been the Governor and Council, House of Burgesses, and vestries; but now all those were dispensed with, and the clergy proposed to act without advice and independent of these,-that is, the few who adopted and
signed the petition; for the greater part stayed at home, well knowing the opposition of the laity. The protesters, in their reply, charge their opponents at the North with a leaning to the Non-juring (sic)
Bishops of Scotland, whom they call schismatics, and bid them, if they wished Bishops, apply to them, and thus set up a separate Church without the support of the State; but not to disturb the
peace of the land by endeavouring to involve the Government of England in the measure. They also intimate that some private objects-perhaps ecclesiastical aspirations-influenced the great
and sudden change in the meeting at Williamsburg. Mr. Camm had recently been disappointed in succeeding to the Commissary's place, at the death of Mr. Robinson, in consequence of some difficulties with Governor Dinwiddie; and Mr. Horrocks was suspected of some desires for the mitre. These were the leaders among the clergy. President Nelson, of York, writing to a friend in London at this time, says:-
"We do not want Bishops; and yet, from our principles, I hardly think we should oppose such an establishment. Nor will the laity apply for them,-Colonel Corbin having assured me that he has received no petition to be signed, nor any thing else about it from Dr. Porteus; but Mr. Horrocks, the Bishop of London's Commissary here, hath invited all the clergy of the Colony to meet him soon, in order to consider of an application for this purpose; which he tells me he has done in compliance with the pressing instances of some of the Episcopal clergy northward. This gentleman goes to England fur his health this summer: possibly a mitre may be his polar star, for we know that there is much magnetic virtue in such dignities, and I tell him he will be too late if he does not embark ???.* To which he, with the usual modesty on such occasions, replies , "Nulu Epitcopari.'" 1
1 I suppose he meant that the Government, if favourable to the measure, would give it to some one in England. It is a fact clearly proved by his own letters to Governor Hunter, of New York, that when at some previous period it was thought probable that a Bishop would be sent to America, Dean Swift wished and expected to be the Bishop.
As the clergy met in secret, the President could not then tell what they were about, but promises to write his friend hereafter. The vestry-book ceases in the year 1769, while Mr. Horrocks
was minister, all the leaves being filled up. Doubtless a new one was gotten and records made in it; but it is nowhere to be found. Mr. Horrocks was rector of the parish, President of the College, and Commissary as late as 1771. He was succeeded in all these by the Rev. John Camm, who continued until 1777, when Mr. Madison became President of the College.
We must here cease from the private history of the parish for a brief space, in order to introduce a memorable passage from the history of the State, which occurred within the bounds of this parish. The decisive step was now about to be taken by the Colonies in relation to the mother-country. They had denounced and renounced her as a cruel step-mother; they were about to take up arms and appeal to the God of battles to aid them in the defence of their just rights. The patriots of Virginia determined to do this with the most solemn forms of religion. On the 24th of May, 1774, the members of the Assembly, at their meeting in Williamsburg, after setting forth in a well-written preamble the condition of the country, the evils already oppressing us, the dangers to be feared, and their determination to assert our just rights, "resolved to set apart a day for fasting, humiliation, and prayer; and ordered that t?n members of the House do attend in their places, at the hour of ten in the morning, on the first day of June next, in order to proceed, with the Speaker and the mace, to the church in this city for the purpose aforesaid; and that the Rev. Mr. Price ?? requested to read prayers, and the Rev. Mr. Gwatkin to preach a sermon suitable to the occasion."
The following extract of a letter from George Mason, of Fairfax, a neighbour and friend of Washington, who was in Williamsburg at the time, though not a member of the House, (Washington being the delegate,) will show the religious feeling of the members. It is addressed to Martin Cockburn, one of his pious neighbours.
"Enclosed you have the Boston Trade Act and a resolve of our House of Burgesses. You will observe that it is confined to the members of their own House; but they would wish to see the example followed through the country; for which purpose the members, at their own private expense, are sending expresses with the resolve to their respective counties. Mr. Massie (the Minister of Fairfax) will receive a copy of the resolve from Colonel Washington; and, should a day of prayer and fasting be appointed in our county, please to tell my dear little family that I charge them to pay a strict attention to it, and that I desire my three eldest sons and my two oldest daughters may attend church in mourning, if they have it, as I believe they have."
This speaks well for the faith, and humble dependence on God, which dwelt in the breasts of our Virginia patriots. There were those, even then, among them, who had unhappily imbibed the infidel principles of France; but they were too few to raise their voices against those of Washington, Nicholas, Pendleton, Randolph, Mason, Lee, Nelson, and such like. And in proof that they were disposed to go further than mere prayer and fasting, a few years after, in the year 1778, when the American Congress added to their appointment of a day of prayer and humiliation, a condemnation of certain evil customs and practices as offensive to the God whose favour they sought to propitiate, we find our delegates, Richard Henry Lee and Marsden Smith, uniting with others in voting for and carrying the measure. The resolution is as follows:
"Whereas, true religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness, Resolved, that it be, and is, hereby earnestly recommended to the several States, to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof, and for the suppressing of theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, and gaming, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of manners."
Had there not been in all parts of our land a goodly number of our citizens of such a spirit and views, God might not have intrusted such a gift as national independence to our keeping. It is,
however, deeply to be lamented that the successful termination of the war. and all the rich blessings attending it, did not produce the rich blessings attending it, did not produce the gratitude to the Giver which was promised by the hearts of our people in the day of danger and supplication. The intimacy produced between infidel France and our own country, by the union of our arms against the common foe, was most baneful in its influence with our citizens generally, and on none more than those of Virginia. The grain of mustard-seed which was planted at Williamsburg, about the middle of the century, had taken root there and sprung up and spread its branches over the whole State, - the stock still enlarging and strengthening itself there, and the roots shooting deeper into the soil. At the end of the century the College of William and Mary was regarded as the hotbed of infidelity and of the wild politics of France. Strong as the Virginia feeling was in favour of the Alma Mater of their parents, the Northern Colleges were filled with the sons of Virginia's best men. No wonder that God for so long a time withdrew the light of his countenance from it.2
2 Many years before the war the College was in a most unhappy condition. The Visitors and the Faculty were at variance, as the following correspondence will show:-
Substance of a letter written by the Visitors to the Bishop of London, dated July 15, 1767.
They informed the Bishop that Dr. Halyburton, whom he had recommended to the Professorship of Moral Philosophy in the College, had arrived a few weeks before, when they had reason to expect him more than ten months ago. They fear that his Lordship had been imposed upon in regard to the qualifications of this person, whom, by his own confessions, they find was totally unqualified to discharge the duties of the Professorship. They say that Dr. H.'s letter "breathes so great levity, not to say profaneness, of sentiment," that they would think themselves unpardonable should they admit him to the College. They complain, also, that those have been frequently sent to them " who were extremely unfit for the employments assigned them:" and, on that account, the education of the youth has been very defective; "a natural consequence of which have been riots, contentions, and a dissipation of manners as unbecoming their characters as vitally destructive of the ends of their appointment." They quote the following from the letter of the Bishop, dated July 4, 170G:-"From the discouragements which have been in the College, and the power which the Visitors seem desirous of exerting, in displacing at their pleasure the Professors and Musters, it was no easy matter to prevail upon any person to enter upon so precarious situation." In reply to this, they said that they had censured some former Professors for immoralities and remissness in their duty: and, a few years since, some were deprived for their contumacious behaviour. They then go on to give an account of the contests between the Visitors and the Professors, arising out of the conflicting authority of the two bodies in the appointment of Ushers for the Grammar-School; and also on account of a statute enacted by the Visitors, prohibiting the Masters and Professors from engaging in any employment out of College without special permission. In justification of this statute they say that one Professor had engaged in the practice of medicine; that others had held parochial cures in the vicinity and at, greater distances, causing them to neglect their duties in College, and more particularly on Saturdays and Sundays, when the students, being left without any supervision, engaged in riotous conduct. According to that account of the matter, there had been a contest between the Visitors and Professors during the past twelve years, to the great detriment of the interests of the College. That now these differences are happily settled, and harmony in a degree restored; and they ask his Lordship to recommend to them suitable persons to fill the Professorships of Moral Philosophy and Mathematics; the salary to be £100 per annum, with board and lodgings, in the College building.
In reply to this letter, the Bishop exhorts them to bury all former animosities, and speaks of the difficulty of finding men qualified for Professorships, who would be willing to go to a distant and unhealthy country for an advance of thirty or forty pounds per annum beyond what they might receive at home.
By a statute of the Visitors, passed in 1770, provision is made for the salaries of eight undergraduates, of £30 per annum each; to be chosen, two each year, from the body of students, for their proficiency in learning and their exemplary conduct. They were to complete a full course of studies, probably including divinity, as the statute closes with these words:-" Let those who shall have completed this course of education and propose to go home for orders be entitled to a bounty of £50 sterling, for their encouragement and to defray the expenses of their voyage." In 1775, James Madison was allowed £50 by the Visitors, to defray his expenses in going to England for holy orders. In the year 1775, Messrs. Gwatkin and Henly returned to England. In the year 1777, Messrs. Camm, Jones, and Dixon have difficulties with the Visitors. The two latter resign, and Mr. Camm, denying the authority of the board, is displaced. Mr. Madison is made President
Brief must be our remaining notice of the ministry, the Church, and the Presidents of the College. Dr. Bracken became the minister in the year 1773, and continued so to be, in connection with the Professorship of Humanity in the College, until his death in 1818. Bishop Madison became President in 1777, and continued such until his death in 1812. After a temporary Presidency of one year by Dr. Bracken, Dr. Augustine Smith, a Virginian, and son of one of our most respectable clergymen, then the Professor in a Medical College in New York, was called to preside over the College. On entering upon its duties, he was conscious that the aid of heaven, through his Church and ministry, ought to be had in order to success, and therefore petitioned the now reviving Episcopal Church of Virginia to establish a Professorship of Divinity in the College. The result was, the sending the Rev. Dr. Keith for that purpose, who succeeded Dr. Bracken as minister of the parish, and made the experiment. After the trial of a few years, being satisfied that success could not attend the effort at that time he resigned, and became the head of the Seminary at Alexandria. Dr. Smith met with a good degree of success in increasing the number of the students, but not enough to encourage his continuance beyond the year 1826. At his resignation, the Rev. Dr. William H. Wilmer, of Alexandria, was called to the rectorship of the church and Presidency of the College, both of which he discharged with zeal and ability, and with considerable success, during one year, at the end of which he died of fever, deeply lamented by all the friends of the church and College. The means of awakening pious fervour in the friends of the Church and of converting the irreligious youth had never been so earnestly employed before his time. Besides the regular services of the Sabbath and temple, lectures, exhortations, and prayers were most earnestly used in private houses twice in the week, and well attended. It was hoped that a genuine revival of true religion was about to take place in the College and town. The first-fruits of it had already appeared. Nor did he rely on moral suasion alone to govern the youth, but, when occasion called, resorted to proper discipline. One instance is worthy of being recorded. At Williamsburg, as at some other places, it was thought to be an exploit, becoming students, to annoy all around by ringing the College bell or some other to which access could be had. The large bell of the old church, in the midst of the town, was resorted to for this purpose by some troublesome youths. After due warning and admonition, Dr. Wilmer determined to detect and punish the offenders. On the sound of the bell one night, he promptly reached the place, taking with him one of the chief citizens of the town, rather against his will. While the bell was still ringing, followed by his companion, he ascended in the dark the steps of the belfry leading up to the bell, not knowing who or how many he had to encounter, and, seizing on one of them, effectually secured him. Such resolution is not often to be found. At the death of Dr. Wilmer, the Rev. Dr. Empie was chosen his successor in both stations. He continued in them for eight or nine years, when he accepted a call to St. James Church, Richmond. As pastor and preacher he was admired, esteemed, and beloved, as he had been elsewhere before, and was in Richmond afterward. He still lives. His many and increasing infirmities of body amply justify his retirement from public service, and his many excellencies secure him the affection and esteem of all who know him. His place in the College was supplied by Mr. Dew, a Virginia gentleman, a graduate of the College, and a scholar. His amiable disposition, fine talents, tact at management, great zeal, and unwearied assiduity, were the means of raising the College to as great prosperity as perhaps had ever been its lot at since its first establishment, notwithstanding many opposing difficulties. To this we must make one exception,-viz.: as to the classical and mathematical departments, under some of the old and ripe scholars from England, before the Revolution. Mr. Dew being arrested by the hand of death in a foreign land, in the year 1846, the College was left in the temporary charge of Professor Saunders and Mr. Benjamin Ewell during the years 1847 and 1848, when, by an arrangement with the Episcopal Church of Virginia, the Visitors secured the services of Bishop Johns for a few years. During the five years of his continuance, notwithstanding the arduous labours of his Episcopal office, he so diligently and wisely conducted the management of the College as to produce a regular increase of the number of students until they had nearly reached the maximum of former times, established a better discipline than perhaps ever before had prevailed in the institution, and attracted more students of divinity to its lectures than had ever been seen there in the memory of any now living. At his resignation in 1854, Mr. Ewell resumed the government, and is now the President.
Renewing and concluding the list of the ministers of Williamsburg,- the Rev. Mr. Hodges succeeded Dr. Ernpie, and continued for many years to fill the pulpit and perform all the duties of the pastoral office most acceptably to the congregation. He was a great favourite with a congregation of coloured persons, who, though belonging to another denomination, preferred him as their minister; and to the uttermost of his physical abilities he did for many years act as such. At the resignation of Mr. Hodges, the Rev. Mr. Denison became their pastor, and continued such for a number of years. The Rev. George Wilmer, son of the former rector and President, is their present pastor.
List of vestrymen in the church at Williamsburg from the year 1674 to 1769:
Hon. Daniel Parke, Colonel John Page, James Besouth, Robert Cobb, Mr. Bray, Captain Chesley, Mr. Aylott, Hon. Thomas Ludwell, Hon. Thomas Ballard, James Vaux, William Korker, George Poindexter, Thomas Whaley, Captain Otho Thorpe, Captain Thomas Williams, Martin Gardiner, Daniel Wyld, Thomas Taylor, Christopher Pierson, Gideon Macon, Robert Spring, George Martin, Abraham Vinckler, Samuel Timson, John Ownes, Captain Francis Page, Thomas Pettus, Colonel Thomas Ballard, Ralph Graves, Captain James Archer, George Norvell, John Dormar, Edward Jones, Thomas Thorp, Daniel Parke, Jr., Hon. Edmund Jennings, Hugh Norvell, William Pinkethman, Henry Tyler, John Kendall, Baldwin Mathews, Philip Ludwell, Jr., Robert Crawley, Timothy Pinkethman, Joseph White, James Whaley, Hon. John Page, Jr., William Hansford, William Timson, Frederick Jones, David Bray. James Bray, Ambrose Cobb, James Hubard, Nathaniel Crowley, Matthew Pierce, John Custis, Henry Carey, John Holloway, Archibald Blair, Michael Archer, Baldwin Mathews, John Clayton, Lewis Burwell, David Bray, Jr., Thomas Jones, Samuel Timson, Sir John Randolph, George Nicholas, William Robertson, Hon. John Blair, Sen., Thomas Cobbs, Ralph Graves, Edward Barrdale, James Barber, Daniel Needier, James Bray, Jr., Henry Tyler, Jr., John Harmer, James Wray, Matthew Fierce, Edward Barradale, Jr., Benjamin Waller, William Parks, Peyton Randolph, William Prentiss, William Timson, Jr., John Holt, William Graves, Armstead Burwell, John Palmer, Pinkethman Eaton, Robert Carter Nicholas, Thomas Everard, Nathaniel Shields, Frederick Bryan, George Wythe, John Prentiss, John Power. William Eaton.
Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (extract)
By Bishop William Meade, Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott Company. 1891, pgs 180-193
ARTICLE XIV.
Williamsbury, Bruton Parish.-No. 4.
ACCORDING to promise, I proceed to some notices of a few of the vestrymen of Bruton parish. There are doubtless others equally worthy of praise, but I have no information from which
to speak. Mr. Daniel Parke, whose name stands first on the list of the first vestry in 1676, was from Surrey, England, and married a Miss Evelyn3 (3 If this Miss Evelyn whom Mr. Parke married was daughter or relative of the Mr. Evelyn whose name appears among the pious benefactors of that day in England, then was she connected with one of the truest friends of the Church of America. In all that was done by the two great societies for the promotion of Christianity in foreign lands,-the Propagation and Christian Knowledge Societies,-Mr. Evelyn was among the foremost. Of him, at his death in 1705, it is said. "Evelyn, full of years and honour, and breathing to the last the spirit of prayer and thankfulness, entered into his rest.")
A tablet of him was placed in the first church at Williamsburg, and afterwards was transferred to the second. He appears to have been a man of worth and distinction. Mr. John Custis, of Arlington, Northampton county, Eastern Shore of Virginia, married his daughter, and was also a vestryman. George Washington Parke Custis, of Arlington, Fairfax county, grandson of Mrs. General Washington, was descended from the above-mentioned Daniel Parke and John Custis. It could be wished that the record of Daniel Parke his son, whose name is also on the vestry-book, were as worthy of notice. He was indeed more notorious than his father, but for other reasons. He conceived a great dislike to Mr. Blair, the minister of Jamestown, the President of the College, and who was living near Williamsburg. Having no pew in the church at Williamsburg, his wife was indebted to the kindness of Mr. Ludlow, of Green Spring, whose daughter Mr. Parke married, for a seat. On a certain Sunday, Mr. Parke, determined to mortify Mr. Blair by insulting his wife, in his absence (and doubtless in the absence of Mr. Ludlow, who afterward complained of it) came into the church, and, rudely seizing Mrs. Blair by the arm, drew her out of the pew, saying she should not sit there, he was a man of great, violence of character, as otherwise appears. This is recorded in the archives of Lambeth, and speaks ill for the decorum and chivalry of the times. In the Rev. Mr. Anderson's Colonial History of this period, we have the following account of a Mr. Daniel Parke, which answers but too well to the foregoing:
"The offences of Parke's early life had compelled him to flee from Virginia, the land of his birth, to England, where he purchased an estate in Hampshire and obtained a seat in Parliament. Not long afterward, he was expelled the House for bribery; and the provocation of fresh crimes drove him again a fugitive to Holland, where he entered as a volunteer in the army of the Duke of Marlborough, and was made his aid-de-camp. He carried home, in a brief note written upon the field by Marlborough to his Duchess, the first tidings of the victory of Blenheim, and, through the interest which then prevailed at the Court of Anne, obtained the Government of Antigua. His arbitary and oppressive conduct in public matters and the gross licentiousness of his private life soon stirred up against him the hatred of all classes of its inhabitants. The home Government ordered his recall; but he, refusing to obey it, persisted with arrogant insolence in his course of tyranny. At length it could be endured no longer, and on the morning of the 7th of December, 1710, a body of five hundred men with numbers of the Assembly at their head, inarched to the Government House, determined to drive him from it by force. The orders of Parke that they should disperse, and the attempts of his enemies to negotiate, were alike fruitless. The attack was made, and resisted with equal violence by the soldiers and others whom Parke had summoned to his aid; but the assailants ill a few hours conquered, and Parke fell a victim to their fury. It was a lawless punishment of a lawless act, and excited great indignation in England, but the catalogue of Parke's offences had been so enormous, and the effusion of blood would have been so great had the sentence of capital punishment gone forth against all, or even the leaders of those who had been concerned in his violent death, that it was judged expedient to issue a general pardon."
Of old Mr. Page, who stands next to Colonel Daniel Parke the elder, I have already spoken. Early on the list of vestrymen was Mr. John Randolph, alias Sir John Randolph, who was the father of Mr. John Randolph and Mr. Peyton Randolph, all of whom were in succession Attorney-Generals of Virginia. The father is spoken of as a most eminent man in his profession, and of high character. His son Peyton Randolph was also a vestryman of the church, and gave early signs of a too independent spirit to be very acceptable to the English Government. Being sent over to England on account of some of our complaints, and speaking his mind too freely for the Court and Cabinet, he was displaced from his office, and his brother John, who had been acting in his absence, was installed. At the breaking out of the war, John went to England and was succeeded by his son Edmond. The former, bitterly repenting of his choice, died of a broken heart, and directed his remains to be brought back to Virginia. They are interred in the College Chapel. Mr. Peyton Randolph ever showed himself the warm and steady friend of the Church as well as of his country.
He went by the name of Speaker Randolph, being for a long time the presiding officer in the House of Burgesses. He was also chosen Speaker of the first, second, and third Congress, but suddenly died of apoplexy, during the last. He was buried for a time in Philadelphia, but afterward removed to Williamsburg. In connection with the foregoing notice of Mr. Peyton Randolph, I add something concerning his nephew and adopted son, Edmund Randolph, of whose religious sentiments I have spoken in a former number.
Extract from a paper written by Edmund Randolph, soon after the death of his wife, and addressed to his children.
"Up to the commencement of the Revolution, the Church of England was the established religion, in which your mother had been educated with strictness, if not with bigotry. From the strength of parental example, her attendance on public worship was unremitted (sic), except when
insuperable obstacles occurred; the administration of the sacrament was never without a cause passed by; in her closet, prayer was uniformly addressed to the throne of mercy, and the questioning of the sacred truths she never permitted to herself or heard from others without abhorrence. When we were united, I was a deist, made so by my confidence in some whom I revered, and by the labours of two of my preceptors, who, though of the ministry, poisoned me with books of infidelity. I cannot answer for myself that I should ever have been brought to examine the genuineness of Holy Writ, if I had not observed the consoling influence which it wrought upon the life of my dearest Betsey. I recollect well that it was not long before I adopted a principle which I have never relinquished: - that woman, in the present state of society, is, without religion, a monster. While my opinions were unsettled, Mr. _____ and Mr. _____came to my house on Sunday evening to play with me at chess. She did not appear in the room; and her reproof, which from its mildness was
like the manna of heaven, has operated perpetually as an injunction from above; for several years since 1 detected the vanity of sublunary things, and know that the good of man consisted in Christianity alone. I have often hinted a wish that we had instituted a course of family prayer for
the benefit of our children, on whose minds, when most pliant, the habit might be fixed. But I know not how the plan was not enforced, until during her last illness she and I frequently joined in prayer. She always thanked me after it was finished; and it grieves me to think that she should suppose that this enlivening inducement was necessary in order to excite me to this duty."
It is sad to think that ministers of the Gospel should contribute to infidelity by recommending the examination of infidel works. Who they were I am unable to ascertain. I have other reasons for knowing that infidelity, under the specious garb of Universalism, was then finding its way into the pulpit. Governor Page, Colonel Nicholas, and Colonel Bland made complaints against some one preaching in or near Williamsburg about this time, for advocating the doctrine with its usual associates, and prevented his preferment. The Rev. Mr. Yancey, of Louisa, also published a sermon on universal salvation, which has been recently republished by some of that school. A Rev. Mr. Tally, of Gloucester, taught the same, and afterward gave a fit comment on his doctrine by dying the death of the drunkard, as one informed me who closed his eyes. At such a time, when the writings of
French philosophers - falsely so called-were corrupting the minds of the Virginia youth, the testimony of such men as Peyton Randolph, Mr. R. C. Nicholas, Colonel Bland, President Nelson,
Governor Page, and the recovery of Edmund Randolph from the snare, has peculiar weight. In the worst of times, God never leaves himself without a witness.
There appears on the vestry-list the two names of George Nicholas and his son, Robert Carter Nicholas. The former came to this country a physician,-doubtless duly qualified. He married
the widow of Mr. Burwell, of Gloucester, a descendant of the Carters. His son, Robert C. Nicholas, was distinguished at the bar in Williamsburg, in the House of Burgesses, in the Council, as Treasurer of the State, and as a patriot in the Revolutionary War. But he had a higher praise than all these offices could give him; for he was a sincere Christian, and a zealous defender of the Church of
his fathers when he believed her rights were assailed. Mr. Hugh Blair Grigsby, in his eloquent description of the Burgesses of 1776, thus describes him:-
"He loved, indeed, a particular form of religion, but he loved more dearly religion itself. In peace or war, at the fireside, or on the floor of the House of Burgesses, a strong sense of moral responsibility was seen through all his actions. If a resolution appointing a day of tasting and prayer or acknowledging the providence of God in crowning our arms with victory, though drawn by worldly men with worldly views, was to be, it was from his hands, it was to be presented to the House, and from his lips came the persuasive words which fell not in vain on the coldest ears. Indeed, such was the impression which his sincere piety-embellishing as it did the sterling virtues of his character-made upon his own generation, that its influence was felt upon that which succeeded it; and when his youngest son, near a quarter of a century after his death, became a candidate for the office of Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, a political opponent, who knew neither father nor son, gave him his support, declaring that no son of the old Treasurer could be unfaithful to his country. Nor was his piety less conspicuous in a private sphere. Visiting, on one occasion, Lord Botetourt with whom he lived in the strictest friendship, he observed to that nobleman, 'My lord. I think you will be very unwilling to die;' and when asked what gave rise to that remark, 'Because,' said he, you are so social in your nature, and so much beloved, and have so many good things around you, that you must be loath to leave them." His lordship made no reply; but a short time alter, being on his death-bed, he sent in haste for Colonel Nicholas, who lived near the palace, and who instantly repaired thither to receive the last sighs of his dying friend. On entering his chamber, he asked his commands. 'Nothing,' replied his lordship, 'but to let you see that I resign those good things, of which you formerly spoke, with as much composure as 1 enjoyed them.' After which he grasped his hand with
warmth, and instantly expired."4 [4 Colonel Nicholas died at his estate in Hanover, leaving five sons,-George, who moved to Kentucky; Lewis, who lived in Albemarle; John, who moved to New York; Wilson Cary, who was member of the Senate find House of Representatives of the United States and Governor of Virginia; Philip Norborne, culled after Norborne, Lord Botetourt, his father's friend, and who, besides other offices, held that of Judge of the General Court. One of the daughters of Colonel Nicholas married Mr. Edmund Randolph: another Mr. John H. Norton, of Winchester. She was the mother of the Rev. Mr. Norton, a venerable minister of the Episcopal Church of New York, who has two sons in our ministry,-one in Virginia, the other in Kentucky.]
The children of R. C. Nicholas were blessed with a mother who was equally worthy. Let the following letter to her son, Wilson Gary Nicholas, on his entering public life, bear witness:-
"WlLLIAMSBURG, 1784.
DEAR WILSON:-I congratulate you on the honour your county has done you in choosing you their representative with so large a vote. I hope you are come into the Assembly without those trammels which some people submit to wear for a seat in the House,-I mean, unbound by promises to perform this or that job which the many-headed monster may think proper to chalk out for you; especially that you have not engaged to lend a last hand to pulling down the church, which, by some impertinent questions in the last paper, I suspect will be attempted. Never, my dear Wilson, let me hear that by that sacrilegious act you have furnished yourself with materials to erect a scaffold by which you may climb to the summit of popularity; rather remain in the lowest obscurity: though, I think, from long observation, I can venture to assert that the man of integrity, who observes one equal tenor in his conduct,-who deviates neither to the one side or the other from the proper line,-has more of the confidence of the people than the very compliant time-server, who calls himself the servant-and, indeed, is the slave-of the people. I flatter myself, too, you will act on a more liberal plan than some members have done in matters in which the honour and interest of this State are concerned; that you will not, to save a few pencil to your constituents, discourage the progress of arts and sciences, nor pay with so scanty a hand persons who are eminent in either. This parsimonious plan, of late adopted, will throw us behind the other States in all valuable improvements, and chill, like a frost, the spring of learning and spirit of enterprise. I have insensibly extended what I had to say beyond my first design, but will not quit the subject without giving you a hint, from a very good friend of yours, that your weight in the House will be much greater if you do not take up the attention of the Assembly on trifling matters nor too often demand a hearing. To this I must add a hint of my own, that temper and decorum is of infinite advantage to a public speaker, and a modest diffidence to a young man just entering the stage of life: the neglect of the former throws him off his guard, breaks his chain of reasoning, and has often produced in England duels that have terminated fatally. The natural effect of the latter will ever be procuring a favourable and patient hearing, and all those advantages that a prepossession in favour of the speaker produces. "
"You see, my son, that I take the privilege of a mother in advising you, and, be assured, you have no friend so solicitous for your welfare, temporal and eternal, as your ever-affectionate mother,
"ANNE NICHOLAS."
The author of the above letter was the daughter of Colonel Wilson Gary, of Hampton, a descendant of one of the first families who settled in the lower part of Virginia. Tradition says that Mrs. Nicholas, after the death of her husband, R. C. Nicholas, at his seat in Hanover, was visited by some British officers, and received them with great dignity. Her daughter-in-law, wife of her son George, and sister of Governor Samuel Smith, of Baltimore, being recognised by one of the officers as an old acquaintance in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, secured polite treatment for the family; but the officers, on discovering that there were some jewels and other valuables in the house, seized upon them and carried them off.
Although I have not continued the list of vestrymen beyond the period of the Revolution, there are two who must have been added to it soon after that event, of whom I wish to take a passing notice. The first of these is Mr. Burwell Bassett. His name may be seen on one or more of the earlier journals of the Church of Virginia, when it was first organized on the American platform. He is also to be seen, for a long time, as the representative of the Williamsburg district in the American Congress, and very often as filling the Speaker's chair in the absence of that officer. I knew him from my very boyhood as my father's friend and visitor. The name of Bassett is an ancient and honourable one on the page of Virginia history, and Mr. Burwell Bassett did not dishonour it. He was loved and esteemed for his integrity and friendly qualities. An anecdote was related to me, more than forty years ago, by that worthy man, Mr. Stanford, member of Congress from North Carolina, which showed his generosity of character. On a certain occasion, a poor old soldier of the Revolution presented himself in Washington and asked an alms of the members of Congress. Mr. Stanford, seeing something really touching and worthy in the case, undertook a collection for him in the hall of Congress. He was mortified at the refusal of some, and at the small and reluctant contribution of others, but when he came to Mr. Bassett the scene was changed. He was just receiving of some one a number of bank-notes, and, on the mention of the subject, immediately opened both his hands, in which he held the bank-notes, and said, "Certainly," bidding him take whatever he wanted. His hospitality was proverbial. You could do him no greater favour than to go to his house and take as many others with you as you pleased. He was, however, though a very ultra republican in theory, pertinacious in having his own way in some things. An instance of this was once displayed in the Board of Visitors of William and Mary College, with which he had been connected for a long time, and where his will had generally governed. On a certain occasion, when, after much debate, he failed to carry his point against the younger members, he left the room, shaking his coattail, instead of the dust of his feet, against them. The Board could not think of thus parting with their old friend, and, at the suggestion of one of their number, contrived that evening to let him know that they wished to dine with him next day. This was enough. A hospitable feast was given, and nothing more heard of the difference. The democratic principle of Mr. Bassett, united with this pertinacity of character, was also evident in his opposition to the canon of the Virginia Convention excluding from that body all non-communicants. He held that the vestries had a right to send whom they pleased, and that it was interfering with their fights to impose any conditions. He came to the Convention in Fredericksburg, at which the question was finally settled, and spoke nearly one whole day against it. Being old and infirm, when he was tired of standing he asked leave to sit, which was freely granted. From a seat in the middle aisle, near the chancel where the bishops sat, he still talked until toward the close of the day. As I had read a written (and afterward published) argument in its favour in the morning, his address was chiefly to myself, and in a very plain style; but we allowed him all liberties, and, at the close, passed the canon by a majority of two-thirds or more. His vestry, sympathizing with him or unwilling to differ, resolved to send no more delegates or contributions while this canon continued, and were encouraged in their course by the strictures upon our canon in two of our Northern Episcopal papers. Bishop Moore and myself did not change our relation to the parish, but continued to visit the congregation as usual, and said not a word to persuade the vestry to change their course. At the death of Mr. Bassett, not many years after, of its own accord a delegate was sent to the Convention, and all the back dues honourably sent with him. The kindness of Mr. Bassett to myself was increased during this period. He not only was most attentive to me when in Williamsburg, but, as I always came to it through New Kent, he would meet me in his carriage, more than twenty miles off, at old Colonel Macon's, and carry me thence to his hospitable home in Williamsburg, and, when my services there were ended, insist on sending me to the next point. From him I learned much of the character of the old church and its ministers.
MR. ROBERT SAUNDERS.
The other person to whom I alluded was the elder Mr. Robert Saunders, and father to the one of the same name now living in Williamsburg. Whether he was descended from either of the two
ministers of that name on the list of the Virginia clergy, (one of early date,) or related to them, I know not. Mr. Saunders was a lawyer of distinction in Williamsburg, and highly esteemed by Dr. Wilmer and Dr. Empie for his religious character. He furnished Dr. Hawks a lengthy statement about the Church in Virginia, and especially about the parish of Bruton. The following is his opinion of the conduct of the Virginia Legislature in relation to the sale of the glebes :-
"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.
CONCLUSION.
Some thoughts on the formation of the Virginia character, as displayed in the American Revolution and previously, may with propriety follow after the history of the Church and College at
Williamsburg, and the foregoing list of vestrymen. As London and the Universities were in one sense England, Paris and its University France, so Williamsburg, while it was -the seat of Government, and the College of William and Mary, were, to" a great extent, Virginia. Here her Governor and chief officers resided; here her Council often repaired and her Burgesses annually met. What was their character? Whence did their ancestors come, and who were they? Happily for the Colony, they were not Lords, or their eldest sons, and therefore heirs of lordship. With one or two exceptions, none such ever settled in Virginia. Neither were they in any great numbers the ultra devotees of kings,-the rich, gay, military, Cavalier adherent's of Charles I.,-or the non-juring believers in the divine right of kings, in the days of Charles II and of James II. Some of all these there were in the Colony, doubtless. Some dainty idlers, with a little high blood, came over with Captain Smith at
first, and more of the rich and high-minded Cavaliers after the execution of Charles I.; but Virginia did not suit them well enough to attract and retain great numbers. There was too much hard work to be done, and too much independence, even from the first, for those who held the doctrine of non-resistance and passive obedience to kings and others in authority, to make Virginia a comfortable place for them and their posterity. 5
[5 It may very properly be called a mixed basis of Cavaliers, of the followers of Cromwell and of the Pretender, and of the Huguenots, when persecuted and forced to fly for refuge to other lands; and also of many respectable persons at other times. The Test-Act, or subscriptions required of the vestrymen and other officers, shows that no encouragement was held out, either to the followers of Cromwell or of the Pretender, to expect honours and offices in Virginia. They always required allegiance to the established Government, except during the temporary usurpation of Cromwell. After the establishment of the House of Hanover, the Stuart Protenders and their followers were denounced in these test-oaths. Some specimens of these subscriptions, or oaths, are presented in our sketches. So that, probably not many of either extreme came to Virginia, where they were thus stigmatized and excluded from office unless on condition of abjuring their principles. Dr. Hawks, in his History of the Church in Virginia, says that its population before the protectorate of Cromwell was twenty thousand; after the restoration of monarchy,
thirty thousand. There were only ten thousand added in ten or twelve years. If we consider how many of this number were from natural increase in a new country, how many not of the Cavalier class had come over, and how many of that clasp returned on the accession of Charles II., it will not leave a large number to make an impression on the Virginia character. Most of those Cavaliers who, by their birth and talents, were most likely to make that impression, had gone to Surinam, Barbadoes , Antigua, and the Leeward Islands. These "were to be men of the first rate, who wanted not money or credit." (See Dr. Hawks's History, page 284.) After the restoration of monarchy, some of the followers of Cromwell came over to Virginia, but most probably in much smaller numbers than the Cavaliers had done, as they would not find so welcome a home, for the loyalty of Virginia at that timer cannot be questioned.
And yet we must not suppose that the opposite class-the paupers, the ignorant, the servile-formed the basis of the larger and better class of the Virginia population, when it began to develop its character at the Revolution, and, indeed, long before. These did not spring up into great men in a day or a night, on touching the Virginia soil. Some of the best families of England, Ireland, Scotland, and France, formed at an early period a large part of that basis. Noblemen and their elder sons did not come over; but we must remember how many of the younger sons of noblemen were educated for the bar, for the medical profession, and the pulpit, and turned adrift on the world to seek their own living, without any patrimony. Some of those, and many more of their enterprising descendants, came to the New World, especially to Virginia, in search of fortune and honour, and found them here. Numbers of Virginia families, who are almost ashamed or afraid in this republican age to own it, have their genealogical trees, or traditionary records, by which they can trace their line to some of the most ancient families in England, Scotland, Ireland, and to the Huguenots of France. Where this is not the case, still they can derive their origin from men of education, either in law, physic, or divinity, which things were too costly in the old countries to be gotten by the poorer classes, except in some few instances where charity was afforded. Ministers could not generally be ordained without degrees from Cambridge, Oxford, Dublin, or Edinburgh. Lawyers studied at the Temple Bar in London; physicians at Edinburgh. For a long time Virginia was dependent for all these professional characters on English education. Those who came over to this country poor, and ignorant, and dependent, had few opportunities of elevating themselves; as has been happily the case since our independence, by reason of the multiplication of schools and colleges, and of all the means of wealth which are now open to us. Sir William Berkeley in his day rejoiced that there was not a free school or printing-press in Virginia, and hoped it might be so for a hundred years to come; and perhaps it was not much otherwise as to schools. In the year 1723, the Bishop of London addressed a circular to the clergy of Virginia, then somewhat over forty in number, making various inquiries as to the condition of things in the parishes. One of the questions was, "Are there any schools in your parish?" The answer, with two or three exceptions, (and those in favour of charity-schools,) was, none. Private schools at rich gentlemen's houses, kept perhaps by an unmarried clergyman or candidate for Orders, were all the means of education in the
Colony, and to such the poor had no access. Another question was, "Is there any parish library?" The answer invariably was none; except in one case, where the minister replied, "We have the Book of Homilies, the Whole Duty of Man, and the Singing Psalms." Such were the answers from thirty clergymen, whose responses I have before me.6 [ 6 Even the little establishment of Huguenots at Manakintown, whose compact settlement so favoured education, and whose parentage made its members to desire it, was so destitute, that about this time one of their leading men, a Mr. Sallie, on hearing that the King was about to establish a colony in Ireland for the Huguenots, addressed him a letter begging permission to be united to it, saying that there was no school among them where their children could be educated.]
If "knowledge be power," Virginia was, up to that time, so far as the poor were concerned, but a barren nursery of mighty men. Would that it had been otherwise, both for Church and State! Education was confined to the sons of those who, being educated themselves, and appreciating the value of it, and having the means, employed private teachers in their families, or sent their sons to the schools in England and paid for them with their tobacco. Even up to the time of the Revolution was this the case with some. General Nelson, several of the Lees and Randolphs, George Gilmer, my own father and two of his brothers, and many besides who might be mentioned, just got back in time to prepare for the Revolutionary struggle. The College of William and Mary, from the year 1700 and onward, did something toward educating a small portion of the youth of Virginia, and that was all until Hampden Sydney, at a much later period, was established. But let any one look at the published catalogue of William and Mary, and see how few were educated there from 1720 to the Revolution, and let him notice who they were. Let him also examine whatever lists of Burgesses, Henning's volumes and the old Virginia almanacs furnish, and he will see who they were that may be considered the chief men of Virginia. I have been recently examining another set of records "which show who were considered her first men. I allude to the vestry elections; and nine times in ten we are confident one of their body was the delegate. They were the ruling men of the parishes,-the men of property and education. As we have said before, from an early period they were in training for the Revolution, by the steady and ever-successful struggle with Commissaries, Governors, Bishops of London, and the Grown, on the subject of the calling and induction of ministers. They also spoke through the House of Burgesses, which was made up of themselves. We will venture to affirm that very few of the statesmen of the Revolution went into it without this training. Even Mr. Jefferson, and Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief of Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one in Williamsburg, the other
in Albemarle; for they wished to be men of influence. In some of the communications to England, the vestries are complained of by the clergy as the aristocratic bodies,-the twelve lords or masters of the parishes; and they did sometimes, I doubt not, rule the poor clergy with a rod of iron; but they were not the men to truckle to George III., Lord North, or the Parliament. Well did Mr. Burke, in his celebrated speech on American affairs, reply to some who said that the rich slaveholders of the South would not stand a war, " that they were entirely mistaken; for that those who had been long accustomed to command were the last who would consent to obey."7
[ 7 In all that we say on this subject, concerning the patriots of the Revolution and their connection with the Episcopal Church, and especially the vestries, it must not be understood as excluding from their fair share in the assertion of the libertie - of the country those of other denominations. The Baptists as a body soon tendered their services, and were accepted. They, however, were mostly descended from Episcopalians, having for conscience sake separated themselves from the Established Church not long before the war. The same may be said of the Presbyterians in Eastern Virginia; they were not numerous, being chiefly in Hanover, Charlotte, and Prince Edward, but still they furnished most valuable men to the cause. Those of Western Virginia, as well as the Germans, were descended from European ancestors who were not of the Episcopal Church. They also were forward and most effective in the Revolution.]
In proof of my position that men of education, and that gotten chiefly in Europe, were the ancestors of large numbers of those who formed at a later period the most influential class, I would here insert a list of the earlier clergy of Virginia which I got from some ancient documents, (most of them unpublished,) and this is but a small part of those whose names are lost to us forever. Let the reader compare these with names on the civil and military list of Virginia's history, and he must acknowledge the probability at least of consanguinity between many of them.
I begin with the names of Bucke, Whittaker, the two Williamses, (names still common in Virginia,) Young, Key, Berkeley, Hampton, Richardson, Teackle, Cotton, Palmer, Gordon, the Smiths, Ware, Doyley, the Bowkers, Saunders, Holt, Collier, Wallace, Walker, the Monroes, Slaughter, Blair, Anderson, Ball, the Yateses, Hall, Latane, the Roses, the Joneses, Sharp, Waggener, the Taylors, Stith, Cox, the Brookes, the Robertsons, the Robinsons, Collings, Baylie, Bell, Warden, Debutts, Forbes, Marshall, Preston, Goodwin, Cargill, Hughes, the Scotts, the Fontains and Marys, the Dawsons, Reid, White, Campbell, Graham, the Thompsons, Fraser, Thacker, Wilkinson, the Navisons, the Stewarts, the Dixons, Webb, Innis, Warrington, Cole, Purdie, Marye, Mackay, Jackson, Green, McDonald, Moncure, Keith, Leland, Craig, Grayson, Bland, Manning, Hamilton, Dick, Clay, Lyons. Many of the foregoing belong to the first century of our existence and to the early part of the second.
Many of the families of Virginia may have descended from some of the foregoing without knowing it. I leave it to others to search out the civil list of Virginia names, in order to ascertain as far as practicable how many of their ancestors may have been well-educated doctors and lawyers, or respectable merchants and farmers, when first coming to this country. I hope I shall not be misunderstood. It is no dishonour to be born of the poorest parents in the land. It is a much greater honour to be descended from a poor and ignorant good man, than from a rich or learned bad man. I am only speaking of a historical fact. It was the shame of our forefathers, both here and in England, that they did not, by promoting education, furnish more opportunities - to the poor to become in a greater degree the very bone and sinew of the State. It is our sin now that more and better attention is not paid to the common schools of Virginia, in order to make them nurseries of good and great men.
RETURN
Copyright © 2006 by: Genealogy Trails
- All rights reserved