_Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the United States of
America--Virginia. A Narrative of Events connected with the Rise and
Progress of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia. To which is
added an Appendix, containing the Journals of the Conventions in
Virginia, from the Commencement to the Present Time. By the Reverend
Francis L. Hawks, D.D. Rector of St. Thomas's Church, New York. New
York: Published by Harper and Brothers._
This is a large and handsome octavo of 620 pages. The very cursory
examination which we have as yet been able to give it, will not
warrant us in speaking of the work in other than general terms. A
word or two, however, we may say in relation to the plan, the object,
and circumstances of publication, with some few observations upon
points which have attracted our especial attention.
From the Preface we learn that, more than five years ago, the author,
in conjunction with the Rev. Edward Rutledge, of South Carolina,
first conceived the idea of gathering together such materials for the
History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, as
might still exist either in tradition or in the manuscripts of the
earlier clergy. That these materials were abundant might rationally
be supposed--still they were to be collected, if collected at all, at
the expense of much patience, time, and labor, from a wide diversity
of sources. Dr. Hawks and his associate, however, were stimulated to
exertion by many of the bishops and clergy of the church. The plan
originally proposed was merely, if we understand it, the compilation
of an annalistic journal--a record of naked facts, to be subsequently
arranged and shaped into narrative by the pen of the historiographer.
In the prosecution of the plan thus designed, our author and his
coadjutor were successful beyond expectation, and a rich variety of
matter was collected. Death, at this period, deprived Dr. Hawks of
his friend's assistance, and left him to pursue his labor alone. He
now, very properly, determined upon attempting, himself, the
execution of the work for which his Annals were intended as
_materiel_. He began with Virginia--selecting it as the oldest State.
The present volume is simply an experiment. Should it succeed, of
which there can be no doubt whatever, we shall have other volumes in
turn--and that, we suppose, speedily, for there are already on hand
sufficient _data_ to furnish a history of "each of the older
diocesses."
For the design of this work--if even not for the manner of its
execution--Dr. Hawks is entitled to the thanks of the community at
large. He has taken nearly the first step (a step, too, of great
decision, interest and importance) in the field of American
Ecclesiastical History. To that church, especially, of which he is so
worthy a member, he has rendered a service not to be lightly
appreciated in the extraordinary dearth of materials for its story.
In regard to Protestant Episcopalism in America it may be safely said
that, prior to this publication of Dr. Hawks, there were no written
memorials extant, with the exception of the Archives of {283} the
General and Diocesan Meetings, and the Journal of Bishop White. For
other religious denominations the _materiel_ of history is more
abundant, and it would be well, if following the suggestions and
example of our author, Christians of all sects would exert themselves
for the collection and preservation of what is so important to the
cause of our National Ecclesiastical Literature.
The History of any Religion is necessarily a very large portion of
the History of the people who profess it. And regarded in this point
of view the "_Narrative_" of Dr. Hawks will prove of inestimable
value to Virginia. It commences with the first settlement of the
colony--with the days when the first church was erected in
Virginia--that very church whose hoary ruins stand so tranquilly
to-day in the briar-encumbered graveyard at Jamestown--with the
memorable epoch when Smith, being received into the council, partook,
with his rival, the President, of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,
and Virginia "commenced its career of civilization" with the most
impressive of Christian solemnities. Bringing down the affairs of the
church to the appointment of the Reverend William Meade, D.D. as
Assistant Bishop of Virginia, the narration concludes with a highly
gratifying account of present prosperity. The diocess is said to
possess more than one hundred churches, "some of them the fruit of
reviving zeal in parishes which once flourished, but have long been
almost dead." Above seventy clergymen are in actual service. There is
a large missionary fund, a part of which lies idle, because
missionaries are not to be had. Much reliance is placed, however,
upon the Seminary at Alexandria. This institution has afforded
instruction, during the last three years, to sixty candidates for
orders, and has given no less than thirty-six ministers to the
Episcopalty.
We will mention, briefly, a few of the most striking points of the
History before us. At page 48, are some remarks in reply to Burk's
insinuation of a persecuting and intolerant spirit in the early
colonial religion of the State--an insinuation based on no better
authority than a statement in "certain ancient records of the
province" concerning the trial, condemnation, and execution by fire,
of a woman, for the crime of witchcraft. Dr. Hawks very justly
observes, that even if the supposed execution did actually take
place, it cannot sanction the inferences which are deduced from it.
Evidence is wanting that the judgment was rendered by an
ecclesiastical power. Witchcraft was an offence cognizable by the
common courts of law, having been made a felony, without benefit of
clergy, by the twelfth chapter of the first statute of James I,
enacted in 1603. So that, allowing the prisoner to have suffered, her
death, says our author, cannot more properly be charged to the
ecclesiastical, than to the civil, authority. But in point of fact,
the trial alluded to by Burk, (see Appendix xxxi,) can be no other
than that of the once notorious Grace Sherwood. And this trial, we
are quite certain, took place before a civil tribunal. Besides, (what
is most especially to the purpose) the accused though found guilty,
and condemned, was _never executed_.
Some observations of our author upon a circumstance which History has
connected with the secular feelings of the colony, will be read with
pleasure by all men of liberal opinions. We allude to the fact that
when one of the colony's agents in England (George Sandys, we
believe) took it upon himself to petition Parliament, _in the name of
his constituents_, for the restoration of the old company, the colony
formally disavowed the act and begged permission to remain under the
royal government. Now, Burk insists that this disavowal was induced
solely by attachment to the Church of England, for whose overthrow
the Puritans were imagined to be particularly zealous. With Dr. Hawks
we protest against the decision of the historian. It can be viewed in
no other light than that of an effort (brought about, perhaps, by
love of our political institutions, yet still exceedingly
disingenuous) to _apologise_ for the loyalty of Virginia--to
apologise for our forefathers having felt what not to have felt would
have required an apology indeed! By faith, by situation, by habits
and by education they had been taught to be loyal--and with them,
consequently, loyalty was a virtue. But if it was indeed a crime--if
Virginia has committed an inexpiable offence in resisting the
encroachments of the Dictator, (we shall not say of the Commonwealth)
let not the Church--in the name of every thing reasonable--let not
the Church be saddled with her iniquity--let not political
prejudices, always too readily excited, be now enlisted against the
religion we cherish, by insinuations artfully introduced, that the
loyalty of the State was involved in its creed--that through faith
alone it remained a slave--and that its love of monarchy was a mere
necessary consequence of its attachment to the Church of England.
While upon this subject we beg leave to refer our readers to some
remarks, (from the pen of Judge Beverley Tucker) which appeared under
the Critical head of our Messenger before the writer of this article
assumed the Editorial duties. The remarks of which we speak, are in
reply to the aspersions of Mr. George Bancroft, who, in his late
History of the United States, with every intention of paying Virginia
a compliment, accuses her of disloyalty, immediately before, and
during the Protectorate. Of such an accusation, (for Hening's
suggestions, upon pages 513 and 526, of the Statutes at Large cannot
be considered as such) we had never seriously dreamed prior to the
publication of Mr. Bancroft's work, and that Mr. Bancroft himself
should never have dreamed of it, we were sufficiently convinced by
the arguments of Judge Tucker. We allude to these arguments now, with
the view of apprizing such of our readers as may remember them, that
the author of the History in question, in a late interview with Dr.
Hawks, has "disclaimed the intention of representing Virginia as
wanting in loyalty." All parties would have been better pleased with
Mr. B. had he worded his disclaimer so as merely to assure us that in
representing Virginia as disloyal he has found himself in error.
We will take the liberty of condensing here such of the leading
points on both sides of the debated question as may either occur to
us personally or be suggested by those who have written on the
subject. In proof of Virginia's _disloyalty_ it is said:
1. There is a deficiency of evidence to establish the fact, (a fact
much insisted upon) that on the death of the governor, Matthews, in
the beginning of 1659, a tumultuous assemblage resolved to throw off
the government of the Protectorate, and repairing to the residence of
Sir William Berkeley, then living in retirement, {284} requested him
to resume the direction of the colony. If such had been the fact,
existing records would have shown it--but they do not. Moreover,
these records show that Berkeley was elected precisely as the other
governors had been, in Virginia, during the Protectorate.
2. After the battle of Dunbar, and the fall of Montrose Virginia
passed an act of surrender--she was therefore in favor of the
Parliament.
3. The Colonial Legislature claimed the supreme power as residing
within itself. In this it evinced a wish to copy the Parliament--to
which it was therefore favorable.
4. Cromwell acted magnanimously towards Virginia. The terms of the
article in the Treaty of Surrender by which Virginia stipulated for a
trade free as that of England, were faithfully observed till the
Restoration. The Protector's Navigation Act was not enforced in
Virginia. Cromwell being thus lenient, Virginia must have been
satisfied.
5. Virginia elected her own governors. Bennett, Digges, and Matthews,
were commonwealth's men. Therefore Virginia was republican.
6. Virginia was infected with republicanism. She wished to set up for
herself. Thus intent, she demands of Berkeley a distinct
acknowledgement of her assembly's supremacy. His reply was "I am but
the servant of the assembly." Berkeley, therefore, was republican,
and his tumultuous election proves nothing but the republicanism of
Virginia.
These arguments are answered in order, thus:
1. The fact of the "tumultuous assemblage," &c. might have existed
without such fact appearing in the records spoken of. For these
records are manifestly incomplete. Some whole documents are lost, and
parts of many. Granting that Berkeley was _elected_ precisely in the
usual way, it does not disprove that a multitude urged him to resume
his old office. The election is all of which these records would
speak. But _the call to office_ might have been a popular
movement--the election quite as usual. This latter was left to go on
in the old mode, probably because it was well known "that those who
were to make it were cavaliers."
Moreover--Beverley, Burk, Chalmers and Holmes are all direct
testimony in favor of the "tumultuous assemblage."
2. The act of surrender was in self-defence, when resistance would
have availed nothing. Its terms evince no acknowledgment of
authority, but mere submission to force. They contain _not one word_
recognizing the rightful power of Parliament, nor impeaching that of
the king.
3. The "claiming the supreme power," &c. proves any thing but the
fealty of the Colonial Legislature to the Commonwealth. According to
Mr. Bancroft himself, Virginians in 1619 "first set the world the
example of equal representation." "From that time" (we here quote the
words of Judge Tucker,) "they held that the supreme power was in the
hands of the Colonial Parliament, then established, and of the king
as king of Virginia. Now the authority of the king being at an end,
and no successor being acknowledged, it followed, as a corollary from
their principles, that no power remained but that of the
assembly,"--and this is precisely what they mean by claiming the
supreme power as residing in the Colonial Legislature.
4. Chalmers, Beverley, Holmes, Marshall and Robertson speak,
positively, of great discontents occasioned by restrictions and
oppressions upon Virginian commerce: and a Memorial in behalf of the
trade of the State presented to the Protector, mentions "_the poor
planters' general complaints that they are the merchant's slaves_,"
as a consequence of "_that Act of Navigation_."
5. It is probable that Bennett, Digges, and Matthews, (granting
Bennett to have been disloyal) were forced upon the colony by
Cromwell, whom Robertson (on the authority of Beverley and Chalmers,)
asserts to have named the governors during the Protectorate. The
election was possibly a mere form. The use of the equivocal word
_named_, is, as Judge Tucker remarks, a proof that the historian was
not speaking at random. He does not say _appointed_. They were
_named_--with no possibility of their nomination being rejected--as
the speaker of the House of Commons was frequently named in England.
But Bennett was a staunch loyalist--a fact too well known in Virginia
to need proof.
6. The reasoning here is reasoning in a circle. Virginia is first
declared republican. From this assumed fact, deductions are made
which prove Berkeley so--and Berkeley's republicanism, thus proved,
is made to establish that of Virginia. But Berkeley's answer (from
which Mr. Bancroft has extracted the words "I am but the servant of
the Assembly") runs thus.
"You desire me to do that concerning your titles and claims to land
in this northern part of America, which I am in no capacity to do;
for I am but the servant of the Assembly: _neither do they arrogate
to themselves any power farther than the miserable distractions in
England force them to_. For when God shall be pleased to take away
and dissipate the unnatural divisions of their native country, _they
will immediately return to their professed obedience_." Smith's New
York. It will be seen that Mr. Bancroft has been disingenuous in
quoting only a portion of this sentence. _The whole_ proves
incontestibly that neither Berkeley nor the Assembly _arrogated to
themselves any power beyond what they were forced to assume by
circumstances_--in a word, it proves their loyalty. But Berkeley was
loyal beyond dispute. _Norwood_, in his "Journal of a Voyage to
Virginia," states that "Berkeley showed great respect to all the
royal party who made that colony their refuge. His house and purse
were open to all so qualified." The same journalist was "sent over,
at Berkeley's expense, to find out the King in Holland, and have an
interview with him."
To these arguments in favor of Virginia's loyalty may be added the
following.
1. Contemporaries of Cromwell--men who were busy in the great actions
of the day--have left descendants in Virginia--descendants in whose
families the loyalty of Virginia is a cherished _tradition_.
2. The question, being one of _fact_, a mistake could hardly have
been made originally--or, if so made, could not have been
perpetuated. Now all the early historians call Virginia loyal.
3. The cavaliers in England (as we learn from British authorities)
looked upon Virginia as a place of refuge.
4. Holmes' Annals make the population of the state, at the
commencement of the civil wars in England, about 20,000. Of these let
us suppose only 10,000 loyal. At the Restoration the same Annals make
the population 30,000. Here is an increase of 10,000, which {285}
increase consisted altogether, or nearly so, of loyalists, _for few
others had reason for coming over_. The loyalists are now therefore
double the republicans, and Virginia must be loyal.
5. Cromwell was always suspicious of Virginia. Of this there are many
proofs. One of them may be found in the fact that when the state,
sympathizing with the victims of Claiborne's oppression, (a felon
employed by Cromwell to "root out popery in Maryland") afforded them
a refuge, she was sternly reprimanded by the Protector, and
admonished to keep a guard on her actions.
6. A pamphlet called "Virginia's Cure, an Advisive Narrative
concerning Virginia," printed in 1661, speaks of the people as "men
which generally bear a great love to the stated constitutions of the
Church of England in her government and public worship; which gave us
the advantage of liberty to use it constantly among them, after the
naval force had reduced the colony under the power (_but never to the
obedience_) of the usurpers."
7. John Hammond, in a book entitled "Leah and Rachell, or the two
fruitful Sisters of Virginia and Maryland," printed in 1656, speaking
of the State during the Protectorate, has the words "_Virginia being
whole for monarchy_."
8. Immediately after the fall of Charles I, Virginia passed an Act
making it _high treason_ to justify his murder, or to acknowledge the
Parliament. The Act is not so much as the terms of the Act.
Lastly. The distinguishing features of Virginian character at
present--features of a marked nature--not elsewhere to be met with in
America--and evidently akin to that chivalry which denoted the
Cavalier--can be in no manner so well accounted for as by considering
them the _debris_ of a devoted loyalty.
At page 122 of the work before us, Dr. Hawks has entered into a
somewhat detailed statement (involving much information to us
entirely new) concerning the celebrated "Parson's cause"--the
church's controversy with the laity on the subject of payments in
money substituted for payments in tobacco. It was this controversy
which first elicited the oratorical powers of Patrick Henry, and our
author dwells with much emphasis, and no little candor, upon the
fascinating abilities which proved so unexpectedly fatal to the
clerical interest.
On page 160 are some farther highly interesting reminiscences of Mr.
Henry. The opinion of Wirt is considered unfounded, that the great
orator was a believer in Christianity without having a preference for
any of the forms in which it is presented. We are glad to find that
Mr. Wirt was in error. The Christian religion, it has been justly
remarked, must assume _a distinct form of profession_--or it is worth
little. An avowal of a merely general Christianity is little better
than an avowal of none at all. Patrick Henry, according to Dr. Hawks,
was of the Episcopalian faith. That at any period of his life he was
an unbeliever is explicitly denied, on the authority of a MS. letter,
in possession of our author, containing information of Mr. H. derived
from his widow and descendants.
It is with no little astonishment that we have seen Dr. Hawks accused
of illiberality in his few remarks upon "that noble monument of
liberty," the _Act for the Establishment of Religious Freedom_. If
there is any thing beyond simple justice in his observations we, for
our own parts, cannot perceive it. No respect for the civil services,
or the unquestionable mental powers of Jefferson, shall blind us to
his iniquities. That our readers may judge for themselves we quote in
full the sentences which have been considered as objectionable.
"We are informed by him (Jefferson) that an amendment was proposed to
the Preamble, by the insertion of the name of our Saviour before the
words 'The Holy Author of our Religion.' This could at most have had
no other effect upon the enacting clause, but that of granting the
utmost freedom to all denominations _professing to own and worship
Christ_, without affording undue preference to any; and against this,
it would be unreasonable to object. Certain it is, that more than
this had never been asked by any religious denomination in Virginia,
in any petition presented against the Church; the public, therefore,
would have been satisfied with such an amendment. The proposed
alteration, however, was rejected, and it is made the subject of
triumph that the law was left, in the words of its author, 'to
comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the
Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of
every denomination.' That these various classes should have been
protected both in person and property, is obviously the dictate of
justice, of humanity, and of enlightened policy. But it surely was
not necessary, in securing to them such protection, to degrade, not
the establishment, but Christianity itself to a level with the
voluptuousness of Mahomet, or the worship of Juggernaut; and if it be
true that there is danger in an established alliance between
Christianity and the civil power, let it be remembered that there is
another alliance not less fatal to the happiness and subversive of
the intellectual freedom of man--it is an alliance between the civil
authority and infidelity; which, whether formally recognized or not,
if permitted to exert its influence, direct or indirect, will be
found to be equally ruinous in its results. On this subject,
Revolutionary France has once read to the world an impressive lesson,
which it is to be hoped will not speedily be forgotten."
In Chapter xii, the whole history of the Glebe Law of 1802--a law the
question of whose constitutionality is still undetermined--is
detailed with much candor, and in a spirit of calm inquiry. A vivid
picture is exhibited of some desecrations which have been consequent
upon the sale.
In Chapter xiii, is an exceedingly well-written memoir of our
patriarchal bishop the Right Reverend Richard Channing Moore. From
this memoir we must be permitted to extract a single passage of
peculiar interest.
"It was at one of his stated lectures in the church, (St. Andrew's in
Staten Island) that after the usual services had concluded, and the
benediction been pronounced, he sat down in his pulpit waiting for
the people to retire. To his great surprise, he soon observed that
not an individual present seemed disposed to leave the Church; and
after the interval of a few minutes, during which a perfect silence
was maintained, one of the members of the congregation arose, and
respectfully requested him to address those present a second time.
After singing a hymn, the bishop delivered to them a second
discourse, and once more dismissed the people with the blessing. But
the same state of feeling which had before kept them in their seats,
still existed, and once more did they solicit the preacher to address
them. Accordingly he delivered to them a third sermon, and at its
close, exhausted by the labor in which he had been engaged, he
informed them of the impossibility of continuing the services on his
part, once more blessed {286} them and affectionately entreated them
to retire to their homes. It was within the space of six weeks, after
the scene above described, that more than sixty members of the
congregation became communicants; and in the course of the year more
than one hundred knelt around the chancel of St. Andrew's who had
never knelt there before as partakers of the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper."
The historical portion of the work before us occupies about one half
of its pages. The other half embraces "Journals of the Conventions of
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocess of Virginia--from 1785
to 1835, inclusive." It is, of course, unnecessary to dwell upon the
great value to the church of such a compilation. Very few, if any,
complete sets of diocesan Journals of Conventions are in existence.
We will conclude our notice, by heartily recommending the entire
volume, as an important addition to our Civil as well as
Ecclesiastical History.