CHAPTER XII.

1794-1804.

Injurious Effects upon Religion, arising from Disputes about the Church Property-Arguments used for and against a sale of the Glebes-Canon against the Clergy's taking Offices in the Militia-Appeal to Law— Churchmen driven to despair-Law of 1802 for sale of Glebes-Effect of sale of Glebes in benefiting the Public-Desecration of the Sacred Vessels by Debauchees The Manchester Case-Consequence to the Church of the Death of the President of Court of Appeals-Constitutionality of Law for the sale of Glebes yet undetermined.

THE history of the church, for several years to come, presents a picture but little different from that which the reader has seen exhibited in the previous pages. The bishop, upon his slender pittance of one hundred pounds, still continued to visit the parishes and make his annual reports, which became more and more disheartening; the number of clergy was gradually diminishing by death; few or none came in to supply their places; the church languished; while her opponents, increasing in numbers and influence, never ceased to carry on the warfare against her, and to exert themselves to deprive her of her property in the glebes. The Baptists, as heretofore, were most active in this business; and here we may properly pause in our narrative, to contemplate the injurious effects of their opposition upon the cause of Christianity, and to review the grounds on which they urged, and Episcopalians resisted, the sale of the glebes.

We have already seen that the condition of religion was greatly depressed in Virginia; truth compels us to say

But

that the depression must in some degree be attributed to Christians themselves; it was in part owing to the controversies respecting the property of the church. There is always to be found in society a class ready to avail itself of any excuse for its want of personal holiness. In the temper and feelings which were exhibited in the contest in Virginia, between churchmen and their opponents, the ene, mies of religion readily found the excuse which they de sired. It is not meant to insinuate, that the disputants in Virginia were more violent, or worse than others would have been elsewhere, under similar circumstances. good men (and it is hoped there were such on both sides in this dispute) may, and do often betray those infirmities of human nature which they are, afterward, themselves the first most deeply to lament. Their subsequent repentance meets perhaps no eye but that of God; while the evils which flow from their exhibition of angry passions and unchristian feelings remain to furnish multitudes with an argument wherewith to appease a reproving conscience, and fortify themselves in their wickedness. It would be uncandid to conceal the fact, that the dispute concerning the church property in Virginia was one which called forth, on both sides, much bitterness of feeling and intemperance of language. It is best that such language should be forgotten; it is more pleasant to quote the words of an aged minister of the church who sought to allay strife. "This dispute is too nearly connected with religion, not to partake of much of that animosity and raneour which are the unhappy effects of religious controversy. How different is this from the mild spirit of that religion which breathes unanimity, forgiveness, meekness, and peace! When we ourselves make it appear by our conduct, that Christianity has so little power over our hearts, can it be supposed that ever we will recommend it to the esteem of others? The infidel will never believe us; and the libertine will get confirmed in his vi

FF

cious practices. Alas! we pull down with our own hands that church of Christ which we ought to build up and defend. We fill the minds of the community, moreover, with 'wrath, hatred, emulations, envyings, and strife.' How long shall it be before the doctrines of the Son of God have full influence on the minds of men! How long shall this land be filled with contention! When shall we fully prize the blessings which we enjoy! We might now sit, every man at peace under his own vine,' and under that fair tree of liberty which we planted. But, alas! the canker worm of jealousy feeds on its foliage; the whirlwinds of discord threaten to root it out for ever."*

The increase of irreligion was thus one of the great evils which resulted from this contest.

Another evil was of a political nature. The question, as to the sale of the glebes, was one of right simply; circumstances unavoidably made it in some degree a question of party. It was desirable that the individuals who were to pass upon the question, the members of the legislature, should know no man or body of men in the transaction: the constitution and the law were the proper arbiters: the integrity of that constitution and law was endangered by every temptation to gratify any body of men in their interpretation: now, when the members of the legislature found themselves beset annually by petitions, asking that the church might be deprived of the property which she held; when these petitions were numerously signed; and when those who signed them were the electors by whom the legislators were placed in the seat of judgment, it must be confessed that there was some temptation to yield to the wishes of the petitioners. But, unless the petitioners were unquestionably right on the points of law involved, to yield was wrong, no matter by what numbers the application

* Manuscript argument on the sale of the glebes, by one of the old Virginia clergy, in the possession of the author.

was made; there was no pretence that the multitude who petitioned were the best judges of a disputed matter in the science of jurisprudence; and as they might be mistaken, the justice of the case was in danger of being sacrificed to the demands of the multitude. It was not an instance of the expression of popular opinion on a point of expediency, (to which the legislature might perhaps have listened with propriety,) but it was on a subject of right which rested on fixed and unalterable rules. It must therefore be obvious, that after having once expressed a wish to have the question fairly examined, a perpetual succession of petitions, dictating in effect the decision to be made, could only serve to increase the risk of having that decision finally wrong. As to the arguments by which a sale of the glebes was urged upon the legislature, the principal were as follows:

1. That most of the glebe lands were originally purchased with money levied upon the people at large, and that, consequently, whenever a majority of the people desired a sale of the lands, they should be sold, and the money applied to such other use as might seem best to them.

2. That if the church was permitted to retain the property, a certain pre-eminence and superiority was thereby conferred, which was odious in a republic, and inconsistent with its institutions.

3. That the fourth article of the declaration of rights of Virginia asserted, "that no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services;" but the enjoyment of the glebes did confer upor the church" exclusive emoluments from the community, and was consequently unconstitutional.

To the first of these arguments, it was answered that some of the glebes were a private donation; that those which were purchased, were bought many years before;

some of them more than a century; and that the "people," with whose money the purchase was made, were not dissenters, for there were few or none in the colony at that day; but were members of the establishment, and perfectly content that their money should be thus applied; that having been thus applied, the "people" had voluntarily divested themselves of it, and their descendants could not now take it back, any more than they could other moneys of which their ancestors had seen fit willingly to deprive themselves: it was also answered, that upon this principle, of a restoration to the "people" of money which the "people" once gave, there should obviously be returned no more than such a part as would be proportionate to the original number of dissenters among the people who purchased; for if those who now asked for a sale of the glebes had, from conscientious motives, dissented from the faith of their fathers, they should thence learn that their fathers also had consciences; and with no justice or propriety could they seek to undo what their ancestors had done with a good conscience. But as to dissenters among the original purchasers, there were either none at all, or at best the number was very limited, and it was certain that there were no Baptists among them.

It was also asserted to be very questionable, whether, considering the great emigrations to the western country and to other states, there was one-third of the inhabitants remaining, whose ancestors had contributed to purchase a glebe; that if they were sold for the benefit of that third, it would be impossible to ascertain to whom the proceeds should be paid. If it should be urged that "the country" first purchased, and that now they should be given back to "the country," then it was to be remembered that that country by a solemn act had declared that "in all time coming" they should not be taken from the church; and that if it would be unrighteous in an individual to take back