USA > Virginia > Old churches, ministers and families of Virginia, Vol. II > Part 39
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53
362
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
those things in which the Episcopal Church differs from orthodox. denominations as among the essentials of religion, though they do regard them as important,-some of them very important. Of course they are among the non-essentials, nothing being essential in re- ligion but what is necessary to salvation.
I now proceed to show how, in the providence of God, I was further led into circumstances very favourable to an accurate ac- quaintance with the General Church in this country, and to a just estimate of persons and things on both sides. Having taken an early and lively interest in the American Colonization Society, and written something in its behalf, I was induced, in the year 1819, to devote myself for some time to the formation of auxiliary societies throughout the United States, the collection of funds, and the se- lection of the first colonists. This led me to visit all the principal towns, from Milledgeville, in Georgia, to Portland, in Maine. As in duty bound, and by choice led, I invoked the aid of the ministers of all denominations, and especially of my own, without distinction of party. For visiting the former I was honoured with a printed pamphlet by one "Sopater of Berea," addressed to Bishop Moore, advising him to recall me to Virginia and to my duties at home. While I received much kindness from ministers of all denomina- tions, I experienced still more from those of the Episcopal Church. Let me mention some of them :- The clergy of Savannah, Georgia; Bishop Bowen and the clergy of Charleston; the Rev. Mr. Lance, of Georgetown, South Carolina; the Rev. Mr. Bedell, then living in Fayetteville, North Carolina; Bishop Kemp, Dr. Beasley, and Dr. Henshaw, of Baltimore; Bishop White, (at whose house I was kindly entertained for three weeks while engaged in selecting colo- nists,) and Drs. Muhlenberg, Boyd, and Montgomery, of Philadel- phia ; Drs. Milnor, Lyell, and B. T. Onderdonk, of New York; Dr. Croswell, of New Haven; Dr. Wainwright, of Hartford ; Dr. Crocker, of Providence; Drs. Eaton and Gardiner,* of Boston; Mr. Carlisle, of Salem; Dr. Morse, of Newburyport; Dr. Burroughs, of Ports- mouth, New Hampshire; and Mr. Tenbroeck, of Portland, in Maine. One of the most pleasing impressions made on my mind by that visit, and which I have ever delighted to recall and speak of, re- sulted from the uniform hospitality and kindness experienced from one end of our land to the other. Whenever, since that time, I
* While in Boston, the corner-stone of St. Paul's Church was laid, and I then became acquainted with Bishop Griswold, Dr. Jarvis, and other clergy. Dr. Gardiner delivered a severe lecture on Unitarianism, standing on the corner-stone of the new church along one of the streets of Boston.
363
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
have heard any thing like a comparison instituted between different portions of our country in this respect, I have entered my protest against it. Circumstances render hospitality more easy to the rich in the South, by reason of their numerous servants and large estates ; but, according to the means possessed, the hospitality is the same everywhere. It is, indeed, the most universal good feature in the character of man. When Mr. Pickering, at Salem, (my father's old friend and comrade in the Revolution,) cleaned my boots at daylight in the morning, and at a later period Bishop Griswold, in Boston, did the same, I felt that no greater hospitality could be shown me by the richest layman or Bishop of the South. All sectional pre- judices I have ever endeavoured to discourage. Although I am aware of the advantage of having natives of the soil to be ministers in Virginia, yet do I always condemn any disposition to object to worthy ministers, come from whence they may. Virginia has reaped much advantage from ministers coming from most distant parts. Taking warning from the unhappy dissensions of other denomina- tions on one painful subject, may our Church be at peace and prove one bond of union to the land! In advocating the claims of the Colonization Society from Northern pulpits, I always commended it for this, that, however we might differ as to the subject of slavery, we might all agree touching this mode of benefiting the African race; and there has been a very general and happy agreement.
It being evident that I must have gained some considerable share of information concerning the Church from the places thus visited and the persons seen and conversed with, I proceed to mention a few things which resulted from this visit.
INTRODUCTION OF MORE HYMNS INTO THE PRAYER-BOOK.
To my surprise, I found that there was a liberty taken in regard to hymns in public worship to which I had not been accustomed. Not only were there voluntaries before and after service, with words chosen by the choir or minister at pleasure, but there were several hymn-books in use not known to the Church, as, for instance, in Savannah, Georgia, and in Trinity Church, Boston. I saw also a few printed hymns for some special occasion at Dr. Moore's Church in Newburyport, Massachusetts. This struck me very forcibly, having been from a child accustomed only to those in the Prayer- Book; nor did it strike me very favourably .* I was not aware at
* Before the revival of the Church in Virginia, Dr. Buchanon, of Richmond, had also a collection of his own; probably one of the English collections.
364
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
that time that a variety of hymn-books was allowed in the English Church, and I knew that each denomination in this country deemed it best to have its own selection. Being conscious, however, that we were stinted in hymns, whether for public, social, or private use, and that many psalms were badly versified or unsuited for Christian worship, I introduced a motion at the General Convention of 1823, for additional hymns and a revision and selection of the metrical psalms, and had the honour of being placed at the head of the Committee of the Lower House. I urged the measure by stating the diversity which I had witnessed a few years before, and plead for such an increase of hymns and selection of psalms as would answer all the purposes of private, social, and public worship. Dr. Jarvis supported the resolution, and, I think, seconded it, though maintaining that there was a perfect liberty here, as in England, to have a variety of selections, as the hymns and psalms formed no integral part of the Prayer-Book, but were only an appendage, not subject to rubrics. The joint committee of both Houses, being appointed, met during the interval between that and the next Gene- ral Convention. Dr. Muhlenberg, one of the Committee, selected, prepared, and published a volume of hymns for the use of the Com- mittee, many of which were adopted. Dr. Onderdonk, afterward Bishop of Pennsylvania, also prepared a number of paraphrases of Scripture, some of which were also introduced into our collection. Severe strictures having from time to time been passed upon our work, I beg leave to offer a few remarks upon them. In the first place, I affirm that none but those who engage in the work of se- lecting hymns have any idea of the difficulty of the work. Dr. Muhlenberg had collected hymn-books from all over England and America, and brought a large basketful of them to the meeting. They covered the table around which the Committee sat. I recollect the remark with which he introduced them,-that he had no idea, when he undertook the work, what a mass of bad poetry and false sentiment was to be found in the hymn-books of the different de- nominations of England and America, and how difficult it was to get a good selection. The Committee found it so in the progress of their examination. The various and strange tastes which sought to be gratified in the selection formed another difficulty. I re- member that one of the first classical scholars of the Church, and an excellent divine, proposed a great favourite to the Committee, expressing a most earnest desire for its admission, and there was every disposition to gratify him; but the hymn was so entirely un- suitable that no one could think of adopting it. Another instance
.
365
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
may be mentioned. At this time the delegation from South Caro- lina came around to the General Convention by sca, and it was thought desirable, by one, at least, of their delegation, to have a hymn suited to their case while on the ocean. Accordingly, one had been prepared, and was put into my hands. The first line of it read thus :-
"O thou epithet-exhausting ocean !"
I need not say that it found no support in the Committee, being even more objectionable than one which may be found in some hymn- books, and which it was wished to have in ours, namely, "The Star of the East." Each partook too much of the character of pagan worship. The selection which has been made, we think, does not deserve the criticisms which have been unsparingly passed upon it. When we read the names of such men as White, Hobart, Pro- fessor Turner, Dr. Muhlenberg, and Mr. Francis Key, as members of the Committee, we might surely expect something more deserv- ing of praise than censure. The selection has been highly esteemed by many good judges. When in England, at the house of Mr. Bickersteth, who had them, I was pleased to hear him say that it was either the very best, or among the best, he had ever seen; and he lived in the midst of hundreds, and had himself selected one for his own parish. Among the objections made to some of the hymns of our selection, I have been amused to hear the following,-namely, that we had altered the poetry of the authors of them. Now, it happens that one of the rules adopted by the Committee was, to give the preference to the original when it could be ascertained, except when there was some very sufficient reason. When a hymn was proposed, the original was called for. Certain changes com- plained of were actual returns to the originals from the versions in common use, whose compiler had altered them.
As to the desire expressed by some for an increase of hymns, I confess I cannot feel the force of it, being convinced that a smaller number frequently used, whether in private or public, is likely to produce the greater effect. I do not mean to condemn selections for Sunday-schools, and perhaps for some social meetings, but am still decidedly in favour of one book of hymns and psalms, as in the American Church, rather than the unbounded liberty of the English Church, where so many hundreds, I believe, are in use.
366
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
PUBLIC BAPTISM AND PIOUS SPONSORS ADVOCATED.
In my intercourse with many ministers and churches I discovered that there were very low notions and practices as to the adminis- tration of baptism and the qualification of sponsors, little or no regard being paid to the rubric, though so express as to the public performance of it, and sponsors being admitted without any refer- ence to their pious qualities. My friend, Mr. Francis S. Key, and myself had often mourned over the profanation of this sacrament in Virginia and Maryland, where, in its private performance, even ungodly boys and girls had been sometimes admitted as sponsors. We were both of us on the Committee on the State of the Church, and there introduced, after a proper preamble, the following reso- lution to be acted on by the House :- " Resolved, That it is the opinion of this General Convention that the ordinance of baptism ought, in all possible cases, to be administered in public, and that when necessity requires it to be administered in private, then the office for private baptism should be used, and the infant and spon- sors should be afterward required to appear in Church and to con- form to the rubric in that respect, and that the Right Reverend the Bishops be respectfully requested to call the attention of the clergy to this subject, and to enjoin upon them a particular care in requiring proper qualifications in those who are admitted as spon- sors." We were surprised to find ourselves opposed by those who held the highest views of the efficiency of baptism, and who ought on that account to have desired to see it most highly honoured in the performance. After considerable discussion, the following sub- stitute was adopted :- " The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, . reverting to the notices of private baptism in some of the preceding statements, (the report from Virginia called special attention to it,) respectfully request the House of Bishops to insert in the pastoral letter, solicited by this House, their opinion and advice on the sub- ject of the existing custom of administering private baptism without a great and reasonable cause, and of using in private the public office; and also on the proper qualification of sponsors." The difference between our resolution and its substitute is obvious and great. The resolution expressed a positive and strong opinion on the part of the clergy and laity that certain evils existed, and ought to be corrected, requesting the Bishops to warn against them in their pastoral letter. The substitute expressed no opinion on the part of the House, but placed it all in the hands of the Bishops, merely requesting their opinion and advice on the subject. It was
367
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
then (for certain reasons) more customary for those in the majority to throw every thing into the hands of the Bishops, and those who doubted the propriety of such a course were regarded as wanting in respect for Bishops, and no Churchmen .* As some of us feared, the opinion of the House of Bishops was not such as we desired. It was regarded as rather apologizing for than condemning the violation of rubrics in relation to baptism, though admitting the duty and importance of public baptism and of pious sponsors. It is due to Bishop White, the supposed author of the pastoral, to say,
* A great change took place in this respect in after-years. It was particularly manifested at the time of the lengthened discussion in the Lower House on the question of Bishop McIlvaine's consecration. The Bishops, by a majority of one, were in favour of declaring the Diocese of Ohio vacant, and proceeding to the con- secration of Bishop McIlvaine. After waiting the decision of the other House for nearly two weeks, the question was taken and the action of the Bishops sent down. It being understood by some, that the communication of the House of Bishops was in favour of consecration, a strong and successful opposition was made to its being read, on the ground that it was improper that the sentiments of the Bishops should be allowed to have any influence on the opinions of the members of the other House. Ten years before that, indeed, when my consecration was the subject of discussion for one week in the Lower House, on the alleged ground of a condition annexed to it by the Diocese of Virginia, it was well known that the Bishops, with one excep- tion, (Bishop Ravenscroft,) were in favour of consecration, with a certain protest against the condition; but still the opposition was strong for one week. In both of these cases, the votes generally were too clearly marked by party distinction not to induce the belief that such distinctions had their influence. The same might be said in a somewhat lesser degree of the opposition made to the consecration of other Bishops since the above. It has so happened that the difficulties as to con- secration have always occurred in regard to those of one party in the Church,- that of the minority. Some candid men of the majority have admitted that party feeling must have had a controlling influence. Should those who have in times past been in the minority ever become predominant, it is hoped that they will not follow the example which has been set. A most striking instance of the above-mentioned change in relation to the asking the opinion of Bishops, or requesting that they give advice in their pastorals on some disputed subject, may be found in the oppo- sition made to a proposed request that the Bishops would notice the Tractariau heresies in the pastoral of 1844.
Hitherto, the Bishops, either by request or without it, had delivered their opinions and warnings freely on various disputed subjects, but when it was wished that they should warn the Church against these dangerous doctrines and practices, whose effects have been so pernicious to the Church, a most violent and successful oppo- sition was made. As a matter of fact or history only do I allude to these things, among others, as worthy of remembrance and capable of being turned to some good use. I am not anxious to make the Bishops dictators to the other House, or to throw undue power into their hands. As to the pastoral letters, so far from desiring to make them discuss and settle doctrines, I have been most decided in opinion, for some years past, that they had better be omitted altogether, or some- thing quite different be adopted in their place.
368
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
that not very long after this he became satisfied that more decisive measures ought to be adopted, and gave notice in all the three churches under his care, that henceforth there should be no more private baptisms in those churches, except for such cases as the rubric justified. In speaking to me on the subject soon after this order, he made this significant remark :- that if the parents had so little respect for the ordinance that they would not bring their chil- dren to the church, it only proved that the baptism would be of very little service to them, thereby showing that he regarded the chief efficacy thereof to depend on the view the parents took of it, and the use they made of it in the education of their children. One remark I beg leave to make as to the qualification of sponsors. Some ministers question their right to interfere as to the qualifi- cation of sponsors, in the absence of a positive statute. Are they then forbidden to exclude infidels, blasphemers, and most aban- doned persons ? If permitted and bound to require proper qualifi- cations in adults coming to baptism, in candidates desiring Con- firmation and the Communion, does not consistency require that they avert from the Church the shame of such an abuse of the sacred office of sponsors as sometimes occurs? The circumstance which determined my mind more resolutely than ever against private baptism and improper sponsors was the fact, that not long before this effort in the General Convention I consented to baptize a child in private, and during the ceremony discovered, to my deep concern, that the father, who had the child in his arms, and was acting as sponsor, was in a state of intoxication. I have during my ministry found it a comparatively easy task to prevent any but communicants presenting themselves as sponsors. By preaching on the subject, and showing its great inconsistency, I have generally prevented such applications, and when they have been made, I have never failed to convince the persons thus applying of the impropriety of the step proposed, by going over with them the baptismal service, and appealing to their own consciences and judgments. Rarely, if ever, has it happened that I was unable to receive into the visible Church any child, where parents desired it, no matter how unsuit- able they were to become sponsors, as there could, by a short delay and a little trouble, be found some one communicant who would perform the part. I have on some few occasions acted as sponsor myself, making of course some changes in the service.
369
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
PROPOSED ALTERATION IN THE THIRTY-FIFTH CANON.
Another subject came up in this Convention worthy of some notice. It was the meaning and design of the thirty-fifth canon, which relates to the officiating of those not ministers of our Church in the houses of worship belonging to our communion. On my visit to Newburyport the preceding year, I spent several days in the hospitable family of the Rev. Dr. Morse, Episcopal minister in that place. So far from condemning me for preaching in the pul- pits of other denominations on the subject I had in hand, as "Sopater of Berea," and perhaps some others, had done, he informed me that only on the preceding Sabbath he had a most respectable minister of the Presbyterian denomination in his pulpit, and justified the act. At the succeeding General Convention, in the year 1820, to my surprise, he brought forward a proposition to repeal the thirty-fifth canon, which seemed to forbid what he had done, and which he also alleged might be construed so as to forbid lay read- ing in our churches. His proposition was referred to a committee, which reported unfavourably. It was nevertheless carried. Being sent to the House of Bishops for concurrence, it was there nega- tived. A committee of conference was proposed and agreed to, and I was one of the committee. On a meeting of the joint com- mittee, it was urged, by those who were in favour of its being re- scinded, that our Bishops and ministers, in seeking to build up our Church in many places where we had no houses of worship, were often allowed the use of those of other denominations, and it would be unbecoming in us to seek or accept such favours without being willing to grant similar ones. The meeting, however, broke up without any agreement. On that or the following day I dined with Bishop Hobart at a Mr. Smith's, of Philadelphia, and just before dinner the Bishop took me aside and read me something which he thought would satisfy all parties. It is the same which may be seen on page 58 of the Journal of the Convention of 1820. It is as follows :--
"The Bishops have found by experience that such ministers, [those not of our Church,] in many instances, preaching in our churches and to our congregations, avail themselves of such opportunities to inveigh against the principles of our communion ; and in some instances have endeavoured to obtain a common right with us to our property. It is therefore not from want of charity to worthy persons dissenting from us, but for the maintenance of such charity, and to avoid collision, that we declare our non-concurrence. The Bishops further declare their opinion concerning the thirty-fifth canon as it now stands, that it does not prohibit the offi- Vol. II .- 24
370
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
ciating of pious and respectable persons as lay readers in our churches, in cases of necessity and expediency; nor the lending of any church to any respectable congregation on any occasion of emergency."
It will be seen that in the foregoing exposition of the Bishops there is no exclusive offensive reason assigned for their non-con- currence, but one which all candid persons must admit to be good, -which indeed all denominations act upon, according to circum- stances. It is not said that no other ministers but ours have a right to preach, and that none but ours must enter Episcopal pul- pits, but that, to promote charity, to prevent collision, it is best that they be opened only to our own, except when justifying causes exist. That we have suffered at times in the way complained of, in permitting the too free use of our churches, is a fact too well known to us in Virginia, as elsewhere. I have on more than one occasion advised the refusal of our churches, when there was no rea- sonable cause for the loan of them. Against the uniting in free and common churches I have protested from my first entrance on the ministry, and have on various occasions been instrumental in sub- stituting Episcopal churches for such. Of course, it is for the ministers and vestries to apply the reasoning and advice of the Bishops, and decide when it is proper to open our churches to others. There is not much cause to fear the excessive hospitality of our own or other denominations in this respect; for all are so multiplying houses of worship through the land that there is little need of it. The jealousy of sects is also a sufficient safeguard against excess. Let me add, in conclusion, that this was an old canon of the English Church, adopted, like many others, into our code. Its title in England, and for many years in our own land, was, "Concerning the officiating of strangers, &c." It was de- signed to prevent strolling impostors from getting into our pulpits, and therefore their regular credentials were required to be shown to the vestries and ministers. Had it been originally framed to prevent all non-Episcopalian ministers from being admitted into Episcopal pulpits, it would surely have been declared in some plain, honest way, and the word "strangers" not have been used, for that would have been most inapplicable to some worthy ministers of other denominations living in the same town or parish, and well known. For many years the same title was used in the American Church. In the Convention of 1808, a committee was appointed (of which Dr. Hobart was one) to revise the canons. The title of the old canon, and nothing else, was altered, and perhaps without
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.