USA > Virginia > Old churches, ministers and families of Virginia, Vol. II > Part 40
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
371
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
discussion or observation. Bishop Hobart was a good expositor of the design of the change, and of the construction to be put upon it. It is to be regretted that any alteration took place in the title. The Church has sustained injury by it in the increased prejudice produced by the construction put upon it by some too zealous friends and some too bitter foes,-namely, that the Episcopal Church hereby denies the right of any other minister to preach the Gospel, which is inconsistent with the exposition given of it by the House of Bishops. Without any such canon, all the ministers and trustees of other denominations guard their churches against intruders, and lend them out when it is deemed expedient. For various reasons, ours will always be yet more particular, even without law.
THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.
The General Theological Seminary was first established in New York in the year 1817, then removed to New Haven, as a more suitable place. Jacob Sherred, of New York, bequeathed a large sum to a seminary within the State. A question arose as to the construction of the will. Bishop Hobart maintained that the be- quest properly belonged to New York, and that he had established a seminary there to inherit and apply it. Others thought somewhat differently. A General Convention was called in October, 1821, to settle the question. After much discussion, it was resolved that the seminary should be restored to New York on certain terms, and with a new constitution,-placing it, as many thought, too much in the power of the Bishop and diocese of New York. In Bishop White's Memoirs of the Episcopal Church in America, the follow- ing account is given of this transaction. Speaking of the committee to whom the subject was referred, he says, " All the members of the committee concurred in giving praise to Judge Cameron, of North Carolina, for the ability and good-temper manifested by him in the progress of the business; and the same were again displayed by him when it came before the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. However, it did not pass without opposition, which was almost entirely confined to the clerical and lay gentlemen of Virginia, with whom it is a favourite idea to establish a theological professorshi- in the College of William and Mary." I endorse all that is here said of Judge Cameron. I knew his venerable father,-one of the best of our old Virginia clergymen. I think I knew the son well. I heard him, during the time of. his first love, tell what God had done for his soul, under the ministry of Dr. Bedell, while in North Carolina. He said, " If I have experienced a change in my soul,
372
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
I know that it was done by God's Spirit. That Spirit began the work, not I." He had no sympathy with certain views of religion, even then too prevalent. He did not desire the seminary to be placed at New York. He thought the terms forced upon the Church were hard; but they were the best that could be obtained, and the good-temper displayed by him was in submitting to them and counselling others to do so. I remember his speech well, and conversed freely with him in private. The question he believed to be between a General Seminary in New York, under the partial influence of the whole Church besides, or a Diocesan Seminary in New York, with Sherred's legacy and all the wealth and power and numbers of that State,-able to overwhelm a General Seminary elsewhere without funds. He believed, or at least hoped, that the evil of the undue influence of New York in the General Seminary, under the constitution as agreed upon by the committee, would be chiefly at the beginning, and would be decreasing every year. In glowing prophetic vision, he saw the Church extending itself over the land; new dioceses rising up in every part and rapidly filling themselves with ministers and churches,-sending their funds to the treasury of the General Seminary, and, on their account, as well as on account of the ministers, having the right to regulate the seminary; by which means the power of the General Church would be increasing, and that of New York proportionally decreas- ing. This he said to comfort those of us who feared the over- whelming influence of New York. I remember well how he applied the prophetic words of the patriarch Jacob, that " the sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh come ; and unto him should be the gathering of the nations." I do not say that the scriptural ap- plication was correct, but his meaning was plain. The dioceses were to be the gathering together of the nations to take the sceptre from New York in the management of the General Seminary. Bishop White also intimates that the opposition from Virginia pro- ceeded from "a favourite idea with us to establish a theological professorship in William and Mary College." We ought to have been better acquainted with our views, motives, and reasons than any one else. We were then struggling on with our effort at Williams- burg, faint, yet pursuing, with Dr. Keith and one student, and scarce any funds. We knew not but Virginia might have to depend on some General Seminary. It was not a selfish attachment to Virginia alone -a desire for the aggrandizement of ourselves or the destruction of others-which prompted what we said and did. Not knowing how soon we might have to rely on a general institution, we wished
373
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
it placed under more favourable auspices for the promotion of what we believed to be sound views of the Gospel and the Church, than it would be in New York. The writer of these lines recollects his thoughts, and almost his very words, when he dared to lift up his voice even in opposition to Judge Cameron. Whether Judge Cameron, with all his purity of motive and strength of mind and practical wisdom, was in this instance right, or those so greatly his inferiors in all respects, let subsequent events and the present con- trolling influence of New York in the conduct of the General Semi- nary declare. The sceptre has not yet departed from Judah ; Shiloh has not yet come. The gathering together of the nations (dioceses) has not yet been, and never will be. It was even for- mally proposed, some years since, by the Bishop of Western New York, to give it up entirely into the hands of New York, and let the several sums contributed from other dioceses be returned to them.
"Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnis, et ille."
" Labitur, et labetur, in omne volubilis œvum."
PROPOSAL BY THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS, IN THE YEAR 1826, TO MAKE SOME CHANGES IN THE SERVICE.
In my second article it was stated that Bishop Hobart acknow- ledged that there were some delinquents as to the use of the ante- Communion service in New York, as well as in Virginia, Maryland, or elsewhere, and that the discovery of this fact had something to do with his proposed changes .. I had a few years before-perhaps at the General Convention, 1823-told him that some of his clergy, chiefly in Western New York, were not more regular than some others in the Church. This, at the time, he could not assent to ; but, at the opening of the Convention of 1826, he took me aside and said that, on inquiry, he had found that I was correct, and that he meant to propose something which he thought would satisfy all parties and produce a happy uniformity throughout the Church. His plan was soon proposed to and adopted by the other Bishops, and, being sent down to the Lower House, was, after some discus- sion, adopted by it, and spread before the Church for rejection or ratification by the ensuing General Convention. By this proposal, the Litany might be omitted, except on special occasions .* One or more of the Psalms might be selected and read by the minister in place of the morning or evening portions. The lesson might be
* This was withdrawn before the vote was taken in the Lower House.
-
374
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
abridged by the minister, only so that not less than fourteen verses be retained. The ante-Communion service was to be read on every Sabbath. A change was to be made in the preface to the Confirma- tion service and in one of the prayers of the same. By the latter, the vexed question of baptismal regeneration was to be settled, and settled at the lowest point,-namely, that of a mere change of state or conditional title to salvation,-in opposition to certain views which the Bishops said were imputed to the Church and inju- rious to it. This proposal was unanimously adopted by all the Bishops present. Bishop Moore, being absent, was much dissatis- fied with it, and, at the next Convention in Virginia, most earnestly invoked a protest of the diocese against it. But for this appeal and a tender regard for the feelings of the Bishop, I believe that the Church in Virginia would, by its silence at least, have consented to the action of the General Convention,-although none of us were satisfied with some things in it. I took occasion at another Con- vention, where the delegates to the General Convention were directed to vote against the proposed changes, to declare my continued con- viction that the action of the General Convention had been, on the whole, calculated to do good, though I meant not to oppose what had been determined on in the Convention of Virginia. The adoption of the changes would have effected much of what seems now so generally desired. Had the change proposed, whereby the meaning of baptismal regeneration was fixed at its lowest point, been adopted, there would have been, by anticipation, a protest of the whole Church against all that flood of error in relation to the effects of baptism of infants which has been since brought in by the Tractarian heresy. I would not, however, be understood as endorsing Bishop Hobart's mode of explaining our baptismal service, as I believe another is more consistent with the whole tenor of our services, of which the hypothetical theory, or the judgment of charity, is the way for their true understanding. The lead which Virginia took in opposition to the measure was followed by some other Conventions ; and, as it failed to give general satisfaction, Bishop Hobart proposed its withdrawal, and it was accordingly withdrawn, and the obligation to use the ante-Communion service on every Sabbath was left to rest on its former doubtful foundation. The Bishops had indeed expressed cheir opinion that it was obligatory, but it was of course only an opinion, wanting the force of law, as the General Convention had never adopted it. Nor did the Bishops claim more for it.
375
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
THE EPISCOPAL SUNDAY-SCHOOL UNION.
This was established at the General Convention of 1826. No- thing of its formation appears on the journal, for it was not even proposed to the House. It was the wish of some to make it an institution of the Convention, and such a proposition was talked of; but the whole history of the action of the General Convention was against it. On more than one occasion, individuals had applied to the Convention or to the House of Bishops to adopt or recommend certain Church-books, but were refused on the ground that the General Convention was formed for other purposes, and that the precedent would be bad. In that very year,-1826,-the Rev. Mr. Barlow brought forward a scheme for a Church book-establishment, and was permitted to occupy many hours in the explanation and advocacy of it. The following resolution was adopted in regard to it :- "Resolved, As the opinion of this House, that, without enter- ing at all into the merits of the plan noticed in the report of the committee, it is inexpedient to legislate on the subject." On an- other occasion an effort was made to form a General Education Society under the patronage of the General Convention. This also, after being considered for some time, was postponed, and never resumed. In truth, the only institutions which have been brought under the General Convention are the General Seminary and the Missionary Society ; and whether they give any encouragement for the trial of others, all may judge for themselves. The Episcopal Sunday-School Union was therefore, as has since been publicly and formally admitted by itself, a voluntary institution. Several attempts were made, at different General Conventions, to have it enrolled and recognised among the general institutions of the Church; but they failed,-the Convention being reminded that it was only a voluntary society. The determination of the Church not to embarrass itself and produce discord, by adopting any such institution, was further manifested by the failure of an effort made in 1847 by Bishop Henshaw, who proposed to have a committee of both Houses to prepare a few catechetical books for the children of the Church, with a view to uniformity and harmony. It was opposed by Bishops Delancy, Whittingham, Hopkins, and myself. After a discussion during a part of several days, the question being taken, the mover of the resolution was the only one who voted for it.
There was, however, from the time of its formation a general disposition to encourage the Episcopal Sunday-School Union as a
376
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
voluntary society. The American Sunday-School Union and the American Tract Societies were noble institutions, and furnished many excellent and suitable works for individuals, families, and Sunday-schools; but they could not supply certain books setting forth the peculiarities of the different denominations in connection with the Gospel. It was therefore desirable that Episcopalians as well as others should have some organization for supplying such. It was distinctly understood, at the establishment of ours in 1826, that it should assume no party character, but be conducted on libe- ral comprehensive principles, setting forth only those common truths about which Episcopalians are agreed,-which platform has been repeatedly declared since then. Accordingly, the diocese of Vir- ginia, at the first Convention after its organization, earnestly re- commended it to the patronage of the Episcopalians of the State. A few months only, however, had elapsed, when some of its publi- cations contained sentiments very different from what was expected, and which were calculated to dissatisfy many of us. I immediately wrote to the chief manager of it,-the present Bishop of Maryland, -making complaints. In reply, I was assured that the greatest pains should be taken in the future to avoid giving offence; that the book most objected to should be withdrawn from circulation ; and that henceforth books favouring both parties in the Church should be published. I did not question the sincerity of the promise and intention, but saw the impracticability of the plan proposed. Thus disappointed, I did not take any particular concern in the operation of the Society after that. I only saw that from time to time some things came out which were criticized, and which I could not approve, though there were many good little books published for children, chiefly from the pens of pious writers in England. At length, when Tractarian publications began to multiply in our own and Mother-Church, the character of the issues of this Society be- came more and more tinctured with the false doctrines of that school. Complaints became so numerous and heavy, that in the summer of 1846, when a number of Bishops were in New York at the annual meeting of the General Missionary Society, the Execu- tive Committee of the Union was convened, and the complaints stated. An order was then passed that a set of all the books of the Society should be sent to each Bishop for examination. On receiving and examining those sent to myself, I found so much to object to, that the duty was felt to spread the same before the Church. This was done in an octavo pamphlet of more than sixty pages. For so doing I received much severe censure from the press
377
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
and elsewhere. My charges were pronounced to be false. The books were declared to be worthy of all praise, and to have no un- sound doctrine in them. The Church was solemnly and repeatedly called on to sustain it just as it was. Seeing that there was no promise or hope of amendment, a number of those who believed that better books and tracts might be procured determined to form another voluntary Society, in which those who agreed in sentiment might with more harmony and efficiency benefit the Church by the press, and resist that torrent of evil which was pouring itself over our own and Mother-Church. Wherefore a number of Bishops, clergy, and laity, who met together at the Convention of 1847, in New York, united in forming what is called the Evangelical Knowledge Society. For so doing they have been stigmatized by many of the friends of the other Society as the promoters of division, schism, and discord, and as slandering that Society, whose publica- tions were still defended as sound and useful. God has neverthe- less been pleased to bless our efforts and to extend the sphere of our operations beyond our first hopes. Under these circumstances, at the last General Convention, a most unexpected and extraordi- nary call was made upon us to cease from our work and unite with the elder Society under a somewhat new organization, which dis- avowed all former claims by its friends of being other than a volun- tary society, and made fresh pledges of the avoidance of all which could offend any sincere and pious Episcopalian. Had the regular officers and members of this Society, after due consideration, for- mally proposed to those of the Evangelical Knowledge Society a conference for the purpose of inquiring whether there might not be a union of effort on some liberal basis, and, having agreed on the same, called upon the Church generally to sustain such a union, there would have been something worthy the name of compromise, though I do not believe such union practicable or likely to satisfy long. Or had the managers of the elder Society been content to discard such of their books as were at length found to be unworthy, and made, even on the ground of expediency, certain changes in others, and resolved on the most comprehensive and conciliatory mode of action for the future, and left the other Society to do its own work in its own way, there would have been nothing to com- plain of. All must have desired to see the work of reformation go on. But instead of this, as though it were the only Society having a right to exist, having resolved on certain changes and certain promises, and forgetful of past failures, it calls upon all the clergy and congregations of the Church to rally around its banner, and it
378
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
only, under pain of being regarded as wanting in true attachment to the Church and devoid of Christian charity. If such is not the position which the old Society (under an altered name) has assumed toward the Evangelical Knowledge Society, consisting of a large number of Bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church, I have mistaken the movement. So have I understood the language of its managers, its committees, and its active friends, as spoken throughout the land. As to the probability of success in making it answer all the wants of the whole Church, it is not in place to discuss the question. It is sufficient to say that the Evangelical Knowledge Society has seen no cause to relinquish its work. That work is not the division of the Church, (as has been falsely charged upon it,) either as designed or as the natural or probable consequence. On the contrary, the best method of preventing division is to allow a reasonable liberty of thought and action. By attempting hermetically to seal the minds and lips of men, there may be a swelling and an explosion. In our Mother-Church, different societies, having the same great object in view, but using somewhat different means, are not con- sidered as interfering with the unity and welfare of the Church. Many there are, among both clergy and laity, who actively co-ope- rate with different societies. I sincerely hope that both of our Societies may be worthy of such general patronage.
THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE CHURCH.
Our Church was too tardy in this noble enterprise, especially as to the foreign department. The first impulse given to us was the tender of some pecuniary help from the Church Missionary Society of our mother-country, if we would enter upon the work. The missionary character and tendency of the Colonization Society did much to excite our Church to action. The plea for Africa was a pathetic one, addressing itself to all hearts. But it was not heard at once by all. Even after our first efforts in behalf of that unhappy land, I heard an old and respectable clergyman of our Church, preaching at one of our General Conventions, designate the foreign missionary effort as a wild crusade, and another of high standing express the opinion that the foreign missionary work was for other denominations, and the domestic for Episcopalians. In three years after, however, I heard the latter plead zealously for the foreign missionary cause. An effort for preparing coloured missionaries for Africa was made at Hartford under the patronage of Bishop Brownell and Dr. Wainwright, but, from various causes, it proved of but little avail. The efforts of our Virginia Seminary commenced
379
FAMILIES OF VIRGINIA.
with preparing Mr. and Mrs. Hill for the Greek mission, and have ever since been successfully continued. The missionary work went on gradually increasing on its first platform until the year 1835. Some of its friends then thought that its labours and funds might more rapidly increase if some changes in its organization were effected. It was proposed to place it more entirely under the patronage and direction of the General Convention ; to constitute the whole Church, consisting of every baptized person and child, the Society; to declare the whole world to be but one field, forbidding the distinction of foreign and domestic, or so arranging it that no dissensions should arise in the management of them. I was not at the opening of this General Convention, being detained several days in Virginia. All things were agreed upon before my arrival between some of those who, from their location and other circum- stances, took a more active part in the conduct of the Society. On reaching Philadelphia, a number of those brethren whose lead I was always ready to follow in regard to such matters, and some of whom are yet alive, informed me that a most happy agreement had taken place among the active friends of missions, that all party distinctions were to be done away, and that, in proof of the liberal feeling toward those of our way of thinking-that one Bishop should be chosen for China and two for the domestic field-one of the latter, together with the former, should be such as we would designate. Of course this was very acceptable to one who had never professed to be in- different to the distinctions which prevailed in the Church. It seemed to promise well. On conversing with that wise and good man, Bishop Griswold, I found that he was not at all carried away with the new plan; that he would rather it should assume more than less of the voluntary system, referring to the two successful Societies in England,-the Church Missionary Society and the So- ciety for Propagating the Gospel,-which had always acted on the voluntary principle. When the proposed changes came before the whole Society for discussion, there was, I thought, a disposition on the part of some to underrate the character and success of the old organization, and I took the liberty to object to such strictures, and to refer to what it had done, and especially to the great increase of its funds for the last year or two, at the same time declaring my intention to act with those who understood the operation of the Society better than myself. All things were settled on the new platform, and some of us continued until the last night of the Con- vention under the pleasing expectation of having two missionary Bishops of our own choice; but it so happened that two of the other
380
OLD CHURCHES, MINISTERS, AND
side were chosen for the domestic field, and the election of one for the foreign field was indefinitely postponed. This, among other things, may help to account for the fact that some of us are rather fearful of what are called compromises.
Though thus disappointed, we determined to support the new organization. In many addresses throughout Virginia, I advocated the peculiarities of it,-even as though it had commended itself entirely to my own choice and judgment. The Society under the new organization has certainly not succeeded as well as was expected by some. An impulse was given to it by the first extraordinary efforts made in its behalf, and its funds increased for a time; but, as they were already on the increase, it is impossible to say whether, with the same exertions, the increase under the old system might not have been even greater. Certain it is, that the annual increase soon began to decline, and that the advocates for the new arrange- ment were disappointed. The friends of missions have long mourned the want of zeal and liberality of the Church toward them. The domestic department especially has languished. The Constanti- nople mission dragged heavily for some years, then stopped alto- gether for want of men, means, and success. The Greek mission, being in a measure self-supporting, has sustained itself well. Those of China and Africa alone seemed to draw forth missionaries and support, and even these have done it in a degree most dispropor- tioned to the importance of the object and the wealth of the Church. At the last General Convention, the causes of failure were inquired into, especially with a view to some change in the management of the domestic department, which was in a very languishing condition. A night was appointed for the consideration of the subject. Through some mistake on my part as to the place of meeting, I was not present. I had intended, if present and opportunity offered, to have stated my own candid convictions as to the main causes of the deficiencies complained of. I should have referred to the notorious fact, that the domestic department was unpopular with a large portion of those entitled Low-Churchmen, whose funds were given reluc- tantly, while many on the other side were far from being liberal to either department. I heard it said by at least two of the Bishops, ranging on the other side, that it would be necessary to place both departments in the hands of Low-Churchmen, in order to draw forth funds from the people. That confidence was wanting in the other portion was evident from the fact, that a voluntary society had been formed in Philadelphia for the disposal of its funds on such mission- aries as it might select. The committee of the General Society was
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.