37 Washington wrote to Bryan Fairfax on July 4, 1774: “Dear Sir: John has just delivered to me your favor of yesterday, which I shall be obliged to answer in a more concise manner, than I could wish, as I am very much engaged in raising one of the additions to my house, which I think (perhaps it is fancy) goes on better whilst I am present, than in my absence from the workmen. I own to you, Sir, I wished much to hear of your making an open declaration of taking a poll for this county, upon Colonel West’s publicly declining last Sunday; and I should have writ ten to you on the subject, but for information then received from several gentlemen in the churchyard, of your having re fused to do so, for the reasons assigned in your letter;[editors note:(Note: The poll here mentioned was for the election of delegates to the House of Burgesses.) Mr. Fairfax declined, as he said, chiefly because he thought he could not give satisfaction at that time; for he should think himself bound to oppose strong measures, and was in favor of petitioning, and giving Parliament a fair opportunity of repealing their obnoxious acts. ...]” upon which, as I think the country never stood more in need of men of abilities and liberal sentiments than now, I entreated several gentlemen at our church yesterday to press Colonel Mason to take a poll, as I really think Major Broadwater, though a good man, might do as well in the discharge of his domestic concerns, as in the capacity of a legislator. And therefore I again express my wish, that either you or Colonel Mason would offer. I can be of little assistance to either, because I early laid it down as a maxim not to propose myself, and solicit for a second....” WGW, vol. 3, 7-4-1774.
38 Fitzpatrick, Diaries of George Washington, vol. I, p. 315.
39 Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish, p. 88.
40 Ibid., p. 89.
41 WGW, vol. 27, 7-10-1783.
42 Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish, p. 95.
43 Ibid., p. 90.
44 Washington had mentioned his paying for the Fairfax pew when he wrote his draft of a letter to George William. He wrote from Williamsburg on June 10, 1774, “Inclosd you have a Copy of the Acct. I settled before I left home with Mr. Craven Peyton; as also of my Acct. with you in which you will perceive a charge for your Pew in the New Church at Pohick which is now conveyed to you by the Vestry and upon Record. The Balce. Of this Acct. to with £ is now Exchangd for Bills and remit viz.” But he crossed it out before he sent it, thus not asking for repayment. WGW, vol. 3, 6-10-1774.
45 Philip Slaughter writes, “That pew has become historical. It was afterwards occupied by Gen. Robert E. Lee, and there are tablets on the walls of the Church in memory of these two heroic characters and devout Christians. This historic pew attracts every week streams of pilgrims to Christ Church.” Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish, p. 96.
46 WGW, vol. 3, 2-15-1773.
CHAPTER 15
1 WGW, vol. 3, 5-4-1772. To Reverend Jonathan Boucher.
2 Reverend Mason Gallagher, A Chapter of Unwritten History. The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost and Restored. A Centennial Offering (Philadelphia: Reformed Episcopal Rooms, 1883), p. 3. The quote continues: “In an able article on “The Causes which drove the Puritans from England,” the New Englander for November, 1882, says: ‘It was the bishops who drove the Puritans into Holland; it was the bishops who hung the sword of Damocles over them as they sailed to Plymouth; it was the bishops who compelled the founding of New England, and the great Puritan exodus.’”
When fifty years afterwards Archbishop Tillotson and other bishops of England expressed with such energy to increase Mather, their just resentment to the injury which had been done to the first planters of New England, the old Puritan exclaimed: ‘If such had been the bishops there had never been a New England.’
3 John S. Littel puts it this way:
Before our Independence, there was in the colonies no Confirmation for anyone, and of course both individual members and the welfare of the Church as a whole were hindered. It is certain that the Church cannot expect to attain her very best development when her children are not “sealed” with the spiritual grace which our Lord at Pentecost placed in His Church to be ministered by the Apostles in “the laying on of hands.” Washington was never confirmed, but so far as he was able he was in close touch with the Church. We have it on the testimony of his political and military associates and members of his family that for many years he was accustomed to make his Communions. Littell, George Washington: Christian.
4 WGW, vol. 37 3-26-1762. to Gov. Horatio Sharpe. “Sir: Be so good as to pardon the liberty I presume to take in recommending to your Excellency’s notice the Revd. Mr. West; a young Gentn. lately entered into Holy Orders, of a good Family, and unexceptionable Morals; this with truth I can venture to certifie as he is a neighbour of mine, and one of those few of whom every body speaks well. At present he is engagd to officiate as Curate to the Revd. Doctr. Swift of Port Tobo.; who it seems is in the last Stage of a Consumption, and attempting by a Voyage to England, the recovery of his health, but, shoud he fail in this (as most probably he will) and the Parish become vacant by his death. Mr. West woud think himself very happy in the honour of your presentment of him to the Cure, and I am fully persuaded that his endeavours woud merit the favour.”
5 Griffith, Virginia House of Burgesses 1750-1774., pp. 118-123, 127, 130, 147, 164, 194.
6 WGW, vol. 1, 5-28-1755.
7 Griffith, Virginia House of Burgesses, pp. 118-19. Lucille Griffith writes, “George Washington was more than a mere surveyor for Lord Fairfax, he was an intimate of the family; George William was one of his best friends and Sally Cary Fairfax his confidant. Anne Fairfax, sister to George William, was married to Lawrence Washington, George’s elder half-brother. It is a truism that Fairfax interest and support launched the youthful George on a political career.”
8 WGW Note: Washington was married on Jan. 6, 1759, to Martha Custis, widow of Daniel Parke Custis, and daughter of John Dandridge. Ford states that the ceremony was performed by the Reverend David Mossum in St. Peters Church, a few miles from the Custis White House, which was on the Pamunkey River, in New Kent County, Va., but documentary evidence that the ceremony was performed in St. Peters is not available.
9 Sawyer, Washington, I.214.
10 William Stith, A.M. President of William and Mary College. Published at the Request of the House of Burgesses Williamsburgh, Printed and Sold by William Hunter, MDCCLIII. Meade, Old Churches, vol. I. p.137-138 writes, “William Stith was the only son of Captain John Stith, of the county of Charles City, and of Mary, a daughter of “William Randolph, gentleman,” of Turkey Island, in the adjoining county, Henrico, in the Colony of Virginia : their son William was born in the year 1689. On the death of her husband, Mrs. Stith, at the instance of her brother, Sir John Randolph, removed to Williamsburg and placed her son in the grammar-school attached to the College of William and Mary, where he pursued his academic studies and graduated. His theological studies were completed in England, where he was ordained a minister of the Episcopal Church. On his return to Virginia, in the year 1731, he was elected master of the grammar-school in the College and chaplain to the Hose of Burgesses. In June, 1738, he was called rector to Henrico parish, in the county of Henrico. He married his cousin Judith, a daughter of Thomas Randolph of Tuckahoe, the second son of William Randolph, of Turkey Island, and resided in the parsonage on the glebe near Varina, the seat of justice for the county of Henrico. There he wrote his History of Virginia, which was printed and bound in the city of Williamsburg, at the only printing-press then in the Colony. In August, 1752, he was elected President of William and Mary College, to which he removed and over which he presided until his death, in 1755.”
11 William Stith, A.M. President of William and Mary College. Published at the Request of the House of Burgesses Williamsburgh, Printed and Sold by William Hunter, MDCCLIII: “AND lastly to shew the Universality of CHRIST’s Redemption, that he is the Propitiation for out Sins, and not for our Sins only, but also for the Sins of the whole World. 1 John 2:2. And for the clearer and more distinct Explication of this Subject, I shall observe.
1 That there is no Remission of Sin, or Salvation, but by the Merits and Sufferings of our Lord JESUS CHRIST. He is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the Sin of the World; (John 1:29) who not by the Blood of the Goats and Calves, but by his own Blood, entered in once into the holy Place having obtained eternal Redemption for us. Heb. 9:3. It is by his propitiatory Sacrifice, offered once for all, and by the Satisfaction thereby made to GOD’s Justice (in a Manner and upon Reasons, incomprehensible to our weak Sense and Understanding) that we can have Access to the Throne of Grace, or Inheritance among the Saint’s in Light. He is therefore emphatically stiled by the Prophet, The Lord, our Righteousness. Jer. 23:6. For with his Stripes we are Healed, and by his imputed Righteousness we are justified and accepted in the Sight of GOD. Neither is there Salvation in any other: For there is none other Name under Heaven, given among Men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12.
2 As we are thus, by CHRIST’s Merits and Satisfaction, put into a Capacity of Salvation, so is Faith required on our Part, as an indispensable Condition for entering into the Kingdom of Heaven: an indispensable Condition, I mean, to those who have the Christian Faith offered unto them, or who have the Opportunity to know and embrace the Gospel. For by Grace are we saved, through Faith. Eph. 2:8. So must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal Life. John 3:14, 15. He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting Life: And he, that believeth not the Son, shall not see Life; but the Wrath of GOD abideth on him. Ibid., 536.
12 See Lane, Washington Collection, Boston Athenaeum, pp. 76-77, 195.
13 Meade, Old Churches, vol. 1, p. 216, Two Penny Act., “...in the year 1758. The act of Assembly which produced the contest, and convulsed both Church and State, was called the Option Law or Two-Penny Act, because the people were allowed the option of paying as usual so much tobacco, or about two pence per pound instead of it.” p. 223 Providence and Tobacco and 2 Penny Act, “They thought it hard, therefore, that when, in the course of Providence, an increase of funds occurred for one year, by which they might be set free from debt or be enabled to buy a few books, this should be prevented by such an act. ...They said the history of Virginia proved that a small crop of tobacco was best for the Colony, that the Legislature was often endeavouring to stint the crop of tobacco by preventing the culture of so much, and in former days had even destroyed some which was already made, and the now, when Providence had stinted the crop, it was hard that the clergy should be the chief, indeed only sufferers.”
Lane, Boston Athenaeum, Catalogue of the Washington Collection, p. 41, “...bought by Washington, as appears from an entry under date of April 16, 1764, in his Ledger preserved in the State Department.” The Rector Detected: Being A Just Defence of the Twopenny Act, against the artful Misrepresentations of the Reverend John Camm, Rector of York-Hampton, in his Single and Distinct View. Containing also a plain Confutation of his several Hints, as a specimen of the Justice and Charity of Colonel Landon Carter by Land Carter of Sabine-Hall Williamsburg: Printed by Joseph Royle. 1764.
“...the Twopenny Act will appear to be calculated for a very general and good Purpose to the whole Community.” (p. 5.) “The Clergy should benefit with the poor. “No 2. The poor, who have an annual Allowance of Tobacco from the Parish to maintain themselves, other poor Persons (those that are boarded out, I suppose) the Clerk of the Church, and the Sexton, not only have no Part of the Charity, but lose two Thirds of their stated allowance, with the Parson by Means of the Act.” (p. 6.)
“The charge that Carter is challenging is “One would think (says he) the poorer any Man was, he ought to receive the greater Share, in a Project for the Benefit of the Poor; but, in this Project, the poorer a Man is, the less he has.” (p. 7)
“Need I appeal to the serious in Christianity to discover the Consistency in Behaviour in a Minister of the Gospel of Christ, thus endeavouring to ridicule and depreciate a Work of such a real Benefit to the Poor? With how much Contempt will it then be read that this witty Ridicule is the Sanctified Performance of the Reverend John Camm, Rector of York-Hampton? Does he not in so doing deny the Power of Godliness, whilst he wears the Form of it? . . .Yet methinks the Scripture should have cautioned him first to pull out his own Beams before he attempted to peck at the Motes of others, for there may be an Hypocrisy in Things of this Kind....” (p. 37.)
14 Meade, Old Churches, p. 220, “Patrick Henry and Davies ...though they must find for the plaintiffs, yet one penny damages would suffice, in five minutes the jury brought in that verdict. ...It is probable, also, that this time Mr. Henry may have been a little alienated from the Church of his father and relatives. The Revs. Mr. Davies and Mr. Waddell (the old blind preacher of whom Mr. Wirt speaks) were then in their height of zeal and eminence, and Mr. Henry often attended their services and admired them much. Disaffection to the Church was also getting quite strong in that region. Mr. Henry may for a time have sympathized in their religious views, though I have no testimony to this effect. The following extract of a letter of Mr. Roger Atkinson, of Mannsfield, near Petersburg, an old vestryman and staunch friend of the Church in that place, to his brother-in-law, Mr. Samuel Pleasants, may throw some light on this point. He is drawing the portraits of the members sent to the first Congress of Virginia. Of Mr. Henry he says, “He is a real half-Quaker; - your brother’s man, - moderate and mild, and in religious matters a saint; but the very d—-l in politics, - a son of thunder. He will shake the Senate. Some years ago he had liked to have talked treason into the House. Whatever may have been the feelings of Mr. Henry as to the Episcopal Church at that time, it is very certain that in after-life he gave full proof that he was no enemy to it, and had no desire to deprive it of any just rights. ... Mr. Henry stood up in opposition to every attempt at their alienation.”
“Patrick Henry also had a significant impact on religious liberty in Virginia as well. In what became known as “The Parson’s Cause,” he helped defeat the required payment of tithes to the state church by the citizens of Virginia, a law that forced many to support a church in which they did not believe. Eidsmoe writes, “Several Anglican clergymen were suing some tobacco planters under a Virginia colony law that required a certain portion of tobacco revenues be paid for the support of the clergy. Henry agreed to defend the planters when their previous attorney declared the case hopeless and withdrew. He assailed the Anglican clergy without mercy, amid a packed courtroom filled with Anglican clergymen confident of victory, and ‘Dissenters’ (Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians) looking to Henry as their champion: ‘We have heard a great deal about the benevolence and holy zeal of our reverend clergy, but how is this manifested? Do they manifest their zeal in the cause of religion and humanity by practicing the mild and benevolent precepts of the Gospel of Jesus? Do they feed the hungry and clothe the naked? Oh, no, gentlemen! Instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, these rapacious harpies would, were their powers equal to their will, snatch from the hearth of their honest parishioner his last hoe-cake, from the widow and her orphan children their last milch cow! The last bed, nay, the last blanket from the lying-in woman!’ Henry could not demand a verdict for the planters since the law was clearly on the side of the clergy. Instead, he asked the jury to bring forth a verdict for the clergy in the amount of one penny—which the jury did.” John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 301.
15 Lane, Boston Athenaeum, Catalogue of the Washington Collection, p. 99, “Bought by Washington as appears from the following:—1774. June 15. By Henley’s defence agt ye cha: of Heresy....” A Candid refutation of the Heresy Imputed By Ro. C. Nicholas Esquire to The Reverend S. Henley. Williamsburg, Printed for B. White in London, D. Prince in Oxford, and J. Woodyer in Cambridge, 1774. The book explains, “Colonel Bland’s imputation of Socinianism rests solely upon my interpretation of the first chapter to the Hebrews. By this I explained away the divinity of our Saviour. That gentleman affirms it, and therefore, it must be true. Now I would ask, whether upon so inconclusive an evidence any criminal, hitherto, was ever condemned? ...Further: Supposing my interpretation of that chapter to have been the Socinian interpretation, it will, by no means, follow that I am a Socinian. What are the notions you entertain of Socinus? For the only information you may find leisure to receive consult in some dictionary a catalogue of his tenets. You will then find that the Papist, the Protestant, the Arian, and the MONSTROUS Socinian, do, and must, agree in their interpretation of the greatest part of Scripture. What wonder then, if I were to explain one chapter according to Socinus? But, suppose I departed from the orthodox interpretation; yet this concession will profit you nothing. Here methinks, I see you prick up your attention. But be patient. I am, as a minister o the Church of England, obliged to believe in (what I have never denied) the divinity of our Saviour. But the Church does not confine me to prove it by this, or that text.” (pp. 4-6.)
16 Ibid., p. 39, “Bought by Washington, as shown by an entry in the Invoice of Cary & Co. of London, March, 1766, preserved in the State Department at Washington.” Burnet’s work was a classic defense of orthodox Anglicanism, but with a more “broad church” perspective, sometimes called “Latitudinarianism,” suggesting a more tolerant view of theological differences, and less interest in using state power to persecute non-conformists. Gilbert Bishop of Sarum, An Exposition of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England (Oxford: University Press, 1845). Article I. Of Faith In The Holy Trinity. The last branch of this article is, the assertion of that great doctrine of the Christian religion concerning the Trinity, or three Persons in one divine essence. It is a vain attempt to go about to prove this by reason: for it must be confessed, that we should have had no cause to have thought of any such thing, if the scriptures had not revealed it to us. p. 40.
Article II. Of The Word Or Son Of God, Which Was Made Very Man.
The first of these leads me to prosecute what was begun in the former article: and to prove, that the Son, or Word, was from all eternity begotten of the same substance with the Father. It is here to be noted, that Christ is in two respects the Son, and the only-begotten Son of God. The one is, as he was man; the miraculous overshadowing of the blessed Virgin by the Holy Ghost, having, without the ordinary course of nature, formed the first beginnings of Christ’s human body in the womb of the Virgin. Thus that miracle being instead of a natural begetting, he may in that respect be called the begotten, and the only-begotten Son of God. The other sense is, that the Word, or the divine Person, was in and of the substance of the Father, and so was truly God. (p. 47.)
Article IV. Of The Resurrection Of Christ.
Among all Christians the article of the resurrection and ascension of Christ was always looked on as the capital one upon which all the rest depended. (p. 65.)
