66 trigues were often blended with religious services, and, although the charge of treason and sedition was often brought against persons innocent of every thing but religious dissent, yet we have no right, in the absence of proof, to jump to the conclusion in this case. It may or may not have been so. Still less are we warranted in supposing that these soldiers were Baptists. If so, they would scarcely have preferred a colony of cavaliers, where there was persecution as bad as that of the inquisition," to others where they might have expected less harshness, or to Rhode Island or Maryland, where they might have looked for entire exemption. Neither can we rely, as proof that Baptists were numerous, on the "many schismatical persons," mentioned in the preamble to the act of 1661-2 against "those who refuse to have their children baptized." It may certainly, as Benedict thinks, have been directed against the Quakers, who were equally unwilling with the Baptists to have their children baptized. It is also shown by Dr. Hawks, that the enactors of the law to punish Quakers, who were really few, represent them, in the preamble, as many, hoping, by exaggerating the so-called evil, to justify or palliate the harshness of the remedy. The fact that "Virginia was settled by a company from London, and that there were in 1643 known to be seven churches in that one city," and Graham's mention of "Puritans residing in Virginia," surely do not justify the belief that there were many Baptists. The question, "Why may not Baptists also have been there?" may be asked; but who can answer it? When Dr. Howell quotes from Morgan Edwards the statement: "These Baptists (meaning some in North Carolina) had gone over to that colony from Virginia, to escape the intolerance of her laws," he gives us something tangible, and he is justified in saying: "The removal of Baptists from Virginia, (in 1695,) is surely sufficient evidence that there were Baptists in Virginia." Undoubtedly, but not that they were numerous. Indeed, we have no sympathy with Dr. Howell's feeling which impels him to this proof, so complete to his own mind, so unsatisfactory to ours. We feel more like the English monarch, who, on the eve of battle against great odds, replied to a follower, who said: "O that we now had here But one ten thousand of those men in England "What's he that wishes so? My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin: We are perfectly willing, also, to remain under the common and, we believe, correct impression, that they "That fought with us upon St. Crispin's day" were mainly composed of that class which formed the strength of Henry's, as of every other English army, the honest yeomanry. An attempt to disprove this social position, in opposition to well-known and stubborn facts, will only make us ridiculous. It seems to us unnecessary, also, to speak as if "we are the people, and wisdom will die with us;" as if all who have ever borne the name of Baptists are therefore immaculate. We admire the prudence and good sense of the old Virginia Baptists, who, as we are informed by Semple, did not conceive themselves bound to defend the Anabaptists of Munster, who, unless greatly belied, were disgraced by very dangerous opinions and practices. The Baptists in other parts of Europe were horribly maltreated. Were they therefore exempt from human frailty, from the faults sometimes engendered by persecution itself? Although they exhibited many shining examples of patient, forgiving martyrdom, yet their resistance to oppression must often have been conducted with bitter and revengeful feelings, for while their ends were their God's and Truth's,' the agents were men of like passions with ourselves." We speak thus freely, but respectfully, of what we think a pernicious mistake, made by the recent eulogist of the Virginia Baptists, a mistake which, we are sure, none will regret more than himself, should it injure his beloved denomination. In regard to the origin and early condition of the denomination in the "Old Dominion," we prefer to leave the quaking soil of plausible conjecture, for the firm ground of fact, illumined by indisputable evidence. We take the simple statement of the plain, sensible, reliable Semple, that the first Baptist church in Virginia was organized at Burleigh, in Isle of Wight county, and that the denomination made rapid progress between that time and the Revolution. Whether, as Dr. Howell expresses it, "Like a concealed army, they sprang up from every nook, and glen, and plain, and hill," or were new recruits enlisted by the soldiers of the Cross, they certainly swelled, in half a century, into a mighty host. The Toleration Act of William and Mary, which the Virginia Assembly adopted, by general reference, in 1699, must have greatly encouraged all dissenters. Here again we must, in opposition to Dr. Howell, maintain that the term "Protestants" in it does embrace Baptists. It is true, they were not in Germany to protest against the action of the Diet of Spires under the influence of Charles the Fifth; neither were the Calvinists of Switzerland, France and Scotland, nor the Episcopalians of England: yet who can doubt that all these denominations were properly called Protestants? Indeed, the fact that Baptists did not come out from the Church of Rome, if universally true, gives them the best title to the name, as having protested jam inde ab initio. But Menno and various others who embraced Baptist doctrines, did come out of the Papal Church. Besides, after all, the meaning of words depends not on derivation, but on usage. If a tax were imposed on all Protestants, and the Baptists were to claim exemption from it, we suspect they would share the fate of the New York importers, who refused, under a law imposing a duty on fish oil, to pay it on whale oil, because the learned Dr. Mitchell said that a whale was not a fish. Having frankly and, we hope, without offence expressed our dissent, as we may again hereafter, from some positions of Dr. Howell, we proceed now to cull from him, and the sources whence he derived most of his information, a few of the facts which he has diligently collected and forcibly presented. We know not whether the "New Lights," to whom Mr. Maury objected as jurymen, were Presbyterians or Baptists; their vicinity to Mr. Davies' churches might favor the supposition that they were the former, did not the more zealous hostility of the latter more plausibly account for the violence of the objection from one, who desired altogether gentlemen, i. e., Episcopalians. This was a few years before the first recorded case of interference with Baptist preachers; but the bad feelings, naturally engendered by views so opposite, were probably even then leading to the deadly struggle between the denominations. In this struggle, Dr. Hawks, while not defending persecution, evidently sympathizes with the persecutors, and speaks bitterly of the implacable spirit manifested by the Baptists. For ourselves, we feel with the men, however imperfect, who struck constant, persevering blows for that sublime truth which compels the homage of Dr. Hawks. Not doubting that Baptists are and were Protestants, we think a plausible objection might have been made to their acceptance of toleration, on account of the implied admission, in that acceptance, of an authority in government to impose conditions on religious worship. However that point ought to have been decided, the Baptists, the Regulars at least, are said to have claimed the benefit of the Act, to some extent. All the persecutions of which we have any special account, occurred in the twelve years between 1763 and 1775. Semple states, that it was by no means certain, that any law in force in Virginia authorized imprisonment for preaching. But it seems clear, that the old laws against dissenters had been only modified by the Toleration Act, and that even that Act excepted none but ministers licensed to preach at certain specified places. Itinerant, unlicensed Baptist preaching was clearly illegal, although no specific penalty may have been attached to the illegal acts. We shall see, presently, that the law officers themselves had no well-defined and positive opinions on the subject. On the 4th of June, 1768, occurred the commencement of this memorable, this infamous persecution. Men who three years before had denounced the Stamp Act, and seven years after unfurled the standard of independence, then sanctioned a tyranny over the soul infinitely worse than British taxation. Alas for human frailty and inconsistency! On the day above-mentioned, Waller, Craig and Childs, three Baptist ministers, were seized in Spottsylvania County, and imprisoned because they would not "promise to preach no more in the county for a year and a day." Their enemies said: "They cannot meet a man upon the road, but they must ram a text of Scripture down his throat," an earnestness, no doubt, quite astonishing and unwelcome to persons accustomed to the cold formality and worldly conversation of the State clergy. The other two were confined fortythree days; but Craig, being released earlier, went to Williamsburg, to procure from the Deputy-Governor, John Blair, the release of his brethren. Blair's letter to the Commonwealth's Attorney of Spottsylvania, shows him to have been disinclined to persecution. The conclusion of this letter is specially worthy of note. "The act of toleration (it being found by experience that persecuting dissenters increases their numbers) has given them a right to apply, in a proper manner, for licensed houses for the worship of God according to their consciences, and I persuade myself the gentlemen will quietly overlook their meetings till the Court. I am told they administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper near the manner we do, and differ in nothing from our Church but that of baptism, and their renewing the ancient discipline; by which they have reformed some sinners, and brought them to be truly penitent. Nay, if a man of theirs is idle, and neglects to labor and provide for his family as he ought, he incurs their censures, which have had good effects. If this be their behavior, it were to be wished we had some of it among us. But, at least, I hope all may remain quiet till the Court. Yours, [Signed,] JOHN BLAIR. We see at once that Blair, although he had not the present ideas of religious freedom, did not judge the Baptists harshly, and would never have originated a persecution against them. That was left to the gentlemen, whose nobility was shocked by the vulgar contact of these plebeian preachers of reformation. We have a high regard for the true gentlemen of Virginia; little for those who chose this mode of exhibiting their gentility. The Attorney-General, too, thinks that they "may not molest these conscientious people, so long as they behave themselves in a manner becoming pious Christians." Neither of these officers, prob |