The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1889-03-20


action and influence of her most promi-
nent members had been previously noted
and commented on in we'll known his.
torical works. DIR. John a. Rice
Evangelical and Literary Magazine"
had been constituted an armory and
treasury, in which had been stored up
the materials for history on that subject.
Howison's History of Virginia had been
published in full in 1848, and had given
in Vol IL, PIP. 141-195, 294-3O3, 1917
4O5, 492-497 a complete historical state
ment OF the progress of religious liberty
In Virginia, with references to the parts
borne by each Christian denomination,
and especially to the memorials, five in
number, which had been sent from the
Presbytery of Hanover, and sufficient
quotations from the most important of
those (1776) to exhibit it's true character
ard value, and to show how it had been
misquoted by DR.. Hawks in his work on
the protestant Episcopal Church in
Virginia, page 139. DR.. William II.
Foote, In his Sketches" had also given
valuable history on this subject, and Ban
croft had included it in his elaborate
work.
No evidence is furnished by the
biographer of Judge Caleb Wallace
which can be held as conclusive, or even
strongly persuasive, to prove that he was
the author of the petition OF Hanover
Presbytery, in l774, as to the Act of
liberation, nor of the interrogative argu-
ment on the general subject of church
establishment which appeared in the V5r
gl'a1G Gazette of November s, 1776, nor
of the still more important and powerful
memorial sent to the General Assembly
of Virginia in that year by Hanover
Presbytery, which is Justly considered as
the VlS UiUidG that turned the scale in
favor of religious freedom, and overthrow
the established church.
In his familiar letter to his intimate
friend Rev. James Caldwell, of Elizabeth
town, New Jersey, dated April s, 1777,
in which he narrates his own connection
with these matters, and in which it would
have been entirely proper, and not at all
egotistical, that he should have stated
his authorship if he was the aathor, he
makes no such claim. His remarks are
as follows: "These circumstances induced
our Presbytery to take the lead, and pre-
pare a memorial on the subject, to be
presented to our House at the session
last fall, and as none of the members
who were older in the ministry, and
better qualified could undertake it, the
Preebytery appointed me their deputy,
which obliged me to make the case par
ticular study, which, indeed, had done
for some time before, aud to attend the
General Assembly for six or eight weeks"
And, then, after stating the favorable
action of the Assembly, he says "Thus
has the affair ended or rather proceeded,
without producing any other consequence
than a day or twos debating In the
House, and little newspaper pickering
Here is no claim of authorship, but
rather definite statement that after the
memorial had been prepared and adopted,
he was appointed the deputy of the
Presbytery to attend the Assembly in
Williamsburg. And it does not seem
probable that if he had been the author
of the able paper in the Virginia Gazette,
he would have used the somewhat dis.
paraging epithet pickering" concerning
it. And it is quite certain that none of
the letters nor other written competitions
OF Caleb Wallace given in this minute
biography would encourage the belief
that he wrote either of the three papers
to which We have referred.
AS to the memorial of 1776, it seems
to have been assumed as certain that
Caleb Wallace was its author. But this
may not rest on adequate
evidence. Hanover Presbytery at that
time embraced in it's membership such
men as John Todd, John Brown, David
Rice, James Waddell afterwards immor-
talized as the blind preacher" by Will
liam Writ, Samuel Leake, William
Irwin, William Wilson, Samuel Doak,
and Samuel Stanbope Smith, several of
whom were capable of composing such
paper. And John Blair Smith, though
too young to be minister, had already
manifested his great ability, which after
wards pointed him out as the right man
to argue before the Virginia Assembly
against the sinister and dangerous scheme
of general assessment for the support of
religion. As to the petition Of 1774, and
the argument in the Virginia Gazette
even the Jealous biographer Of Judge
Wallace admits that his authorship is a
mere hypothesis, and it seems to us to be
supported by very slender evidence
Moreover, the petition of 1774 implies
in Gan Act of liberation
if Its terms could be made acceptable.
Yet this very word federation" was an
insult to the OeniIfs of RELIGIONS freedom