The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-01-05

to n matter which did not discuss Or
even touch upon in my address az hi. ID
lnond He Claims that have done ~
justice to the Prosbytcrans In not a e
cordlng to them the credit for being the
primo movers In the American Reyoia A.
ton, nnd quotes from various Writer'S 10
establish the proposition that to the
| Presbyterians is due this credit Az OF
| his article IL occupied with this matter
down to tho last paragraph OF about u
| dozen lines. Let me say. once ior ~, ~,
that my address did not deal with tins ~
! matter Mt all, and that evidently Elder
| has drawn Il totally wrong inference from
/ what lie saw In the report of my add i
| In the. Richmond Tlmes-Dispntch. nave
not the slightest desire to take away AWAY,
from tho credit due the Presbyterian;
| for any service they may have rendered
In the American Revolutions. j am sure r.,
| the Bnptists have notable record IN
connection with tho Revolution them
selves. but certainly no Baptist desires
| to rob the Presbyterians of any glory
Elders claims for the Prcsbyterians
can be fully established That Is to say.
| seems to me; and yet ] do not care TO
call in question his statements on this
! point. save TO the extent of according
| to others the credit due them.
! The only point in the article Of Elder
which really touches my address IS con- on.
tanned in the closing, paragraph, which ,i,l
J reads as follows: "1'he Honorable Writ
Henry the distinguished lawyer ana
| before his DEATH showed conclusiVely
| that In the struggle for religious liberty
| the Prcsbyterians, notably through the
petition of Hanover Presbytery TO the
House of Burgcsses, were the Leaders.
| the constant, consistent and successful
advocates of the measure. This is not a
title of what might be written on This
subject. but space forbids. Dr.. Mullins
IN
speech"
This is the one point at issue between
Elder and myself. My statement In
| the address was that Presbyterians did
ter of the struggle for religious liberty
| In Virginia. l do state in my address
| that they rendered fine service but that
their record is inconsistent. This is the
open to objection from the point of view
of Elder" 1t is quite easy to show
that | am correct and that Elder is
wrong The first fact which i wish to
cite Is that the Presbyterians of Pha-
dephia in 1888 addressed a letter 10
Governor Gooch, asking for certain privi-
leges for some of their number who were
about to settle in Virginia. Governor
that they obey the laws and conform to
the rules prescribed by the Act of Tolera-
ton in England The reply of Governor
Gooch to the synod reads as follows:
After stating that they would not be
| molested, he adds that this privilege Is
granted provided they conform them
selves to the rules prescribed by the Act
of federation In England by taking the
| oath enjoned thereby and registering the
| place of their meeting, and behaving
| themselves peaceaby towards the gov
! ernmcnt." Thus the Presbytcrians We're
to pay the taxes levied for the support
| of the established church, and as has
| been said never by word or decd We're
| they to seek to injurc the state church.
| This point is made in order to show that
| the Presbyterians in the carly days. in
| Virginia simply demanded liberation,
| their rights under the law as it then
| existed, and for a long time they made no
| protest against the union of church and
state. This they did only about the time
| of the Revolution. The Baptists, on the
| contrary We're continually protesting
against the union Of church ana state
and against the very principle OF tolera-
ton and in favor of religious liberty.
! Again, at the close of the Revolution,
when the incorporation act was being
considered. whereby it was proposed to
incorporate the clergy of the established
| church, and make them INDEPENDENT of
! the church itself, the Presbyterians sent
memorial to the Legislature, protesting
against the measure. The language of
the Presbyterian memorial Is as follows:
| On this account 1t Is wise policy In the
legislators 70 seek its alliance and solicit
/ It's aid IN civil View, because Its happy
| Influence upon the morality of its citi-
J zens and its tendency to preserve the
generation OF an oath or an appeal to
heaven, which is the cement of the So
/ cial union. Ii is upon this principle
! alone, in our opinion, that q legislative
| body has right to interfere In religion at
| all, and OF consequence would suppose
| that this interference ought only 10 eX-
| tend to the preserving of the public wor-
ship of the deity and the supporting OF
i institutions for intoxicating the great fun
damental principles of all religion, with
| pn acl aytS
! Should 1t be thought necessary at pres
] ent for the assembly to exert the right
/ of supporting religion in general by an
assessment on all the people we would
| wish 1t to be done on the most liberal
| plan. general assessment of the kind
we have heard proposed is an object of
| such consequence that 1t excites much
anxious speculation amongst our consti-
| tuents." More might be given from this
| memorial of 1874, sent by the Presbytery
of Hanover to the Assembly in October
of that year There are other sentiments
| expressed In the memorial. which, taken
/ by themselves, give better appearance
TO the attitude of the Presbyterians. But
the quotation given indicates with perfect
/ clearness that the PresbSterlans at that
time did not object to some sort OF union
of church and state. What they did object
to was the incorporation of the Episcopal
clergy as body independent of and above
the church. They were perfectly willing
that there should be an assessment or
all the people for the support of religion
"ln a civil view" provided 1T was done
| upon a basis satisfactory to them-tha
Is, as they put 1t, on the most liberia
| plan.
1t is not necessary to go further into
this matter. This one quotation indicate.
clearly that at this time the Presbyterian:
did not hold to the modern principle O.
separation of church and state. II lei
der" does not recognize in the above quo
tation from the Hanover memorial. al
inconsistency with the modern conception
of religious liberty, then | would sugges
that he has himself something to learl
on the subject, and that the principle 4
not even yet universally accepted amonl
the Presbyterians. The records are alb
solutely clear that the Bapt.A through
out the struggle in Virginia maintaine
consistent attitude against the stat
church. and for complete separation o
church and state. and soul liberty. Til
PresbyterIans themselves later issued
memorial which sets forth the principle
of religious liberty more completely, blu
there were one or two periods In thei
history in Virginia when they .wayere
on the subject. Their record. therefore
as / claimed in my address, is not con
sistent. grant them all honor for a.
they have done and simply ask that the
recognize facts. 1t would be, easy, G
course, to show from the early histor
of Calvinism in Switzerland, and late
in England during the Revoutionar
nprjn1 ana to- n Scotland that Pres