CHAPTER III
The Period Of Imprisonment
And Strife In Virginia

The Persecutions in Virginia— Imprisonments—Spotsylvania—Lewis Craig—Letter of John Blair—Waller forty—three Days in Jail—The Members of the Establishment Enraged—Others Imprisoned—William Fristoe on Persecutions—The Baptists Greatly Increase in Number—James Madison Writes Letters—The Action of the House of Burgesses—The Baptists Present Petitions—The Baptists Attack the Establishment.

Heretofore, as has been seen, the Baptists were much persecuted. At their baptisms they were annoyed, and on one occasion a clergyman of the Establishment rode into the water and badgered them. They had been whipped, branded and banished. Now there was a systematic effort made to entirely overthrow them.

"The first instance of actual imprisonment," says Semple, "we believe, that ever took place in Virginia, was in the county of Spotsylvania. On the 4^th of June, 1768, John Waller, Lewis Craig, James Childs, &c., were seized by. the sheriff and hauled before three magistrates, who stood in the meeting-house yard, and who bound them in the penalty of one thousand pounds, to appear in court two days after. At court they were arraigned as disturbers of the peace; on their trial, they were vehemently accused, by a certain lawyer, who said to the court, ‘May it please your worships, these men are great disturbers of the peace; they cannot meet a man upon the road, but they must ram a text of Scripture down his throat.’ Mr. Waller made his own and his brethren’s defense so ingeniously that they were somewhat puzzled to know how to dispose of them. They offered to release them if they would promise to preach no more in the county for a year and a day. This they refused; and, therefore, were sent into close jail. As they moved on, from the court house to the prison, through the streets of Fredericksburg, they sung the hymn, ‘Broad is the road that leads to death, &c.’

This had an awful appearance. After four weeks’ confinement, Lewis Craig was released from prison and immediately went to Williamsburg to get a release for his companions. He waited on the deputy governor, the Hon. John Blair, stated the case before him, and received the following letter, directed to the King’s attorney in Spotsylvania:

"When the letter came to the attorney he would have nothing to say in this affair. Waller and the others continued in jail forty-three days, and were discharged without conditions. While in prison they constantly preached through the gates. The mobs without using every exertion to prevent the people from hearing, but to little purpose. Many heard, indeed, upon whom the Word was in power and demonstration.

"After their discharge, which was a kind of triumph, Waller, Craig, and their compeers in the ministry, resumed their labors with redoubled vigor, gathering fortitude from their late sufferings, thanking God that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ and his Gospel. Day and night, and indeed almost every day and night, they held meetings in their own and adjacent neighborhoods. The spread of the Gospel and Baptist principles was equal to all of their exertions; insomuch that in a few sections of Virginia did the Baptist cause appear more formidable to its enemies and more consoling to its friends than in Spotsylvania; and we may add, so it is to this day" (Semple).

The outcome of this affair seems to have further enraged the members of the Establishment. They everywhere attempted to strengthen their cause. A petition was presented by them to the House of Burgesses, May 5, 1769, to the following effect:

The persecutors were exceedingly active. At Middlesex, William Webber, John Waller, James Greenwood, and Robert Ware were thrown into a filthy jail "which swarmed with fleas." Untold indignities were placed upon the men. "On September the 10th they were allowed the prison bounds, by which they were much relieved; yet they were frequently under the necessity of resorting to the jail to avoid the rage of the persecutors. The Lord daily opened the hearts of the people; the rich sent many presents-things calculated to nourish them in their sufferings and to alleviate their sorrows. William Webber fell sick. This excited the sympathy of their friends in a higher degree; they paid him great attention. The persecutors found that the imprisonment of the preachers tended rather to the furtherance of the Gospel. They preached regularly in prison; crowds attended; the preaching seemed to have double weight when coming from the jail; many viewed it with superstitious reverence, so that their enemies became desirous to be rid of them. Accordingly, on the 26th day of September, after having been thirty days in close confinement and sixteen days in the bounds, they were liberated upon giving a bond for good behavior.

"The rage of persecutors had in nowise abated; they seemed, sometimes, to strive to treat the Baptists and their worship with as much rudeness and indecency as was possible. They often insulted the preachers in time of service, and would ride into the water and make sport when they administered baptism; they frequently fabricated and spread the most groundless reports, which were injurious to the character of the Baptists. When any Baptist fell into any improper conduct, it was always exaggerated to the utmost extent. On one occasion when Robert Ware was preaching, there came one Davis and one Kemp, two sons of Belial, and stood before him with a bottle, and drank, offering the bottle to him, cursing him. As soon as he closed his service they drew out a pack of cards and began to play on the stage where he had been standing, wishing him to reprove them that they might beat him" (Semple).

In regard to these persecutions William Fristoe says:

The results of the persecution were inevitable. "Religious tyranny produced its accustomed effects; the Baptists increased on every side. If one preacher was imprisoned, two arose to take his place; if one congregation was dispersed, a larger assembled on the next opportunity. Twenty years before the Revolution, few of this sect could have been found in the Colony, and yet, in 1774, the Separates alone, had thirty churches south of the James river, and twenty-five on its north, and the Regulars, though not so numerous, had grown with rapidity. The influence of the denomination was strong among the common people, and was beginning to be felt in higher places. In two points they were distinguished. First in their love of freedom. No class of the people of America were more devoted advocates of the principles of the Revolution; none more willing to give their money and goods to the country; none more prompt to march to the field of battle, and none more heroic in an actual combat, than the Baptists of Virginia. Secondly, in their hatred of the Church establishment. They hated not :w ministers, but its principles. They had seen its operation and had felt its practical influence. Common sense pointed out its deformities, and clamored against its injustice. To a man they were united in the resolve never to relax their efforts until it was utterly destroyed" (Howison, II).

These harsh measures brought many petitions to the House of Burgesses for relief. Such petitions did not bring liberty to the Baptists. The state of affairs is well pictured by James Madison in a letter to his friend Bradford, of Philadelphia, January 24, 1774, when he says:

On April 1, 1774, he again writes to Bradford as follows:

In the meantime a tremendous struggle had been going on to secure the passage of a law of toleration in the House of Burgesses. The movement in favor of such a law began in 1769. The Baptists, irritated at their ill treatment, complained and the Assembly awakened to the fact that it would be advisable to confirm the Toleration Act of 1699. "The attempt to prevent the spread of dissent, which fell so heavily on the Baptists from the year 1768 onwards convinced the more thoughtful Episcopalians that some degree of restricted toleration must be granted to the citizens of Virginia, or society must be shaken to its foundation. To appease the agitated community a bill was proposed granting privileges to the dissenters" (Foote, I).

The House of Burgesses ordered, May 11, 1769, "that it be an Instruction to the Committee, for Religion, that they prepare and bring in a Bill for exempting his Majesty’s Protestant Dissenters from the Penalties of certain Laws" (Journal of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1766-1769, p. 205. Richmond, 1906); but the bill was not introduced. For a second time it was ordered, November 10, 1769 (Ibid, p. 252), but again it was not presented.

Petitions began to come in from various Baptist churches. "A Petition of several Persons of the County of Luenburg, whose names are thereunto subscribed, was presented to the House, and read; setting forth that the Petitioners, being the Society of Christians, called Baptists, find themselves restricted in the Exercise of their Religion, their Teachers imprisoned under various Pretences, and the Benefits of the Toleration Act denied them, although they are willing to conform to the spirit of that Act, and are loyal and obedient Subjects; and therefore praying that they may be treated with the same kind Indulgence, in religious matters, as Quakers, Presbyterians, and other Protestant Dissenters, enjoy" (Journal of the House, 1770-1772, pp. 160, 161).

February 2, 1772, the Baptists of the county of Mecklenburg presented the same petition (Ibid, pp. 182, 183); and on March 14, the Carolina Baptists (Ibid, p. 245) presented their petitions. There was likewise a petition of several persons of the county of Amelia "whose names are thereunto subscribed, setting forth, that the Petitioners, being of the Community of Christians who worship God under the Denomination of Baptists, are restricted in their religious Exercises; that, if the Act of Toleration does not extend to this Colony, they are exposed to severe Persecution; and, if its does extend hither, and the Power of granting Licenses to Teachers be lodged, as is supposed, in the General Court alone, the Petitioners must suffer considerable Inconveniences, not only because that Court sits not oftener than twice in the year and then at a Place far remote, but because the said Court will admit a single Meeting House and no more in one County; and that the Petitioners are loyal and quiet Subjects, whose Tenets in no wise affect the State; and therefore praying a Redress of their Grievances, and the Liberty of Conscience may be secured to them (Journal, pp. 185, 186).

These petitions were referred to a committee which reported back, February 25, that "so far as they relate to allowing the petitioners the same Toleration in matters of Religion, as is enjoyed by his Majesty’s dissenting Protestant Subjects of Great Britain, under different Acts of Parliament, is reasonable" (Ibid, p. 188) . It was ordered that the committee on Religion "do inquire into the state of the established Religion in this Colony and Report the same, as it shall appear to them, to the House" (Ibid, p. 189).

An amended bill on the subject of toleration was presented to the House and engrossed March 17 (Ibid, p. 249). This bill was not satisfactory to the Baptists, so on May 12, 1774, they protested that "not admitting public Worship, except in day time, is inconsistent with the laws of England, as well as the Practice and Usage of the Primitive Churches, and even of the English Church itself," that the night season may be sometimes better spared by the Petitioners from the necessary duty of their callings; and that they wish for no indulgences which may disturb the Peace of the Government; and therefore praying the House to take their Case into Consideration, and to grant them suitable redress (Ibid, p. 102).

The bill did not become a law. A Revolution was on and now the Baptists boldly and effectively attacked the Establishment itself, and won the victory for liberty of conscience.

George E. Dabney, Religious Persecutions in Virginia, The Christian Review, XXIII. pp. 49-74, 199-218. Baltimore, 1858.

William Thomson Hanzsche, Church and State in the American Colonies before the Revolution, Bibliotheca Sacra, LXXXII, pp. 23-48. St. Louis, 1925.