Friday, March 22, 2013
Monday, April 16, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Thursday, December 15, 2011
JOHN LELAND
JOHN LELAND
A biographical sketch presented by Emerson Proctor
Elder John Leland is not a well known name in American history, but in any study of the history of Baptists in America his name appears frequently. He was an important figure in the struggle for religious freedom during the period when that was achieved. Leland was born on May 14, 1754, in Grafton, Massachusetts, which is about forty miles west of Boston. His life spanned the period in which many crucial events took place in our country and in which many of our civil rights were written the organic law of the United States. Near the end of his life he said, "Next to the salvation of the soul the civil and religious rights of men have summoned my attention, more than the acquisition of wealth or seats of honor."1
He described his early experiences as being filled with "frolicking and foolish wickedness, but in 1772, when he was eighteen years old, he had a deep spiritual experience. He said of it, "When I was returning from my frolicks or evening diversions, the following words would sound from the skies, 'you are not about the work which you have got to do.'" Soon after this, he said, "the charms of those youthful diversions, which had been sweeter to me than the honeycomb, lost all their sweetness."2
He went on to describe a severe struggle within himself. As he put it, "At times, I would feel as if my whole soul was absorbed in the fountain of love, and devout prayer was the breath of my heart; at other times, I would feel such amazing languor and want of will, that if I might have had all the glories of heaven for the asking, I would not have sincerely done it". This, he said, "gave me a very poor opinion of myself." "Indeed, from than time till this," he wrote in his autobiography, "I have had a constant falling out with myself." Sometime after this, in June of 1774, he was baptized by Elder Noah Alden, of Bellingham, Massachusetts.3
Almost from the time of the experience related above, he began to speak in the churches he attended near his home. However, Leland did not actually join any church until early in 1775, when he joined the Bellingham Church. About six months later this church gave him a license, as he put it, "to do that which I had been doing for a year before." In October of 1775 he went on an extended preaching tour to Virginia, returning home after eight months. Soon after this trip, in September of 1776, he tells us, "I was married to Sally Divine, of Hopkinton; and immediately started with her to Virginia."4
At the time when Leland arrived in Virginia the Baptists of that state were in the midst of their struggle against the Established Church. They were also fast becoming a force which would have to be reckoned with in the affairs of the state. But it had not always been so, and they were only now emerging from a rather infamous reputation.
The first Baptists in Virginia and North Carolina were not numerous and their reputation was not much better. There were a few Baptists in Virginia as early as 1714. These were immigrants from England, who settled in the southeastern part of the state. It does not appear that this group ever flourished.5
Another party of Baptists came from Maryland and settled in the northwest in 1743. The leaders of this group were Edward Hays and Thomas Yates. Their minister, Henry Loveall, some came and a church was formed on the Arminian plan. Due to the misconduct of Loveall, the church did not prosper. In 1751 representatives from the Philadelphia Association, James Miller, David Thomas, and John Gano, came to their assistance and reformed the church according to the plan of the Philadelphia Association. Those churches associated with the Philadelphia Association which adhered to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith had earlier begun referring to themselves as "Regular Baptists," and this was the beginning Regular Baptists in Virginia. In 1765 there were four of these churches, and in 1766 they formed themselves into the Ketocton Association.6
The third group of Baptists to come to the state was what became known as the Separate Baptists. They became the fastest growing group of the Baptists, and they were the most important group in agitating for liberty of conscience. Their origin can be traced to the influence of the Great Awakening in New England. Under the influence of George Whitefield, these people broke away from the established church and formed a separate society. However, at this stage of their development they had not renounced infant baptism. In 1751 Shubal Stearns became convinced of believer's baptism and was immersed by Wait Palmer in Tolland, Connecticut.
In 1754 Stearns, believing in the immediate teaching of the Spirit, became convinced that he should move west. Consequently, he came to Berkeley County, Virginia, where a Regular Baptist Church was located. He was met there by his brother-in-law, Daniel Marshall, who had been preaching among the Indians. Marshall also became convinced of believer's baptism and was immersed. Since nothing out of the ordinary was happening there, Stearns and Marshall moved into Gulliford County, North Carolina, and on November 22, 1755, the Sandy Creek Church was constituted with sixteen members. Their number increased very rapidly, and in a short time the church had grown to 606 members. Other churches were formed, and the Sandy Creek Association was organized in 1758. Under the leadership of Daniel Marshall the first Separate Baptist Church in Virginia was formed in 1760. Marshall soon moved to Georgia, where he formed the first Baptist Church in that state on Kiokee Creek, near Augusta, Georgia in 1771.7
Thus, it was not until after the middle of the eighteenth century that the Baptists in Virginia made any headway at all. Leland says that the Episcopal Church enjoyed the full possession of the state until the 1740's.8 The Presbyterians by this time had made substantial gains for all dissenters under the leadership of Samuel Davies and the preaching of Gilbert Tennent and Samuel Finley.9 It was not until after the 1760's, however, that the Baptists made any substantial growth.
As soon as they began to grow in numbers, this naturally brought attention to them from the authorities, which in turn led to persecution. Men in power sought diligently to find ways and means to put down these "disturbers of the peace." Semple says that it was not certain that any law in force in Virginia authorized the imprisonment of men for preaching. They were, therefore, dealt with for disturbing the peace.10
The first instance of actual imprisonment in Virginia took place in Fredericksburg in 1768. John Waller, Lewis Craig, James Childs, James Reed, and William Marsh were haled before the magistrate and arraigned as disturbers of the peace. At their trial one lawyer accused them thus: "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." They were offered their freedom if they would promise to preach no more in the county for a year and a day. This they refused to do, and they were carried to the jail, singing a hymn as they went. While they were in jail, they continued to preach through the grates.11 Leland says there were about thirty of these people imprisoned during this period.12
A fact that added to the ridicule heaped upon these early Baptists was that they were, for the most part, poor and unlearned. They were everywhere thought of as "a pack of ignorant enthusiasts." The ministers of the Baptists came from among the common people. They believed in a divine call to the ministry, and that it came to men in all walks of life. Therefore it was possible for a man who could hardly write his name to believe himself called of God.13 "The Baptist preachers," says David Benedict, "were, in almost every respect, the reverse of the established clergy; without learning, without patronage, generally very poor, plain in their dress, unrefined in their manners, awkward in their address; all of which by their enterprising zeal and unwearied perseverance, they either turned to advantage, or prevented their ill effects."14
Indeed, this fact was probably an advantage to the Baptists. These rustic preachers came up from among the people. They had no classical education, but they spoke the language of the people. They did not know the theological jargon of the high Churchmen, but they knew the language of personal religion which touched the hearts of their hearers. Therefore, they were able to reach the masses of the people which neither the Established Church nor the Presbyterians were able to do.15
In spite of all the opposition, the Baptists grew by leaps and bounds. Their fiery evangelists went everywhere preaching the gospel. After 1770 the growth of the movement was amazing. At the beginning of 1770 there were but two Separate Baptist Churches north of the James River and not more than four on the south side. In 1774 there were twenty-four churches north of the James and thirty south of it who sent letters to the General Association. There were probably some who did not sent representatives to the association.16 One student of the movement estimates that there were ten thousand of them by the beginning of the Revolution.17 By 1784 this number had grown to almost fifteen thousand, and there were more that twenty thousand of them by 1790.18
This first spurt of growth among the Baptists of Virginia came as the Revolutionary War approached. Political developments also were favorable for the cause of religious freedom. Almost simultaneous with the rise of Baptists, republican principles were also emerging. For the same reasons that leading statesmen were chaffing under the yoke of British commercial regulations, the dissenters, and Baptists in particular, were pressing for their religious rights. The Established Church was coming to be viewed as an inseparable appendage of the monarchy.19 Baptists and other dissenters sought their religious rights on the same ground that the colonies were seeking their political rights.
As the Revolution approached, the dissenters were no longer satisfied with mere toleration. Nothing less that full liberty of conscience and equality before the law would suit them now. Experience had taught them that toleration was not enough. The Revolution served as a catalyst to speed up the realization of this liberty in Virginia.20 The Baptists, wrote Robert Semple, were "to a man favorable to any revolution by which they could obtain freedom of religion."21
The Baptists early adopted the expedient of addressing petitions to the governing body of the colony. Many such petitions were sent during this period of agitation in the colonies.22
On May 6, 1776, a convention met in Williamsburg, which H. J. Eckenrode calls "probably the most noteworthy assembly ever held in Virginia."23 It was this convention that passed resolutions instructing the Virginia delegates in the Continental Congress to propose a declaration of independence. They also made preparations for a bill of rights and a constitution for Virginia. It is the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason, that contains the momentous declaration of religious rights. Instead of Mason's wording, "[T]hat all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion," young James Madison succeeded in securing its amendment to read, "All men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion."24 This was a very important distinction for the Baptists, one to which they had long held. They believed that toleration implied a favor granted, but equality recognized an inalienable right.25 When the legislature met the next fall, it was deluged with petitions from various dissenting groups. Among them was a memorial from the Hanover Presbytery (Presbyterian) and one from an association of Baptist ministers and delegates who met at Dover in Goochland on December 25, 1776. These petitions brought on what Thomas Jefferson called "the severest contests in which I have ever been engaged."26 Though the acts passed at this time exempted dissenters from religious taxes, it left other major issues unresolved and the debate went on for nine more years.
This were the circumstances that faced John Leland when he moved to Culpeper, Virginia early in 1777. In August of that year he became pastor of Mount Poney Church, being ordained by the choice of the church without the imposition of the hands of a presbytery. Since this practice was "a departure from the churches of Virginia," Leland wrote, "I was not generally fellowshipped by them."27 Difficulties arose in the church, and he moved to Orange, Virginia. However, his troubles about his ordination apparently did not hinder his evangelistic labors nor did it affect his popularity. After moving to Orange, he quickly became engrossed in his work, preaching twelve to fourteen times a week.28 By ;the end of 1777, he had traveled as far south as the Pee Dee River in South Carolina.29
However, things did not continue so well for the Baptists, because a great declension set in upon then beginning in a bout1780. The Revolutionary War seems to have had a paradoxical effect upon them. They well understood that the move toward separation from Great Britain was a great boon for their cause. But while this is true, the Revolution also brought on a declension in the religious life of the Baptists. Leland and Semple refer to this low state of affairs and assign various reasons for it. Leland declared, "From this time (1780) to the year 1785, by the siege of Lord Cornwallis, the refunding of paper money, and removals to Kentucky, religion ran low in Virginia," and, "But as they gained their piece of freedom, so the cares of war, the spirit of trade, and moving to western waters, seemed to bring on a general declension."30 For whatever cause, the religious declension was not confined to the Baptists. All religion was at a low ebb after the war. Many now felt that religion could not survive without some sort of state recognition.
These conditions led to the next struggle that finally resulted in the completion of the process of religious freedom. Dissenters had gained a great deal during the years 1776-1780. But after the war a conservative reaction set in, and as the coming of the Revolution had aided the dissenting cause, so this reaction after the war threatened to impede their cause. Much that had been achieved for religious freedom appeared to be in danger of being rolled back. Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom was introduced in 1779, but it was not passed. In 1784 a plan for the support of Christian ministers was brought forward. James Madison was almost alone in the legislature in his opposition to this plan. Of the dissenting groups, only the Baptists were Madison's allies in opposing this measure at first.
The consistency with which James Madison and the Baptists were allied in the struggle for religious liberty is a very significant fact. His position, particularly on the assessment plan, indicates that he had very advanced ideas of religious freedom. But the strongest remonstrance against the bill was written by Madison himself.
Madison led the fight in the Virginia legislature against these encroachments upon religious rights until they were finally defeated in 1786. When the legislature met in 1785 it was deluged with petitions from various dissenting groups. Madison then pressed his advantage and introduced Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. It was enacted on January 16, 1786. Of this bill Eckenrode says, "The 'act for establishing religious freedom' added no new principle. In combining complete liberty of opinion with forbidding taxation for church support, the act merely expressed the results of the revolution, but it served its purpose as a landmark and an obstacle to any reversion to the past."31 Jefferson considered this Bill one of the three greatest accomplishments of his life, along with the Declaration of Independence and the creation of the University of Virginia.32
It is difficult to say what part John Leland played in this campaign. Very soon after the passage of this bill, he appears as a legislative agent, along with Reuben Ford, in an effort to obtain repeal of an act incorporating the Episcopal Church.33 Of his sentiments, however, there can be no doubt, and since immediately after this he was appointed to a position of leadership, he was surely active in this work. In the Virginia Chronicle he said, "A general assessment, (forcing all to pay some preacher,) amounts to an establishment; if government says I must pay somebody, it must next describe that somebody, his doctrine and place of abode."34
While all of this was going, the Baptists were experiencing a tremendous revival. It began in about 1785 and continued until 1791. Thousands upon thousands were converted, and when it was over the Baptist were more numerous than any other sect in Virginia. Leland reached the peak of his evangelistic activity in 1788. In the period from October of 1787 to March of 1789, Leland says that he baptized four hundred people, three hundred of which were baptized in 1788.35
This revival was also attended by the presence of physical and emotional demonstrations. Leland says that it was nothing unusual for a great part of the congregation to fall prostrate on the floor. Many people would entirely lose the use of their limbs. At associations it was not uncommon for several preachers to exercise their gifts at the same time in different parts of the congregation.36 Some preachers greatly encouraged this sort of thing, and Semple admits that in some congregations much confusion and disorder resulted. "Many ministers who had labored earnestly to get Christians into their churches," he declared, "were afterwards much perplexed to get hypocrites out."37
This revival marked many great changes among the Baptists. From being persecuted and looked down upon before the Revolution, in 1790 they were numerous and influential. Men of greater weight in civil society began to join them, and this was bound to influence their manners. Their preachers became much more correct in their manner of preaching. "Their zeal was less mixed with enthusiasm, and their piety became more rational," as Semple put it.38 They began to be more concerned about education. In 1788 the first proposal for writing a history of the Baptists was made in the General Committee. Leland was appointed on a committee for this purpose, and the Virginia Chronicle was the result of his work there.39
In the midst of this revival the Separate Baptists and the Regular Baptists decided to unite. Leland played an active role in this effort. In June of 1787 he was ordained with the laying on of hands by a presbytery. "By this," he says, "not only a union took place between myself and others, but it was a small link in the chain of events which produced a union among all the Baptists in Virginia not long afterwards."40
For a long time the Separate Baptists had been very reluctant to agree to a confession of faith. They were fearful that such a confession would come between them and the Bible. They also believed that the Regular Baptists were too lax in receiving members, many of whom they felt were unconverted. On the other hand the Regular Baptists believed that the Separate Baptists leaned too far toward Arminianism.41 It was finally agreed, however, that the Separates would adopt the confession, but would not be strictly bound by it, and so the union was finally agreed upon.
The confession adopted by the combined groups was the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which had been adapted from the London Confession of 1689. Leland's own reservation about the confession seems to have been closely connected with the fact that most established religions require submission to such a confession. Moreover, he said confessions of faith "often check any further pursuit after truth, confine the mind in a particular way of reasoning, and give rise to frequent separations." "But," he concluded, "after all, if confessions of faith, upon the whole, may be advantageous, the greatest care should be taken not to sacradize, or make a petty Bible of it."42
It was also during this period of transition for the Baptists that the framing of the Federal Constitution took place. The little known incident of the election in Orange County for delegates to the ratifying convention is of great interest in showing the feelings of the Baptists, the leadership of John Leland, and how this incident could have changed the course of history.
When the Constitution first appeared, the Baptists were not at all enthusiastic in their reception of it because they feared that religious liberty was not adequately protected. As the time for the ratifying convention approached, it seemed that they would stand opposed to it. James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, was still in New York early in 1788 when he received urgent word that he should return to Virginia.43 On January 30, Madison's father wrote him that Orange County was by no means favorable to ratification. "The Baptists," he wrote, "are now generally opposed to it, as it is said." He also informed his son that many people desired an explanation from him.44 On February 17, James Gordon, Jr., who was also a candidate to represent Orange County in the ratification convention, informed Madison that the candidates opposing the Constitution were meeting with some success.
The sentiments of the people of Orange are much divided the best men in my judgment are for the constitution but several of those who have much weight with the people are opposed, Parson Bledsoe & Leeland with Colo. Z. Burnley. Upon the whole I think it is incumbent on you without delay, to repair to this state, as the loss of the constitution in this state may involve consequences the most alarming to every citizen in America.45
When Madison did return to Virginia, a letter was waiting for him when he arrived at Federicksburg suggesting that he stop by on his way home to visit "an influential Baptist leader," as Irving Brant put it.46 That leader was John Leland. The letter, dated February 28, 1788, was from Captain Joseph Spencer. He warned Madison that the Constitution had enemies in Orange County, the Baptists being among them. He pointed out John Leland as being one of their leading men and sent Madison a copy of a list of objections Leland had to the Constitution. Spencer went on to suggest that Madison stop by and visit Leland on his way home since it was right on his way.47
The objections referred to in the letter were prepared by Leland at the request of Thomas Barbour, an opposition candidate in the Orange County election. Most of the objections reflected Leland's fear of some aspects of the government being to far removed from the popular will. He specifically objected to it, because there was on Bill of Rights in it and that there was no specific guarantee of Religious Liberty in it.48
Meanwhile a meeting of the General Committee of Baptists was held at Willaim's Meeting House on March 11, 1788. This group took up the question; "Whether the new Federal Constitution which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty." It was unanimously agreed that it did not.49
Then followed the famed meeting between James Madison and John Leland, which is a celebrated event in local history, though neither of these men left any direct testimony about such a meeting. However, everything that is known certainly suggests that it did take place, and that it did indeed influence the outcome in Orange County, Virginia of the election to the Virginia ratifying convention.
One source of evidence purports to come directly from Leland himself. In a letter dated April 15, 1857 Governor G. N. Briggs of Massachusetts related the details of a visit he paid to Leland's home, apparently not many years before Leland's death.50 In the course of their conversation Briggs quotes Leland as saying that Madison came to see him "to talk with me about the Constitution."
Briggs went on to say that they met again very soon before the electors on the stump. He used quotation marks in his letter, apparently indicating that he was quoting Leland directly.
Mr. Madison first took the stump, which was a hogshead of tobacco, standing on one end. For two hours, he addressed his fellow-citizens in a calm, candid and statesman-like manner, arguing his side of the case, and fairly meeting and replying to the arguments, which had been put forth by his opponents, in the general canvass of the state. Though Mr. Madison was not particularly a pleasing or eloquent speaker, the people listened with respectful attention. He left the hogshead, and my friends called for me. I took it--and went in for Mr. Madison; and he was elected without difficulty.51
Later in life Leland himself made two statements in his writings which seem to corroborate the authenticity of this event. Writing in 1834, he spoke of having talked with Madison in 1788, saying, "Mr. Madison said to me in 1788, 'the states have surrendered to the general government a certain quantity of their rights; but it is most likely, if ever the general government is dissolved, it will proceed from the jealousy of state authority."52 At the same time he spoke of his reservations about the Constitution; "When the Constitution first made its appearance in the autumn of 1787, I read it with close attention, and finally gave my vote for its adoption; and after the amendments tool place, I esteemed it as good a skeleton as could well be formed."53 These statements certainly comport with the details of the meeting. It is quite clear that the Baptists were convinced by Madison, and they did support him in this election.
It is also certain that the Baptist vote in Orange County was indeed formidable. In 1790 the total membership of Baptists in Orange County was 750. It is reasonable to assume that it was at least this much in 1788, because many of them were moving to Kentucky at this time. Of course, this included women, males too young to vote, and slaves. But even it three-fourths of them fitted these three categories, this would still leave between 150 and 200 Baptist voters.54 The vote on March 24 read: Madison 202, Gordon 187, Barbour 56, and Porter 34. This makes a total of only 479 who voted. It is clear, then, that the Baptist vote could have turned the tide. If Leland had the influence, and it certainly appears that he did, to deliver these votes to Madison, then Madison indeed owed his election to this fact.55
This is even more significant when one considers what might have happened if Madison had not been in the ratifying convention to counteract the eloquence of Patrick Henry. Of his work in the ratifying convention Irving Brant says, "His leadership was universally recognized."56 It is not too much to say that Madison, more than any other person, was responsible for the Virginia ratification.
The fact remains, however, that the Baptists, and John Leland in particular, had wanted a written guarantee of religious liberty in the Constitution. It does not appear that there were hard feelings toward Madison on the part of the Baptists. On the contrary, they were warm friends. However, Patrick Henry now tried to keep Madison out of the first Congress by spreading rumors that he not only opposed any amendments whatever, but that he had also ceased to have strong feelings about the rights of conscience. George Eve, who was pastor of the Blue Run Baptist Church at that time, sought an answer to these charges from Madison himself. On January 2, 1789 Madison gave him his views in a letter.57
Sir,
Being informed that reports prevail not only that I am opposed to any amendments whatever to the new federal Constitution, but that I have ceased to be a friend to the rights of conscience. . . I am led to trouble you with this communication of them.
I freely own that I have never seen in the Constitution as it now stands those serious dangers which have alarmed many respectable citizens. Accordingly, whilst it remained unratified, and it was necessary to unite the States in some plan, I opposed all previous alterations as calculated to throw the States into dangerous contentions, and to furnish the secret enemies of the union with an opportunity of promoting its dissolution. Circumstances have now changed. The Constitution is established on the ratification of eleven States and a very great majority of the people of America; and amendments if pursued with a proper moderation and in a proper mode, will be not only safe, but may serve to the double purpose of satisfying the minds of well meaning opponents, and of providing additional guards in favour of liberty. Under this change of circumstances, it is my sincere opinion that the Constitution ought to be revised, and that the first Congress meeting under it ought to prepare and recommend to the states for ratification, the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights, particularly the rights of conscience in the fullest latitude, the freedom of the press, trial by jury, security against general warrants & c. . . .58
In this way Madison retained the warm support and friendship of the Baptists. Soon after his election to the House of Representatives, Leland wrote him saying, "I congratulate you in your appointment, as Representative to Congress, and if my undertaking in the cause conduced nothing else towards it, it certainly gave Mr. Madison one vote."59 This certainly indicates that Leland warmly supported Madison in this election.
Nor were the Baptists remiss in putting their confidence in James Madison. On May 4, 1789, Madison gave notice that he intended to bring up the subject of constitutional amendments. This, of course, resulted in the Bill of Rights, which contained the explicit guarantee of religious liberty. These amendments became a part of the Constitution in 1791, after the ratification of a sufficient number of states.60 It is no wonder that Leland retained the highest regard for Madison. In a speech given in 1805 he said of Madison, "From a child, he has been a pattern of sobriety, study, and inflexible justice. From an intimate acquaintance with him, I feel satisfied that all the state of Massachusetts, for a bribe, would not buy a single vote of him.61
From the vantage point of two hundred years of history, it would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in securing these inherent rights. John Leland certainly played a very important part in this struggle. One authority on church-state issues names him along with George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Samuel Davies as the five most important men in this struggle.62 The Baptist historian of Virginia, Robert Semple, also placed him very high on the list of influential Baptists, saying, "Mr. Leland, as a preacher, was probably the most popular of any who ever resided in this State."63
In the Spring of 1791 Leland and his family took leave of Virginia to return to his native Massachusetts. That trip was made by way of the sea, and Leland tells of a great storm they encountered. At the height of the storm the ship's captain came to Leland's cabin and said, "We shall not weather it many minutes. Leland says of it, "This he said, (as I judged,) not to terrify the sailors, but for my sake. The sense of it, to me, was this: 'Leland, if you have got a God, now call upon him.' But there was no need of this admonition, for I had begun the work before; and can now say, that that night is the only one of my life that I spent wholly in prayer. That I prayed in faith, is more than I can say; but that I prayed in distress, is certain."64
Arriving in Connecticut, he tarried there for several months to do some preaching and to become involved in the struggle for religious liberty there. In New England the Congregationalist was the established church, and concessions to dissenters were even more grudging than those of the Anglicans in Virginia. Leland wrote several tracts soon after returning to New England demanding not toleration, but full equality for all religious groups. Among them was a tract entitled, Rights of Conscience Inalienable, and Therefore, Religious Opinions Not Cognizable By The Law, in which he asserted that the consciences of men cannot be surrendered to the state. He wrote, "Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can best reconcile to his conscience. If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise, let men be free."65 He was to continue his efforts to achieve such freedom in his native Massachusetts. This was to be a long struggle, because Massachusetts was the last state to enact complete religious freedom, finally, in 1833.
Leland and his family settled in the village of Cheshire, Massachusetts in February of 1792, and lived there, except for a few years, for the rest of his life. He became pastor of a church known then as the Second Baptist Church, although Leland was never entirely comfortable as a settled pastor. Though he maintained his connection with this church for most of his life, it is clear that he was not its pastor for most of that time. As Butterfield put it, "He was always willing to preach, pray, and baptize, but he was happier as in independent evangelist, free to go where the spirit directed, than as a settled pastor, however devoted his flock might be to him."66
One of the best known incidents in the life of John Leland was in connection with what has come down in history as The Mammoth Cheese. In 1801 the people of Cheshire determined that they would send a giant cheese to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson as a token of their great respect for them. Leland accompanied the cheese on its journey from Cheshire to Washington and presented it in person to President Jefferson on January 1, 1802. Leland was even invited to preach to both the houses of congress with the president in the audience.67 The only reference Leland made to this incident is his autobiographical sketch reads as follows: "In November, 1801, I journeyed to the south, as far as Washington, in charge of a cheese, sent to President Jefferson. Notwithstanding my trust, I preached all the way there and on my return. I had large congregations; let in part by curiosity to hear the Mammoth Priest, as I was called."68
Leland continued his various ministerial labors with the normal ups and downs of it right up until near the time of his death. Unfortunately his own autobiographical notes leave off a few years before he died. Sometime near the beginning of 1820, he wrote a summary of his ministry.
Since I began to preach in 1774, I have travelled distances, which, together, would form a girdle nearly sufficient to go round the terraqueous globe three times. The number of sermons which I have preached, is not far from eight thousand. The number of persons that I have baptised is one thousand two hundred and seventy-eight. The number of Baptist ministers whom I have personally known is nine hundred and sixty-two. Those of them whom I have heard preach, in number, makes three hundred and three. Those who have died, (whose deaths I have heard of,) amount to three hundred. The number that have visited me at my house is two hundred and seven. The pamphlets which I have written, that have been published, are about thirty.69
In 1834, when he was eighty years old Leland listed the number of his baptisms as fifteen hundred and twenty-four, which is the last time any number is given. He no doubt baptized a number of others, because he continued to preach right up until very near the time of his death. His last sermon was preached in Cheshire on January 8, 1841. Soon after he was taken very ill and passed away on January 14, 1841.70
It is possible to make some assessment of Leland's contributions, because he was one of the few Baptists of this period to leave any record of his beliefs. Politically, he was a Jeffersonian Republican. It is quite revealing to read his writings and observe quite a wide range of learning. Yet he regarded himself as quite rustic in manner and he apparently felt self conscious about his lack of education.
He was an advocate of the compact theory of government and was an unashamed follower of Thomas Jefferson in terms of political philosophy. In one speech entitled A Blow at the Root: Being a Fashionable Fast-Day Sermon, delivered at Cheshire, Massachusetts, April 9, 1801, he said, "Pardon me, my hearers, if I am over-warm. I lived in Virginia fourteen years. The beneficent influence of my hero was too generally felt to leave me a stoic. What may we expect, under the auspices of heaven, while Jefferson presides, with Madison in state at his side."71
While he believed that some rights were surrendered upon entering the civil society, he believed others were inalienable and could not be surrendered. Thus, he held that religion was not an object of civil government. He abhorred the idea of toleration, because it implied a favor granted. Religious liberty is an inalienable right, he declared, and not a favor granted by any government. He came as near being completely consistent in his ideas upon the separation of church and state as anyone of his time. He held that the gospel church could never be coterminous with the civil state.72 The church as Leland understood it is a completely separate entity as contrasted to the state. He once called it a Christocracy. By that, he said, "I mean nothing more than a government of which Christ is law-giver, king, and judge, and yet so arranged, that each congregational church is a complete republic of itself, not to be controlled by civil government or hierarchy."73
His idea of separation was graphically demonstrated in a pamphlet entitled Free Thoughts on War, published in 1816. He showed that Christianity is not designed to be characteristic of the nations of the earth in their political state. The government of the church, he said, "extends no further than non-fellowship." But in their capacity as citizens of the state, "The saints in common with others share the advantages, and ought to bear the burdens of the society, proportionately."74 In other words two different entities are involved. The duties one owes to each could and should be distinguished.
Flowing from this distinction was his idea that no religious test should be imposed for holding a civil office. This should turn solely upon the merits of the individual. "All the good they (test oaths) do," he declared, "is to keep from office the best of men; villains make no scruple of any test. The Virginia Constitution is free from this stain. If a man merits the confidence of his neighbors in Virginia -- let him worship one God, twenty Gods, or no God -- be he Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, he is eligible to any office in the State."75
He believed that legislators were led into the error of attempting to legislate religion by confounding sins with crimes. His thinking was that there is a difference between moral evil and state rebellion. One might be infested with moral evil, and yet be guilty of no crime, punishable by law.76 Thus, he could believe that government "has no more to do with religious opinions than it has to do with the principles of mathematics." But, he said, when those principles break out into overt acts of violence, then magistrates "use the civil sword and punish the vagrant for what he has done, not for the religious phrenzy that he acted from."77
It is also quite interesting to note that he had a dislike for the practice of paying chaplains of the civil and military departments out of the public treasury, and further, he said, "If legislatures choose to have a chaplain, for Heaven's sake, let them pay him by contributions, and not out of the public chest."78
His principles of liberty were consistent enough to make him detest the institution of slavery. He was frankly hesitant to speak about it, because he recognized the difficulties involved. But on several occasions he did speak out. It was he who drafted the resolution for the General Committee of Virginia Baptists meeting in Richmond in 1789, which reads:
Resolved, that slavery is a violent deprivation of rights of nature and inconsistent with a republican government, and therefore, recommend it to our brethren to make use of every legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land; and pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature may have it in their power to proclaim the great jubilee, consistent with the principles of good policy.79
In an utterance a little later he waxed prophetic: "If they are not brought out of bondage in mercy, with the consent of their masters, I think that they will be, by judgment, against their consent."80 It is on this subject that he rises to a height of eloquence rarely found in any of his other writings. In his letter to the people of Virginia upon leaving there he said, It is not my intention to drop the ministerial vest, and assume the politician's garb to-day; but, after adding that slavery, in its best appearance is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, inconsistent with republican government, destructive of every humane and benevolent passion of the soul, and subversive to that liberty absolutely necessary to ennoble the human mind, let me ask whether Heaven has nothing in store for poor negros better than these galling chains? If so, ye ministers of Jesus, and saints of the most High, ye wrestling Jacobs, who have power with God, and can prevail over the angel, let your prayers, your ardent prayers, ascend to the throne of God incessantly, that he may pour the blessings of freedom upon the poor blacks. If public prayers of this kind, would raise the anger of tyrants, or embolden the slaves in insolence, let the sable watches of the night, in lonely solitude, be witnesses to your sincere longings after the liberty of your fellow creatures.
How would every benevolent heart rejoice to see the halcyon day appear -- the great jubilee usher in, when the poor slave, with a Moses at their head, should hoist the standard, and march out of bondage! Or, what would be still more elating, to see the power of the gospel so effectual that the lion and the lamb should lie together -- all former insults and revenges forgotten -- the names of master and slave be buried -- every yoke broken, and the oppressed go free -- free but not empty away.81
The theological views of Leland could be described as Evangelical Calvinism. "For his religious creed, wrote L. F. Greene in her further sketches of Leland, "he acknowledged no directory but the Bible."82 Late in his life he summed up the beliefs that had seen him through the years.
In the years of 1772-73, etc., when my mind was as solemnly impressed with eternal realities, as to turn me from the power of Satan unto the living God; whether from the Bible I read, the preaching I heard, the teachings of the Holy Spirit, or some other cause, I did as firmly believe the following articles, as I believed that Jesus Christ was the Saviour of sinners.] 1. That all men were guilty before God, and that God would be just and clear, if he damned them all.
2. That Christ did, before the foundation of the world, predestinate a certain number of the human family for his bride, to bring to grace and glory.
3. That Christ died for sinners, and for his elect sheep only.
4. That those for whom he did not die, had no cause to complain, as the law under which they were placed was altogether reasonable.
5. That Christ would always call his elect to him while on earth, before they died.
6. That those whom he predestinated, redeemed and called, he would keep by his power, and bring them safe to glory.
7. That there would be a general resurrection, both of the just and the unjust.
8. That , following the resurrection, judgment would commence, when the righteous sheep would be placed on the right hand of Christ, and admitted into life eternal; and the wicked on the left hand, doomed to everlasting fire.
In the belief of those articles, and what was collateral therewith, I began my ministerial career in 1774 with but little thought how many and weighty the consequences of these premises were. But, not, after the experiment of fifty-seven years, and after going over the ground thousands of times, with all the research and candor in my power, I dare not pull up stakes and make a new start. Many uncertainties arise in my mind, many questions spring up that I cannot answer; but, every other system that I explore has greater difficulties, and worse conclusions.83 John Leland would have described himself as an itinerant. He traveled thousands of miles and preached thousands of sermons. He was a great individualist, and some even described him as an eccentric. Later in his life, when the move toward organized missions came among the Baptists, he stood aside and discounted such methods. He said, when he was seventy, "My missionary travels have been extensive enough to girdle the globe three times; but I was never sent out, nor supported by a missionary society."84 As this indicates, he was what he considered to be a Bible evangelist. He dissociated himself, therefore, from this organized, and what he considered, unnecessary and extra-scriptural effort.85
It may be safely concluded that the epitaph that Leland desired to be on his tomb, and indeed it was on it, was an appropriate one. It read, "here lies the body of John Leland, who labored 67 years to promote piety and vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men."86
FOOTNOTES
1 L. F. Greene, editor, The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland, Including Some Events in His Life, Written by Himself (New York: G. W. Wood, 1845.) p. 638. (Hereinafter cited as Greene, Leland's Writings.)
2 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
3 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 15-17.
4 Ibid., p. 19.
5 David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination, 2 Volumes (Boston: Manning & Loring, 1813), II, 23-25. (Hereinafter cited as Benedict, Baptist Denomination.); Robert B. Semple, A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, Revised and Extended by G. W. Beale (Richmond: Pitt and Dickinson, Publishers, 1894), p. 29. (Hereinafter cited as Semple, Virginia Baptists.)
6 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 375-377, 388; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 23-35, 34; Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 104. These churches were Ketocton in Loudoun County, Smith's Creek in Shenandoah County, Mill Creek in Berkeley County, and Broad Run in Fauquier County.
7 Wesley M. Gewehr, The Great Awakening in Virginia, 1740-1790 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1930), pp. 108-109. (Hereinafter cited as Gewehr, The Great Awakening.); Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 11-19; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 37-41.
8 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 99.
9 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 100; Gewehr, The Great Awakening. See chapters III and IV for the early rise of the Presbyterians.
10 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 29, 41-42.
11 Lewis Peyton Little, Imprisoned Preachers and Religious Liberty in Virginia (Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P. Bell Company, Inc., 1938), pp. 93-96. (Hereinafter cited as Little, Imprisoned Preachers.). Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 29-34.
12 Green, Leland's Writings, p. 107.
13 Robert B. C. Howell, The Early Baptists of Virginia (Philadelphia: The Bible and Publication Society, 1857), p. 131. (Hereinafter cited as Howell, Early Baptists.); Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 115-116.
14 Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 76. It should be noted that Benedict's account is based almost entirely upon that of Semple.
15 Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, p. 38; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 133-134.
16 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 42; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 75-76.
17 Gewehr, The Great Awakening, p. 106.
18 Albert Henry Newman, A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1894), p. 303; Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 116.
19 Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 77.
20 Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, pp. 37-41; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 77; Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 44-45.
21 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 85; Howell, Early Baptists, p. 143.
22 Little, Imprisoned Preachers, pp. 310-311; Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, p. 38.
23 Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, p. 42.
24 James, Documentary History, p. 62; Howell, Early Baptists, pp. 142-150. Howell indicates that there was a Baptist petition in 1775, before the Declaration of Rights, petitioning for full rights of conscience and for no state establishment.
25 L. H. Butterfield, Elder John Leland, Jeffersonian Itinerant (Worcester, Massachusetts: American Antiquarian Society, 1953), p. 174. (Hereinafter cited as Butterfield, Leland.)
26 Quoted in Butterfield, Leland, p. 174; See also Julian P. Boyd, et. al., editors, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 17 volumes in print (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950- ), I, 525-529. See I, 660-661 for the Baptist Memorial.
27 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 19; Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 233-234.
28 Green, Leland's Writings, p. 19.
29 Ibid.
30 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 22, 112; Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 55; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 89-90. By the "spirit of trade" is apparently meant the opening of free trade by the coming of peace. Benedict says, "The opening of free trade by peace, served as a powerful bait to entrap professors, who were in any great degree inclined to the pursuit of wealth. And nothing is more common, than for the increase of riches to produce a decrease of piety."
31 Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, p. 115.
32 Adrienne Koch, Jefferson and Madison (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1950), p. 31.
33 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 98.
34 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 118.
35 Ibid., p. 27.
36 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 114-115.
37 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 58-59; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 90-91; Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 114.
38 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 59; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 173-177, for the Baptist revival.
39 Semple, Virginia Baptists, 103; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 253-259, for the social revolution among the Baptists.
40 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 26.
41 Elders Lemuel Burkitt and Jesse Read, A Concise History of the Kehukee Baptist Association, Revised and improved by Henry L. Burkitt (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co., 1850), pp. 42-43; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 109-111.
42 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 114; for the union see Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 100-101; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, p. 177; J. T. Smith, "The Life and Times of the Rev. John Leland," The Baptist Quarterly, Volume V (April, 1871), 237.
43 Irving Brant, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800 (Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, inc., 1950), p. 185. Hereinafter cited as Brant, Father.)
44 Butterfield, Leland, p. 184. This letter is among Madison's papers in the Library of Congress.
45 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 184-185.
46 Brant, Father, p. 187.
47 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 185-186. The letter, which is quoted in full in Butterfield, is among the Madison papers in the Library of Congress. See also W. B. Hackley, "If Madison Had Come to Dinner," The Virginia Baptist Register, Number 4 (1965), 186. (Hereinafter cited as Hackley, "Dinner".)
48 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 187-188. This document, which Butterfield quotes in full, is also among Madison's papers in the Library of Congress.
49 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 102; Dawson, American Republic, p. 108; Garnett Ryland, The Baptists of Virginia--1699-1926 (Richmond: The Virginia Baptist Board of Missions and Education, 1955), p. 133.
50 W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, Volume VI (New York: R. Carter & Brothers, 1860), pp. 174-186. (Hereinafter cited as Sprague, Annals.) Governor Briggs' letter is printed in Sprague's article on Leland.
51 Sprague, Annals, pp. 179-180.
52 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 649.
53 Ibid., p. 652.
54 Hackley, "Dinner," p. 191.
55 Hackley, "Dinner," p. 191; Butterfield, Leland, pp. 191-192.
56 Brant, Father, p. 227.
57 Brant, Father, pp. 236-240.
58 James Madison to George Eve, January 2, 1789 in Gaillard Hunt, editor, The Papers of James Madison, 9 Volumes (New York: ).
59 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 193-194. This letter is among Madison's papers in the Library of Congress, and is quoted in full by Butterfield.
60 Brant, Father, Chapter XXI.
61 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 287.
62 Stokes and Pfeffer, Church and State in the U.S., Revised Edition (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964), p. 71.
63 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 206-207.
64 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 29.
65 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 180-181; Butterfield, Leland, pp. 197-199.
66 Butterfield, Leland, p. 206.
67 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 223-227.
68 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 32.
69 Ibid., p. 35.
70 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 39, 46-49.
71 Ibid., p. 255.
72 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 94, 107.
73 Ibid., p. 277.
74 Ibid., p. 460.
75 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 106.
76 Ibid., p. 221.
77 Ibid., p. 184.
78 Ibid., p. 119.
79 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 104-105; James, Documentary History, pp. 146-147.
80 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 98
81 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 174.
82 Ibid., p. 50.
83 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 625.
84 Ibid., p. 513.
85 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 234-235; Gilbert Beebe, Feast of Fat Things (Middletown, New York: G. Beebe's Sons, nd), p. 30.
86 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 38, 50.
A biographical sketch presented by Emerson Proctor
Elder John Leland is not a well known name in American history, but in any study of the history of Baptists in America his name appears frequently. He was an important figure in the struggle for religious freedom during the period when that was achieved. Leland was born on May 14, 1754, in Grafton, Massachusetts, which is about forty miles west of Boston. His life spanned the period in which many crucial events took place in our country and in which many of our civil rights were written the organic law of the United States. Near the end of his life he said, "Next to the salvation of the soul the civil and religious rights of men have summoned my attention, more than the acquisition of wealth or seats of honor."1
He described his early experiences as being filled with "frolicking and foolish wickedness, but in 1772, when he was eighteen years old, he had a deep spiritual experience. He said of it, "When I was returning from my frolicks or evening diversions, the following words would sound from the skies, 'you are not about the work which you have got to do.'" Soon after this, he said, "the charms of those youthful diversions, which had been sweeter to me than the honeycomb, lost all their sweetness."2
He went on to describe a severe struggle within himself. As he put it, "At times, I would feel as if my whole soul was absorbed in the fountain of love, and devout prayer was the breath of my heart; at other times, I would feel such amazing languor and want of will, that if I might have had all the glories of heaven for the asking, I would not have sincerely done it". This, he said, "gave me a very poor opinion of myself." "Indeed, from than time till this," he wrote in his autobiography, "I have had a constant falling out with myself." Sometime after this, in June of 1774, he was baptized by Elder Noah Alden, of Bellingham, Massachusetts.3
Almost from the time of the experience related above, he began to speak in the churches he attended near his home. However, Leland did not actually join any church until early in 1775, when he joined the Bellingham Church. About six months later this church gave him a license, as he put it, "to do that which I had been doing for a year before." In October of 1775 he went on an extended preaching tour to Virginia, returning home after eight months. Soon after this trip, in September of 1776, he tells us, "I was married to Sally Divine, of Hopkinton; and immediately started with her to Virginia."4
At the time when Leland arrived in Virginia the Baptists of that state were in the midst of their struggle against the Established Church. They were also fast becoming a force which would have to be reckoned with in the affairs of the state. But it had not always been so, and they were only now emerging from a rather infamous reputation.
The first Baptists in Virginia and North Carolina were not numerous and their reputation was not much better. There were a few Baptists in Virginia as early as 1714. These were immigrants from England, who settled in the southeastern part of the state. It does not appear that this group ever flourished.5
Another party of Baptists came from Maryland and settled in the northwest in 1743. The leaders of this group were Edward Hays and Thomas Yates. Their minister, Henry Loveall, some came and a church was formed on the Arminian plan. Due to the misconduct of Loveall, the church did not prosper. In 1751 representatives from the Philadelphia Association, James Miller, David Thomas, and John Gano, came to their assistance and reformed the church according to the plan of the Philadelphia Association. Those churches associated with the Philadelphia Association which adhered to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith had earlier begun referring to themselves as "Regular Baptists," and this was the beginning Regular Baptists in Virginia. In 1765 there were four of these churches, and in 1766 they formed themselves into the Ketocton Association.6
The third group of Baptists to come to the state was what became known as the Separate Baptists. They became the fastest growing group of the Baptists, and they were the most important group in agitating for liberty of conscience. Their origin can be traced to the influence of the Great Awakening in New England. Under the influence of George Whitefield, these people broke away from the established church and formed a separate society. However, at this stage of their development they had not renounced infant baptism. In 1751 Shubal Stearns became convinced of believer's baptism and was immersed by Wait Palmer in Tolland, Connecticut.
In 1754 Stearns, believing in the immediate teaching of the Spirit, became convinced that he should move west. Consequently, he came to Berkeley County, Virginia, where a Regular Baptist Church was located. He was met there by his brother-in-law, Daniel Marshall, who had been preaching among the Indians. Marshall also became convinced of believer's baptism and was immersed. Since nothing out of the ordinary was happening there, Stearns and Marshall moved into Gulliford County, North Carolina, and on November 22, 1755, the Sandy Creek Church was constituted with sixteen members. Their number increased very rapidly, and in a short time the church had grown to 606 members. Other churches were formed, and the Sandy Creek Association was organized in 1758. Under the leadership of Daniel Marshall the first Separate Baptist Church in Virginia was formed in 1760. Marshall soon moved to Georgia, where he formed the first Baptist Church in that state on Kiokee Creek, near Augusta, Georgia in 1771.7
Thus, it was not until after the middle of the eighteenth century that the Baptists in Virginia made any headway at all. Leland says that the Episcopal Church enjoyed the full possession of the state until the 1740's.8 The Presbyterians by this time had made substantial gains for all dissenters under the leadership of Samuel Davies and the preaching of Gilbert Tennent and Samuel Finley.9 It was not until after the 1760's, however, that the Baptists made any substantial growth.
As soon as they began to grow in numbers, this naturally brought attention to them from the authorities, which in turn led to persecution. Men in power sought diligently to find ways and means to put down these "disturbers of the peace." Semple says that it was not certain that any law in force in Virginia authorized the imprisonment of men for preaching. They were, therefore, dealt with for disturbing the peace.10
The first instance of actual imprisonment in Virginia took place in Fredericksburg in 1768. John Waller, Lewis Craig, James Childs, James Reed, and William Marsh were haled before the magistrate and arraigned as disturbers of the peace. At their trial one lawyer accused them thus: "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." They were offered their freedom if they would promise to preach no more in the county for a year and a day. This they refused to do, and they were carried to the jail, singing a hymn as they went. While they were in jail, they continued to preach through the grates.11 Leland says there were about thirty of these people imprisoned during this period.12
A fact that added to the ridicule heaped upon these early Baptists was that they were, for the most part, poor and unlearned. They were everywhere thought of as "a pack of ignorant enthusiasts." The ministers of the Baptists came from among the common people. They believed in a divine call to the ministry, and that it came to men in all walks of life. Therefore it was possible for a man who could hardly write his name to believe himself called of God.13 "The Baptist preachers," says David Benedict, "were, in almost every respect, the reverse of the established clergy; without learning, without patronage, generally very poor, plain in their dress, unrefined in their manners, awkward in their address; all of which by their enterprising zeal and unwearied perseverance, they either turned to advantage, or prevented their ill effects."14
Indeed, this fact was probably an advantage to the Baptists. These rustic preachers came up from among the people. They had no classical education, but they spoke the language of the people. They did not know the theological jargon of the high Churchmen, but they knew the language of personal religion which touched the hearts of their hearers. Therefore, they were able to reach the masses of the people which neither the Established Church nor the Presbyterians were able to do.15
In spite of all the opposition, the Baptists grew by leaps and bounds. Their fiery evangelists went everywhere preaching the gospel. After 1770 the growth of the movement was amazing. At the beginning of 1770 there were but two Separate Baptist Churches north of the James River and not more than four on the south side. In 1774 there were twenty-four churches north of the James and thirty south of it who sent letters to the General Association. There were probably some who did not sent representatives to the association.16 One student of the movement estimates that there were ten thousand of them by the beginning of the Revolution.17 By 1784 this number had grown to almost fifteen thousand, and there were more that twenty thousand of them by 1790.18
This first spurt of growth among the Baptists of Virginia came as the Revolutionary War approached. Political developments also were favorable for the cause of religious freedom. Almost simultaneous with the rise of Baptists, republican principles were also emerging. For the same reasons that leading statesmen were chaffing under the yoke of British commercial regulations, the dissenters, and Baptists in particular, were pressing for their religious rights. The Established Church was coming to be viewed as an inseparable appendage of the monarchy.19 Baptists and other dissenters sought their religious rights on the same ground that the colonies were seeking their political rights.
As the Revolution approached, the dissenters were no longer satisfied with mere toleration. Nothing less that full liberty of conscience and equality before the law would suit them now. Experience had taught them that toleration was not enough. The Revolution served as a catalyst to speed up the realization of this liberty in Virginia.20 The Baptists, wrote Robert Semple, were "to a man favorable to any revolution by which they could obtain freedom of religion."21
The Baptists early adopted the expedient of addressing petitions to the governing body of the colony. Many such petitions were sent during this period of agitation in the colonies.22
On May 6, 1776, a convention met in Williamsburg, which H. J. Eckenrode calls "probably the most noteworthy assembly ever held in Virginia."23 It was this convention that passed resolutions instructing the Virginia delegates in the Continental Congress to propose a declaration of independence. They also made preparations for a bill of rights and a constitution for Virginia. It is the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason, that contains the momentous declaration of religious rights. Instead of Mason's wording, "[T]hat all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion," young James Madison succeeded in securing its amendment to read, "All men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion."24 This was a very important distinction for the Baptists, one to which they had long held. They believed that toleration implied a favor granted, but equality recognized an inalienable right.25 When the legislature met the next fall, it was deluged with petitions from various dissenting groups. Among them was a memorial from the Hanover Presbytery (Presbyterian) and one from an association of Baptist ministers and delegates who met at Dover in Goochland on December 25, 1776. These petitions brought on what Thomas Jefferson called "the severest contests in which I have ever been engaged."26 Though the acts passed at this time exempted dissenters from religious taxes, it left other major issues unresolved and the debate went on for nine more years.
This were the circumstances that faced John Leland when he moved to Culpeper, Virginia early in 1777. In August of that year he became pastor of Mount Poney Church, being ordained by the choice of the church without the imposition of the hands of a presbytery. Since this practice was "a departure from the churches of Virginia," Leland wrote, "I was not generally fellowshipped by them."27 Difficulties arose in the church, and he moved to Orange, Virginia. However, his troubles about his ordination apparently did not hinder his evangelistic labors nor did it affect his popularity. After moving to Orange, he quickly became engrossed in his work, preaching twelve to fourteen times a week.28 By ;the end of 1777, he had traveled as far south as the Pee Dee River in South Carolina.29
However, things did not continue so well for the Baptists, because a great declension set in upon then beginning in a bout1780. The Revolutionary War seems to have had a paradoxical effect upon them. They well understood that the move toward separation from Great Britain was a great boon for their cause. But while this is true, the Revolution also brought on a declension in the religious life of the Baptists. Leland and Semple refer to this low state of affairs and assign various reasons for it. Leland declared, "From this time (1780) to the year 1785, by the siege of Lord Cornwallis, the refunding of paper money, and removals to Kentucky, religion ran low in Virginia," and, "But as they gained their piece of freedom, so the cares of war, the spirit of trade, and moving to western waters, seemed to bring on a general declension."30 For whatever cause, the religious declension was not confined to the Baptists. All religion was at a low ebb after the war. Many now felt that religion could not survive without some sort of state recognition.
These conditions led to the next struggle that finally resulted in the completion of the process of religious freedom. Dissenters had gained a great deal during the years 1776-1780. But after the war a conservative reaction set in, and as the coming of the Revolution had aided the dissenting cause, so this reaction after the war threatened to impede their cause. Much that had been achieved for religious freedom appeared to be in danger of being rolled back. Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom was introduced in 1779, but it was not passed. In 1784 a plan for the support of Christian ministers was brought forward. James Madison was almost alone in the legislature in his opposition to this plan. Of the dissenting groups, only the Baptists were Madison's allies in opposing this measure at first.
The consistency with which James Madison and the Baptists were allied in the struggle for religious liberty is a very significant fact. His position, particularly on the assessment plan, indicates that he had very advanced ideas of religious freedom. But the strongest remonstrance against the bill was written by Madison himself.
Madison led the fight in the Virginia legislature against these encroachments upon religious rights until they were finally defeated in 1786. When the legislature met in 1785 it was deluged with petitions from various dissenting groups. Madison then pressed his advantage and introduced Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. It was enacted on January 16, 1786. Of this bill Eckenrode says, "The 'act for establishing religious freedom' added no new principle. In combining complete liberty of opinion with forbidding taxation for church support, the act merely expressed the results of the revolution, but it served its purpose as a landmark and an obstacle to any reversion to the past."31 Jefferson considered this Bill one of the three greatest accomplishments of his life, along with the Declaration of Independence and the creation of the University of Virginia.32
It is difficult to say what part John Leland played in this campaign. Very soon after the passage of this bill, he appears as a legislative agent, along with Reuben Ford, in an effort to obtain repeal of an act incorporating the Episcopal Church.33 Of his sentiments, however, there can be no doubt, and since immediately after this he was appointed to a position of leadership, he was surely active in this work. In the Virginia Chronicle he said, "A general assessment, (forcing all to pay some preacher,) amounts to an establishment; if government says I must pay somebody, it must next describe that somebody, his doctrine and place of abode."34
While all of this was going, the Baptists were experiencing a tremendous revival. It began in about 1785 and continued until 1791. Thousands upon thousands were converted, and when it was over the Baptist were more numerous than any other sect in Virginia. Leland reached the peak of his evangelistic activity in 1788. In the period from October of 1787 to March of 1789, Leland says that he baptized four hundred people, three hundred of which were baptized in 1788.35
This revival was also attended by the presence of physical and emotional demonstrations. Leland says that it was nothing unusual for a great part of the congregation to fall prostrate on the floor. Many people would entirely lose the use of their limbs. At associations it was not uncommon for several preachers to exercise their gifts at the same time in different parts of the congregation.36 Some preachers greatly encouraged this sort of thing, and Semple admits that in some congregations much confusion and disorder resulted. "Many ministers who had labored earnestly to get Christians into their churches," he declared, "were afterwards much perplexed to get hypocrites out."37
This revival marked many great changes among the Baptists. From being persecuted and looked down upon before the Revolution, in 1790 they were numerous and influential. Men of greater weight in civil society began to join them, and this was bound to influence their manners. Their preachers became much more correct in their manner of preaching. "Their zeal was less mixed with enthusiasm, and their piety became more rational," as Semple put it.38 They began to be more concerned about education. In 1788 the first proposal for writing a history of the Baptists was made in the General Committee. Leland was appointed on a committee for this purpose, and the Virginia Chronicle was the result of his work there.39
In the midst of this revival the Separate Baptists and the Regular Baptists decided to unite. Leland played an active role in this effort. In June of 1787 he was ordained with the laying on of hands by a presbytery. "By this," he says, "not only a union took place between myself and others, but it was a small link in the chain of events which produced a union among all the Baptists in Virginia not long afterwards."40
For a long time the Separate Baptists had been very reluctant to agree to a confession of faith. They were fearful that such a confession would come between them and the Bible. They also believed that the Regular Baptists were too lax in receiving members, many of whom they felt were unconverted. On the other hand the Regular Baptists believed that the Separate Baptists leaned too far toward Arminianism.41 It was finally agreed, however, that the Separates would adopt the confession, but would not be strictly bound by it, and so the union was finally agreed upon.
The confession adopted by the combined groups was the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which had been adapted from the London Confession of 1689. Leland's own reservation about the confession seems to have been closely connected with the fact that most established religions require submission to such a confession. Moreover, he said confessions of faith "often check any further pursuit after truth, confine the mind in a particular way of reasoning, and give rise to frequent separations." "But," he concluded, "after all, if confessions of faith, upon the whole, may be advantageous, the greatest care should be taken not to sacradize, or make a petty Bible of it."42
It was also during this period of transition for the Baptists that the framing of the Federal Constitution took place. The little known incident of the election in Orange County for delegates to the ratifying convention is of great interest in showing the feelings of the Baptists, the leadership of John Leland, and how this incident could have changed the course of history.
When the Constitution first appeared, the Baptists were not at all enthusiastic in their reception of it because they feared that religious liberty was not adequately protected. As the time for the ratifying convention approached, it seemed that they would stand opposed to it. James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, was still in New York early in 1788 when he received urgent word that he should return to Virginia.43 On January 30, Madison's father wrote him that Orange County was by no means favorable to ratification. "The Baptists," he wrote, "are now generally opposed to it, as it is said." He also informed his son that many people desired an explanation from him.44 On February 17, James Gordon, Jr., who was also a candidate to represent Orange County in the ratification convention, informed Madison that the candidates opposing the Constitution were meeting with some success.
The sentiments of the people of Orange are much divided the best men in my judgment are for the constitution but several of those who have much weight with the people are opposed, Parson Bledsoe & Leeland with Colo. Z. Burnley. Upon the whole I think it is incumbent on you without delay, to repair to this state, as the loss of the constitution in this state may involve consequences the most alarming to every citizen in America.45
When Madison did return to Virginia, a letter was waiting for him when he arrived at Federicksburg suggesting that he stop by on his way home to visit "an influential Baptist leader," as Irving Brant put it.46 That leader was John Leland. The letter, dated February 28, 1788, was from Captain Joseph Spencer. He warned Madison that the Constitution had enemies in Orange County, the Baptists being among them. He pointed out John Leland as being one of their leading men and sent Madison a copy of a list of objections Leland had to the Constitution. Spencer went on to suggest that Madison stop by and visit Leland on his way home since it was right on his way.47
The objections referred to in the letter were prepared by Leland at the request of Thomas Barbour, an opposition candidate in the Orange County election. Most of the objections reflected Leland's fear of some aspects of the government being to far removed from the popular will. He specifically objected to it, because there was on Bill of Rights in it and that there was no specific guarantee of Religious Liberty in it.48
Meanwhile a meeting of the General Committee of Baptists was held at Willaim's Meeting House on March 11, 1788. This group took up the question; "Whether the new Federal Constitution which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty." It was unanimously agreed that it did not.49
Then followed the famed meeting between James Madison and John Leland, which is a celebrated event in local history, though neither of these men left any direct testimony about such a meeting. However, everything that is known certainly suggests that it did take place, and that it did indeed influence the outcome in Orange County, Virginia of the election to the Virginia ratifying convention.
One source of evidence purports to come directly from Leland himself. In a letter dated April 15, 1857 Governor G. N. Briggs of Massachusetts related the details of a visit he paid to Leland's home, apparently not many years before Leland's death.50 In the course of their conversation Briggs quotes Leland as saying that Madison came to see him "to talk with me about the Constitution."
Briggs went on to say that they met again very soon before the electors on the stump. He used quotation marks in his letter, apparently indicating that he was quoting Leland directly.
Mr. Madison first took the stump, which was a hogshead of tobacco, standing on one end. For two hours, he addressed his fellow-citizens in a calm, candid and statesman-like manner, arguing his side of the case, and fairly meeting and replying to the arguments, which had been put forth by his opponents, in the general canvass of the state. Though Mr. Madison was not particularly a pleasing or eloquent speaker, the people listened with respectful attention. He left the hogshead, and my friends called for me. I took it--and went in for Mr. Madison; and he was elected without difficulty.51
Later in life Leland himself made two statements in his writings which seem to corroborate the authenticity of this event. Writing in 1834, he spoke of having talked with Madison in 1788, saying, "Mr. Madison said to me in 1788, 'the states have surrendered to the general government a certain quantity of their rights; but it is most likely, if ever the general government is dissolved, it will proceed from the jealousy of state authority."52 At the same time he spoke of his reservations about the Constitution; "When the Constitution first made its appearance in the autumn of 1787, I read it with close attention, and finally gave my vote for its adoption; and after the amendments tool place, I esteemed it as good a skeleton as could well be formed."53 These statements certainly comport with the details of the meeting. It is quite clear that the Baptists were convinced by Madison, and they did support him in this election.
It is also certain that the Baptist vote in Orange County was indeed formidable. In 1790 the total membership of Baptists in Orange County was 750. It is reasonable to assume that it was at least this much in 1788, because many of them were moving to Kentucky at this time. Of course, this included women, males too young to vote, and slaves. But even it three-fourths of them fitted these three categories, this would still leave between 150 and 200 Baptist voters.54 The vote on March 24 read: Madison 202, Gordon 187, Barbour 56, and Porter 34. This makes a total of only 479 who voted. It is clear, then, that the Baptist vote could have turned the tide. If Leland had the influence, and it certainly appears that he did, to deliver these votes to Madison, then Madison indeed owed his election to this fact.55
This is even more significant when one considers what might have happened if Madison had not been in the ratifying convention to counteract the eloquence of Patrick Henry. Of his work in the ratifying convention Irving Brant says, "His leadership was universally recognized."56 It is not too much to say that Madison, more than any other person, was responsible for the Virginia ratification.
The fact remains, however, that the Baptists, and John Leland in particular, had wanted a written guarantee of religious liberty in the Constitution. It does not appear that there were hard feelings toward Madison on the part of the Baptists. On the contrary, they were warm friends. However, Patrick Henry now tried to keep Madison out of the first Congress by spreading rumors that he not only opposed any amendments whatever, but that he had also ceased to have strong feelings about the rights of conscience. George Eve, who was pastor of the Blue Run Baptist Church at that time, sought an answer to these charges from Madison himself. On January 2, 1789 Madison gave him his views in a letter.57
Sir,
Being informed that reports prevail not only that I am opposed to any amendments whatever to the new federal Constitution, but that I have ceased to be a friend to the rights of conscience. . . I am led to trouble you with this communication of them.
I freely own that I have never seen in the Constitution as it now stands those serious dangers which have alarmed many respectable citizens. Accordingly, whilst it remained unratified, and it was necessary to unite the States in some plan, I opposed all previous alterations as calculated to throw the States into dangerous contentions, and to furnish the secret enemies of the union with an opportunity of promoting its dissolution. Circumstances have now changed. The Constitution is established on the ratification of eleven States and a very great majority of the people of America; and amendments if pursued with a proper moderation and in a proper mode, will be not only safe, but may serve to the double purpose of satisfying the minds of well meaning opponents, and of providing additional guards in favour of liberty. Under this change of circumstances, it is my sincere opinion that the Constitution ought to be revised, and that the first Congress meeting under it ought to prepare and recommend to the states for ratification, the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights, particularly the rights of conscience in the fullest latitude, the freedom of the press, trial by jury, security against general warrants & c. . . .58
In this way Madison retained the warm support and friendship of the Baptists. Soon after his election to the House of Representatives, Leland wrote him saying, "I congratulate you in your appointment, as Representative to Congress, and if my undertaking in the cause conduced nothing else towards it, it certainly gave Mr. Madison one vote."59 This certainly indicates that Leland warmly supported Madison in this election.
Nor were the Baptists remiss in putting their confidence in James Madison. On May 4, 1789, Madison gave notice that he intended to bring up the subject of constitutional amendments. This, of course, resulted in the Bill of Rights, which contained the explicit guarantee of religious liberty. These amendments became a part of the Constitution in 1791, after the ratification of a sufficient number of states.60 It is no wonder that Leland retained the highest regard for Madison. In a speech given in 1805 he said of Madison, "From a child, he has been a pattern of sobriety, study, and inflexible justice. From an intimate acquaintance with him, I feel satisfied that all the state of Massachusetts, for a bribe, would not buy a single vote of him.61
From the vantage point of two hundred years of history, it would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in securing these inherent rights. John Leland certainly played a very important part in this struggle. One authority on church-state issues names him along with George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Samuel Davies as the five most important men in this struggle.62 The Baptist historian of Virginia, Robert Semple, also placed him very high on the list of influential Baptists, saying, "Mr. Leland, as a preacher, was probably the most popular of any who ever resided in this State."63
In the Spring of 1791 Leland and his family took leave of Virginia to return to his native Massachusetts. That trip was made by way of the sea, and Leland tells of a great storm they encountered. At the height of the storm the ship's captain came to Leland's cabin and said, "We shall not weather it many minutes. Leland says of it, "This he said, (as I judged,) not to terrify the sailors, but for my sake. The sense of it, to me, was this: 'Leland, if you have got a God, now call upon him.' But there was no need of this admonition, for I had begun the work before; and can now say, that that night is the only one of my life that I spent wholly in prayer. That I prayed in faith, is more than I can say; but that I prayed in distress, is certain."64
Arriving in Connecticut, he tarried there for several months to do some preaching and to become involved in the struggle for religious liberty there. In New England the Congregationalist was the established church, and concessions to dissenters were even more grudging than those of the Anglicans in Virginia. Leland wrote several tracts soon after returning to New England demanding not toleration, but full equality for all religious groups. Among them was a tract entitled, Rights of Conscience Inalienable, and Therefore, Religious Opinions Not Cognizable By The Law, in which he asserted that the consciences of men cannot be surrendered to the state. He wrote, "Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can best reconcile to his conscience. If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise, let men be free."65 He was to continue his efforts to achieve such freedom in his native Massachusetts. This was to be a long struggle, because Massachusetts was the last state to enact complete religious freedom, finally, in 1833.
Leland and his family settled in the village of Cheshire, Massachusetts in February of 1792, and lived there, except for a few years, for the rest of his life. He became pastor of a church known then as the Second Baptist Church, although Leland was never entirely comfortable as a settled pastor. Though he maintained his connection with this church for most of his life, it is clear that he was not its pastor for most of that time. As Butterfield put it, "He was always willing to preach, pray, and baptize, but he was happier as in independent evangelist, free to go where the spirit directed, than as a settled pastor, however devoted his flock might be to him."66
One of the best known incidents in the life of John Leland was in connection with what has come down in history as The Mammoth Cheese. In 1801 the people of Cheshire determined that they would send a giant cheese to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson as a token of their great respect for them. Leland accompanied the cheese on its journey from Cheshire to Washington and presented it in person to President Jefferson on January 1, 1802. Leland was even invited to preach to both the houses of congress with the president in the audience.67 The only reference Leland made to this incident is his autobiographical sketch reads as follows: "In November, 1801, I journeyed to the south, as far as Washington, in charge of a cheese, sent to President Jefferson. Notwithstanding my trust, I preached all the way there and on my return. I had large congregations; let in part by curiosity to hear the Mammoth Priest, as I was called."68
Leland continued his various ministerial labors with the normal ups and downs of it right up until near the time of his death. Unfortunately his own autobiographical notes leave off a few years before he died. Sometime near the beginning of 1820, he wrote a summary of his ministry.
Since I began to preach in 1774, I have travelled distances, which, together, would form a girdle nearly sufficient to go round the terraqueous globe three times. The number of sermons which I have preached, is not far from eight thousand. The number of persons that I have baptised is one thousand two hundred and seventy-eight. The number of Baptist ministers whom I have personally known is nine hundred and sixty-two. Those of them whom I have heard preach, in number, makes three hundred and three. Those who have died, (whose deaths I have heard of,) amount to three hundred. The number that have visited me at my house is two hundred and seven. The pamphlets which I have written, that have been published, are about thirty.69
In 1834, when he was eighty years old Leland listed the number of his baptisms as fifteen hundred and twenty-four, which is the last time any number is given. He no doubt baptized a number of others, because he continued to preach right up until very near the time of his death. His last sermon was preached in Cheshire on January 8, 1841. Soon after he was taken very ill and passed away on January 14, 1841.70
It is possible to make some assessment of Leland's contributions, because he was one of the few Baptists of this period to leave any record of his beliefs. Politically, he was a Jeffersonian Republican. It is quite revealing to read his writings and observe quite a wide range of learning. Yet he regarded himself as quite rustic in manner and he apparently felt self conscious about his lack of education.
He was an advocate of the compact theory of government and was an unashamed follower of Thomas Jefferson in terms of political philosophy. In one speech entitled A Blow at the Root: Being a Fashionable Fast-Day Sermon, delivered at Cheshire, Massachusetts, April 9, 1801, he said, "Pardon me, my hearers, if I am over-warm. I lived in Virginia fourteen years. The beneficent influence of my hero was too generally felt to leave me a stoic. What may we expect, under the auspices of heaven, while Jefferson presides, with Madison in state at his side."71
While he believed that some rights were surrendered upon entering the civil society, he believed others were inalienable and could not be surrendered. Thus, he held that religion was not an object of civil government. He abhorred the idea of toleration, because it implied a favor granted. Religious liberty is an inalienable right, he declared, and not a favor granted by any government. He came as near being completely consistent in his ideas upon the separation of church and state as anyone of his time. He held that the gospel church could never be coterminous with the civil state.72 The church as Leland understood it is a completely separate entity as contrasted to the state. He once called it a Christocracy. By that, he said, "I mean nothing more than a government of which Christ is law-giver, king, and judge, and yet so arranged, that each congregational church is a complete republic of itself, not to be controlled by civil government or hierarchy."73
His idea of separation was graphically demonstrated in a pamphlet entitled Free Thoughts on War, published in 1816. He showed that Christianity is not designed to be characteristic of the nations of the earth in their political state. The government of the church, he said, "extends no further than non-fellowship." But in their capacity as citizens of the state, "The saints in common with others share the advantages, and ought to bear the burdens of the society, proportionately."74 In other words two different entities are involved. The duties one owes to each could and should be distinguished.
Flowing from this distinction was his idea that no religious test should be imposed for holding a civil office. This should turn solely upon the merits of the individual. "All the good they (test oaths) do," he declared, "is to keep from office the best of men; villains make no scruple of any test. The Virginia Constitution is free from this stain. If a man merits the confidence of his neighbors in Virginia -- let him worship one God, twenty Gods, or no God -- be he Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, he is eligible to any office in the State."75
He believed that legislators were led into the error of attempting to legislate religion by confounding sins with crimes. His thinking was that there is a difference between moral evil and state rebellion. One might be infested with moral evil, and yet be guilty of no crime, punishable by law.76 Thus, he could believe that government "has no more to do with religious opinions than it has to do with the principles of mathematics." But, he said, when those principles break out into overt acts of violence, then magistrates "use the civil sword and punish the vagrant for what he has done, not for the religious phrenzy that he acted from."77
It is also quite interesting to note that he had a dislike for the practice of paying chaplains of the civil and military departments out of the public treasury, and further, he said, "If legislatures choose to have a chaplain, for Heaven's sake, let them pay him by contributions, and not out of the public chest."78
His principles of liberty were consistent enough to make him detest the institution of slavery. He was frankly hesitant to speak about it, because he recognized the difficulties involved. But on several occasions he did speak out. It was he who drafted the resolution for the General Committee of Virginia Baptists meeting in Richmond in 1789, which reads:
Resolved, that slavery is a violent deprivation of rights of nature and inconsistent with a republican government, and therefore, recommend it to our brethren to make use of every legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land; and pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature may have it in their power to proclaim the great jubilee, consistent with the principles of good policy.79
In an utterance a little later he waxed prophetic: "If they are not brought out of bondage in mercy, with the consent of their masters, I think that they will be, by judgment, against their consent."80 It is on this subject that he rises to a height of eloquence rarely found in any of his other writings. In his letter to the people of Virginia upon leaving there he said, It is not my intention to drop the ministerial vest, and assume the politician's garb to-day; but, after adding that slavery, in its best appearance is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, inconsistent with republican government, destructive of every humane and benevolent passion of the soul, and subversive to that liberty absolutely necessary to ennoble the human mind, let me ask whether Heaven has nothing in store for poor negros better than these galling chains? If so, ye ministers of Jesus, and saints of the most High, ye wrestling Jacobs, who have power with God, and can prevail over the angel, let your prayers, your ardent prayers, ascend to the throne of God incessantly, that he may pour the blessings of freedom upon the poor blacks. If public prayers of this kind, would raise the anger of tyrants, or embolden the slaves in insolence, let the sable watches of the night, in lonely solitude, be witnesses to your sincere longings after the liberty of your fellow creatures.
How would every benevolent heart rejoice to see the halcyon day appear -- the great jubilee usher in, when the poor slave, with a Moses at their head, should hoist the standard, and march out of bondage! Or, what would be still more elating, to see the power of the gospel so effectual that the lion and the lamb should lie together -- all former insults and revenges forgotten -- the names of master and slave be buried -- every yoke broken, and the oppressed go free -- free but not empty away.81
The theological views of Leland could be described as Evangelical Calvinism. "For his religious creed, wrote L. F. Greene in her further sketches of Leland, "he acknowledged no directory but the Bible."82 Late in his life he summed up the beliefs that had seen him through the years.
In the years of 1772-73, etc., when my mind was as solemnly impressed with eternal realities, as to turn me from the power of Satan unto the living God; whether from the Bible I read, the preaching I heard, the teachings of the Holy Spirit, or some other cause, I did as firmly believe the following articles, as I believed that Jesus Christ was the Saviour of sinners.] 1. That all men were guilty before God, and that God would be just and clear, if he damned them all.
2. That Christ did, before the foundation of the world, predestinate a certain number of the human family for his bride, to bring to grace and glory.
3. That Christ died for sinners, and for his elect sheep only.
4. That those for whom he did not die, had no cause to complain, as the law under which they were placed was altogether reasonable.
5. That Christ would always call his elect to him while on earth, before they died.
6. That those whom he predestinated, redeemed and called, he would keep by his power, and bring them safe to glory.
7. That there would be a general resurrection, both of the just and the unjust.
8. That , following the resurrection, judgment would commence, when the righteous sheep would be placed on the right hand of Christ, and admitted into life eternal; and the wicked on the left hand, doomed to everlasting fire.
In the belief of those articles, and what was collateral therewith, I began my ministerial career in 1774 with but little thought how many and weighty the consequences of these premises were. But, not, after the experiment of fifty-seven years, and after going over the ground thousands of times, with all the research and candor in my power, I dare not pull up stakes and make a new start. Many uncertainties arise in my mind, many questions spring up that I cannot answer; but, every other system that I explore has greater difficulties, and worse conclusions.83 John Leland would have described himself as an itinerant. He traveled thousands of miles and preached thousands of sermons. He was a great individualist, and some even described him as an eccentric. Later in his life, when the move toward organized missions came among the Baptists, he stood aside and discounted such methods. He said, when he was seventy, "My missionary travels have been extensive enough to girdle the globe three times; but I was never sent out, nor supported by a missionary society."84 As this indicates, he was what he considered to be a Bible evangelist. He dissociated himself, therefore, from this organized, and what he considered, unnecessary and extra-scriptural effort.85
It may be safely concluded that the epitaph that Leland desired to be on his tomb, and indeed it was on it, was an appropriate one. It read, "here lies the body of John Leland, who labored 67 years to promote piety and vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men."86
FOOTNOTES
1 L. F. Greene, editor, The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland, Including Some Events in His Life, Written by Himself (New York: G. W. Wood, 1845.) p. 638. (Hereinafter cited as Greene, Leland's Writings.)
2 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
3 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 15-17.
4 Ibid., p. 19.
5 David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination, 2 Volumes (Boston: Manning & Loring, 1813), II, 23-25. (Hereinafter cited as Benedict, Baptist Denomination.); Robert B. Semple, A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, Revised and Extended by G. W. Beale (Richmond: Pitt and Dickinson, Publishers, 1894), p. 29. (Hereinafter cited as Semple, Virginia Baptists.)
6 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 375-377, 388; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 23-35, 34; Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 104. These churches were Ketocton in Loudoun County, Smith's Creek in Shenandoah County, Mill Creek in Berkeley County, and Broad Run in Fauquier County.
7 Wesley M. Gewehr, The Great Awakening in Virginia, 1740-1790 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1930), pp. 108-109. (Hereinafter cited as Gewehr, The Great Awakening.); Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 11-19; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 37-41.
8 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 99.
9 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 100; Gewehr, The Great Awakening. See chapters III and IV for the early rise of the Presbyterians.
10 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 29, 41-42.
11 Lewis Peyton Little, Imprisoned Preachers and Religious Liberty in Virginia (Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P. Bell Company, Inc., 1938), pp. 93-96. (Hereinafter cited as Little, Imprisoned Preachers.). Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 29-34.
12 Green, Leland's Writings, p. 107.
13 Robert B. C. Howell, The Early Baptists of Virginia (Philadelphia: The Bible and Publication Society, 1857), p. 131. (Hereinafter cited as Howell, Early Baptists.); Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 115-116.
14 Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 76. It should be noted that Benedict's account is based almost entirely upon that of Semple.
15 Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, p. 38; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 133-134.
16 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 42; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 75-76.
17 Gewehr, The Great Awakening, p. 106.
18 Albert Henry Newman, A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1894), p. 303; Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 116.
19 Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 77.
20 Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, pp. 37-41; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 77; Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 44-45.
21 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 85; Howell, Early Baptists, p. 143.
22 Little, Imprisoned Preachers, pp. 310-311; Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, p. 38.
23 Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, p. 42.
24 James, Documentary History, p. 62; Howell, Early Baptists, pp. 142-150. Howell indicates that there was a Baptist petition in 1775, before the Declaration of Rights, petitioning for full rights of conscience and for no state establishment.
25 L. H. Butterfield, Elder John Leland, Jeffersonian Itinerant (Worcester, Massachusetts: American Antiquarian Society, 1953), p. 174. (Hereinafter cited as Butterfield, Leland.)
26 Quoted in Butterfield, Leland, p. 174; See also Julian P. Boyd, et. al., editors, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 17 volumes in print (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950- ), I, 525-529. See I, 660-661 for the Baptist Memorial.
27 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 19; Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 233-234.
28 Green, Leland's Writings, p. 19.
29 Ibid.
30 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 22, 112; Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 55; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 89-90. By the "spirit of trade" is apparently meant the opening of free trade by the coming of peace. Benedict says, "The opening of free trade by peace, served as a powerful bait to entrap professors, who were in any great degree inclined to the pursuit of wealth. And nothing is more common, than for the increase of riches to produce a decrease of piety."
31 Eckenrode, Separation in Virginia, p. 115.
32 Adrienne Koch, Jefferson and Madison (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1950), p. 31.
33 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 98.
34 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 118.
35 Ibid., p. 27.
36 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 114-115.
37 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 58-59; Benedict, Baptist Denomination, II, 90-91; Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 114.
38 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 59; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 173-177, for the Baptist revival.
39 Semple, Virginia Baptists, 103; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 253-259, for the social revolution among the Baptists.
40 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 26.
41 Elders Lemuel Burkitt and Jesse Read, A Concise History of the Kehukee Baptist Association, Revised and improved by Henry L. Burkitt (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co., 1850), pp. 42-43; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, pp. 109-111.
42 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 114; for the union see Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 100-101; Gewehr, The Great Awakening, p. 177; J. T. Smith, "The Life and Times of the Rev. John Leland," The Baptist Quarterly, Volume V (April, 1871), 237.
43 Irving Brant, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800 (Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, inc., 1950), p. 185. Hereinafter cited as Brant, Father.)
44 Butterfield, Leland, p. 184. This letter is among Madison's papers in the Library of Congress.
45 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 184-185.
46 Brant, Father, p. 187.
47 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 185-186. The letter, which is quoted in full in Butterfield, is among the Madison papers in the Library of Congress. See also W. B. Hackley, "If Madison Had Come to Dinner," The Virginia Baptist Register, Number 4 (1965), 186. (Hereinafter cited as Hackley, "Dinner".)
48 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 187-188. This document, which Butterfield quotes in full, is also among Madison's papers in the Library of Congress.
49 Semple, Virginia Baptists, p. 102; Dawson, American Republic, p. 108; Garnett Ryland, The Baptists of Virginia--1699-1926 (Richmond: The Virginia Baptist Board of Missions and Education, 1955), p. 133.
50 W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, Volume VI (New York: R. Carter & Brothers, 1860), pp. 174-186. (Hereinafter cited as Sprague, Annals.) Governor Briggs' letter is printed in Sprague's article on Leland.
51 Sprague, Annals, pp. 179-180.
52 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 649.
53 Ibid., p. 652.
54 Hackley, "Dinner," p. 191.
55 Hackley, "Dinner," p. 191; Butterfield, Leland, pp. 191-192.
56 Brant, Father, p. 227.
57 Brant, Father, pp. 236-240.
58 James Madison to George Eve, January 2, 1789 in Gaillard Hunt, editor, The Papers of James Madison, 9 Volumes (New York: ).
59 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 193-194. This letter is among Madison's papers in the Library of Congress, and is quoted in full by Butterfield.
60 Brant, Father, Chapter XXI.
61 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 287.
62 Stokes and Pfeffer, Church and State in the U.S., Revised Edition (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964), p. 71.
63 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 206-207.
64 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 29.
65 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 180-181; Butterfield, Leland, pp. 197-199.
66 Butterfield, Leland, p. 206.
67 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 223-227.
68 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 32.
69 Ibid., p. 35.
70 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 39, 46-49.
71 Ibid., p. 255.
72 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 94, 107.
73 Ibid., p. 277.
74 Ibid., p. 460.
75 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 106.
76 Ibid., p. 221.
77 Ibid., p. 184.
78 Ibid., p. 119.
79 Semple, Virginia Baptists, pp. 104-105; James, Documentary History, pp. 146-147.
80 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 98
81 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 174.
82 Ibid., p. 50.
83 Greene, Leland's Writings, p. 625.
84 Ibid., p. 513.
85 Butterfield, Leland, pp. 234-235; Gilbert Beebe, Feast of Fat Things (Middletown, New York: G. Beebe's Sons, nd), p. 30.
86 Greene, Leland's Writings, pp. 38, 50.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
Opposition calls for separation of church and state
Looks like Denmark is heading in the right direction while we in the good old USA are going the wrong way
Opposition calls for separation of church and state
Opposition calls for separation of church and state
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)