A History of the Baptists

John T. Christian

Vol. 2 - Section 2
The Period of the American Revolution

Chapter 1
The Baptists in the American Revolution.

The Thirteen Colonies—The Policy of England—The Discovery of the Valley of the Ohio—The Population of the Country—The Social, Political and Religious Conditions—Political and Religious Freedom—The Forces Against America—George III—The Attitude of Pope Pius VI—John Adams on the Situation—The Position of Canada—The Quebec Act—The Roman Catholics of Great Britain—The Attitude of America Toward the Roman Catholics—The Mercenaries from Germany—The Roman Catholics of Ireland—of America—The Clergy of the Established Church of England—Rev. Charles Inglis—Foreign Born Citizens—A Conspiracy Against Washington—William Pitt—The Baptists of England—Dr. Rippon—The Baptists of America—The Warren Association—The Philadelphia Association—An Appeal to the Continental Congress—Rhode Island Favors Independence—The Baptists of Virginia—A Memorial to Congress—The Baptists Favor the Revolution—Soldiers—Chaplains in the Army—Oliver Hart—John Hart.

The thirteen colonies were feeble settlements in the wilderness, scattered along the coast of a continent, little connected with each other, and almost unknown to the world. Their affairs were superintended by a Board of Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. This Board had no representative in the cabinet or access to the king, hence there was always confusion. The Duke of Bedford was the Secretary at the time‑a man of inflexible honesty and good will to his country, untainted by duplicity or timidity‑of considerable ability though not brilliant‑fearless, positive, uncompromising, energetic, without sagacity, stubborn, and with a narrow range of thought. In a short while plans were laid for the taxation of the colonies, and in 1748 a convention was held at Albany with the ostensible purpose of providing against the French and Indian incursions, but the officers made known their desire to tax the colonies. The Governor of New York, followed by others, resisted this proposition.

While these plans were being put into execution the Valley of the Ohio had been discovered. This vast wilderness with broad prairies, giant forests and cloud‑piercing mountains was soon to be open to colonization. The great question was, would it be English or French? The English cabinet became enlisted and sent George Washington to the French commander. This ultimately brought on the war.

At the time of this convention at Albany the following estimate is given by the historian Bancroft of the population of this country:

The following is a condensed account of the social, religious and political condition of the country at the time:

The great dominating idea of America at this time was politi­cal liberty. They understood to a less degree the liberty of the human conscience, and do not fully grasp that conception even now. They were approximating the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The contest was certain to be long continued; and would demand exertions and sacrifices beyond anything the colonies had hitherto experienced.

The forces arrayed against them at home and abroad were formidable, George III had allied himself with many persons and nations opposed to liberty. He was on good terms with pope Pius VI. Two of the brothers of George III, William Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and Prince Edward Augustus, were received by the pope with great honor in 1777. He wrote to the Roman Catholic bishops, vicars‑apostolic, in that kingdom, to include obedience to that monarch. “The good will of George III,” said the pope, “makes this virtue a goodness. He is the best of sovereigns; his authority is full of mildness to Catholics. They do not bear so hard and heavy a yoke; they have been delivered from a part of the severe laws and hard conditions to which they were subjected. They now possess privileges; our brethren may serve in the army, and have obtained Catholic schools for youth. Nor has the beneficent monarch shown his goodness only to Catholics of his kingdom; he has favored and supported them in the vast Indian realms subject to his authority” (Chevelier Artant de Montor, The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, II). The pope was likewise opposed to republics and favored monarchies. “Monarchy,” says he, “is the most natural form of government,” and “the populace . . . follow no wisdom and no counsel, and has no understanding of things.” The appointment of the Roman Catholic clergy in Great Britain was made by Cardinal York, who was a kinsman of George III.

The hostility of the pope was well understood by the Americans. John Adams, afterwards President of the United States, writing to the President of Congress, in an official manner, August 4, 1770, says:

The reasons for Roman Catholic hostility were manifest. Practically all of the colonies had severe anti‑papal laws on‑their statute books. Likewise, the House of Bourbon had banished the Jesuits from France, and the French favored the claims of the United States. “The rancor of the Jesuits,” says Bancroft, “against the house of Bourbon for exiling them from France and Spain was relentless. The Roman Catholic clergy in the insurgent British colonies had been superintended by a person who resided in London; and during the war they were directed by Jesuits who favored the British” (Bancroft, History of the Constitution, I). Marbois, the French Minister, wrote to Rayneval, from Philadelphia, August 15, 1784, as follows: “The Catholics, always directed by the Jesuits in the country, have been illdisposed to the Revolution, they are not better disposed toward us” (Bancroft, I.).

It was hoped by some that Canada would make the fourteenth State in the American Union. The Quebec Act was passed by Parliament, June, 1774, the effect of which was to make Canada a Roman Catholic province. Some of the wisest and best men in England opposed this measure. The spirit of the opposition to the Act in England may be seen in the attitude of Sergeant Glynn, backed by many other members of Parliament. He represented Middlesex and was the Recorder of London. Lord Chatham described him as being “a most ingenius, solid, pleasing man, and the spirit of the constitution itself” (Chatham, Correspondence, III). Mr. Glynn said:

Perhaps there was not a prominent Roman Catholic in Great Britain who did not endorse the war against America. There is an important paper to that effect called “an Address of the Roman Catholic Peers and Commons of Great Britain,” to the king, dated May 2, 1776, published in the London Gazette. It expresses their appreciation of the constitution and their loyalty to it. And that for years “their conduct has been irreproachable,” they are going to stand by the king in “public danger,” and are “perfectly ready, on every occasion, to give proofs of our fidelity.” The address further says:

This Address was signed by two hundred and five Peers and Commoners, all Roman Catholics.

The acts of the British government were followed by the most solemn protests from all parts of the country; the crown was asked not to sign the Quebec Act; and there were many riots. The American Congress, October 21, 1774, sent an Address to the people of Great Britain. It not only gives the attitude of the Americans in general; but in particular is clear upon the religious side of the controversy. Altogether it is a fearless and plainspoken expression of convictions. It was signed by George Washington and many others.

At the risk of length some of the statements are here quoted:

The mercenaries sent over from Germany by Great Britain to fight the Americans were the soldiers of a Roman Catholic prince, Frederich II, Landgrave of Hesse‑Cassel. “This prince,” says Lowell, “was the Catholic ruler of a Protestant country. His first wife had been an English princess, a daughter of George II. She had separated herself from the Landgrave on his conversion to Catholicism, and returned to Henau, with her precious son.

“Frederich had led a merry life of it at Cassel. He had taken to himself a cast‑off mistress of the Due de Bullion, but he set up no pretentions to fidelity, and is said to have had more than one hundred children. A French theater, with a corp de ballet, was maintained. French adventurers, with good letters, obtained a welcome, and even responsible positions of State” (Lowell, The Hessians).

The Roman Catholics of Ireland were mustered into the service as soldiers. The methods used by the priests and others to induce them to enlist in the army are very interesting.

At first many of the Irish Catholics of America enlisted in the colonial army; but under the pressure of the priesthood many of them deserted and went over to the enemy. In reply to Dr. Shea, a Roman Catholic author, who said: “The Catholics spontaneously, universally and energetically give their adhesion to the cause of America, and, when the time came, to American independence” (Shea, Catholics and Catholicity in the Days of the American Revolution). Martin I. Griffin, a very able Roman Catholic, wrote as follows:

Likewise consideration must be taken of the attitude of the clergy of the Established Church of England. Some of the peo­ple adhered to the mother country, but that number was not large. At the close of the Revolutionary War scarcely an Epis­copal clergyman remained in the country. That church was completely destroyed. At the beginning of the struggle a large number of the clergy at once assumed a position on the side of England, and against the liberty of the colonies. They brought the subject into their pulpits; they denounced the people as in­surrectionists and traitors; and commanded them to abandon the rebellion, and submit, without resistance, to their legitimate rulers. So offensive were the sermons of some of them, that the citizens felt themselves insufferably outraged. On one occasion at least, a clergyman, after a Sunday’s vaporing in the pulpit, was seized by the congregation, carried into a neighboring forest, fastened to a tree, and there received thirty‑nine lashes vigor­ously administered. Another, to avoid a like fate, carried his pistols into the pulpit, and laying them by the side of his prayer book, in the presence of the assembly, told the congregation that he should proceed with the service; that England had a right to govern them; that he would read all the prayers for the king, the royal family, and the government; and that he would shoot any man who attempted to restrain him. Not many of the clergy, however, were so intrepid. The fearful and the faint­hearted, therefore, fled with all practical haste (Howell, The Early Baptists of Virginia).

The attitude of the clergy of the Episcopal Church is well illustrated by the extract given below from a letter written from New York by Rev. Charles Inglis, Rector of Trinity Church, under date of October 31, 1776, addressed to Dr. Hind, of England.

Surrounded as the patriots were by Tories and opposed by foreign armies yet they had friends in England. When William Pitt stated in the House of Commons, May 30, 1781, that “the American war was conceived in injustice and nurtured in folly, and that it exhibited the highest moral turpitude and depravity, and that England had nothing but victories over men struggling in the holy cause of liberty, or defeats which filled the land with mourning for the loss of dear and valuable relatives slain in a detested and impious quarrel”; and when six months later, in the same assembly, and two days after the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown had been published in England, the eloquent Fox adopted the words of Chatham, uttered at the beginning of the Revolution, and said: ‘Thank God that America has resisted the claims of the mother country!’ (Hums, Smollett and Farr, History of England, III); and Burke and others in the same legislature, spoke words of kindred import, full of peril to themselves, they expressed the sentiments of the Dissenters of England, and especially those of the Baptists.

When Robert Hall, the future eloquent preacher, was a little boy, he heard John Ryland, of Northampton, a man of commanding influence among the Baptists, say to his father:

Dr. Rippon, of London, in a letter written to President Manning, of Rhode Island College, May 1, 1784, says:

So great was the peril and the uncertainty of the actions of foreign born persons that the generals in the army could only trust native born citizens. General Gates issued the following orders from headquarters, Cambridge, July 7, 1775:

The next day the General gave orders for the enlistment of men as follows:

After the great conspiracy on the life of Washington the life guard was reorganized, April 30, 1777. Washington was then at Morristown, New Jersey. He sent to the commanders the fol­lowing confidential letter:

These statements give a good insight into the perils which surrounded the Americans in the period of the Revolutionary War. They were surrounded with enemies from without; and Tories and traitors within. The most careful watchfulness was demanded. Only patriots could be trusted; and true men with the American spirit and liberty were imperatively demanded. The Baptists were such men. They were accustomed to a hardy life; had long. been trained in the rugged school of experience; were loyal and trusted citizens; and above all were endued with the spirit of wisdom and liberty. Not a man of them proved a traitor. They cast their united strength into the American cause.

The Baptists were among the first of the religious bodies to recognize the authority of the Continental Congress. The War­ren Association of New England recognized the Congress as the highest civil resort. A Convention in the county of Suffolk, at this time the head county in Massachusetts, gave countenance to the Congress, in these words: “This county, confiding in the wisdom and integrity of the Continental Congress, now sitting in Philadelphia, will pay all due respect and submission to such measures as may be recommended by them to the colonies, for the restoration and establishment of our just rights, civil and religious.” These resolves were carried by Backus to the Con­tinental Congress and were as follows, as represented by the Warren Association:

All kinds of indignities were cast upon the Baptists. It is re­lated that on one occasion they met in a field by the river side, where prayers were made, and a sermon begun, when the chief officers of the town, with many followers, came and interrupted their worship. The owner of the field warned them to depart out of it if they would not peaceably; but they refused to go. The Baptist ministers desired them to act like men, if they would not act like Christians; and reminded them of the liberty of con­science which is generally allowed, and even by the powers with which we were at war, and began to open the divine warrant therefor, upon which an officer said: “Don’t quote Scripture here!” Another of them, who was a communicant in their church, cast the odious name, Tory, upon one of those candidates for baptism. And he no sooner attempted to discover the injustice thereof, than the officer said, “Hold your tongue, I’ll beat your teeth down your throat!” And a dog was carried into the river and plunged, in evident contempt of our sentiments. A gentleman of the town then invited the Baptists to hold their meetings at his house, which was near another river. They accepted the invitation, and so went through with their worship; at the close of which a man was hired with a bowl of liquor to go into the river, and dip another two or three times over; where also two or three more dogs were plunged after which three officers of the town came into the house where the Baptist ministers were, and advised them immediately to depart out of the town for their own safety. Being asked whether their lives would be in danger if they did not depart, no answer was returned. But seeing their temper, the Baptists agreed to disperse, and to meet at a different place of water; which was done, and those six persons were decently baptized, though further abuse was offered at the close of it.

The grievances in the Philadelphia Association were likewise severe. That Association, in 1774, stated:

On that committee, among others, was appointed Rev. Sam­uel Jones, who cooperated with Backus in presenting the Baptist petition to the Continental Congress. In the year 1807 he preached the “Century Sermon” before the Association. He made the following remarks:

The Continental Congress made the following reply to the petition of the Baptists:

The first colony to take an official stand against Great Britain was Rhode Island (Benjamin Cowell, The Spirit of ‘76 in Rhode Island, 42, Boston, 1850). This was twenty‑two days before Virginia acted. However reluctant other portions of the continent may have been to entertain the idea of a final separation from the Mother Country, in this colony the desire for absolute independence was early conceived and steadily followed. The democratic character of Rhode Island enabled the legislature to represent fairly and fully the will of the people, and their will was, at all hazards, to preserve that charter, albeit at the expense of their former loyalty.

“The Baptists have always been,” says Morgan Edwards, “more numerous than any other sect of Christians in Rhode Island; two‑fifths of the inhabitants, at least, are reputed Baptists. The governors, deputy‑governors, judges, assembly men and officers, civil and military, are chiefly of that persuasion.

“The first work of the Rhode Islanders after their incorporation in 1644, was to make a law that ‘Every man who submits peaceably to civil government in this Colony shall worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience without molestation”’ (Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society, VI. 304) .

The date of the withdrawal of the colony from Great Britain was May 4, 1776, two months before the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. The matter came up on an act to repeal an act entitled: “An act for the more effectually securing to his Majesty the allegiance of his subjects, in his colony and dominion of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” and altering the forms of commissions, of all writs and processes in the Courts, and of the oaths prescribed by law. The following recital of the misdeeds of George III is included in the act:

The people were tremendously in earnest. They immediately removed the artillery from the royal fort to be used by the colonists. When the Declaration of Independence was announced they were enthusiastic with shouts of “Liberty o’er and o’er the globe.” “The Rhode Islanders were such ardent patriots,” says Farr, “that after the capture of the island by Sir Peter Parker, it required a great body of men to be kept there, in perfect idleness for three years to retain them in subjection” (Hume, Smollett and Farr, History of England, III). Governor Green, in a dispatch to General Washington, says that “some times every fencible man in the State, sometimes a third, other times a fourth part, was called out for duty” (Collections of Rhode Island Historical Society, VI, 290) .

The Baptists in Virginia took a bold stand. “The Baptists,” says Dr. Hawks, “were not slow to discover the advantageous position in which the political troubles of the country placed them. Their numerical strength was such as to make it important to both sides to secure their influence. They knew this, and therefore determined to turn the circumstance to their profit as a sect. Persecution had taught them not to love the Establishment, and they now saw before them a reasonable prospect of overturning it entirely. In their Association, they had calmly discussed the matter, and resolved upon their course; in this course they were consistent to the end, and the war which they waged against the church was a war of extermination” (Hawks, Contributions to Ecclesiastical History).

The Baptists of South Carolina likewise took a noble stand. Richard Furman, a young man, was pastor in Charleston. “He was an ardent advocate of rebellion. Everywhere, on stumps and in barns, as well as in pulpits, he preached resistance to Britain. Pursued by the Tories, young Furman fled to the American camp, and there by his prayers and eloquent appeals so reassured the patriots that Cornwallis is said to have remarked that ‘he feared the prayers of that godly youth more than the armies of Sumter and Marion’” (McCrady, History of South Carolina under the Royal Government, 456, New York, 1899) .

The colonists did not decide on a final resistance to England till 1776. The Baptists, in 1775, anticipated this action by a year. In a Memorial to the House of Burgesses soldiers were promised; the overthrow of the Establishment suggested; and the parity of all ministers requested. The Memorial is quite informing and is as follows:

The growing influence of the Baptists and their unanimity made them most formidable in elections. “The influence of the denomination,” says Howison, “was strong among the common people, and was beginning to be felt in high places. In two points they were distinguished. No class of people in America were more devoted advocates of the principles of the Revolution; none more willing to give their money and goods to their country; none more prompt to march to the field of battle, and none more heroic in actual combat than the Baptists of Virginia. Secondly, in their hatred of the church Establishment” (Howison, History of Virginia, II, 170. Richmond, 1848).

Thoughtfully “they had considered what part it would be proper to take in the unhappy contest, and had determined that they ought to make a military resistance to Great Britain in her unjust invasion, tyranical oppression, and repeated hostilities” (Headley, Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution, 250. New York, 1864) . They proclaimed that to “a man they were in favor of the Revolution” (Semple).

Several Baptist preachers did great service in the army as chaplains. The Baptist General Association of Virginia sent, in 1775, Jeremiah Walker and John Williams to preach to the soldiers. These were the most popular preachers in the Old ‘Dominion. McClanahan raised a company chiefly composed of Baptists, whom he commanded as captain and preached to as chaplain. Charles Thompson, of Massachusetts, served as chaplain three years, and Hezekiah Smith was from the same State.

J. M. Peck gives the following interesting account of Hezekiah Smith:

Rev. Samuel Rogers of Philadelphia was one of the foremost preachers of his day. He was appointed chaplain of a brigade by the legislature. David Jones followed Gates through two campaigns.

John Gano was the foremost chaplain of the American Revolution. “As a minister of Christ he shone like a star of the first magnitude in the American churches, and moved in a widely extended field of action.” He was a Huguenot by extraction. He was born in Hopewell, New Jersey, July 22, 1727. “He was in person,” says Dr. Furman, “below the middle stature, and, when young, of a slender form; but of firm, vigorous constitution,. well fitted for performing active service with ease, and for suffering labors and privations with constancy. In the more advanced stages of life, his body tended to corpulency; but not to such a degree as to burden or render him inactive. His presence was manly, open and engaging. His voice strong and commanding, yet agreeable and capable of all those inflections which are suited to express either the strong or tender emotions of an intelligent, feeling mind. In mental endowments and acquired abilities he appeared highly respectable; with clear conception and penetrating discernment, he formed, readily, a correct judgment of men and things. His acquaintance with the learned languages and science did not commence till he arrived at manhood, and was obtained chiefly by private instruction; but under the direction of a clerical gentleman, well qualified for the office. To the refinements of learning he did not aspire‑his chief desire was such a competent acquaintance with its principles as would enable him to apply them with advantage to purposes of gen­eral usefulness in religion, and the most important uses of so­ciety; and to this he attained” (Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, VI).

Such was the trusted friend of Washington. He was brave and true, and made an indelible impression on the soldiers with whom he was associated.

There were several other Baptists who served in conspicuous positions in various capacities. Oliver Hart was one of the fore­most pastors in South Carolina. He was useful not only as a minister, but as a citizen, and especially in connection with the events of the Revolution. In 1775, he was appointed by the Council of Safety, which then exercised the executive authority in South Carolina, to travel, in conjunction with Hon. William H. Drayton and the Rev. William Tennent, into the interior of the State, to enlighten the people in regard to their political interests, and reconcile them to certain Congressional measures of which they were disposed to complain.

He was very impressive in his personality. “In his person he was somewhat tall, well proportioned and of graceful ap­pearance; of an active, vigorous constitution, before it was im­paired by close application to his studies and by abundant labors. His countenance was open and manly, his voice clear, harmoni­ous and commanding; the powers of his mind were strong and capacious, and enriched by a fund of useful knowledge; his taste was elegant and refined” (Sprague, VI).

Of his usefulness as a citizen there is no doubt, Dr. Furman says of his actions as a citizen:

The story of John Hart, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, is pathetic. “The father of Mr. Hart,” says Cathcart, “was a man of courage and patriotism; he raised a company of volunteers, which was led to Quebec, and with them he fought bravely on the Plains of Abraham against the French. The son inherited his spirit, and was universally regarded as one of the best men in New Jersey. He was well informed on Colonial and European questions, and thoroughly understood the inalienable rights of mankind. He was held in such high esteem that he was generally selected to settle the disputes of the neighbors, who spoke of him affectionately as ‘Honest .john Hart.’ In the social relations of life he was a man of great modesty and benevolence, and his highest ambition was to serve God and promote the best interests of his countrymen. He had no taste for political life, and in the conventions of his fellow citizens he expressed himself by brave deeds rather than by eloquent speeches. When he entered the Continental Congress of 1774 he was about sixty years of age. He resigned from Congress in 1775, and became Vice‑President of the Provincial Congress of New Jersey. He was again elected in 1776 and took his place among the patriots and heroes who sent forth the immortal Declaration. It was issued July 4, 1776. When first published it had only the name of John Hancock as President and Charles Thompson as Secretary. Two days before it was given to the world the British landed a powerful army on Staten Island, and to impart greater weight to the Declaration it was signed on the 2nd day of the month after its adoption by all the members and circulated extensively throughout the colonies. Mr. Hart had passed beyond the age of ambition and vigorous activity, and the period of life when men voluntarily make sacrifices and even imperil their property or safety, but he considered nothing but his country’s liberty. He owned a valuable farm, grist, saw and fulling mills; he had a wife and family whose happiness and security were dear to him; his residence was on the highway of the enemy and his signature was sure to bring down vengeance in a week or two; he knew that everything which he owned except the soil would be destroyed, his dear ones scattered, and his life taken if by the providence of the Evil One he was captured, and yet he did not hesitate to sign the Declaration of Independence, though it might prove his own death warrant, and though it could hardly fail to inflict the heaviest losses and the most painful sufferings on him and his. The enemy soon found out his patriotism and the happy home of Mr. Hart. His children fled, his property was wasted, and though an old man heavily laden of years he was compelled to leave his residence and conceal himself. He was pursued with unusual fury and malice, and could not with safety sleep twice in the same place. One night he had the house of a dog for a shelter and its owner for his companion. Added to the intensity of the bitterness of his persecutions, he was driven from the couch of his dying wife, whose anguish he was not permitted to as­suage” (Cathcart, The Baptists and the American Revolution). He built the Baptist meeting house at Hopewell and gave it the burying ground. A shaft of Quincy marble now marks his resting place, which was dedicated by the Governor of the State.

Books for further reference:

Robert Boyle C. Howell, The Early Baptists of Virginia. Philadelphia, 1867.

John A. Broadus, The American Baptist Ministry of one hundred years ago, The Baptist Quarterly, IX, 1‑20. Philadelphia, 1875.