Attempts to suppress the Baptists by use of the courts were occurring at the same time as challenges were being made to the legal basis of the legislation that was being used. This confused state of the laws governing toleration intensified anxiety and dissension within the ruling group. The laws pertaining to the church were half-formed and an ad-hoc mixture of colonial enactments and English law. The Virginia assembly had decreed in 1662 that the right to preach in the colony was restricted to those who had received ordination from a bishop in England. Another law of 1705 exempted Protestant dissenters from penalties for nonattendance at their (Anglican) churches. Those who qualified for this exemption were defined by reference to an English statute of 1689, the famous "Act of Toleration." It was argued that the reference to this English law made it applicable to Virginia. It was under this law that Virginia officials had been licensing preachers and meetinghouses since 1747. The question was, "How much of the Act of Toleration applied to Virginia?"
So confused was the law on toleration, that the Lancaster County court rescinded, on March 17, 1758, its earlier license for a Baptist meetinghouse. Part of the reasoning was based on the conclusion that no Act of Parliament relating to churches was binding in the Colony. It was concluded that the applicable law required preachers to be ordained by a bishop in England. But the Council in Williamsburg continued for a decade after that to license others who applied for permission. In 1768, the Council informed Spotsylvania County that the imprisoned preachers could apply for a license to preach; however, imprisonment continued throughout Virginia.
The arguments continued in the courts and in the newspapers. The ruling gentry, who had opposed, successfully, the coming of a bishop to Virginia, were divided on the question of religious dissent. Some argued for a defined line that would exclude the Baptists. In 1772 the Baptists petitioned the House of Burgesses for relief and clarification. The Baptists seemed willing to accept licensing. The House passed a bill clarifying that the Act of Toleration would hold in Virginia. After the third reading of the bill, it would have normally gone to the Council. In this case, the House voted to print the proposal and to distribute it among the populace for comment. By this rare abdication of its authority, the House showed its doubts about the religious conflict.
Two years later, James Madison was exuberant about the American cause in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party, but he despaired of Virginia because of its continued religious intolerance. The old regime in Virginia was never able to resolve the religious toleration problem. The stories being circulated about the dissenters only heightened their resolve to control the dissent.
Questions about political liberty and religious freedom were tied together in the minds of many, and the lack of any toleration on the religious question concerned them about the future of political liberty. They believed that without the one there could not be the other.
We gratefully acknowledge the work of John Blankenbaker who published over 2,500 Germanna History Notes via the Germanna-L@rootsweb.com email list from 1997 to 2008. We are equally thankful to George Durman (Sgt. George) for hosting the list and republishing the notes via rootsweb.com.