' I+National Library ~iblioth&quenationale - 'of Canada du Canada * . Canadian 'Theses Service Services des theses canadiennes Ottawa. Canada . K1 A ON4 - ii a CANADIAN THESES NOTICE AVlS - The quality of thls microfiche is heavily dependent upon the La qualltk de cette microfiche depend grandement de la qualltk . quality of the original thesis submitted for microfi!ming. Every ; de la these sourntse au microftlmage Nous avons tout fact Fur effort has been made to ensure the highest quality of reproduc- assurer une qualit6 superleure de reproduction tion possible. If pages are missmg. Eoqtact the unrverslty whlch granted the S'ii manque des veuillez communiquer avec I'univer- degree site qui a confer6 le grade. li Some pages may have lndistlnct print espec~ally~f the original La gual1:4 d'impression de certaines pages peut la~sser pages were typed wrth a p~ortypewriter rdbon or 11 the univer- &slrer, surtout st les pages orlginales ont 616 dacljllographi6es stly sent us an inlertor pbtocopy ii~aide'd'unruban us6 ou SI l'un~versitenous a fa11 parvenlr - - une photocopte de qualrt6 1nf6rieure Previously copyrighted materials (jou;nal artictes, published Les documents qui font c&jA I'objet d'un droit d'auteur (articles tests, etc 1 are not frlmed de revue, examens publies, etc ) ne Sont pas microfilm& Reproduction in fill or rn part of this fifm is governed by the La reproduction, merne partielle, dc ce microfilm est soumise Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30. ,A ia Loi canadi'enne sur le droit d'auteur. SRCnl 970, c C-30. THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED MICROFILM€E TELLE QUE EXACTLY AS RECEIVE0 NOUS L'AVONS RECUE FIGHTING FOR A PLACE: - - IN VIRGINIA,. 1752-1774 q Har.vey Brent McIntosh? B.A., Simon aser University, 1981 A TljESlS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL - FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF s MASTER OF ARTS in the Department History Harvey Brent Plclntosh 1987 s I na~FRASER UN I VERSI TY Apr 1 1 198-7-. All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other mpans, without permission of the author. - "I I c Permission has been granted L'autorisation a &t&accordhe to the National, Library of la ~ibliotheque nationale -- Canada to microfilm this . du Canada de microfilrner ' thesis and to- lend or' sell cette these et de pr6ter ou copies of the film. de vendre des exemplaires du film. The author (copyright owner) L' auteur (titulaire du droit has reserved other d'auteur) se rbserve les publication rights, and autres droits de publication; neither the thesis nor ni la th&se ni de longs extensive extracts from it extraits de celle~cine may be printed or otherwise doivent* Stre imprimbs ou reproduced without his/her autrement reproduiks sans son written permission. autorisation Gcrite. ISBN APPROVAL Name : ~arG'e~Brent McIntosh * . Degree : M ,.A . i' L 4 0.: Title of thesis: Flghting xfdr a .Place: ~hS%ch of England ' eeP" Y Activismtin Virginia, 1752 - 1774. t c.J Examining Committee: E. Ingram, Chairman.. ;:i. Nicholls, ExternalExarniner, Professor Religious StudliesDepartment, University of British Col-urnld ia -- - Date Approved: 2 r&+&7~7 / Ql * J * I PARTIAL COPYRiGHT LICENSE I hereby grant t~ Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesi-pJect or extended esssy4i4e title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to wke part lal or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other edwcationdl Institution, on its o& behalf or for one ot its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purpoms may be granted - by me or the Dean at Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publlcation of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Title of Thesis/Project/Extended Essay . " Fighting for a Place: Church of England Activism in Virginia, 1752-1774 - - i Author: ,,, , ~ ., , , , ,. , ,, ,, / c, f" L' ' , (s ignat&re) Harvey Brent McIntosh (name I 1 (date) .- i 1752"and 17-74 the Two Penny Act cr.isis, a control- of the College of William and Mary, and a conflict over resident bishops placed a small contingent of clergy 1-n confrontation with local tay authority. Although separated in tiye, each issue is -connected by a single > pressing conceri$t,whichsphere, lay-or clerical, would control ~irginia's "legal ly established Church? . Circumbtances combined to make this question pressing during the,period under consideration. Religious revival among nonconformist denominations.and centralization of political authority in the House of Burgesses created an environment which was hostile to Church of England autonomy. The Bishop of London's 1752 decision not to grant power to his local repra;entative also vclkeked the Church! s position during this period. This study examines clergy activists' attempts to obtain autonomy for their institution., In each- controversy clerical action conformed to objectives within the tradition of Virginia's Anglican Church. Clergy defences were at first aimed at rhstoring what the activists saw as the status- guo in place before 1752. After this solution eluded them, the clerical minority agitated for a resident bishop in a final bid to maintain the integrity of their institution. iii 'lnethe final .analysis, this thesis demonstrates that the . clerical activists lost in their bid for Church autonomy because they could neither receive essential support from England .nor build a common front emong the Virginia clergy. -- I wil 1 first thank my supervis'or, Alan D. Aberbach, fa \his patience, interest, and wi1lingne.s~to share his expertise during my r.esearch and writing'. The other members. of my committee, Charles Hamilton and William Nicholls were, helpful in spotting errors and providing constructive crikicism. Financial support from the History department and the President's Research Fund made this project possibl@ and I extend thanks! to Jack Little for an otherwise thankless monetary.juggling act. Personal and financial suFport were given most generously by my parents, Dave and Gwen, and by my wife, * Laura. My ,fellow students providefioral support and two, Elizabsth and Peggy, were exceptionally helpful. The office - -- staff and especially Mayleqe made it possible for me to\write in Victoria and adhere to university deadlines by long-distance. d- TABLE OF CONTENTS * e ACKNOVLEDGEMENTS ....................................... v ... TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................... vi 4. Chapfer 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... d 4 I. CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND CLERICAL SECURITY ..... 9 Notes ..................................... 25 - 11. THOMAS DAMSON AND THE CLERICAL ACTIVISTS .... 28 Notes-........................................ 53 . I I I. THE ACTIVIST DEFENCE, ........................ 58 Notes ..................................... 82 IV. BISHOPS AND ORDINARY BUSINESS ............... 87 Notes ..................................... 105 V. COLLEGE AND PARISH .......................... 108 Notes ..................................... 122- CONCLUSION ....................................... 125 Notes ..................................... 134 INTRODUCTION Between 1752 and 1774 the Parsons' Cause, a dispute over control of the College of' William and Mary, and a conflict over resident bish~psplaced a small contingent of Virginia's Anglican clergy in confrontation with local lay &uthority. Although separated in time, each issue "is connected by a single pressing concern: which sphere lay or clerical would -- control Virginia's legal'ly established Church? Circumstances combined to make this question critical during the period under consideration. Religious revival among nonconformist denominations and centralization of political authority in the lower House of Assembly created an environment which was hostile to Church of England autonomy. ~lthoughthis study is concerned with twenty-two years of Virginia history, the issue of control of the Church was much larger. Since the creation of the Church of England, -the amount of sicular authority* had waxed and waned. %- 1 In immediate terms& problems in Church government stkmmed from pol itical turmoi 1 surrounding the monarchy. During the reign of each monarch bhhops who supported the prevailing- administration were appointed. The bishops were created from adrong a select body of ..Angl ic-ans. Many were. nobles, 'a1 1 '-were gentlemen. Family connectfans and Whig or ~oryaffiliation, were the prime determinants inaelection to a diocese. The relatively rapid succession of James'l I, William and,Mary, and Anne created some instability-in the Convocation of Bishops. But the accession of the Hanovers in 1714 signalled -- -the rebirth of firm lay control over the Church. The long --. reign of the house of Hanover created homogeneity among the bishops. Beginning with George I, the Church was used increasingly "as an instrument of social and political control."' This usage reduced the Anglican hierarchy's power. -The reduced role continued until the 1830s uhen the "Oxfordu or "Tractarian" Movement began to reassert Anglican . > aut-onomy based on the Church as a divinely inspired institution. In Virginia the identification of the Anglican Church with the home government became a liability in the perr od following the French and Indian War. As confl-ict-- emerged between London and local lay authority, clerical appeals to the cotony's diocesan in London ar?d through. English political