|
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.ÿþIf membership were employed for determining adherence, then a very sub-stantial portion well beyond a bare majority of Virginia s white popula-tion (and a smaller portion of the African American population), on the basisof baptism adhered to the colony s established church.This would require adramatic upward revision of the membership figures repeatedly cited in schol-arly accounts of early America.But membership in Virginia terms does notautomatically equate with attendance or commitment.AttendantsBecause Virginia parishes kept no membership rolls or attendance records, anymeaningful estimate of adherence would seem out of the question.14 Beforeabandoning that effort, however, one needs to examine further the colony schurch attendance laws.15 Seventeenth-century legislation mandated that alland every person and persons inhabiting in this country.havingnoe lawfullexcuse to be absent attend church every Sunday.16 This was modified later toobligate adults twenty-one years and older to attend their parish church at leastonce every month.17 Early in the eighteenth century it was changed to oncein every two months.Then a 1744 law restored the monthly requirement.18Neglect made a person liable for a fine of five shillings or fifty pounds of to-bacco paid to the churchwardens for poor relief.19 On 2 November 1709, forexample, Richmond County justices ordered that Richard Nixon be sumonedby the Sheriff to the next Court to answer the presentment of the grandjuryfor absenting himselfe from Church six months last past. 20In the considered judgment of G.MacLaren Brydon, the church atten-dance laws were nullities.They were unenforceable and consequently are ofno present use in measuring adherence.His judgment perhaps also reflectsknowledge of circumstances in England, where, despite the elaborate ecclesi-astical structure, enforcement of church attendance in the eighteenth centurywas a dead letter.21 Brydon s view of the matter has prevailed and commonsense concurs.The colony s large parishes, its dispersed population, and themulticongregational facilities made improbable any systematic check on at-tendance.Actually, Brydon qualifies slightly his sweeping dismissal of the lawswith a vague reference to cases presenting very peculiar circumstances. 22 Pre-sumably he recognized the potential for using attendance laws selectively tovex or harass persons whose behaviors or beliefs were notorious, outrageous,or otherwise unacceptable.244 parishioners [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ] |
Archiwum
|