ia," published in 1705, says: "They have no more than five
conventicles among them, namely, three small meetings of Quakers, and
two of Presbyterians. 'Tis observed that those counties where the
Presbyterian meetings are produce very mean tobacco, and for that reason
can't get an orthodox minister to stay among them; but whenever they
could, the people very orderly went to church."

From this it may be inferred that the Eastern Shore, where Makemie was
settled, produced poor tobacco, and that in consequence of it there was
no minister of the established church in his neighborhood. He is
supposed to have had four places of preaching; his labors proved
acceptable; his hearers and congregations increased in number, and there
was a demand for other ministers of the same denomination. Mr. Makemie,
about the year 1704, returned to the mother country and remained there
about a year. During the following year two ministers, styled his
associates, were licensed, by authority of Governor Seymour, to preach
in Somerset County, in Maryland, notwithstanding the opposition of the
neighboring Episcopal minister. Makemie's imprisonment in New York (by
Lord Cornbury) for preaching in that city, and his able defence upon his
trial, are well known. He died in 1708, leaving a large estate. His
library was much larger than was usually possessed by Virginia clergymen
in that day, and included a number of law books. He appointed the
Honorable Francis Jenkins, of Somerset County, Maryland, and Mary
Jenkins, his lady, executors of his last will and testament, and
guardians of his children.[373:A]

In 1699 a penalty of five shillings was imposed on such persons in
Virginia as should not attend the parish church once in two months; but
dissenters, qualified according to the toleration act of the first year
of William and Mary, were exempted from this penalty, provided they
should attend at "any congregation, or place of religious worship,
permitted and allowed by the said act of parliament, once in two
months."[373:B] Hening remarks of this law: "It is surely an abuse of
terms to call a law a toleration act which imposes a religious test on
the conscience, in order to avoid the penalties of another law equally
violating every principle of religious freedom. The provisions of this
act may be seen in the fourth volume of Blackstone's Commentaries, page
53. Nothing could be more intolerant than to impose the penalties by
this act prescribed for not