University of Virginia Library

An Answer to the Accusation contained in the Governor's Letter to the
Convention, which Letter is to be seen in Journal of the Proceedings of
the said Convention.

ACCUSATION.

For none more eminently than Commissary Blair sets at naught those
instructions which your Diocesan leaves you to be guided by, with respect
to institutions and inductions,—he denying by his practices, as well as discourses,
that the King's Governor has the right to collate ministers to
ecclesiastical benefices within this Colony; for when the church he now supplies
became void by the death of the former incumbent, his solicitation
to the same was solely to the vestry, without his ever making the least
application to me for my collation, notwithstanding it was my own parish
church.

ANSWER.

As this accusation is here worded, the design of it is plainly to induce
your Lordship to believe that I oppose the King's instructions and deny

the Governor the power of collation, and that I was inducted into my
parish without him. But none of all these do in the least touch and explain
the true state of the difference betwixt his opinion and mine in this
matter, which I must therefore beg leave more clearly to unfold to your
Lordship.

The sole question as to this affair is, What is to be meant by collation
as in the Governor's instructions?—whether such a power as the King has
to bestow livings of which he himself is the patron? or such a power as
the Bishop has to collate to livings that fall into his hands by lapse? He
claims it in the first sense; I have always understood it in the second, for
the following reasons. It has been the constant practice in this country
that whatever ministers we have had inducted have had first a presentation
from the vestries, who, by law here, act in the name of the parishioners.
And before this gentleman's time, it was never known that ever
a Governor refused to induct upon any such presentations, or gave collation
and institution without it. 2d. By a law of this country, entitled Ministers
to be Inducted, after it has spoken of a minister's producing a testimonial
of his ordination, and his subscribing to be conformable to the orders
and constitutions of the Church of England and the laws there established,
follow immediately these words:—"Upon which the Governor is hereby
requested to induct the said minister into any parish that shall make presentation
[OMITTED] him." And from these words it has been always understood
here that the parish had the presentation and the Governor the induction.
For, as to the word requested, they think, and he grants, it doth not alter
the case when applied to the Governor,—that being the usual form in
which our laws express his duty, and not by the more authoritative words
of enacting, commanding, or requiring, as they do other people's. 3d.
The parishes here are at the charge of founding the churches, the glebes,
and the salaries. 4th. Governor Nicholson consulted Sir Edward Northey,
the late Attorney-General, as to all this affair,—being desirous (as I thought)
to remedy the precariousness of the clergy, who, except a very few, have
no inductions. And Sir Edward was altogether of this opinion, as your
Lordship will see by a copy of it, which I herewith transmit. Governor
Nicholson sent copies of that opinion to the several vestries of this country,
and threatened if they did not present that he would take the benefit
of the lapse: the very threatening procured presentations, and consequently
inductions, for some ministers. And had the Governor collated and inducted
upon the lapse,—nay, had he made but one or two examples of it,—
all this grievance might have been redressed long ago. But he only
threatened, and never once collated upon lapse; so that the precariousness
is as much fixed as ever. 5th. Having often discoursed with your Lordship's
predecessor and written to him on this subject, I never found he
had any other notion of collation by the Governor but that it was to be
upon lapse. And the great difficulty started in those days to that scheme
was that the country complained six months was too short a time for them

to supply their vacancies in,—there being no ministers to be had here who
were not already provided. For remedy of which, in the last revisal of
our laws, a law was provided in which two years (if I remember right)
were allowed the parishes to supply their vacancies. This law, about fifteen
years ago, was under consideration of the Council of Trade. My Lord-Bishop
of London was that day present at the Board, and I, being then in
London, was desired to attend. After full debate upon it, the law was
approved of, and my Lord of London was very well satisfied. But after
all it miscarried here in this country. Our Assembly could not agree
about it, and so it fell. Sure, if either the Bishop or the Council of Trade
had had any notion of this right of patronage which the Governor claims,
(and his commission and instructions are the same now they were then,)
having so ready a remedy for the precariousness of the clergy, they needed
not to have made these extraordinary concessions. 6th The Governor's
new method would destroy all benefit of lapse; whereas, if the presentation
is in the parish and the lapse in the Governor, we have the ordinary
check upon the patron, as in England and other Christian Churches, which
is a very valuable security. 7th Collations for benefices, together with
licenses for marriage and probates of wills,—being three things pertaining
to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but expressly excepted out of it and by
the King's instructions given to the Governor,—seems to be a good argument
that, in the point of collations, the Governor acts only as ordinary,
and consequently either institutes upon presentation or collates by lapse,
but not as original patron.

These are the reasons which have induced me to think collations are to
be interpreted in another sense than the Governor has lately fixed on
them. I say lately; for I do not remember that he fell upon this notion
above three or four years ago, which makes me astonished at the censure
he gives of me for not applying to him for his collation. There are two
wrong things here insinuated. One is, as if the Governor at that time
had claimed (as he now does) the right of collating to the living as patron
before it lapsed; whereas this pretension was, by four or five years, of a
later date,—my coming to this parish being at Christmas, 1710,—and nobody
at that time having ever questioned the vestry's right of choosing a
minister when the parish was fairly void,—as it was here, by the death
of my predecessor, Mr. Solomon Wheatly. As soon as I was elected by
the vestry, I immediately acquainted the Governor, and he said he was very
glad of it. And I do assure your Lordship he nor no one else at that time
faulted this as being then, and long afterward, the common practice of the
country. If a Governor ever interposed in such cases in those days, it was
only by recommendation to the vestries, but never by way of collation, which
he now begins to claim. The other thing which I take to be here insinuated
is as if, upon the vestry's presentation of me, I had, in contempt of his
authority and right to give collation, never applied to him for it. This, I
confess, would have been a great contempt, and such one as never any

minister in this country was guilty of. For, as soon as we can get a presentation
from the vestry, we never fail to apply to the Governor for induction,
as readily as any clerk in England applies to the Bishop with his
presentation. But this is the unhappiness of our precarious circumstances
in this country,—that the vestries are such enemies to induction that they
will give no presentations, and our Governors have been so unwilling to
disoblige the parishes that they have never taken the benefit of the lapse; so
that the ministers generally officiate upon the election of the vestry, without
presentation or induction. As this is the case of about nine or ten of
our ministers, (for some four or five are inducted,) your Lordship will
easily perceive that, as matters then stood, without a presentation it was
in vain for me to apply to the Governor for collation or induction. But I
thought it became me, in good manner, to wait on the Governor and to acquaint
him with what was done: he signified his great satisfaction, and did
not in the least fault any thing in the conduct of the matter. We were
then, and for many years afterward, in perfect friendship; though now all
things that are capable of any ill aspect are mustered up to make a crime
where never any before was so much as pretended.

ACCUSATION.

And I cannot but complain of his deserting the cause of the Church in
general, and striving to put it on such a foot as must deprive the clergy of
that reasonable security which I think they ought to have with regard to
their livings.

ANSWER.

It passes my skill to find out the defects of this method. If the Governor
would give the parishes warning to present in a reasonable time, and, in
case of failure, to make use of the lapse, it would remedy the precariousness
of the clergy as well as the other, and would have this advantage,—
that it would be much more easily applied, and a minister would have more
of the love of his parishioners; whereas, the other way will involve him
in a lawsuit to defend his title; and if we should at any time have a
Governor that has little regard to the Church or religion, he may keep the
parish void as long as he pleases,—there being no lapse ever incurred by
that scheme.

ACCUSATION.

As to the disorders in the worship of God which are pointed at in the
said letter, it appears as if my Lord of London knew not that his Commissary
is more apt to countenance than redress the same; for I myself
have seen him present in church while a layman—his clerk—has read
the divine service in the congregation,—he himself vouchsafing to perform
no more of his ministerial office than to pronounce the absolution, preach,
and dismiss the congregation.

ANSWER.

It is well known that I do constantly, while I enjoy my health, read the
whole divine service myself. And if the Governor has at any time seen
it otherwise, it has been when I have been so weakened with sickness that
I was not able to go through the whole service and preach too. If it be
thought an irregularity that on such a case I made use of a laic, it is to
be considered that this is a country where there is not one clergyman to be
had on such an occasion,—they being all employed at the same time in their
own far-distant parishes,—and that the country is so used to this practice,
that long before I knew it, by the fifth law in the printed book, entitled
Ministers to Provide Readers, it is enacted. "That where there is not a
minister to officiate every Sunday, the parish shall make choice of a grave
and sober person of good life and conversation to read divine service every
intervening Sunday at the parish church, when the minister preacheth at
any other place." But I constantly read prayers myself, unless disabled
or weakened by sickness.

ACCUSATION.

I have often seen him present at the churchyard, while the said clerk
has performed the funeral-service at the grave.

ANSWER.

Here it is insinuated as if I had been at the funeral when the clerk
performed the funeral-service at the grave. I can aver that my constant
practice is otherwise. What might occasion it that one time—whether
that I had not been spoken to, or that I was hoarse, or that I passed through
the churchyard accidentally while the clerk was in the funeral-service, and
I did not think fit to interrupt him—I can't tell, except the circumstances
of the fact were explained. But it is a common thing all over the country—
what through want of ministers, what by their great distance and the
heat of the weather and the smelling of the corpse—both to bury at
other places than churchyards and to employ laics to read the funeral-service,—which,
till our circumstances and laws are altered, we know not
how to redress.

ACCUSATION.

And I remember when he was for having the churchwardens provide
lay readers, who should on Sundays read to their congregations some printed
sermons; and so far he declared in Council his approbation thereof, that
such practice had like to have had the sanction of the Government, had I
not withstood it as destructive to the establishment of the Church.

ANSWER.

The Governor's memory must in this matter have exceedingly failed
him, when he represents this of lay readers either as a new project—for

(as I quoted above) there is a law of the country for it, duly put in practice
when there is no minister to officiate—or as a project of mine. The thing
I would have rectified in it was, that I understood that readers took upon
them to read what sermons they thought fit, and I was for their reading only
the homilies. This meeting with some opposition, (for it was alleged, if
nothing but the homilies were read, the people would not come to Church,)
it was, with the Governor's consent, accommodated thus:—that where there
was a minister in the parish, the minister should direct what sermons the
reader should read at the distant church or chapel, and where there was
no minister the Commissary should do it. But for the horrid innuendo
this part of my accusation is capable of—as if ministers were hereby intended
to be laid aside and lay readers set up in their places, and so the
establishment of the Church destroyed—there was never any such thing
thought of, far less argued, in Council. I have upon all occasions acquainted
your Lordship and your predecessor when vacancies fell by the death of
the minister, and pressed for a speedy supply; and whenever they came
in they were immediately provided with parishes, if the Governor himself
did not delay them.

ACCUSATION.

These and many other instances that might be given, which induce me
to believe that a reformation of what has chiefly (as I apprehend) given
occasion to your Diocesan's letter, will not be pressed very heartily by your
Commissary, especially if he made no such solemn promise at his ordination
as his Bishop reminds you all of. Wherefore I judge it to be more
incumbent upon the several members now in Convention diligently to inquire
of the disorders which your Diocesan takes notice of, and earnestly to
apply yourselves to proper means for redressing them.

ANSWER.

Whether I did heartily press reformation in pursuance of your Lordship's
letter, your Lordship will more readily apprehend from the copy of my speech
to the Convention, than from these hard prognostications of it. And though,
by means of this letter of the Governor's and other more clandestine prepossessions,
they were sufficiently inflamed, your Lordship will observe
that, instead of accusing me of any irregularities, when I put the question,
Whether any of them knew of any that did not punctually conform to the
established Liturgy, they answered only that there were several things
that were not observed by any, by reason of the circumstances of the country,
which particulars were ordered to be mentioned by the committee
appointed to answer your Lordship's letter, and that your Lordship's directions
be requested therein. But the worst innuendo of all is a doubt here
suggested, and more industriously circulated in his private insinuations,—
at least in the insinuations of his emissaries,—as if I never had Episcopal
ordination. The Governor, indeed words it somewhat doubtfully. "Espe

cially (says he) if he made no such promise at his ordination as his Bishop
reminds you all of". He was satisfied before that I was ordained with
Episcopal ordination in Scotland. The doubt he here suggests is concerning
the form of that ordination,—whether it had any such stipulation as the
English form has. I had told him that I was ordained by the very same
English book of ordination,—as indeed I was. But, if he could not believe
that,—having it only from my own testimony,—he might have remembered
that I showed him my license under the hand and seal of your Lordship's
predecessor, in which, among other things, is certified that I promised to
conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as by law established;
so that there was no occasion for throwing out this reflection.

These are the accusations I am charged with in that letter: the sum of
which is,—1st. A difference of opinion about presentation, which I own,
and have given your Lordship my reasons for it; which yet I humbly
submit to your more mature judgment. 2d. Some few irregularities as to
the Liturgy, which were owing partly to sickness and weakness disabling
me at that time to perform the whole service, and partly to the circumstances
of the country, which will not admit of exact conformity as in
England. This will be more fully explained in the clergy's answer to your
Lordship's letter.

But that all this heat and anger should break out now, when the pretended
causes were the same all along,—both during his nine years' government
and all his predecessors', from the first seating of the country,—
everybody here observes is owing to his late resentments because I could
not go along with him in several late innovations, which have given such
distaste to the country that our House of Burgesses have complained of
them to his Majesty. Had he taken the advice of the Council, he might
have made himself and the country easy. But he is so wedded to his own
notions that there is no quarter for them that go not into them. He is
now endeavouring to remove several gentleman of the Council of the most
unblemished characters. But, his resentment having more ways to reach
me than any of the rest, he has exerted himself to the utmost of his endeavours
both to ruin me with the College and my parish and your Lordship.
But your Lordship's backwardness to discard an old servant without
some crime proved against him, and the clearness of my title to be president
of the College by the charter, and the love of my parishioners, give him great
uneasiness,—though my interest is a very unequal match for his. The
fair, candid way with which your Lordship has used me, notwithstanding
the vast pains he has taken to supplant me with your Lordship, has laid me
under great obligations of gratitude, and the highest esteem of your Lordship's
candour and justice.

I doubt not there are many other things laid to my charge which I have
never heard of, and therefore cannot answer at this distance. But, if your
Lordship will give me leave to come home, I hope I shall be able to clear
myself of all imputations to your Lordship, as I had the good fortune

to do formerly in the like case to your Lordship's predecessor, who sifted
all those matters to the bottom.

I hope your Lordship will pardon all this trouble. God forgive them
who have occasioned it. I am only on the defensive. The equity of my
judge gives me great boldness,—knowing that I have endeavoured to keep
a good conscience, and that whereinsoever I have erred I am ready to
submit to your Lordship's judgment, and to correct whatever you think
amiss in my conduct.