University of Virginia Library

ARTICLE XI.

Williamsburg, Bruton Parish.—No. 1.

This parish was carved out of the counties of James City and
Charles River. The latter county was, in 1642, changed into
York county. The parish of Bruton, in the year 1723, was
reported to the Bishop of London as ten miles square. At one
time a parish called Marston was within these bounds, being the
upper part, toward New Kent; but that was soon dissolved and
added to Bruton. Of the early history of Williamsburg, or the
Middle Plantation, we know but little. That there was a church
there in 1665 is certain from an entry in the vestry-book of Middlesex
parish, in that year, which directs a church to be built in
that parish, after the model of that at Williamsburg,—probably a
wooden one. How long that at Williamsburg had been in existence
before this time is not known. The vestry-book of Bruton parish
commenced in 1674, and continues until 1769,—a few years before
the Revolution. The first minister was the Rev. Rowland Jones,
who continued from 1674 to his death, in 1688. Besides vestrymen
and churchwardens, there were, after the English custom and
canons, two officers, called sidesmen or questmen, who were especially
appointed to present unworthy persons to those in authority,
for civil and ecclesiastical discipline. I have not met with these in
any other parish. It appears that there were at this time, and
had been, no doubt, for a considerable period, two other churches
in this parish, an upper and lower, both of which needed repair;
and the vestry resolved, in the year 1678, not to repair either of
them, but to build a new brick church at Williamsburg, to answer
for all. Free donations were solicited before a levy was resorted
to. A list of some of the donors is recorded. At the head is
John Page (first of the name) for £20, and the ground for the
church and graveyard; Thomas Ludwell, £20; Philip Ludwell,
£10; Colonel Thorp, £10; and many others, £5,—among them
the minister, Mr. Jones. A pew was put in the chancel for the
minister, and Mr. John Page and Edward Jennings were allowed

WILLIAMSBURG CHURCH, BRUTON PARISH.

to put up pews for their families within the same.[42] The church
being finished, the Rev. Mr. Jones was requested to dedicate it.
The vestry now caused it to be proclaimed throughout the parish,
that the law against those who absented themselves from church
would be enforced. It seems that, though much violated, it had
not been enforced, and perhaps never was. The penalty was so
many pounds of tobacco, after the laws "martial, moral, and divine"
had been repealed. It was during Mr. Jones's ministry that the
salary of £100, which had been paid him, was commuted for sixteen
thousand-weight of tobacco, the minister consenting, as the people
complained that they were not able to pay the £100. At the death
of Mr. Jones, the Rev. Mr. Sclater was employed for six months,
to preach every other Sabbath afternoon, and then the Rev. Mr.
Eburne for the same time every other Sunday morning. It is
probable that these were ministers of neighbouring parishes. At
the close of Mr. Eburne's engagement they elected him for seven
years, instead of inducting him for life. Lord Effingham, Lieutenant-Governor,
then addressed them the following letter:—

The meaning of the foregoing is plain,—viz.: that the vestrymen
apply to the Governor to induct Mr. Eburne for life, and so
have him fixed upon them, unless by process of law he could be
discarded for some great crime or crimes. The vestry, however,
at the end of the seven years, passed a resolve never to elect a
minister for more than one year at a time, and invited him to
remain on these terms; but he, getting old and infirm, preferred
going to some milder climate. Here is the first recorded conflict
of a vestry with the Governor on the subject of inductions. We
shall very soon have occasion to consider the subject at some
length. In the year 1697, the Rev. Cope Doyley was chosen
minister. In the year 1700, Governor Nicholson appears on the
vestry-book, in a manner characteristic of himself. He demands
of the vestry, under their own hands, whether the Rev. Mr.
Doyley reads the service of the Book of Common Prayer in the
church. It is answered in the affirmative. In the year 1702, Mr.
Doyley dies, and Mr. Solomon Whately is chosen from some other
parish,—not, however, without the Governor's leave being asked
for his removal. After having preached his trial sermon, and
being called, some objection was raised, and he is requested to
preach again, for the satisfaction of those who were not present at
his first sermon. His election for one year was confirmed, at
the end of which time his call was not renewed; but he was invited
to continue for a few months while looking out for another
parish. One of the vestry was directed to see the Rev. Isaac
Grace, who had just arrived in the colony, and get him to preach.
Mr. Grace expressed a willingness to come, but said that his case
was in the hands of the Governor, who had forbid him to come into
the parish. It seems that Mr. Whately was a favourite of the
Governor, and that he was offended with the vestry for not
choosing him as their permanent minister. Mr. Whately was the
most active minister in sustaining Governor Nicholson when, on
various accounts, he had become so unpopular that, at the petition
of the Council and some of the clergy, he was withdrawn
from Virginia. This case of the vestry and Mr. Whately led Mr.
Nicholson to get the opinion of Mr. Edward Northy, one of the
King's high legal advisers, as to the relative powers and privileges
of the Governors and vestries in presenting and inducting ministers,
and to order it to be entered upon all the vestry-books. I
have seen it on a number of them, and find it on that of Bruton
parish, from which I am drawing these statements. On receiving
it, the vestry passed some resolutions, and directed Mr. John

Page, (grandson of the old vestryman of that name, who was now
dead,) an eminent lawyer and member of the Council, to draw up
something on the subject, with the view of presenting it to the
House of Burgesses, requesting them to take action on the question.
We hear nothing more of the dispute, and the Governor was recalled
in 1705; but this is evident:—that the vestry never yielded the
point; for although they thought it expedient to retain Mr. Whately
until his death, yet it was under a solemn declaration of their determination
to elect their minister every year, which was done in the case
of Mr. Whately and his successors, during the Colonial Government,
so far as the vestry-book shows. The history of the case is
this:—In theory, the Governor claimed to be the representative of
the King, in Church and State, and patron of all the parishes; also
to be the representative of the Bishop of London, having the disposal
of the ministers and the exercise of discipline over the clergy,
thus making the office of the Commissary a nullity. Nor did the
Commissaries object; for they were, with one exception, Presidents
of William and Mary College, and fully employed. Dr. Blair did
sometimes act. It was evident that if such was to be the construction
put upon the power of the Governor, as claimed by Effingham,
Nicholson, and Spottswood, the vestries would have little
power to prevent the settlement for life (with legal power to enforce
their salaries) of many most unworthy ministers; for although the
law allowed them the right of choosing a minister within six
months after a vacancy occurred, yet if they did not so do the
Governor might send one and induct him for life. Now, such was
the scarcity of ministers that they must wait the arrival of some
new and untried one from England, or else take some indifferent
one who was without a parish in this country. To save the
congregations from imposition under such a system, the vestries
adopted the method of electing from year to year, not presenting
to the Governors for induction, by which induction so many unworthy
ministers might be settled upon them. Induction did take
place in some cases where, after years of good conduct, it was
safe to conform to the law; and in some few others. Who could
blame them for this act of self-defence against such mighty power
in the hands of one man, when the consequences of induction were
so evil, and when the circumstances of the parishes, the small
salaries and extensive districts to be served, and the state of the
Mother-Church, made it so difficult to get worthy ministers? This
was the practice of the vestries almost from the first and to the
very last of the Colonial establishment. In vain did the clergy
complain to the Bishop of London, and even to the Crown, of the
uncertain and precarious tenure by which they held their livings
from year to year. In vain did the Governors and Commissaries
speak of this custom of the vestries, as preventing more and
better ministers from coming over. In vain were the sympathetic
responses from England. The vestries were unmoved. The
Governors and Commissaries were wise enough to attempt nothing
more than complaints; for they must have seen that the vestries
had much reason for their conduct, and that any rigid interpretation
of the law and effort to enforce it would meet with effectual
resistance from the vestries. The Crown and the Bishop of
London dared not issue any injunction of the kind. On the
contrary, whatever was done in England from time to time was
in modification of any supposed high rights of Governors and in
favour of vestries, and the nearer the Revolution approached the
more fearful were the authorities in England of doing any thing
against the vestries. The vestries were the depositaries of power
in Virginia. They not only governed the Church by the election
of ministers, the levying of taxes, the enforcing of laws, but
they made laws in the House of Burgesses; for the burgesses
were the most intelligent and influential men of the parish, and
were mostly vestrymen. It is easy to perceive why the vestry of
Williamsburg wished the question between them and Nicholson
referred to the Assembly; for it was only referring it to the other
vestries, who were pursuing the same course with themselves.
Nor were the vestries represented in the popular branch of the
Government only. We will venture to affirm, and that not
without examination, that there was scarce an instance of any but
a vestryman being in the Council, although, as the Council was
chosen by the Governor and the King, there was more likelihood
of some being found in them who might favour high views of
prerogative.

In the history of the vestries we may fairly trace the origin, not
only of that religious liberty which afterward developed itself in
Virginia, but also of the early and determined stand taken by the
Episcopalians of Virginia in behalf of civil liberty. The vestries,
who were the intelligence and moral strength of the land, had been
trained up in the defence of their rights against Governors and
Bishops, Kings, Queens, and Cabinets. They had been slowly
fighting the battles of the Revolution for a hundred and fifty
years. Taxation and representation were only other words for
support and election of ministers. The principle was the same.

It is not wonderful, therefore, that we find the same men who took
the lead in the councils and armies of the Revolution most active
in the recorded proceedings of the vestries. Examine the vestry-books,
and you will find prominent there the names of Washington,
Peyton Randolph, Edmund Pendleton, General Nelson, Governor
Page, Colonel Bland, Richard Henry Lee, General Wood,
Colonel Harrison, George Mason, and hundreds of others who might
be named as patriots of the Revolution. The principle for which
vestries contended was correct,—viz.: the choice of their ministers.
I do not say that it must necessarily be by annual election; but
there must be a power of changing ministers, for sufficient reasons.
The Governors and the clergy, who came from England, did not
understand how this could be, so used had they been to a method
widely different. It was reserved for the Church in America to
show its practicability, and also to establish something yet more
important, and what is by most Englishmen still thought a doubtful
problem,—the voluntary principle, by which congregations not
only choose their ministers but support them without taxation by
law. It may be wise to provide some check to the sudden removal
of ministers by the caprice of vestries and congregations, as is the
case in the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches, where some
leave of separation is required from Presbyteries and Bishops; but
neither of them are ever so unwise as to interpose a veto where it
is evident that there is sufficient reason for separation, whether
from dissatisfaction on either side, or from both, or any strong consideration.
The people have it in their power, either by withholding
support or attendance, and in other ways, to secure their removal,
and the ministers cannot be forced to preach. Either party
have an inalienable right to separate, unless there be some specific
bargain to the contrary. In one denomination in our land, it is
true that ministers are appointed to their stations and congregations
are supplied by its chief officers; but it must be remembered
that this is only a temporary appointment,—for a year or two at
most. Let it ever be attempted to make it an appointment for life,
or even a long term of years, and the dissolution of that Society
would soon take place. In the first organization of our general
Church in this country, after the separation from our mother-country,
an office of induction was adopted, with the view of rendering
the situation of the clergy more permanent; but such was the opposition
to it from Virginia and some other States, that it was determined
it should only be obligatory on those States which chose to
make it so. Very few instances of its use have ever occurred in
the Diocese of Virginia.[43]

From this digression, should it seem so to any, I resume the history
of Bruton parish. At the death of Mr. Whately, the Rev.
James Blair, Commissary to the Bishop of London, and President
of William and Mary College, was chosen minister, with the understanding
that there was to be an annual election. He continued
the minister for thirty-three years, until his death, in 1743.
Mr. Blair came over to Virginia in 1685, and was the minister of
Henrico parish for nine years, and then moved to Jamestown, in
order to be more convenient to the College which he was raising
up. In the year 1710, he became the minister of Bruton parish.
The history of Mr. Blair during the last forty-three out of the
fifty-three years of his ministry is so connected with the history
not only of Williamsburg and the College, but of the Governors,
the Council, the Assembly and Church of Virginia, that it will
require some time and labour to do it any thing like justice. Indeed,
with all the documents I possess, consisting of numerous and
most particular communications made by him and others to the
Privy Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of
London, as to the personal difficulties between himself and the
Governors and the clergy,—communications never published, and
which would form a large volume,—I find it very difficult to form
a positive opinion as to some points in his character. I begin with
that which is most easy and satisfactory,—his ministerial life. It
commenced under the administration of Governor Spottswood, and
with a tender from the Governor to the vestry of aid in building a
new church; the plan of which was sent by him, and is, I presume,
the same with that now standing. Its dimensions were to
be seventy-five by twenty-two feet, with two wings, making it a
cross as to form. The governor offered to build twenty-two feet
of the length himself. Mr. Blair, so far as the vestry-book shows,
lived in uninterrupted harmony with his vestry during the thirty-three

years of his ministry. As to his preaching, we have a
full opportunity of deciding upon the style and doctrine, in four
printed volumes upon the Saviour's Sermon on the Mount, containing
one hundred and seventeen sermons. These sermons
went through at least two editions in England. Dr. Waterbury
published a preface to the second, in high praise of them. Dr.
Doddridge also has spoken well of them. I have gone over
these discourses with sufficient care to form a just judgment
of the same. As an accurate commentary on that most blessed
portion of Scripture, I should think it can never have been
surpassed. Since it was reserved for the apostles, under the dictates
of the Spirit, to dwell on the power of the resurrection, on
justification by faith, on the cleansing by the blood of Jesus
Christ, so Christ, in this discourse, was not setting forth the faith
and doctrines of the gospel, but expounding the law, in opposition
to the false glosses of the Jews, and showing the superior spirit of
the gospel. Mr. Blair does not, therefore, enter fully into some
of the doctrines of the gospel, though he recognises them sufficiently
to show that he held them according to what may be
termed the moderate Arminian scheme. A faithful exposition of
the Sermon on the Mount must necessarily condemn all evil dispositions
and practices, and Mr. Blair does not soften any thing
His congregation was often composed of the authority and intelligence,
fashion and wealth of the State, besides the youth of the
College; nor does he spare any. I do not wonder that some of the
Governors and great ones complained of his being personal. From
many sources of information, I fear that swearing was most common
among the gentlemen of that day, those high in office setting
a bad example. In concluding his sermon on the third commandment,
as explained by our Lord in his Sermon on the Mount, he
thus speaks:—

In speaking of the lusts of the flesh, he hesitates not to call
things by their right names and to threaten the Scriptural penalties.
In warning against the temptations and provocations to the
same, he speaks in different terms from many of that day of
theatres, balls, frolics, rendezvous, promiscuous dances, interludes,
and clatter of company, the intoxication of drink, the lulling the
thoughts asleep by music, gaming, &c. In warning against the
love of dress, from our Saviour's allusion to the flowers of the field
being clothed with more glory than even Solomon, he says:—

He is throughout a faithful reprover of sin. He admits that
there is little or no infidelity known in the Colony, as in England,
but a great deal of wickedness. As to Church principles, as some
call them, he was no Sacramentarian, and denounces Romanism in
no measured terms, but is still conservative. He admitted Mr.
Whitefield into his pulpit, but, on hearing that the Bishop of London
had proscribed him, made a kind of apology for it, and asked
the Bishop's opinion about him.

WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE, WILLIAMSBURG, VA.