Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the day do loudly call to be considered: What are the miscarriages whereof we have reason to think the judgments of Heaven upon us call us to be more generally sensible, and what may be the most evangelical and effectual expedients to put a stop to those or the like miscarriages?' This proposal we humbly make, in hopes that if it be prosecuted, it may be followed by many desirable consequences, worthy the study of those whom God has made, and we are so happy to enjoy, as the nursing fathers of our churches."

Upon this address it is represented, that on the 3rd of June last, the Council voted, "That the synod and assembly proposed in this memorial will be agreeable to this Board, and the reverend ministers are desired to take their own time for the said assembly; and it is earnestly wished the issue thereof may be a happy reformation in all the articles of a Christian life, among his Majesty's good subjects of this province."

That this resolution was sent down to the House of Representatives for concurrence, and in that House, June 11, 1715, it was read and referred to the next session, for further consideration.

That this resolution of the House of Representatives was sent up to the Council for their concurrence, and in Council, June 19, 1725, read and concurred, and the Lieutenant-Governor subscribed his consent thereto.

It appears, that against this application of the convention of ministers, for a synod, a memorial was presented by Timothy Cutler and Samuel Myles, ministers of the Established Church of England, to the Lieutenant-Governor, Council, and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, a copy of which is hereunto annexed, and contains several reasons against the address of the Convention of Ministers.

Upon this memorial, the Council, on the 22nd of June, 1725, resolved, that it contained an indecent reflection on the proceedings of that Board, with several groundless insinuations, and voted that it should be dismissed, to which resolution the House of Representatives agreed.

As to the questions contained in Mr. Delafaye's letter, we beg leave to submit our thoughts upon them to your Excellencies' consideration, separately and distinctly.

The first question is: whether such pastors and messengers have any power to meet in a synod without the King's license?

In order to form an opinion upon this point, we have perused the charter, which is the fundamental constitution of this province, and have looked into their printed Acts of Assembly, as far as the year 1722.

The charter bears date 7° Octobris, 3° Will. et Mariæ, A.D. 1691, and recites two former charters, one granted 3 Nov. 18 Jac. 1, and the other 4 Mar. 4 Car. 1, which was vacated, by judgment upon a scire facias, in Trinity term, 1684. In this charter, nothing is contained, tending to the establishment of any kind of church government or ecclesiastical authority in this colony, but there is the following clause: "For the greater ease and encouragement of our loving subjects inhabiting our said province or territory of Massachusetts Bay, and of such as shall come to inhabit there, we do, by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, grant, establish and ordain, that for ever hereafter there shall be a liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians (except papists) inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, our said province or territory."

By the power given by this charter to the General Court or Assembly to make laws and impose taxes, they are authorised to dispose of matters and things, whereby the subjects, inhabitants of the said province, may be religiously, peaceably, and civilly governed, protected and defended, so as their good life and orderly conversation may bring the Indian natives of the country to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which King Charles I., in his said letters patent, declared was his royal intention, and the adventurers' free profession to be the principal end of the said plantation; and for the better maintaining liberty of conscience thereby granted to all persons, at any time being and residing within the said province or territory.

In the Acts of Assembly, we find nothing relating to ecclesiastical authority; but there are some Acts directing that every town shall be provided of one or more able, learned and orthodox minister or ministers, without defining what they intend by that description, and there are other Acts, appointing methods for maintaining them

And in the second year of his Majesty's reign, an Act passed, whereby it is enacted, that upon representation made to the General Court or Assembly, that any town or district is destitute of a minister, qualified as by law is provided, or do neglect to make due provision for the support of their minister, the General Assembly shall provide and send an able, learned, orthodox minister, of good conversation, being first recommended by three or more of the settled ordained ministers, or may lay a tax for the maintenance of the minister.

From these letters patent and laws, we cannot collect that there is any regular establishment of a national or provincial church in this colony, so as to warrant the holding of convocations or synods of the clergy; but if such synods might be holden, yet we take it to be clear, in point of law, that his Majesty's supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, being a branch of his prerogative, does take place in the plantations, and that synods cannot be held, nor is it lawful for the clergy to assemble as in a synod, without his royal license. The second question is: how far his Majesty's prerogative may be concerned, in which an application, not to the LieutenantGovernor, as representing his Majesty's person, but to him and the Council and House of Representatives?

We conceive such application to be a contempt of his Majesty's prerogative, as it is a public acknowledgment that that power resides in the legislative body of the province which by law is vested only in his Majesty; and the Governor, Council, and Assembly intermeddling therein, was an invasion of his royal authority, which it was the particular duty of the Governor to have withstood and rejected.

The next question is: whether the consent of the Council and House of Representatives be a sufficient authority for their holding a synod?

We are of opinion such consent will not be a sufficient authority; but we beg leave to observe, that it does not appear, by the papers transmitted to us, that the Council and Assembly have given their consent thereto, but that the House of Representatives, upon reading the resolution of the Council, adjourned the further consideration thereof till the next session, to which resolution of adjournment the Council concurred and the Governor subscribed his consent.

The next question is: if this pretended synod should be actually sitting when the Lords Justices' directions in this matter are received by the Lieutenant-Governor, what can be done to put an end to their meeting?

We humbly apprehend, that in case such synod should be actually sitting, yet the Lieutenant-Governor, by order from his Majesty or your Excellencies, may cause them to cease their meeting; and that for this purpose it may be proper that he should be directed to signify to them, that their assembly is against law, and a contempt of his Majesty's prerogative, and that they do forbear to meet any more; and if, notwithstanding that, they shall continue to hold their assembly, that the principal actors therein be prosecuted, by information, for a misdemeanor. But we apprehend no formal act should be done to dissolve them, because that may imply that they had a right to assemble.

The principal difficulty in this case will be, if there should be an Act of the General Court or Assembly to warrant their meeting. And we conceive, that if such Act should pass in the nature only of the resolution above-mentioned, it will have no effect; but if it should have the regular form of a law, it will admit of great doubts whether it will be agreeable to the powers granted by the charter, and therefore, we humbly apprehend, it will be fit for his Majesty to disallow it. But it is difficult to give an opinion upon the effect and consequence of such an Act without seeing the Act itself.

The last question is: what authority those ministers have to meet in a general convention, and being so assembled, to make and present addresses, or to do any other public act?

We apprehend that such meeting is not unlawful provided they do not take upon them to do any authoritative act, being only a voluntary society; and they may lawfully make addresses, either to the Crown or to the General Court or Assembly, in case the subject-matter of such addresses be lawful.

It being taken notice of in the address of the General Convention of Ministers, that such a synod as is now desired was holden fortyfive years ago, we cannot help observing to your Excellencies, that this computation falls in with the year 1680, and that the former charter, upon which the government of this province depended, was repealed by scire facias in the year 1684, and the new charter

granted in the year 1691; from whence it appears, that such synod or assembly was holden a short time before the repealing of their old charter, but none since the granting of the new one.

All which is humbly submitted to your Excellencies' great wisdom.

September 29, 1725.

P. YORKE.

C. WEARG.

(3.) OPINION of the Attorney General, SIR EDWARD NORTHEY, on the Right of Presentation to Benefices in Virginia. 1703.

On consideration of the laws of Virginia, provision being made by the Act entitled, "Church to be built, or Chapel of Ease," for the building a church in each parish; and by the Act entitled "Ministers to be Inducted," that ministers of each parish shall be inducted on the presentation of the parishioners; and the churchwardens, being, by the Act entitled "Churchwardens," to keep the church in repair, and provide ornaments, to collect the minister's dues; and by the "Act for the better support and maintenance of the Clergy," provision being made for the ministers of the parishes; and by the said Act for inducting ministers, the Governor being to induct the minister to be presented, and thereby he being constituted ordinary, and as bishop of the plantation, and with a power to punish ministers preaching contrary to that law, I am of the opinion, the advowsons and the right of presentation to the churches, is subject to the laws of England, there being no express law of that plantation made further concerning the same; therefore, when the parishioners present their clerk, and he is inducted by the Governor (who is and must induct on the presentation of the parishioners), the incumbent is in for his life, and cannot be displaced by the parishioners. If the parishioners do not present a minister to the Governor within six months after any church shall become void, the Governor, as ordinary, shall and may collate a clerk to such church by lapse, and his collatee shall hold the church for his life; if the parishioners have never presented, they have a reasonable time to present a minister; but if they will not present, being required so to do, the Governor may also, in their default, collate a

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »