Archbishop of Canterbury to Dr. W. Smith, of Pennsylvania—1766.

"GOOD DR. SMITH:

"It is long since I wrote to you; sickness and business have had their shares in preventing me, but the chief hindrance hath been, that I could say nothing determinate concerning our principal American affairs, nor indeed can I now. The beginning of last year we thought an ecclesiastical settlement of Quebec was almost made, on which a Bishop might easily be grafted. But that was opposed by one great man as too favourable, by another as not favourable enough, to the Papists. Then the Ministry changed: we were to begin again; and could get nothing but fair words, though the King interposed for us. Now it is changed once more, and whether we shall fare better or worse for it, I cannot guess. I have begged the Bishop of London to take out a Commission. He is backward; but I hope at length to prevail, and then we may set up our Corresponding Societies. There were no improper expressions in the Address of the Connecticut or of the New York and New Jersey clergy; but they came when both you and we were on fire about the Stamp Act; and so were not presented. But the King was apprised of the contents of them, and desired they might be postponed. The Bishops have expressed their good wishes to Mr. Wheelock's School, but declined contributing to it, as the Society designs to set up one in imitation of it, which Sir William Johnson, who desires to be a member of the Society, presses as peculiarly seasonable. We have sent to ask his advice, and Mr. Barton's, and shall be glad of yours and every Friend's, in what place or places, under what Masters or Regulations, we may best begin the work. I was at first for sending Indians to Mr. Wheelock to be afterwards Episcopally Ordained; but Mr. Apthorp was clear, that they would all turn out Presbyterians. Mr. Whitfield hath got such hold of Lord Dartmouth, who was First Lord of Trade till a few Days ago, that I laboured in vain to oppose his scheme for the Orphan House. But if it be not completed, I hope it may now be altered. I wrote a long Letter to Mr. Duche in December, in answer to one from him about his religious notions. I hope he hath communicated it to you, and hath at least received no harm from it. I considered Mr. Peters as some way superior to the compliment of a Dr.'s Degree; but if you find he would like it, and think it would be useful, I can easily obtain it on your sending me word, where he was educated, what Degree he hath, what age he is, &c. I condole with you on the sad loss of Messrs. Wilson and Giles and your Brother, which I mentioned to the King as one argument for American Bishops. You will have had an account from Dr. Burton of what the Society have done on the occasion, and I hope you will find that sooner or later, such care, as we can, hath been taken, or will be taken, of every thing which you have recommended to us; particularly we shall be mindful of what Mr. Peters and you desire concerning Sussex and Kent Counties. Mr. Neill hath been directed not to give his assistance any longer to Mr. Macclenachan's congregation, as they have made no application to the Bishop of London. The clergy at N. York have been alarmed with a Report, that the American Dissenters are

uniting themselves with the Kirk of Scotland, in hopes of obtaining, by their means, some new privileges from our Parliament. I do not apprehend any danger of that sort. Pray write frequently and fully about everything, though I should write seldom and briefly. Yet I will endeavour to mend in that respect, if I am able. But at least be assured, that I shall take much notice of your Information and advice, and that I am,

"With. great Regard,
"Your loving Brother,

"THO. CANT."

"Lambeth, August 2, 1766."

[The history of the alienation of the glebes in Virginia from the Church, by the Legislature, is well known. The following memorial will serve to show how manfully our brethren of the laity, of that day, contended for what they deemed their rights:]

"Halifax County, Virginia, July, 1795.

"To the Honourable the Speaker and other Members of the House of Delegates, sundry Inhabitants of the Parish of Antrim and County of Halifax, beg leave to offer the following Remonstrance and Petition:

"Relying on the wisdom, the impartiality, and patriotism of the House, we come forward, on the present occasion, to express our sentiments by remonstrating with the most determined firmness against the attacks which are now made on our dearest rights. It is well known to the Honourable House that Petitions have frequently been presented to it by the Baptists and their adherents, praying for a sale of the Glebe lands always in possession of, and now for some considerable time vested by law in, the Protestant Episcopal Church. Concerning Petitions of this kind in general, permit us to observe, that from their origin we have always viewed them with extreme dissatisfaction, conceiving them to be hostile to the peace of the community, and opposed to those principles which give security to property, in every free government. At the late happy revolution, everything was settled on a sure foundation. The great principles of Republicanism were then established, and they have since continued to influence most of our publick deliberations. It was then declared 'That all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion; a privilege which, since that time, we have all equally enjoyed. And the great maxim adopted by our Legislators since the Declaration seems to be, to separate religion, as far as relates to its temporal support or establishment, as much as possible from the political institutions of our country. Accordingly, by the first General Assembly that met, after the formation of our Constitution, in 1776, it was enacted, "That all and every Act of Parliament which renders criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to Church, or the exercising any

mode of worship whatsoever, shall henceforth be of no validity or force within this Commonwealth.' In the very next section of the same Act, 'All Dissenters, of whatever denomination, from the Church,' at that time, 'established by law, are totally freed and exempted from all levies, taxes, and impositions whatsoever, towards supporting and maintaining the said Church, as it now is, or hereafter may be, established, and its ministers.' And by the fourth section of the said Act, it is farther enacted, 'That there shall in all time coming be saved and reserved to the use of the Church by law established, the several tracts of Glebe lands already purchased, the churches and chapels already built, and such as were begun or contracted for before the passing of this Act, for the use of the Parishes; all books, plate, and ornaments belonging or appropriated to the use of the said church, &c.; and that there shall moreover be saved or reserved to the use of such Parishes as may have received private donations, for the better support of the said church and its ministers, the perpetual benefit and enjoyment of all such donations.' This Act was generally satisfactory at the time it was passed. It gave the Baptists and other Dissenters all which, at that time, they demanded. It flowed as a consequent from the last article in the Declaration of Rights, concerning Religion; and serves as the basis, next to the Constitution itself, whereon the peace, the prosperity, the security, and independence of all religious societies rest. Therefore, to attempt innovations now with regard to religious affairs, or with regard to the property belonging to any religious society, indicates designs, in our apprehension, highly inimical to the spirit of our Constitution, designs of a threatening and revolutionary aspect, in their consequences pregnant with injustice and persecution, perhaps with tumult and blood, and such as we cannot contemplate in prospect without abhorrence.

"When we address this Honourable House, our duty and our wish is, to use the language of respect. But being sincere, the expression of our sentiments must correspond with our perceptions of the subject. Neither do we wish to weary the attention of this House on a subject which has so often come under its consideration. But we request to be heard with patience, whilst, not only for the foregoing considerations, but also for the following reasons, we remonstrate against all memorials and petitions for the sale of Glebes, either collectively or separately:

66

1st. Because we conceive it to be contrary to the Constitution of this country.

But

"Neither the State nor Federal Constitution, indeed, say anything expressly concerning Glebes, or the property belonging to any religious society. This was unnecessary. They left such property as they found it, and as it always had been, in the possession, and to the use of each society respectively; and doing so, we conceive that it ought still so to remain. it is not necessary for us in this case to rely on an argument merely negative. For if a law were passed by the Assembly for the sale of the Glebe lands which have been in possession of the Church ever since the first settlement of this country, and been confirmed to her by their own Act nearly twenty years ago, such a law, having an ex post facto view, would certainly, in its own nature, be unconstitutional.

"2dly. Because it would destroy that confidence which we and the rest of the community ought always to have in the Legislature.

"The Assembly of Virginia has already pledged its Legislative faith, the most solemn pledge and firmest sanction which a free State can give, that this property shall, 'in all time coming, be saved and reserved to the use of' our church. We are sensible that this Assembly has powers adequate to repeal the law. But should it now be repealed, and the property disposed of, according to the prayer of the Baptists, it would tend to sap the foundation of those rights by which property in general is held, introduce into the Acts of Assembly instability and uncertainty, be a fluctuation in law which we are confident is without precedent in Virginia, and thus would overturn that trust and security which should always be placed in the Legislature. It would also be a violation of right; for we think that the Assembly may, as in the case of escheats, vest landed property in an individual or society, which property cannot be taken away without an equivalent, by a subsequent Assembly, with equal powers, unless at the same time justice and the constitution be disregarded. Should the law simply be repealed, still the property would be held by a certain body of men who were in the rightful possession of it before that law was made. And a question of the greatest magnitude, and involving the highest interests, would arise whether this property always held and enjoyed by a certain society, and still applied to the use for which it was originally set apart, could be taken from them without trampling on their rights as men and as citizens. "3dly. Because we conceive that by the Baptists and their abettors, the meaning of the fourth Article of our Declaration of Rights is misrepresented, when they assert, that in conformity to the spirit of that article, the Act vesting the Glebe lands in the Protestant Episcopal Church is unconstitutional.

"That article declares 'That no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of publick services.' Here, as the Glebes are vested in us by law, they would insist that we enjoy 'exclusive emoluments from the community.' If we did, it would be something which the community paid for since the revolution; whereas the community or commonwealth of Virginia gave no new or original grant to the church, for all the Glebes were purchased and paid for before the revolution, and most of them one hundred years prior to that event. The community only pledged itself to guaranty to the Church, not any new property at that time or ever since given her, but the property at that time in her rightful possession, and which has been hers from the beginning. But we do not perceive that the article alluded to has any relation to this question; its object being to prevent hereditary offices in the civil government.

"4thly. Because your Remonstrants, with the rest of the community, are involved in an unnecessary expense.

66

'Glebes, from their very origin, have been held by Ministers and Vestries, by use, by prescription, by law, by everything that constitutes a sufficient right; and yet to maintain this right we are taxed, and that not only to pay those who advocate its security, but also those who wish to destroy it. But rather than relinquish our right to anything, however trivial that thing may

be in itself, and particularly before we will relinquish our right in the property belonging to us as a religious society, we will murmur at no expense incurred for its security.

66

5thly. Because by holding this property no superiority or pre-eminence, as is alleged, is conferred on us by law, which indeed would be odious in Republican Government.

66

We, as well as the Constitution and Laws of our country, justly abhor distinctions with regard to religious sects, or with regard to the right of holding property; and as we enjoy no superiority above others by law, so we claim none. But the rights and property which are ours already by the Constitution and by law, which were ours before the revolution, during its progress, and ever since, and which were never attempted to be taken from us until very lately, we cannot now be deprived of, without violating the principles of justice, and that principle of equality which they themselves pretend to advocate. For if this property is taken from us at the request of one sect or party, it will create a distinction in favour of that party or sect; and would be one mean of putting it in their power to establish their own religion and tenets on the ruins of those of another.

"For the foregoing reasons, and a variety of others which might be adduced, did we wish to trespass on the patience of this House, we remonstrate against the sale of Glebes in general; and to what has already been advanced, we add the following reasons why we remonstrate in particular against the Petition or Petitions praying for a sale of the Glebe belonging to Antrim Parish, in this County:

"1st. Because should the Glebe of Antrim Parish be sold by the operation of an Act of Assembly, none will deny that the Episcopalians would be entitled to their proportion of the money.

"But the injustice done the Episcopal Society must be obvious in taking their Church property out of their own hands, and appropriating that part of it which would fall to their share, even on the principles of those who petition for a sale, to a public purpose; for the Episcopalians are as able and as willing as any other denomination to pay whatever taxes may be expedient for the support of the Federal and State Governments, or whatever levies may be necessary for the order, the safety, or conveniency of their county, and do not choose that their share of the money arising from the sale of the Glebe, if an equal division is to take place after the sale, should be appropriated to a different purpose. If it be urged that a majority of the people in this county have a right to have the money appropriated according to their wish, yet it should be remembered that neither in a County nor in a State can a majority of the people violate the constitutional rights of the minority. If it be said that the right itself is in dispute, we reply that we and our ancestors have been in possession of this right from the earliest settlement of this country, and under different forms of government; that it is ours by use, by prescription, by law, and that now we cannot be deprived of it, without compelling us to submit to laws, in their own nature having retrospective views, and in their operation involving ex post facto circumstances; which would be unconstitutional and oppressive. If it be said that the county, or