The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-06-02
CONTINUATION
ovcrfeers of the Poor of the faid County.

itfNCO luSt tUC pdTlltl Vi NidICDSltST DSUlS Nd-
cant, the Glebe land held by the late incumbent
mutt be fold in conformity to the ACT of Janua-
ry 1o, 1909 unlefS the Court fhould be iatis-
fed that the Legislature had no right 10 pats this
law, on account of iome prohibition which had
been impofed upon them by the fate conititu-
ton, or that of the United States. Should Ell
Their of thefe restrictions be proved to exit, he
admitted that the court had the power to de-
clare this law unconstitutional and void. To
prove that thofe restrictions do exit, the Coun-
Gil for the Appellants had made two points in
the caufe: they had contended-
lft. That the Gebe in queftion had been
vefed in the Protefant Epifcopal Church by
The a6f of 1913, and that it had continued to be
70 vefted until the year 1901.
end. That the ACT of 1909 is incompatible
with that clauie of the contribution of the Uni
ted States, which declares that no fate ihall
pats any Ex-pof-facto law; and alto with that
claufe of our own contribution, which diitri-
butes the different functions of government in
to the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary de-
partments.
MIR. Hay propofed TO examine, and hoped he
niould be able to refute, each of thofe po(ti-
ons.
l.. He began by laying down as his III pro
foftiou, that the title oft the Glcbe lands not on
iy qUas not, but could nor be in TIE Church gene-
FUiV Dy inc OF l71o. i nc rS1lOn
by which he fupported this propoiition was,
that the Church, eitablilhcd by law in Virginia
before the revolution, was not a corporation Ca
pablo of taking by purchafe, either legal or
equitable rights. Does the efabiihment of
church by law nece9ariiy imply the exiftence of
corporate body Surely not. A hmple re-
ference TO the meaning of the 4vords themieves
will demonftrate that it does not.
The word Church is here employed in
t,xra u l..
or houie confecrated by Chriftians to religious
duties. 1t is however, commonly ufed as ~
nonymous TO religion and by the eStQ6flBed
Cbmebof country, we mean the eftabhihed re-
hgiou ofthe country; that religion which the 60
vernmcnt Ezn6ionS. In different countries, the
etablifhed religion has obtained very different
degrees and kinds of political favour. In our
country TINS JauGfion awarded 70 it in
two ways 1T BY permitting its minifers alone
TO preach its religious doctrine, as was exprefs-
ly ordained by the aet of l642: or, Cd. by al
lowing its minifters alone, a ./nbport at the ex-
pence OF the nation at large, as we fee III En-
gland at the preient day. In no other way was
the Epifcopalan Church eitablifhed in this
country. Take away from it thefe two privi-
lodges, and all its eftablifhment ceafcs at once
Now, it is obvious that the firf of thele pri-
Wedges do not erect the favoredfect into cor
porate body, altho' it might eftabfh their re-
It is equally obvious, that the laf privilege
cannot have this effect, in whatever way we may
fupPofe its minifters to have been remunerated
whether by grant of land attached to their
Office, or by annual falaries, or by both.
1t is admitted, that the perfons holding the
lands for the benefit of the minfter might have
been Corporation (or it might not.) II is alto
true, that the perfons vefed with the power of
rafting the falaries, might have been induced with
al the attributes of Cooperation. But neither
of these Corporations, nor any other, which is
intended for the promotion Of religion or the be-
neht of niirifters,is the fame with the etabIi(ld
Church itielf. or the fame with the favored fetf
itielf. The exiltence of fuch Corporations does
not necefidrily prove that the CGurc5 itfelfpar-
takes Of the rights Of corporate body. Inthe
Church of England, many corporations are to be
found among its various grades and members.
its biihops, parfons, Wears and churchwardens,
partake Of this corporate character. But it
does not follow, that the Church of England it.
felf has ever been Incorporated.
Additional confirmation may be given to this
argument, by an important admion from the
Appellants themfelves. Their bill admits 6: the
iuftice of deltroying that circumfance of the
fad church which was called the eftablih-
ment." five look back to the definition, which
we have already laid down of an efabLiAed
church, we flal find that this deRructon ofthe
efablifhment will carry along with it all the
rights ola corporate body, TO which it has ever
pretended. IF the church in this country de-
rives all its pretenhons to being an eftablifhment
from the executive privilege of preaching and
from its endowment at the national expenfe, it
will follow that each OF thofe rights have been
given up by this admiffion. II will follow, that
the firt fiction of the act of rs, which gives
back TO every other feet the frft of thcfe pri-
vileges and the Bill Of Rights, or the law Of
1902, which deprives them of the aR, have on
ly carried into the execution the very idea which
that bill itfelf has conceded nave fimply la
bonred to deftroy that very EccleliaHical ETA
bihment, which the appellants then1tlves have
admitted it was iuf to deftroy.
That the church Of England or its adbere7i5
Gid not confttute corporate body, will further
appear by reference to the mode OF creafing
corporate bodies. Thefe are either by IN ex-
preis charter, Or by breJcribtion which fippo-
fcs grant. /. Fac. 5O4. Bla. Com. 47e.-lfl
the church has received its incorporation in the
iirtt of thefe ways, let the appellants produce
tdsir charter. It's corporate charter cannot ex-
if in the lat way, becaufe prefcription cannot
apply to a church which did not cxif until the
year lJ34, in the reign of Henry 8.
That the church Of England, or the Protefant |
EPifcoPal church of Virginia, does not poir.is |
The privileges OF a corporation viii alla appear |
f~0fr1 rr,ff,1 s al,