Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-06


serted that it thIs property was vested in
the church was national establishment,
that it was connected with the British 20.
yernment, and that it experienced the
same fate with our political institutions.
NJ. Nv ickham denied hat the churchin this
country constituted any part of the govern
lrent. Even in England, the church and
the state may be said TO be distinct. The
British constitution might be perfect; it
would embrace all The necessary features
OF government, without the church. Un-
der he royal government OF New York,
which was formed ON the model of the
British constitution, there was no eccle-
sIasiical establishment. The converse of
this proposition is also true. The consli.
tuition of the church might have existed
without the government it might have
grown up under any other form OF civil
society. 1t cannot be said then that it
was any integral part of the British go
vernment. The most that can be said is,
the protestant episcopal church was a ia.
vored sect. To the nezv government, then
certainly belonged the right OF denying
any new tavors. They might have re-
| pealed also all those laws, which related
to lis discipline and conformity with the
church of England. But they could not
affect the sacred rights of property, which
they already possessed.
A more particular argument has been
! suggested by the attorney general, Tor the
dissolution of the rights of the church with
the change of the government. 1t was
stated that the right of induction belong
ed to the governor, and that as every
| means for perpetuating the succession Of
| ministers, have been done away by the re.
volution, the church must DC considered
to be at an end. Mr. w. denied this doc
| trine. He said that The relative right of
| The governor aud The vestry iii this re-
spect, mad never been adjusted. Certain
cases might have existed, III which the
vestry assumed 10 themselves this privi-
'ege Of induction. They had the right OF
/ presentation. and the governor was bound
20 induGt. In England, the owner Of an
advowson has the right ofpreserijng and
! he bishop is bound To induct. SO that
| tne governors privilege in this case seems
20 be mere form. The revolution might
nave put an end to this form: but it would
DC strange. indeed, lift should also destroy
those substantial rights, which The laws
had created and sanctioned.
II has been asked also by the attorney
general, why has not the chur III demand.
cd the annual stipend of tobacco, which
.he ACT Of '49 allowed to its ministers and
he has concluded that if it has no ripht
10 the one, 1T has none to the other. MIR.
| W. observed that some vcvy enlightened
-ocn sill commended for this right. For
Us own part, he thought the right of the
hurch 10 the land and 10 the stipend did
| rot stand upon the same foundation. lie
considered the one as an estate the other
IS salary, The one was vested ard b.
7ondtheTeach otihe legsa'u e; The other
vas right accruing in fuurc and subiec'
legislative controul. 1has il England
soldiers holding by hnight service might
oedeprived Of their wages. bu; not OF their
lands.
On the Who'll. lIr. w. concluded that
IN the church, and that they were not ne
cessarily Invested by ,he subycrsion Of the
aid government.
Mr.. w. proceeded to examine whether
any imperfsction in,he righ' 5 Of he churc h
had been impaired 10 them by the HlN al
Rights. He should not trouble the court
with his private opinions on the ccnstitu.
ton. He should not attempt 10 delineatc
what that constitution ought to have been,
but to declare what it is. Nor should he
presume to say, how long it was likely to
remain even in its present state, nor from
what causes it was likely to receive some
new notifications. He did not wish on
the present occasion to affect any change
in that instrument, nor did he believe, that
the right for which ne was then Contend.
ing, would BE- found Incompatible with lis
strictest Interpretation. He admitted hat
II they were, that those rights ought hot
to be respected, as the constitution is un-
doubtedly the supreme law ofihc land, and
paramount to all Legislative acts.-Art. A..
declares that no men or set Of men are en-
titled TO exclusive emoIumenis or priviie-
ges from the community, but in cousidera-
tion of public services. The first view of
this article mir. w. said) would be sufFici-
ent 10 satisfy Us that il was expressly aim.
ed against any privileged and hereditary
orders; and, that it was not intended 10
apply TO the church. A farther ANALYSIS
of IT will be sufficient to prove that it can