The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-26

OH the powers TO chdnge or Gbolin cor
poration. He concluded that evei. the le-
gii!ature might, upon common law prirci-
pies, alter or diliclve corporate body.
end. he examined the identity Of the pre-
lent, with the former church. He conceiv-
ed they were different churches. The Vir-
GINA church was an enablilhed national
church The Prot. Epifcopal church is
voluntary aiiociation. They have different
modes of Proclamation and induction. In
all that relates to doctrine, they may be
the fame but in their political rights they
are completely different. He concluded
that, as the identity OF the churches has
been thus deitroyed, the property which
might be attached to the one, would not
be neceilarily transferred to the other.
From this ferries of arguments, Mr.. N.
concluded that all the rights which the
church ever had, were oyerfet by the revo-
luton, and nullitied by the BIZ of Rights.
S. 1t is ftated, however, in the Bill and
commended by the council for the appel
lants, that, the acts which have been paf.
fed .fnee the revolution, have recognized
the rights of the church. But Qaid Mr.. NJ
two consequences would refult from this
argument
III. 1t admits that the revolution abo-
lifhed thefe rights for if it did not, why
reiort to the authority oflaws, which could
not (unlefs under that fuppoftion) confer
any nequ rights. And if the revolution did
aboliih thete rights, they could not be con-
tinued by thefe laws themfelves, fince tber
would at thai time be contrary to the con-
ftitution.
end. IF 1T admits that the legislature has
the power to endow with property, il
will alto follow that the legislature has
right to refume it. 1t has been the doc
tiine of all countries, that il the law can
endow, it can modify and refume. IN
England, during the reisn of Henry s, ma
ny ecclefiaftical endowments were difap-
propriated for the ufe of the King
1t might have been improper perhaps to
have adopted this expedient: but this does
not deitroy their right to adopt it. Even
If our contribution then did not deprive
our Legislature of the power of paffing thefe
conhrmatory acts iince the revolution, the
laws and precedents of all countries will
not deprive it of the power Of repeating
them.
Ii from this general view of the argu-
ment we defend to an inveitigation of the
btrtienlar acts which have been appealed
| to, we fhall find in them many reafons for
fufpeeing the validity OF the title, which
fb y can confer.
The act of ZIG has been confidently CT
ted as cotemporaneous expedition of the
contribution. If we refer to the Journals OF
the houfe during that FELTON,, we fhall find
| many petitions recorded on the filbjeet of
religion. They thew that at that period of
political feTvour, an alarm had fpread itfelf
over the country, for the falvation of the
church. 1t was perhaps necehary and po-
htic to pats fome law, which fhould quiet
the1e approximations of the people. This
, fpirit of concefiion gave birth to the a6i of
/ TO, which with a hngular inconliftency
untolds the real principles o f our revoluti-
, On, at the fame time that it offers them I'D
as a facrifice before the affairs of the Pro-
! teftant Epifcopal Church. The flipicion
| of theie violated principles appears on the
Jery face of the act, and gives an air of I'M
certainty and weakness to thofe claims,
which it was intended to fupport.
The act of 'S4 Incorporates the church
but was it not at the particular requeft of
the ebRreb iteEf? Why was this petition
for charter laid before the afIembly, if
they had not fuppofed their corporation
was difiolved, and their rights divefted by
our revolution The act itfelf embraces
this opinion. 1t fpeahs of the " late eta
blifhed church :" whereas the act of '7e
denominates it the " church by law eta
blilhed." The queftion too fill recurs
upon us, whether this act and all the others
which endow with property, are not incon-
liltent with the contribution.
The act of SO repeats this Incorporating
law. Docs it not thus countenance the
doctrine of refuma6le rights
The Legislature have in many initances
yfnee the revolution, pafled laws to autho-
rife the tale of Globes for various purpofes.
May not thefe be regarded as the modern
expedition oflegiflative power?
The act of 1901 at laft advances to clcfe
the catalogue of the acts, that relate to the
church. After having with dfcriminative
.igyfite reierved for the proper heirs, every
KIND OF property which the church had re-
ceiyed from private donors after having,
with a lludable Hber lily, refpecfed the
rights of the incumbents; it determines that
the property fhould be fold and approprj-
ated to the ufe of the poor of the refpec-
tive parifheG, or to any other objects which
a majority of the free-holders and houfe-
keepers therein may direct.
Mr.. Nicholas then recapitulated the
principal points, which he had taken that
the reVoIvtioa had aboliihed the rights of
the church to the Glebe property that
the Bill of Rights had come in to the aid of
the revolution that all the acts which had
been paHed lince the revolution, had either
conferred 10 rights, or if they had, that
they had not taken from the legislature the
power of returning them.
Having made f1me remarks upon the iu-
iifdlttion Of the court, he concluded by ho-