Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-13

In lh., country derives All its pretensons
Go b>iug an establishment from the cx-
elusive privilege oi preaching aud from
is endowment at the rational expense, ii
will follow that each OF these rights have
beeu gwen up by tins admission. 1t W
FOLLOW, that the ,Irst sectlOn of the act &,
rs, wh.ch gives back 70 every other sect
tn FIRST of these privileges; and the bill
OF tights, or The law OF 1902, which de
Drives chem Of the last, have oaiy carried
into execuuoa ,,ie very .dea which That
bill itself has conceded; have SIMPLY Ia
bored 10 destroy that ve'y eccie ,iastical
establishment, wn.ch the appellants them
selves have admitted It was Just 10 de
Stroy.
That the church Of England or its adle-
Tents dad not constitute a corporate body,
will further appear by reference TO the
mode OF creating corporate bodies. These
are either 10y an express charter, or by
prescription which supposes Il grant |.
Bac. 5o4. |. Bia. Com. 472.-Iftne church
has received ITS incorporation in The first
of these ways, let the appellants produce
fheir charter. Its corporate Charter can.
not exist in the last way, because presr.p-
ton cannot appiyio chuch which did
not exist until the year | 5S4, in the reign
Of Henry 3. b..
That the CHURCH of England, or the pro-
iestant episcopal church Of Virginia, does
not possess the privileges of corporate
on viii also appear from the consideration
OF The various incidents of d corporation.
BY !. Bla' i75. Il corporation must have
:, common oeai; il must have the power
of sung and being sued; Of Purchasing and
hoidiHg lands. Yet not one Of these Incl
dents was ever attached, or was ever sup
posed to be,ong to the episcopal church.
May we not still further confirm this
reasoning, by the opinion which The cler
KY themselves expressed in the year 81
Did they not themselves petition for al
aGl oil Incorporation? Aud was not the in
cooperating act of 49, passed, III coasc-
quence of this petition! Isl line OF act
1884.
Since then fromthe definition of an esta
blished church, the protestant episcopal
church in this country was not necessarily
4 corporate body; since the We y bii. OF ,he
a1 chants goes to prove that all It's rights
were destroyed with the establishments ii
self; since neither from the mode Of Gre
"a
winch are at, ached TO one, can the pro
test ,nt episcopal. church be Cons dcred a.
a corporate body; since The very petition
Of the cletgT tn 2mse.ves, aud the inCor.
porating act OF '84, admit That 1t had no.
before posse ssed that character; we mus
conclude. that the church iSeT was not a
corporation, although The establishment,
itseif might have comprehended other
corporate bodies, which had been lnstitut.
ed FOR the purpose Of supporting the sys
tenn. AS the church then was not cor
florate body, and as it vas not a natural
body, Mr.. Hay concluded his frs: propo
sition TO be true which was, that the Il
tie OF this Giebe not only qoaS nor, but
could not be in the church itself. Nor was
1t, said Mr.. IL. in the UeStries.
This was the second frOhoSifion, which
he intended to support. 1t does not APP
pear from the statement in the bill, from
the answer, or any historical document,
that the present appellants ever had le-
ga! title to the land i'll question. The on
ly facl which appears, is that by the act of
l74S, he vestry, TO whom he act OF sc had
allowed perpetual succession, were en-
powered among other things, to purchase
glebe lands Tor the use of the ministers.
BI' 10 saiom was the coaVeyanc' made liz
this case 1t is not stated TO have been
to the vcstry. /, not this itself suflici-
ent refulatioh 20 the CLAIMS of the vestry ?
Surely the court will not hy sumo that il
was made 20 THIN. it Is never The duy
Of court TO presume facts for the plain
tiff, Buteven were thsp resumpt, on made
by the court, it would add very little
strength indeed to the pre.cnsions of the
claimants. Had the deeds been made 10
the vestries, they could not have continu
ed to nod the property, because i; would
have violated the legal maxim, that cor
poration aggregate cannot be seIsed to an
use, 3. Bla. Com. 529 The conveyance
Of the Glebe l4nd must have been there
fore made TO The parson himself, or to
some person who couid be SeiScd 20 an use.
This impcriection- of lille in the vcstrIes
was well understood, since several provi
sioDs were made by he Legislature SUIT
able to this purpose. fuckers Black
stone mentions many acts, that were pass
ed to- enable VeSlTies 10 axe cOnVeYances