The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-23

~ tiiSH 4VipSN.iNS .'itilttSS, ara az Ply II 10
the purchsie Of Ciebe for the ife of the
r,;nifter. Several laws were pailed during *
aflsTourrevoiutior, wi ich acknowledged s.
rstpected this invofiturc of property The
act of I77G, paGed by the very Aiiembly,
which Rad overturned % many of our anci-
ent inititutions, eXpreiiSly refsrves TO the
uie OF the church, by law eitabliihed, the
teverai parts of the Glebe land already pur-
ch2t&d. The act OF 1884, which incorpo-
rates the church, gives 70 the miriitcr (if
there be cne> and the yeitrymen REFLECTIVE
ly and their iucceilors forever, the power
Of holding the property already belonging
to IT in each paci.h. The act of 1856,
which repeats this incorporating acf, fill
faves TO az religious focietics, the proper
y TO them, respectively helonging.-So
that in the whole chain Of Legislative pro-
cee6ings, from I74s to l79S or 1901, he
could not diicOvera iirgle law which is not
either liicnt OF The rights of the church, or
when does not e"prefJly acknowledge and
retcrve is right 70 the Clcbe land.
Cd. The acts OF 1898 and 1901, howe
yer. interrupt this uniform admiiion of
Vefted right. The fir;t repeats all the pre-
ceding laws: the laft appyopriates the
Globes 70 fuch purpofts 10 majority of
the pariih oners might d.rett. MIR. Call,
however, thought that thele laws could not
affect the rights of property. II rio hts be
acquired under ar exiting law, they are
not loff by Its reveal. If rights &c vefted
by law, they caunot &c diveited by law
He hoped that the court would not in their
Judicial capacity farS N the attempt OF
the leGiEature 70 eycrciit power, which
was not given them tyiufice, by cu&ou,
or the contribution.
But (iaid' Mr, C.l Il 10 ccrtended, that
whatever rgtt were given 10 the Church
6cf6re the revolution, were DIV, e, d by that
event; & whatever rights were acknowledge
cd E.7ne tins rex oiUtior. could not be given ~
ths legiIlat9re, beclufe the Bill Of Eisbt5
expressly denies to them the exercile OF any
iUcH power. Each OF thcic petitions isun-
/ founded.
Why is it coutended that the rsyo7ttio,,
deitroYed the rights of The church Be
, cauie they Ia II aboli.htd the church it
tx. And how : 1t contends that i abo-
lithed the church Becaufs trey fay, it
aoolined the Slngiy Office, with all its ap-
purtS1arces--hlr. Call, however, denied
that IN this country the king conhituted
any part CT the church that he enerciisd
any authority in religious matters. This
! authority rehded eitherin the clergy or in
I the civil officers. Even in Bingham the re-
yoiu;IoH OF 1858, didnot abohGl the church.
TAO Cromwell ufuIped the functions Of
the government, the rights of the &c.
cleh2itlcaI body continued inyiolatc.-
Our revolution did not aboliih the pro-
te-oiihipS OF tYm. 6. Mary College. II
mas b>een changed from College 10 an
Umveriity, and old profeGorhips have
been put down And yet by this change,
rs great as any which las taken place in
P Inc church, 1t has been held in the Court Of
Appeals, thai the College is lyos diiiolycd.
1t has been lid that the pretentions Of
the Church are inconGaent with the R;lef
Rights. Let the article be produced. tn,
9th article o. the Bill of Rights rel les not
. 10 temporal, but ysiri.uul matters: TO maj
; tiers or Jaifb and confidence, not Of 6,-o3,y-
! y. The general phraie uitd in this articls
IS not to be taken in It's utmon extent. The
! Court Of Appeals has decided in cafe
commonly c2li-d the cafe of county le-
vi-S) that general words u.ed for fornc one
pafPoie iaOuld not apply TO all Otbe.. oar
tlcular cales.-The 9Th lection of the Bin
or Is gifts Geaies to Ill perfons particular
PhViiSGee5 and emCiuments. But the
rights Of the church DO not come under eli
, th-r Of thoie general d fcriptions of politi-
ca fsvor. They ere not prj.o!le4gsJ, be-
caute they do not confer Oh the church 4
right to 4o, or Al i7zmulity from doing any
thing The are no. emollue7.J becauf,
tAsy are not profit confined 10 particular
PerionS. II IS admitted that a ELayy NAV
bc.aa enoianent, but then it would REQUIRE
lone nsw act ct the government to corfsr
II whereas theft ecclghaiticai rigit5 have
been ALREADY veeed. Ilr. Gail alf3 lGtrted
that this (ctsion applied to s1f-e5J Of 20
vern.nEat only: bccauIe it I.ys nothing
about religion; and bscauie this irterp,t-
tation Is fuppo,ted by the very bea autho-
yty; the cOtempOTaneoE5 expedition Of
The atf OF l77G, pahed by the very fame
convention, which had formed the Bill IF
Rights.
From this ferries OF tatements, Mr.. Call
concluded, that the rights were Originally
! zsJte4in the church and that there was
nothing in the al Of 1901, nothing in the
JsU5InfioH, nothing in the Bill ofkight5.
which could divef them. But even ii
they did this property would not revert to
! The pubic the public would have no right
to cOphicate and fell it.
Ha- Mir. Call produced fome Fnglinl
! authorities to prove, that a f,4R does moi
! eicheat 70 the crown. His concluion WAS
that the property would not revert to ths
! public, but to the original fellers.
AS if our own fyftem Of jurifprudence
! would not iuRify this violation of church
. property, precedentS have been fought fol
! IN ether countries to fanGiOB this proceed.
! Ing. The Attorney General III the difcufi.
on OF this cafe before a former court intro.