The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-06-02


which are attached TO one, cdn the Proteltant
Epifcopal Church be confdered as 4 corporate
body iince the very petition of the clergy
themielves, and the incorporating act of "a, adj
NIT that 1t had not 6etore poielied that charac-
ter; we mutt conclude, that the tbxyeb iiEif
was not a corporation, although the eftabliih-
ment itielf might have comprehended other cor
porate bodies, which had been inilituted for
the purPoie of supporting the fyaem. AS the
church then was not corporate body, and as il
was not natural body, MIR. Hay concluded his
tlrit propoition to be true; which was, that
the title to this Gebe not only svas NOT, but
could not be in the church itftlf Nor was it,
taid Mr.. III. in the q,eRrieS.
This was the /econd probeFtion, which he
intended TO fupport. il does not appearfiom the
itatement in the bill, from the anfwer, or any
hiitoncal document, that the prefent appellants
ever had legal title to the land in auction.
The only fact which appears, is that by the act
OF l74s, the vcitry, to whom the act of Gel -,
had allowed perpetual iuccefiion, were en-
powered among other things, to purchafe Glebe
lands for the ufe ofthe miniftcrs. But to zcLom
was the coaUsgdnce made in this cafe 1t is not
| itated to have been made to the veAry Is not
this itielf fuflicient refutation to the claims of
| the veftry? Surely the court will not p,ef,,ne
| that 1t was made to them. II is never the duty
OF a court to pretume facts for the plaintiff.
| But even were this preiumption made by the
court, itwould add very little ftreneth indeed
TO the preteniions of the claimants. Had the
/ deeds been made to the veitries, they could not
have continued TO hold the property, hecaufe it
would have violated the legal maxim, that a
corporation aggregate cannot be feifeci TO an
ute, 9. Bla. Com. 329.-The CONVEYANCE
I OF the Glebe land mutt have been there
fore made to the parton himCelf, or 70
Tome perion who eoNid be Leiltd to an ue.
This imperfeceion OF title in the veitries was
welt underitood, hnce feveral proviiions were
made by the Legislature, fuitable to this pur
pole. fuckers Backbone mentions many acts,
that were pafied to enable vetfrics to take con-
veyances. I. Bla. /. llS.-But even if the
veitry, as a corporation aggregate could, be
Flied TO use, that ufe muit have pafied in full
. into the Parton the freehold vefted in him and
never reverted TO the veftry. The veftry there
tore have no legal claim; they have no vefted
right to this property.
Since the Cbm-cbitielf then had no right and
J could have none, and fince the veftry had no
right, the queftion recurs upon us. In qvboz,
were the Globes really vefed The anfwer TO
this queftion has been already given. The
/ Globes were veited in the Parfons of the feveral
pariihes, who held them during life q. Bla.
$50; and who are fill permitted by the law
OF 1909, TO hold them during life. The only
right then which appears to have been vefted in
the Church any OF it's nIiniifers mas thus been
icrupulou!ly respected by the Legislative body :
and even this right could not have continued
to exit, becaute there exifted no method of
continuing the fuccellion of thefe parfons or
thefe sorporGfforJ IoLe.
! This concluiion (Mr. II. faid) brought him
to the third byoboftion, which he fhould at
e tempt to eftabli}h that by the revolution and
ieparation of this government from that OF
Great Britain, tb5jf corporations /oLe in whom
the freehoids IN the Globes were yefted,
became liable to be graduallyextinct, g. acfa.aLly
were extinguiihed as the incumbenfs died. This
propolltion 1t will not appear difficult to ETA
bifh, If we conhder the intimate connection
which iubhited between the Church of Virgil
MA and the government of England 81 the
act of 66l, ch. 8. no miuifer GnouId be admit.
ted, but fuch as ihould produce to the gope,uo,
ateitimonial of his ordination by fome EncliIb
bihop. To the governor alto belonged the
privilege OF i11Ht!!ng him into any parifh up
on regular Proclamation by the veitry of that
pariih. The abolition of the aid government
rendered the performance of thefe duties abfo-
lutely hmPgDfble. There was no Engliih go
vernon, to receive the teftimonial of ordination
none after the revolution who fhould perform
the lndliPeniible Office OF induction. Suppoie
lniniiter had died in 1871, how could iuccei-
for have been Initiated into his office or fiip
pole one of the preieDt incum5ents fhould die,
how could his place be regularly fupplied p
MIR. Wlckham mas however commended, that the
induction by the governor was a mere ceremo-
ny: that he was 6o,2d to indua any nininer,
whom parifh might prefent. He has COM
pared him to an Englilh biihop, who is bound
lhe iays) TO admit any perfon, when prefented
by the owner of the advowfon. MIR. Hav OBJ
ferTed, that this contribution was erroneous.
! Would ii not have been abfurd 10 make the
governor the Yjcie/j inj2rmnent of ceremony,
hich was perfectly uOnecefIary? But this ce-
remony was absolutely aecegayy. Obierve the
! penalty which is denouncedby law, agafnR any
violation of this rule. The act of '62 forbids
any mini'ter to preach, without this regular per-
milton, under the pain of baniihnent. Even
the analogous cafe, which MIR. Wickham has in
trodnced, does not fupport his opinion 1t is
not true, that 4 bithop is bound to nduif upon
Proclamation. lie has the privilege of reject
ing miniter Obi. ], 389.) and the governor had
thus, iiniilar power. This privilege too,
was not without it's ufe. Had the governor
been bound to irduGt any one, who was pre-
tented 10 him, the mott immoral mar might
thus have been initiated into the inolt facred
Office. BY refufng TO admit him, the governor
would thus return to the parilh the power Of
ielethng fome other candidate more worthy of
the country and his molly Office. Since then,
iad Mr.. II. there exilted no means of continu-
ing the TnCcefIio,, nf r,a,-,,p ,,,.,