Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-02

doctrines! And is not ihis seGlin possession
OF Sei'arate emolumenks ? II is not necessary
that an emolument should consist Of mo.
ney only. 1t NAV be in the form of houses,
OF lands. But Mr.. Cal. denies that these
Sieoes are any emolument because they
are not no7c conferred by government they
are Vested in the church, and is as mach
the property ofthe church as any tract Of
land, which exclusively belongs TO an indi.
vtdual' But this (said MIR. NJ is taking
tor granted the mostimpor;antfac lin ques-
lion. tie denied that 1t was vested right:
on the contrary, he had attempted TO prove
that the SreGfest ftoS&ib!e right which they
could have possessed, was founded on a
JuAefary tenure. Mir. Call too, has limited
the application Of this article 10 the officers
OF government. He has supported this
construction by the last clause in it, which
declares that the Offices OF Magistrate, Lee
SiSia'or or Judge, ought not 10 be hereClita-
ny. II ihis be The construction. many other
officers are omitted, who may consequent.
~ be hereditary. lffor instance, the term
bhisistrafe be confined according to its DO.
puiar definition to Justices of Peace only,
then the Executive would be descentlibie.
Ii 1t be taken III more general sense.
sense III which Blackstone seems 10 have
employed il, when he divided q nation
INTO two classes only, that ofthe people s.
that OF the magistrates why may not this
tenn, and Consequently this clause and the
whole article, be supposed to comprehend
the Clergy But, saws Mr.. Call, even adj.
hitting that this article does apply to Tie
ministers otrellglon,i il can only forbid any
enoiuneuts being afterwards given; but
1t cannot reach those rights, which have
been already vested. This argument still
assumes the existence of vested property.
But concession Of this tact, modified as it
has already been, would not be Of much a.
vail. The constitution would be as much
lhiringed by continuing as By granting emo
lnments.-lhese rights are incompatible
also with the 10Th article in the BIZ of
Rlghts.r II requires that religion should lie
"directed only by reason and conviction,
not by lorcc and violence" To continue
an evils as improper and Unconstitutional,
as it 7vas to give it an existence. The rei.
gion which is here attempted TO be sup
ported, was not Propaga by " reason
and conviction." This property WAS or-
ginal'y wrung by {" force and VOL nee"
from adj Christians Of opposite denomina.
tons. 1t had been stated on the former
trial that the Episcopa!ians atthat time con-
stituted loihs ofthe whole nation. But
the preamble to the acl of November
i776, acknowledged, that the Dissenters
at nat time were very numerous.
MIR. N. here examined Sc vcral other DO.
si.ions. LIST. Mr.. Calls, that the church
was corhofate body, and that its rights
were inviolable by the legislature, and {.
ven fortified against the Bill of RIGHTS.
Mr. n. examined the doctrine Of the En-.
Siisii law on the powers to change or abo-
lish corporation. He concluded that
even the Legislature might, upon common
law principles, alter or dissolve a corpo-
rate body. end. He examined the ideH-
my of the present, with The former church.
He conceived they were different church.
es. The Virginia church was, an establish.
ed national church: The Prot. Episcosal
church Is voluntary association. they
have different modes OF presentation and
induction. IN all THAI relates TO doctrine,
they may be the same but in their poll
tcal rights they are completely different.
He concluded that, as the identity Of The
churches has been thus destroyed, the pro-
perry which might he attached to the one,
would not BE- necessarily transferred to The
other,
From this series Of arguments, Mr.. ".
concluded that all the rights which NE
church ever had, were oyersct by the
reOoInioH, and nuli!God by the BU ot'
Rig4t8.
6. 1t is slated, however, in the Bill and
contended by The counsel Tor he appel.
lants, that, the acls which have been passed
since the revolution, have recognized the
rights Of The church. But. (said Nv. NJ
two Consequences would tesul, from this
argument:
lst. Ii admits that the revolution a5o-
lished these rights; Tor lit aid MOI, why
resort 10 The authority ofla,vs, which could
not (unlcss under that supposiiion} confer
any ne7o rights And irthe revolution did
abolish these rights, they could not be con-
tinued by these rvs themselves, since M,g
would at hiat time be contrary to tie con.
stljution.
2nd. lfit admits that the legislature has
the power 10 endow with property, il viii