*M^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Library of Dr. A. A. Hod^e. Presented. 
 
 BV 63i .P6 
 
 Plumer, William S. 1802- 
 
 1880. 
 The substance of an argumei 
 
 agains t the indiscriminate 
 
THE SUBSTANCE 
 
 AN ARGUMENT 
 
 AGAINST THE 
 
 INDISCRIMINATE INCORPORATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 Delivered before the Committee of Courts of Justice of the House of Dele- 
 gates of Virginia, on the evening of the 8th of January, and on subsequent 
 evenings, in A. D. 1846, in reply to James Lyons and Wm. H. Macfar- 
 LAND, Es<is. 
 
 BY WM. S. PLUMER. 
 
 35 a 1 1 f m 1 f : 
 
 PRINTED ATTHE P U B L I C A T I O N R O O M S , 
 NO. 7 SOUTH LIBERTY STREET. 
 
 1847. 
 
To the people of Virginia this " Argument" is respectfully and gratefully 
 inscribed, as an evidence of the Author's aidmiration of the general wisdom 
 of the legislation of " the Mother of States and Statesmen" on the subject of 
 civil and religious freedom. 
 
 WM. S. PLUMER. 
 Baltimore, Md., 1847. 
 
THE SUBSTANCE 
 
 AN ARGUMENT AGAINST 
 
 INDISCRIMINATE INCORPORATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 AND 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : 
 
 I wish it understood throughout this discussion that I am the chosen 
 representative of no one, that I act on my own responsibihty alone, 
 and that I appear before you solely in the capacity of a citizen, who, 
 though humble, has rights, who, though feeble, wishes to defend those 
 rights, and who, though standing alone before you, believes that the 
 interests of millions of the present and of future generations will be 
 affected by your decision. 
 
 On some subjects a great deal ought to be said, or nothing. This is 
 one of them. I do not, therefore, promise to be brief. I do, however, 
 promise that I will not intentionally waste your time. 
 
 I could have wished that a subject of so vast importance, one side 
 of which is supported by gentlemen so able and so estimable, could 
 have had on the other side also an advocate worthy of its dignity. 
 What is my rude armor against the polished, practised lances of these 
 powerful giants of the law ? ' I hesitate not to say that I fear and trem- 
 ble, until I think of the goodness of my cause. My reliance is not on 
 tact or strength, but on truth, and that truth illustrated by the uniform 
 principles of human nature, and by the history of the world for fifteen 
 hundred years. 
 
'riiis movement is not of recent oriofin. I have watched it for years- 
 I have ever had but one opinion concerning its tendency. I believe it 
 fraught with incalculable evils — evils not the less alarming because not 
 apprehended. It has been well said, that " Men are wise and good in 
 the business of all times except their own." Some legislation is like 
 putting down pebbles in a walk. One more, or one less, makes no 
 perceptible difference. But some legislation has a power like the cen- 
 tral orb of the solar system. It carries worlds after it. It is so, if I 
 mistake not, here. A principle, somewhat novel to our system, is to 
 be introduced, and the widest possible application is forthwith to he 
 made of it. Should the contemplated change be made in the course 
 of otir laws, the good or evil which will result will be on a vast scale. 
 
 I may as well here state, once for all and most explicitty, that I have 
 no doubt the petitioners are all worthy persons, animated by patriotic 
 sentiments, and entitled to as much esteem as any equal number of 
 people in the Commonwealtli. I believe that they deprecate the evils 
 which I apprehend, as earnestly as any other persons. I esteem the 
 petitioners as highly as they esteem one another. It gives me real 
 pleasure to say so, and it gives me real pain to oppose them. 
 
 Let it not be supposed, however, that on the whole I come reluctant- 
 ly to this discussion. Indeed, a high sense of duty, and a sincere de- 
 sire for the best interests of this Commonwealth, make me willing to 
 contribute my mite, on any proper occasion, towards the public good. 
 Nor will I deny that I have great pleasure in knowing that in this dis- 
 cussion, measures and not motives, principles and not persons, great 
 interests and not merely local questions, are the subject of debate. It 
 is refreshing to the intellect, it is in itself wise and profitable some- 
 times to withdraw from petty details and look at fundamental truths. 
 The fifteenth article of our Bill of Rights well asserts, that it is " only 
 by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles that free government 
 or the blessings of liberty can be preserved." 
 
 I am also gratified that over this subject the violence of party poli- 
 tic can have no influence. If blessings flow from granting the chief 
 prayer of the petition, all parties will share them ; if evils, all parties 
 must endure them. This subject, like that of Education, oaths, lotte- 
 ries, and criminal law in many of its details, reaches the morals and 
 religion of the country none the less powerfully because indirectly. 
 It has, as I believe, and expect to show, a very intimate connection 
 with liberty, civil and religious ; and I would wish ever to be so a 
 friend of religion as not to forget to be the friend of freedom, and so 
 the friend of freedom as not to be the enemy of religion. While there- 
 
fore, I neither am, nor admire a political Iheologian nor a theological 
 politician, and while I never have divested myself of the right to read 
 and judge and modestly to express my opinion on any matter affecting 
 my country, even by going to the polls and voting for whom I pleased 
 (especially if any one said I should not ;) yet I have never debated in 
 the newspapers or elsewhere the party politics of our country. I shall 
 not do it now. 
 
 Nor is this a question between different branches of the Christian 
 Church. It promises good or ill to all according to your decision ; for 
 the petitioners expressly say : " They do not ask for themselves any 
 privilege or immunity, which they do not desire to see extended to 
 their brethren of all other denominations. It would offend no less 
 against their own sense of what is right and proper, than against the 
 principles of our institutions, to bestow on any religious denomination 
 privileges, which were not made free and open to all." You are not 
 then called, sir, to listen to a debate, full of the odiu7n theologimm. 
 
 I am also happy in knowing that the petitioners, and myself are 
 alike agreed, that true religion, vital godliness, an enlightened christian 
 ministry, and solemn acts of public worship are essential to the well- 
 being of nations. Of this truth history is a witness hardly less clear 
 in its declarations than revelation itself. This is not a contest, there- 
 fore, between religion and irreligion, but it is a question as to the best 
 mode of promoting religion, and other great interests of the country. 
 
 CHURCH PROPERTY NOW SECUSE. 
 
 Nor is the question whether houses of worship, and their appurten- 
 ances, parsonages, denominational school-houses, burying grounds, &e. 
 shall be protected. All are agreed that they oiight to be, I contend 
 that they are already as far beyond the reach of the wrong-doer in this 
 as in any part of the world. First, there is thrown around them the 
 sanction of public sentiment and public manners, more powerful than 
 all laws. " Quid leges sine moribus ?" So long as this kind of pro- 
 perty is safe at all, it is safe under the uniform, universal sentiment of 
 Virginia. The petitioners have not stated, nor will those who repre- 
 sent them state a single case of. abuse of . property of this descrip- 
 tion. If they shall, it will be but as a drop in the bucket, compared 
 with the enormous perversions of church property in States, which have 
 pursued a line of policy, such as is now sought to be introduced into 
 our laws. Besides those bones of contention, free churches, and 
 churches for many years utterly forsaken by the denomination, which 
 erected them, I have never known it alleged that any house of wor- 
 ship in the Commonwealth had passed into the hands of those who 
 
6 
 
 perverted it to wrong ends, except in one instance. This house stood 
 on a piece of land, to which a title had never been made by the proprie- 
 tor. It came into the possession of a mechanic. For many years no 
 man had expressed a desire to use it as a place of worship. There 
 were in the whole county not three people belonging to the denomina- 
 tion, which had erected it, and none of them were in its vicinity. It 
 was rapidly going to decay. So the proprietor of the land pulled down 
 the house, and used the timber in the erection of a shop for his own 
 use. From that day public confidence was withdrawn from him, and 
 he was ere long compelled for the want of patronage to leave the coun- 
 ty. Such is public opinion, and so certainly are its judgments execu- 
 ted on all, who violate in this matter the dictates of propriety. Nor 
 are our houses of worship and appurtenances left merely to this great 
 safeguard, for — 
 
 Secondly, we have recourse to trusteeships. In this way the 
 greatej part of such property is held. Where have trustees by any 
 delinquency wronged the rightful proprietors ? I will not say that no 
 such case has occurred. I can say that I never heard of one in "Vir- 
 ginia. The gentlemen on the other side neither have cited, nor will 
 cite such a case. I will cite a case on the other side — a case known 
 to some, who hear me. Some years since the doctrines of the Reform- 
 ers (Campbellites) made considerable progress in one of the large 
 Baptist churches in Va. A warm state of feeling ensued. The Reg- 
 ular Baptists had the majority, but the only surviving trustee was a 
 Reformer. He held the property and could in law have retained ex- 
 clusive possession. But he never thought of such a thing. I have 
 heard that he was a high-minded, honorable man. I believe he was. 
 But if his principles had been weak, that public sentiment, already 
 noticed, would have soon overcome the strongest reluctance to equity. 
 But, — 
 
 Thirdly, the Legislature nf Virginia on the 3rd of February, 1842 
 passed a law, providing for any cases, that might possibly arise. This 
 law may be found in '• Acts of Assembly" 1841 — 2 chap. 102, p. 60. 
 and is as follows : 
 
 1. " J9e it enacted by the Genercd Assembly, That where any lot. 
 or part of a lot, tract or parcel of land has been heretofore conveyed 
 or devised or shall hereafter be conveyed or devised to one or more 
 trustees for the use and benefit of any religious congregation, as and for 
 a place of public worship, the same, and all the buildings, and other 
 improvements thereupon, shull be held by such trustee or trustees (and 
 their successors) for the purposes of the trust, and not otherwise. 
 
 2. And be It further enacted. That where any conveyance or de- 
 
vise shall hereafter be made of such property for the use and benefit, 
 and purpose aforesaid, the same shall not be void or frustrated by reason 
 of the want of trustees to take and hold the same in trust ; but trustees 
 may be appointed in the manner hereafter directed. 
 
 3. And be it further enacted. That where such conveyance or de- 
 vise has heretofore been made to a trustee or trustees, or where such 
 conveyance or devise shall hereafter be made, whether by the interven- 
 tion of trustees or not, the circuit superior court of law and chancery 
 of the county or corporation where such property is or may be situate 
 shall, on application of the attorney for the Commonwealth on behalf 
 of the authorized authorities of any such religious congregation, have 
 full power and authority to appoint trustees originally where there 
 were none, or to substitute others from time to time, in cases of death, 
 refusal or neglect to act, removal from the county or corporation or 
 other inability to execute the trust beneficially and conveniently ; and 
 the legal title shall thereupon become exclusively vested in the whole 
 number of the then trustees and their successors. 
 
 4. And be it further enacted, That a majority of the acting trus- 
 tees of any such congregation may sue and be sued in their own names, 
 in relation to the title, possession or enjoyment of such property 
 without abatement by the death of any of the trustees, or the substitu- 
 tion of others ; but the action or suit may notwithstanding be prosecu- 
 ted to its final termination in the names of the trustees by or against 
 whom the same was instituted, and all other proceedings had in rela- 
 tion thereto, in like manner as if such death or substitution had not oc- 
 curred ; Provided, hoivcver, that such trustees for the use of any reli- 
 gious congregation shall not hereafter take or hold at any one time any 
 tract of land in the country exceeding in quantity thirty acres, or in any 
 incorporated town exceeding two acres ; nor shall such real property 
 be held by them for any other use than as a place of public worship, 
 relio-ious or other instruction, burial ground and residence of their min- 
 ister. 
 
 5. This act shall be in force from the passing thereof." 
 
 What further protection could be desired? Where are the "indis- 
 criminate indifference and neglect," which are so much complained of 
 in the petition? Are not two acres of ground in the town, and thirty 
 acres in the country sufficient? I am happy to be able thus to vindi- 
 cate the State from every suspicion of fostering anti-christian laws and 
 usages. I wish also to add that the gentlemen greatly erred in saying 
 that jockey clubs had corporate rights in Virginia. 
 
 Nor is the question which I shall discuss, whether the General As- 
 
sembly shall grant to religions societies of any description swch legal 
 privileges as upon their individual application, may be judged safe and 
 proper. Let each case be presented upon its own merits, let its objects 
 be carefully enquired into, and let the Legislature act as shall seem 
 right. The General Assembly possesses and exercises that power 
 now. Never have I moved a finger to prevent any sister church from 
 securing any immunity she may desire from the State. My motto has 
 always been, Non nostrum inter vos tantas domponere lites. 
 
 In the petition before you two such objects are sought. One is an 
 act of incorporation for a Theological Seminary ; the other a charter for 
 a fund for the widows and orphans of deceased clergymen. Both of these 
 appertain to one denomination. I shall say nothing in favor of grant- 
 ing them, at least until asked to do so. Should I ultroneoUsly urge the 
 granting of these prayers I should expect to hear the cry — 
 Non tali auxilio. 
 
 \ shall certainly say nothing against granting them. 
 
 I am not unmindful that these preliminary remarks are protracted. 
 All I have to say in excuse is, they are necessary. In felling a tree it 
 is sometimes best to spend a few minutes in cutting away the'under- 
 growth. 
 
 What then is the question ? It is this : Shall the Legislature by 
 
 A GENERAL LAW CREATE AS MANY RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS AS THERE 
 ARE CONGREGATIONS AND RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES IN THE StATE ? This is 
 
 the question. This is the sole question, which I shall discuss. It is 
 the great question presented in the petition before you. It asks for 
 " a laAV authorizing the religious congregations to hold property, &lc. 
 It asks for a law " to enable them to hold and transmit property." It 
 speaks more than once of " corporate rights." That this is what was 
 intended to be sought may be learned from the Southern Churchman, 
 of August 30, 1844, where a general law is emphatically spoken of. 
 The Journals of the Episcopal Convention for a year or two past show 
 that a general and comprehensive system of incorporation is contem- 
 plated. 
 
 Thus in the "Journal of the Convention" for 1844, p. 25, I find 
 this record : 
 
 " Mr. Macfarland offered the following resolution, which was adopt- 
 ed :— 
 
 Resolved, That it is expedient to renew the application to the Legis- 
 lature for an act authorizing religious, benevolent and literary societies 
 and institutions to hold property given, or bequeathed to them," &c. 
 
 Here is a purpose expressed of applying for "an ad,''^ one single 
 
act, one general indiscriminate law. It is also said that they will " re- 
 neiv^^ the application, clearly declaring that they had made it before. 
 So in the "Journal of the Convention" for 1845, p. 33, the commit- 
 tee appointed the previous year is "requested" " to continue" their 
 efforts. I take it for granted that this proof is sufficient on this point. 
 
 SECTS IN VIRGINIA. 
 
 Now let us look to the condition of the Commonwealth. In Vir- 
 ginia we have Baptists, Episcopal Methodists, Presbyterians, "Protes- 
 tant Episcopalians, Protestant Methodists, Reformers, New School Pres- 
 byterians, Associate Presbyterians, German Reformed, German Luth- 
 erans, Mennonists, Friends, Winebrenarians, Universalists, Roman 
 Catholics, Swedenborgians, and perhaps a few of other names. These 
 constitute a large body of adult persons, probably not less in number 
 than one hundred and sixty thousand with a large number of congrega- 
 tions, variously estimated from fifteen hundred to two thousand. The 
 latter is probably not far from the truth. Besides these, there are 
 amongst us several congregations of Jews, a few Fourierites, perhaps a 
 number of infidels, possibly some atheists, and certainly a large num- 
 ^ber of persons, who make no profession of religion, and are supposed 
 to have no preferences to any denomination. Without intending the 
 slightest disrespect, and solely for the want of a better name I may 
 call them Nothingarians. The sect of the Nothingarians is perhaps the 
 largest in the Commonwealth. It has no creed, no churches, no disci- 
 pline, 'but a very large number of members. It boasts of great anti- 
 quity. It was founded in the first century in -Achaia by one Gallio, of 
 whom it is said : " He cared for none of these things." 
 
 It is remarkable that in all I have seen and heard from persons fa- 
 voring the petition before you, I have not noticed any provision of 
 law proposed for any but Christian sects.. The seed of Abraham, un- 
 believers in divine revelation, and the great mass of men indiflfierent to 
 all forms of religion, seem not to have been thought of. 
 
 A great object of laws, fundamental and municipal, is to protect the 
 weak against the strong, the few against the many. The reason is 
 that the many in free governments, and the strong in all governments, 
 can protect themselves. Are you to favor the strong sects among the 
 Christians? By no means, say the petitioners ; so say we all. Are 
 you to give corporate powers to Romanists? Do the Protestants of 
 this State desire to see the Papacy have such a power amongst us ? 
 Do Papists desire to see Protestantism well fenced in and well fed by 
 corporate property ? The Fourierites, and the infidels, and atheists 
 would surely desire something. Is it best to enable them by law to 
 
10 
 
 take, hold and transmit property ? If you exalt one, or three or four 
 influential denominations, will not the rest be oppressed ? If the Leg- 
 islature enter largely upon this work of granting corporate powers 
 they must either do it blindly, or a large part of their time will be con- 
 sumed in inquiries into the nature and merits of the religious opinions, 
 and practices of the people of the state. And is any man prepared to 
 submit his creed or his views of church government to the inquisition 
 of a legislative committee? No, is the universal answer. Then, I say, 
 the General Assembly must act indiscriminately, and treat good and 
 bad, Protestant and Romanist, Jew and Gentile, infidel and atheist, all 
 alike. 
 
 However evil the practice and corrupt the doctrines of many in the 
 State, they are yet citizens, and so long as obedient to the laws they 
 are entitled to every blessing or privilege which legislation can confer, 
 in common with the most orthodox and pious. 
 
 FREEDOM, NOT TOLERATION. 
 
 Although I would not make a man an offender for a word, yet it 
 seems to me unfortunate, that in the petition before you, the word " ?o/- 
 eration" should have more than once found a place. I believe that 
 under our government tolei'ation of any sect or opinion is absolutely 
 impossible. Liberty, unqualified and the very largest, is our birth- 
 right. No man holds any opinion on the subject of religion by per- 
 mission ot his fellow-men, acting in any capacity. The State does 
 not, the State cannot, tolerate religion or irreligion, nor can it aid tjither, 
 unless it erect itself into . a Star Chamber, or a Court of High Com- 
 mission, with an execrable Laud at its head to determine what is and 
 what is not true religion and safe opinion. It is well said by one of 
 the most accurate observers of human affairs, that " every power which 
 calls in the aid of an ally stronger than itself perishes by the assistance 
 it receives." If the State calls in religion as an ally stronger than her- 
 self, the church will swallow up the State. If the church calls in the 
 State as an ally stronger than herself, she will be swallowed up by the 
 State. At this time both are happily, to a great extent, independent, 
 and in most respects unallied. A powerful State never grants privi- 
 leges to the church without requiring, sooner or later, heavy payment. 
 A State, nursing a church, has always been like a she-bear hugging a 
 lamb. On this general subject I find in Tucker's Blackstone, vol. 1st, 
 part 2d, p. 4 in the note, some sentiments expressed so forcibly that I 
 beg leave to quote them. It does not diminish in my mind their force 
 that they are derived from Paine, whose opinions on the subject of re- 
 ligion were infleed exceedingly corrupt, but whose services in prepar- 
 
11 
 
 ing the public mind for the Independence of 1776, no well-informed 
 man can doubt. I give tlie quotation, however, not as upon the author- 
 ity of a name, but as containing truths so nearly self-evident to a Vir- 
 ginian, that I venture to predict gentlemen on the other side will not 
 attempt to disprove the truth of one of them, although they may sneer 
 at my quoting Tom Paine. My motto is : " Que m'importe d'ou il 
 soit pourvu qu' il se trouve utile." " If the things themselves are 
 good, it signifies very little whose they are." Here is the quotation: 
 
 "Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance, but is the counterfeit 
 of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of 
 withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it. The 
 one is the pope armed with fire and faggot, and the other is the pope 
 selling or granting indulgences. The former is church and state, and 
 the latter is church and tratBc. 
 
 But toleration may be viewed in a much stronger light. Man wor- 
 ships not himself, but his Maker ; and the liberty of conscience which 
 he claims is not for the service of himself, but of his God. In this 
 case, therefore, we must necessarily have the associated idea of two 
 beings ; the mortal, who renders the worship, and the immortal Being 
 Avho is worshipped. Toleration, therefore, places itself not between 
 ma^n and man, nor between church and church, nor between one de- 
 nomination of religion and another, but between God and man; be- 
 tween the being who worships and the being who is. worshipped; and 
 by the same act of assumed authority by which it tolerates man to pay 
 his worship, it presumptuously and blasphemously sets itself up to 
 tolerate the Almighty to receive it. 
 
 Were a bill brought into any parliament entitled : " An act to toler- 
 ate or grant liberty to the Almiglity to receive the worship of a Jew 
 or a Turk," or "to prohibit the Almighty from receiving it" — all men 
 would startle and call it blasphemy. There would be an uproar. The 
 presumption of toleration in religious matters would then present itself 
 unmasked : but tlie presumption is not the less because the name of 
 "Man" only appears to those laws, for the associated idea of the wor- 
 shipper and worshipped cannot be separated." 
 
 IS THIS A CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH ? 
 
 It has become customary in many quarters to speak and write of the 
 governments of this country almost as if we had an established reli- 
 gion. In the petition before you I find the the expressions, a " Chris- 
 tian Commonwealth" and a " Chi'istian State." If by these terms be 
 meant, that the great majority of our people, who profess any religion, 
 profess the christian religion, and that a great majority of the nation are 
 
12 
 
 prejudiced in favor of the christian religion, then I do not object to such 
 language. But if it be intended to create a belief that christians are 
 or ought to be by our laws entitled to any civil, political or religious pri- 
 vileges except in common with Jews, Deists and Atheists, if there be 
 any amongst us, then I utterly reject it. To me it is a source of un- 
 speakable pleasure, that I live in a land, where I believe the rights of 
 conscience are most solemnly guaranteed to every human being, howe- 
 ver ill informed or perverted his conscience may be on spiritual affairs. 
 In this equal unqualified hberty I rejoice, and I will rejoice. It was 
 bought with the blood of our venerated fathers, nor was the price paid 
 for it too high. 
 
 HISTORY OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 I would also observe that this proposition comes up at a remarkable 
 time and under remarkable circumstances. When we look to Europe 
 we can hardly see a State, which is not involved in serious difficulties 
 on account of religion. Indeed the governments of most parts of the 
 world have not yet snorted away the fumes of the indigested blood of 
 myriads of victims, who have fallen under the evil power of the State 
 to interfere in some way with religion. Even in our land I am not 
 sure but there are still living men, who have suffered the rigors of im- 
 prisonment, or other mortifying disabilities on account of their religious 
 opinions. I myself have seen a venerable minister of the Baptist 
 church, who together with two of his brethren Avas imprisoned in the 
 jail of Chesterfield, (not twenty miles from this spot,) and solely upon 
 the ground that he had dared with freedom to tell the people that the 
 blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. As to the multitude of 
 minor mortifying disabilities, under which men are frequently made to 
 labor. I declare most solemnly, in the language of another, that, "I 
 would sooner bring myself to put a man to immediate death, and so get 
 rid of the man and his opinions at once, than to fret him with a fever- 
 ish being, tainted with the jail distemper of a contagious servitude, to 
 keep him above gi'ound an animated mass of putrefaction, corrupted 
 himself, and corrupting all about him." Or if his spirit be too stout, 
 and his virtue made of stuff too stern to succumb to the natural influ- 
 ence of these degrading disabilities, then I solemnly declare I would 
 sooner see him put to death in a solemn and decent manner, than to 
 behold him from day to day harrassed, vexed, and tormented by the 
 countless irritations of evil men, having power to fret him, but not 
 magnanimity to let him alone. I say thus because I had rather die 
 myself than live, for ever tormented by the myriads of flies, wasps and 
 hornets, generated by any system of legislation, partial to the conscien- 
 
13 
 
 cies of any particular class. The first article in my creed is : T.'iere 
 is a God. The second is like unto it: God alone is Lord of the con- 
 science. I v/ould as soon thinlc of blotting out the first as the second 
 from the symbol of ray faith. 
 
 That I have not exaggerated the state of things, existing in this Com- 
 monwealth previous to the events of 1776 is manifest to the memory 
 of our old people, and is abundantly declared by record evidence as I 
 shall show. Such a state of things has not escaped the notice of our 
 most eminent jurists, 
 
 JUDGE ROANE. 
 
 I could mention no name among the long list of able judges, who 
 have presided in our halls of justice, which would carry with it more 
 weight than the name of Spencer Roane, of whom it is hard to say, 
 whether his fame should rest most upon the natural strength and inde- 
 pendence of his mind, the extent of his legal knowledge, his sterling in- 
 tegrity, or his fervent love of unqualified liberty. This eminent public 
 servant as reported in 6th Call pp. 168, 169, (Turpin et al. v. Locket et 
 al.) Speaking of the Revolution, says " that memorable event has tum- 
 bled to the ground the then national church together with its col- 
 league the government: It has not tumbled to the ground, and I trust 
 never will, the pure and excellent system of that church, considered as 
 a society of christians ; but that towering and powerful hierarchy,, 
 whose progress was not to be arrested, by even the mild and tolerant 
 principles of the Episcopal persuasion : that overwhelming hierarchy, 
 which levelled to the dust everj'vestige of religious liberty !" 
 
 " Let me not be supposed, sir, to denounce this hierarchy with too 
 much severity. Is it not known to every sciolist in our laws, that it 
 procured the enaction of a statute for silencitig, and even banishing 
 non-conforming ministers ? Is it not known to every member of this 
 court, that even in tlie dawn of our struggle against Britain, for civil 
 liberty, many meek and pious teachers of the gospel were imprisoned, 
 persecuted, and treated as criminals ?" 
 
 " The only crime of these men was their worshipping God according 
 to the dictates of their own consciences ! There is not a gentleman 
 old enough to know the fact, who has not seen ministers of the gospel 
 of Christ, teaching their doctrines through the grated windows of a 
 prison." He adds that there was then an " utter annihilation of every 
 semblance of religious liberty." 
 
 GLEBE LANDS. 
 
 The case, in which the above sentiments are expressed, is the cele- 
 brated Glebe case — a case, which ought never to be forgotten by the 
 
14 
 
 people of this Commonwealth — a case, in which an attempt was made 
 to settle upon a particular denomination a large amount of landed pro- 
 perty, which had been paid for out of the comoion fund created by 
 the whole people of the State. Nor is it to be forgotten, that the at- 
 tempt would have succeeded, had it not been for the sudden and lamen- 
 ted death of one of the judges on the night before this decision was to 
 have been made. The case came by appeal to the Court of Appeals, 
 consisting of five judges. Three of them were -for sustaining the ap- 
 peal, but the death of one of the three prevented him from giving his 
 opinion. The Court was therefore equally divided ; and the ap- 
 peal consequently failing, the judgment of the lower court obtained. — 
 Thus by an event unlocked for, and much lamented by good men, were . 
 the people of this State saved from the iniquitous and odious imposi- 
 tion threatened by the claims set up for the Glebes. 
 
 Our escape was if possiI)le even narrower than this. When a Glebe 
 case from that part of Virginia, which, had been ceded to the Federal 
 Government, as a part of the District of Columbia came before the 
 Supreme Court of the United States it was decided to the amazement 
 of thousands that the Episcopal church was entitled to the Glebe. — 
 See the case of Terrett and others vs. Taylor and others, 9. Cranch, 
 pp. 43 — 55. In this case Chancellor Tucker says the Court gave an 
 extra-judicial opinion respecting Glebes in Virginia. 
 
 I ask the committee, to allow me to read a few short, but impres- 
 sive lessons from our past history. Dr. Baird in his m ork entitled 
 " Religion in America," pp. 88, 89 speaks particularly of Virginia : 
 
 " During the governorship of Sir Thomas Dale, the London Com- 
 pany sent over to Virginia a set of "laws, divine, moral, and martial," 
 being, apparently, the first fruits of Sir Thomes Smith's legislation ; 
 and from their Draconian character, they give us some idea of the no- 
 tions entertained in those times of the ways whereby religion might be 
 promoted by the civil power. They were so bad, it is true, as to be 
 little, if at all enfprced. In short, they soon fell into complete desue- 
 tude, and were disclaimed, at length, by the company, without whose 
 sanction they seem to have been prepared and sent. Yet there is am- 
 ple evidence to prove that they breathed very much the spirit of the 
 times that produced them, and of the party in the church of England 
 to whicli their autlior belonged — a spirit, which, thank God ! has long 
 since ceased to exist in that or any other portion of the church of 
 Christ in that country. 
 
 The first of those laws that bears upon religion enjoins on the officers 
 of the colony, of every description, to have a care that '• the Almightie 
 
15 
 
 God bee duly and daily served," that the people " heare sermons, that 
 they themselves set a good example therein, and that they punish such 
 as shall be often and M'illully absent, " according to martial law in llie 
 case provided." 
 
 The second law forbids, upon pain of death, speaking against the 
 sacred Trinity, or any person of tlie same, or against the known arti- 
 cles of the christian faith. 
 
 The third law forbids blasphemy of God's holy name upon pain of 
 death ; and the use of all unlawful oaths, upon severe punishment for 
 the first ofTemce, the boring of the tongue with a bodkin for the second 
 and death for the third. 
 
 The fourth law forbids speaking disrespectfully of the word of God, 
 upon pain of death, as well as the treating of ministers of the gos- 
 pel with disrespect ; and enjoins the " holding of them in all reverent 
 regard and dutiful entreatie," under penalty of being whipped three 
 times, and of asking forgiveness in the assembly of the congregation 
 three severall Saboth dales." 
 
 The fifth law enjoins upon all to attend morning and evening, every 
 week-day, in the church for service, at the tolling of the bell, upon 
 pain of losing their daily allowance for the first omission, to be whip- 
 ped for the second, sent to the galleys for six months for the third. It 
 also forbids all violation of the Sabbath by gaming, and commands the 
 people to prepare themselves by private prayer for the proper attend- 
 ance upon the public worship, forenoon and afternoon, upon pain of 
 losing their week's allowance for the first omission, the same and a 
 whipping for the second, and death for the third. 
 
 The sixth enjoins upon every minister within the colony to preach 
 every Sabbath morning, and catechise in the afternoon; to have a ser- 
 vice morning and evening every day, and preach on Wednesday ; "to 
 chuse unto him some of the most religions and better dispos- 
 ed" to maintain a sort of spiritual police, and to see that the church 
 be kept in a good and decent state, and that he keep a register of births, 
 deaths, baptisms, &c., " upon the burthen of a neglectfuU conscience, 
 and upon paine of losing their entertainement." 
 
 The seventh law commands " all who were then in the colony, or 
 who shall thenceforth arrive, to repair to the minister, that he may 
 know, by conference had, their religious knowledge ; and if any be de- 
 ficient, they are enjoined to go to him, at times which he shall appoint, 
 to receive farther instruction, which, if they refuse to do, the governor, 
 upon representation of the fact, shall order the delinquent' to be whip- 
 ped once for the first omission, twice for the second, and every day till 
 
16 
 
 acknowledgment be made and forgiveness asked for the third , and also 
 
 commands every man to answer, when catechised respecting his faith 
 
 and knowledge upon the Sabbath, upon pain of the same peril." 
 
 Previously to the dissolution of the Company, in 1624, the Colonial 
 
 Legislature passed a number of laws relating to the church ; three of 
 
 the most important were as follows : 
 
 1. That in every plantation where the people were wont to meet for 
 
 the worship of God, there should be a house or room set apart for that 
 
 purpose, and not converted to any temporal use whatsoever. 
 
 3. That whosoever should absent himself from divine service any 
 
 Sunday, without an allowable excuse, should forfeit a pound of tobacco ; 
 
 and that he who absented himself a month, should forfeit fifty pounds 
 
 of tobacco. 
 
 3. That there should be a uniformity in the church as near as might 
 be, both in substance and circumstance, to the canons of the Church of 
 England ; and that all persons should yield a ready obedience to them 
 upon pain of censure." 
 
 "One of the greatest evils of the Establishment we are speaking of, 
 is to be found in the shameful acts of intolerance and oppression to 
 which it led. Although the Quakers were in no instance put to death 
 in Viro-inia, yet they were subjected to much persecution and annoy- 
 ance, and were glad in many cases to escape into North Carolina. 
 The Puritans, too, were much disliked, and severe laws were passed 
 " to prevent the infection from reaching the country." Archbishop 
 Laud's authority stood as high in Virginia as in England. An offender 
 against that authority, of the name of Reck, was, in 1642, pilloried 
 for two hours, with a label on his back' setting forth his offence, then 
 fined £50, and imprisoned during the pleasure of the governor." p. 98, 
 
 A CASE. 
 
 I find in Jefferson's Reports, pp. 96 and 97, in the case of " Good- 
 win et al. vs. Lunan" — confirmation of all this, with further light 
 on the state of things in Virginia. "The plaintiffs were church- 
 wardens and vestrymen of the upper parish, county of Nanseraond, and 
 filed libel in General Court as a Court of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
 •ao-ainst the defendant charging that he was minister of the gospel of 
 Christ, regularly ordained, according to the rites of the Church of Eng- 
 land; that he was received to the (cure?) care of the said parish ; that 
 he was of evil fame and profligate manners ; that he was much addict- 
 ed to drunkenness, in so much as to be often drunk at church and una- 
 ble to go through divine service, or to baptise or marry those who at- 
 tended for those purposes : that he officiated in ridiculous apparel un- 
 
becoming a priest; that he was a common disturber of the peace, and 
 often quarrelling and fighting ; that he was a common and profane 
 swearer;* * * * that he neglected the parochial duties of performing di- 
 vine service, preaching and administering the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper ; that he had declared he did not beheve in the revealed religion 
 of Christ, and cared not of what religion he was so he got the tobacco, 
 nor what became of the flock so that he could get the fleece. 
 
 Wherefore the libellants prayed that the said Patrick Lunan might 
 be corrected, punished and deprived, or otherwise that right and jus- 
 tice might be administered. The defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction 
 of the court, and on that plea it was argued in October, 1771." 
 
 After argument, the court adjudged that they possessed ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction in general. But a re-hearing was granted. 
 
 The parts of this report omitted and marked * * * * I assure the 
 Committee are not palliative. They are too bad to be read or even 
 thought of. 
 
 Bishop Meade in his address to the Convention of his Diocese in 
 May last testifies to the same point. Speaking of the Episcopal church 
 in Virginia previous to the Revolution of 1776, he says, " that its spir- 
 itual condition was ever even tolerablygood * * * faithful history for- 
 bids us to believe." He also says: "That the minister& then in the 
 colony were men of zeal can scarce be supposed, as a law was re- 
 quired enjoining it upon them to preach constandy every Sabbath and 
 administer the sacrament at least twice every year," Again : " As to 
 the unworthy and hireling clergy, of the Colony there was no ecclesi- 
 astical discipline to correct or punish their irregularities and vices." 
 Again: "That there was at this time" (the days of Whitefield and 
 Davies) " hot only defective preaching, but, as might be expected, most 
 evil living among the clergy is evident from a petition of tlie clergy 
 themselves to the Legislature," &c. He then speaks of the " Episco- 
 pal clergy losing more and more the favor of God and man." He says : 
 " Had they been faithful shepherds they would not have deserted their 
 flocks," as by his statement, 63 out of 91 did after the contest witJi 
 England began. Again, speaking of the days of Bishop Madison and 
 "for a long time before," he says: " It is a melancholy fact that many 
 of them, [the clergy] had been addicted to the race-field, the card-table, 
 the ball-room, the theatre — nay, more, to the drunken revel. One of 
 them, about the very period of which I am speaking, was, and had 
 be6n for years, the President of a Jockey Club. Another, after aban- 
 doning the ministry, fought a duel in sight of the very church in which 
 the had performed the solemn offices of religion. Nothing was more 
 2 
 
18 
 
 common even among the better portion of them, than to celebrate the 
 holy ordinance of Baptism, not amidst the prayers of the congregation^ 
 but the festivities of the feast and the dance, the minister sometimes 
 taking a full share in all that was going on." He speaks of many of 
 the English clergy as having preached " a mere morality and not the 
 glorious doctrines of grace." Again, speaking of non-Episcopalians 
 in Virginia, he says : " Had not our fathers done religion and them 
 some wrong? Were they not most sincere in their fear of us ?" 
 Speaking of the Kevolution of ITTe, and the downfall of the hierar- 
 chy, he says : " Many circumstances contributed to this event. The 
 severities exercised towards some of the Dissenters in times past had 
 embittered their minds against the declining establishment." — Journal 
 of the Convention, 1845, pp. 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19. 
 
 Sir, men are still living who saw and felt, and wept over, and fought 
 against this state of things. Is this a time for the Legislature of Vir- 
 ginia to commence a virtual establishment of religion in all its forms 
 hy Jilling the Commonwealth with religious corporations? 
 
 This movement is also remarkable if we consider the state of our 
 laws. 
 
 On the 24th January, 1799, the Legislature of Virginia passed "an 
 Act to repeal certain Acts, and to declare the construction of the Bill 
 of Rights and Constitution concerning Religion." 
 
 1. Whereas the Constitution of the State of Virginia, hath pro- 
 nounced the government of the King of England, to have been totally 
 dissolved by the revolution; hath substituted in place of the Civil Gov- 
 ernment so dissolved, a new Civil Government ; and hath in the Bill 
 of Rights, excepted from the powers given to the substituted Govern- 
 ment, the power of reviving any species of ecclesiastical or church- 
 government, in lien of tliat so dissolved, by referring- the subject of re- 
 ligion to conscience : And whereas, the several acts presehtly recited, 
 do admit the church established under the regal government, to have 
 continued so, subsequently to the Constitution ; have bestowed pro- 
 perty upon that church ,' have asserted a legislative right to establish 
 any religious sect ; and have incorporated religious sects, all of which 
 is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution, and of religious 
 freedom, and manifestly tends to the re-establishment of a naiional 
 church : For prevention whereof, 
 
 2. Be it enacted, That the several laws, the titles whereof are as 
 follows : " An Act for exempting the different societies of dissenters 
 from contributing to the support and maintenance of the church as 
 by law established, and its ministers, and for other purposes therein 
 
19 
 
 mentioned^' — " An Act, to repeal so much of the act, for the support 
 of the clergy, and for the regular collecting and paying the parish levies, 
 as relates to the payment of the salaries heretofore given to the clergy 
 of the church of England" — "An Act for incorporating tlie Protestant, 
 Episcopal church" — "An Act, to authorize the' election of certain ves- 
 tries" — "An Act, to repeal the act, for incorporating the Protestant 
 Episcopal church, and for other purposes" — and "An Act for giving 
 certain powers to the trustees of the property of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal church," be, and the same are hereby repealed, and declared to 
 be void and of none effect. And it is further declared, that the law 
 entitled, "An Act for establishing religious freedom," is a true exposi- 
 tion of the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution."-—!. Re- 
 msed Code, 1819, pp. 78, 79. 
 
 In the Assembly Avhieh passed this Act, besides other men of emi- 
 nence, were Richard B. Lee, John Tazewell, George Mason, John 
 Tyler, Sr., Wm. B. Giles, John Taylor, of Caroline, and James Mad- 
 ison — nomina clara et venerabilia — men who were not accustomed 
 to send forth solemn declarations, much less to put them in the form 
 of laws, without some degree of consideration. Yet these eminent 
 public servants here put it on record, a'S their deliberate judgment, that 
 "to incorporate religious sects is inconsistent with the principles of 
 the Constitution, and of religious freedom, and manifesthj tends to the 
 re-establishment of a national church." Sir, I will not enter into a 
 detailed argument to show that that is true which John Taylor, of 
 Caroline and James Madison, and the Legislature of ^^irginia declared 
 to be '■'■ manifest f nor will I stop to answer the objection, that this 
 opinion is expressed only in a preamble, especially when I see that 
 preamble itself followed by an actual repeal of corporate posvers pre- 
 viously granted to one denomination. 
 
 But we are told that the petitioners desire corporate powers not for 
 themselves only, but for all Christian denominations; yea, more, for 
 every congregation and religious society in the Commonwealth. I be- 
 lieve the ass is esteemed the most stupid of animals; yet I can hardly 
 imagine that even he is so didl as not to prefer being ridden by one 
 rather than by a dozen. Very far sooner would I see the Legislature 
 of Virginia grant acts of incorporation to any sect that might ask it 
 than to see a wliole litter of incorporated churches brought forth at 
 once. I cannot, however, indulge a wish so malignant towards any 
 branch of the church of God as to say: "Let this one be incorpora- 
 ted." Such a grant of incorporation, if accepted, would blast the fair- 
 est prospects of any denomination for half a century. 
 
20 
 
 We have in 2nd Revised Code, pp. 77, 78, a statutory provision, penned 
 by the author of the Declaration of Independence, and regarded ahnost 
 universally with the highest veneration, although it was enacted by an 
 ordinary Legislature, and might be repealed at any time. I will not 
 quote it. I will merely request the committee to consider its several 
 clauses, and endeavor to catch its spirit, and act accordingly. I am 
 happy to state that its most important provisions are now incorporated 
 into the existing Constitution of Virginia, and so form a part of the 
 fundamental law of the Commonwealth, thus, if I interpret them aright, 
 forbidding the Legislature itself to change the policy of the State con- 
 cerning religion. 
 
 CONVENTION OF 1829-30. 
 
 There is also a portion of the history of our present Constitution, 
 to which I ask permission to call the attention of the Committee. In 
 the Convention which formed that Constitution, as I learn from the 
 published Debates, pp. 459-60, General Brodnax, a gentleman, a law- 
 yer, a statesman, and a Christian, moved an amendment to a clause of 
 the Constitution, in these words, viz: "Nor shall be so construed as 
 to deprive the Legislature of the power of incorporating by law the 
 trustees or directors of any Theological Seminary, or other religiou? 
 society, or body of men created for charitable purposes, or the advance- 
 ment of piety and learning, so as to protect them in the enjoyment of 
 their property and immunities, in such case, and under such regula- 
 tions, as the Legislature may deem expedierit and proper. Biit the 
 Legislature of this State, during all future time, shall possess the pow- 
 er to alter, remodel, or entirely repeal such charter, or act of incorpor- 
 ation, whenever they shall deem it expedient." 
 
 Although Gen. B. urged the adoption of this clause on the ground 
 that it "went to modify and restrain, not to increase the evil" of cor- 
 porations, yet after discussion, "it was promptly negatived, twelve only 
 rising in its favor." 
 
 I l(3ave to the Committee to judge what weight this scrap of histoiy 
 ought to have on their decision, only reVnarking, that when on the au- 
 thority of Mr. Madison it was published to the world that the Con- 
 vention which formed the Federal Constitution, had refused to grant to 
 Congress the power of incorporating any institution, I remember it 
 had great weight with many. I may further add, that I believe neither 
 Ma;lison, nor Monroe, nor Marshall, nor Randolph, nor Leigh, nor 
 Johnson, nor Taylor, nor Tazewell, were of the twelve who voted 
 for it. 
 
21 
 
 HISTORY OF CORPORATIONS. 
 
 Leaving this view of affairs, I ask your attention to the history of 
 the power of taking and holding property granted to the church in dif- 
 ferent ages and countries. Up to the time of Constantine, Christiani- 
 ty had stood alone, or rather she had waded through oceans of fire and 
 blood to a moral grandeur, which language can hardly describe. Even 
 Dioclesiah, who immediately preceded Constantine, was a bloody per- 
 secutor. But under Constantine Christianity was established, not in- 
 deed with a power to persecute other forms of religion, as is frequent- 
 ly and erroneously supposed, but Christians were exempted from per- 
 secution and made eligible to office; and to the churches was given 
 the power of taking, holding and transmitting property. This is the 
 first experiment ever made on the principle now sought to be intro- 
 duced into the Legislation of Virginia. The result history has given. 
 It teaches a lesson which ought to make the world of mankind wise, 
 while the ivorld of nature stands. 
 
 Successive generations are imdone by refusing to listen to the voice 
 of history. They vainly suppose that human nature has fundamen- 
 tally changed. They forget that although the human mind may march, 
 the human heart, unregenerate, remains a cold, selfish, covetous, cruel 
 thing from age to age. 
 
 "Power," says Dr. Hawkes, an Episcopahan, "always passes slowly 
 and silently, and without much notice, from the hands of the many to 
 the few ; and all histoay shows that ecclesiastical domination grows up 
 by litde and little. The overwhelming tyranny from which the Re- 
 formation freed the Protestant church, grew up by this paulatim pro- 
 cess." — Quoted in Coleman's Primitive Church, p. 261. 
 
 Aye, this ''Paulatim'' process it is which does the mischief. Little 
 by litde men yield and yield, until at last nothing is left them but an 
 inglorious servitude, perhaps, however, under the name of "privilege," 
 "boon," or "right." We shall find in this discussion some curious 
 things called rights. 
 
 One of the best writers of the age has said: 
 
 "The desire for liberty, unfortunately, is but a step from the desire 
 for power. The church soon passed from one to the other. When 
 she had established her independence, it was in accordance with the 
 natural course of ambition that she should attempt' to raise her spirit- 
 ual authority above temporal authority. We must not, however, sup- 
 pose that this claim had any other origin than the weaknesses of human- 
 ity; some of these are very profound, and it is of importance that 
 
22 
 
 they should be known." — Guizofs History of Civilization, pp. 122, 
 123. 
 
 With these remarks in view I ask your attention to the history of 
 this power in the Roman Empire. Speaking of the church under 
 Constantine, Coleman says: 
 
 "The wealth of the laity was now made to flow in streams into the 
 church. New expedients were devised to draw money from them. 
 Constantine himself also contributed large sums to enrich the coffers 
 of the church, which he also authorized, A. D. 321, to inherit property 
 by will. This permission opened new sources of wealth to the clergy, 
 while it presented equal incentives to their cupidity. With what ad- 
 dress they employed their newly-acquired rights is apparent from the 
 fact stated by Planck, "that in the space of ten yeajs every man at 
 his decease, left a legacy to the church ; and within fifty years the 
 clergy, in the several provinces, under the color of the church, held in 
 their possession one-tenth part of the entire property of the province. 
 By the end of the fourth century, the emperors themselves were oblig- 
 ed to interpose to check the accumulation of these immense revenues : 
 a measure which Jerome said he could not regret, but he could only 
 regret that his brethren had made it necessary. Many other expe- 
 dients were attempted to check this insatiable cupidity, but they only 
 aggravated the evil which they were intended to relieve." — Coleman^s 
 Primitive Church, pp. 284, 285. 
 
 Milner says : 
 
 " It were to be wished, that there had been as much zeal at this time 
 to support the doctrines and realize the power of the cross, as there 
 was to honor its formalities. But this was far from being the case. 
 
 For neither in Constantine, nor in his favorite bishops, nor in the 
 general appearance of the church, can we see much of the spirit of god- 
 liness. Pompous apparatus, augmented superstitions, and unmeaning 
 forms of piety, much show and little substance appears. This is the 
 impression, which the account given by Eusebius has left on my mind. 
 
 If we look at the external appearance of Christianity, nothing can be 
 more splendid. An emperor, full of zeal for the propagation of the 
 only divine religion by edicts, restores every thing to the church of 
 which it had been deprived, indemnifies those who had suffered, hon- 
 ors the pastors exceedingly, recommends the governors of provinces to 
 promote the gospel, and though he will neither oblige them nor any 
 others to profess it, yet he forbids them to make use of the sacrifices 
 commonly, made by prefects, he erects churches exceedingly sumptu- 
 ous and ornamental, with distinctions of the parts corresponding in 
 
23 
 
 some measure to those in Solomon's Temple, discovers with much 
 zeal the sepulchre of Christ at Jerusalem, real or pretended, and hon- 
 ors it with a most expensive sacred edifice. His mother Helena fills 
 the whole Roman world with her munificent acts in support of religion, 
 and after the erection of churches and travelling from place to place to 
 evidence her zeal dies before her son, aged eighty years. Nor is the 
 Christian cause neglected even out of the bounds of the Roman empire. 
 Constantine zealously pleads in a letter to Sapor, king of Persia, for 
 the Christians of his dominions, he destroys idol temples, prohibits im- 
 pious pagan rites, puts an end to the savage fights of gladiators, stands 
 up with respectful silence to hear the sermon of Eusebius, bish- 
 op of Ceesarea, the historian, furnishes him with the volumes of the 
 Scriptures for the use of the churches, orders the observation of the 
 festivals of the martyrs, has prayers and reading of the Scripture at his 
 court, dedicates churches with great solemnity, makes christian orations 
 himself, one of which of a considerable length is preserved by the his- 
 torian, his favorite bishop, directs the sacred observation of the Lord's 
 day, to which he adds that of Friday also, the day of Christ's cruci- 
 fixion, and teaches the soldiers of his army to pray by a short form 
 made for their use, ******* 
 
 But the great defectiveness of doctrine failed not to influence the 
 practice as usual. External piety flourished, monastic societies in par- 
 ticular places were also growing ; but faith, love, heavenly-mindedness, 
 appeaf very rare ; yet among the poor and obscure Christians, I hope 
 there was far more godliness than could be seen at courts, and among 
 bishops and persons of eminence. The doctrine of real conversion 
 was very much lost, or external baptism was placed in its stead ; and 
 the true doctrine of justification by faith, and the true practical use of 
 a crucified Savior for troubled consciences, were scarce to be seen at 
 this time. There was much outward religion, but this could not make men 
 saints in heart and life. The worst part of the character of Constan- 
 tine is, that as he grew older, he grew more culpable, oppressive in his 
 ■own family, oppressive to the government, oppressive by eastern su- 
 perfluous magnificence, and the facts to be displayed will shew how 
 little true humility and charity were now known in the christian world, 
 while superstition and self-righteousness were making vigorous shoots, 
 and the real gospel of Christ was hidden from men who professed it." 
 — Milner^s Church History, Vol. 11. pp. 50 — 59. 
 
 " And at length a bold and open assault was n^iade against the Deity 
 of the Son of God, and persecution was stirred up against Christians, 
 by those who wore the christian name. The people of God were ex- 
 
24 
 
 ercised, refined, and improved, while the christian world at large was 
 torn 'in pieces with violence, intrigue, and scandalous animosities, to 
 the grief of all who loved the Son of God, and walked in his ways in 
 godly simplicity." — lb. p. 61. 
 
 This testimony comes from an eminent writer and minister of the 
 church of England, and is the more entitled to weight, because the au- 
 thor has turned aside from the proper work of a historian at this pe- 
 riod of history to give us a formal and labored argument in favor of 
 Church Establishments. As an offset to Milner's defence of church 
 establishments, I would recommend an examination'of Dr. Short's His- 
 tory of the Church of England, especially Chapter XVIII. 
 
 ^losheim, the " Illustrious," as he has often been called, speaking of 
 the same period, says : 
 
 " No sooner had Constantine, the Great, abolished the superstitions 
 of his ancestors, than magnificent churches were erected for the Chris- 
 tians, which were richly adorned with pictures and images, and bore a 
 striking resemblance of the pagan temples, both in their outward and 
 inward form. Of these churches sdme were built over the tombs of 
 martyrs, and were frequented only at stated times, while others were 
 set apart for the ordinary assemblies of Christians in divine worship. 
 The former were called martyria, from the places where they were 
 erected ; and the latter, tituli. Both of them were consecrated with 
 great pomp, and with certain rites, borrowed mostly from the ancient 
 laws of the Roman pontifls. 
 
 "But our wonder will not cease here,: it will rather be augmented 
 when we learn, that at this time it was looked upon as an essential 
 part of religion to have in every country a multitude of churches ; and 
 here we must look for the true origin of what is called the right of pa- 
 tronage., which was introduced amongrChristians with no other view 
 than to encourage the opulent to erect a great number of churches, by 
 giving them the privileffe of appointing the ministers that were to offici- 
 ate in them. This was a new instance of that servile imitation of the 
 ancient superstitions which reigned at this time ; for it was a very 
 common notion among the people of old, that nations and provinces 
 were happy and free from danger, in proportion to the number of fanes 
 and temples which they consecrated to the worship of gods and he- 
 roes, whose protection and succor could not fail, as it was thought, to 
 be shed abundantly upon those who worshipped them with such zeal 
 and honored them with so many marks of veneration and respect. The 
 Christians unhappily contracted the same erroneous way of thinking. 
 The greater the number of temples was which they erected in honor 
 
25 
 
 of Christ, and his chosen friends and followers, the more sanguine did 
 their expectations grow of powerful succors from them, and of a pecu- 
 liar interest in the divine protection. They were so weak as to imag- 
 ine that God, Christ, and celestial intelligences were delighted with 
 those marks arid testimonies of respect, which captivate the hearts of 
 wretched mortals." — Mosheim, Vol. I. pp. 302, 303. 
 
 The etfects of this system were in two centuries prodigious. For 
 proof, see history. Guizot gives us the following specimens of the 
 state of things at the beginning of the fifth century : 
 
 "Cod. Just., L. I., tit. IV., De Episcopali audientia § 26. With 
 regard to the yearly affairs of the cities, (whether as respects the ordi- 
 nary city revenues, the funds arising from the city estates, from lega- 
 cies or particular gifts, or from any other source ; whether as respects 
 the management of the public works, of the magazines of provisions, 
 of the aqueducts, of the maintenance of the public baths, the city gates, 
 of the building of walls or towers, the repairing of bridges and roads, 
 or of any landsuit in which the city may be engaged on account of pub- 
 lic or private interests,) we ordain as follows : The right reverend bish- 
 op, and three men of good report, from among the chiefs of the city, 
 shall assemble together every year ; they shall examine the works 
 done ; they shall take care that those who conduct, or have conducted 
 them, measure them correctly, give a true account of them, and cause 
 it to be seen that they have fulfilled their contracts, whether in the care 
 of the public monuments, in the moneys expended in provisions and 
 the public baths, of all that is expended for the repairs of the roads, 
 aqueducts, and all other matters. 
 
 Ibid., § 30. With respect to the guardianship of youth, of the first 
 and second age, and of all those to whom the law gives curators, it 
 their fortune is not more than 5,000 aurei, we ordain that the nomina- 
 tion of the president of the province should not be waited for, on ac- 
 count of the great expense it would occasion, especially if the presi- 
 dent should not reside in the city, in which it becomes necessary to 
 provide for the guardianship. The nomination of the curators or tu- 
 tors shall, in this case, be made by the magistrate of the city * * * 
 in concert with the right reverend bishop and other persons invested 
 with public authority, if more than one should reside in the city. 
 
 Ibid., L. I., tit. v., De Defensoribus, § 8. We desire the defenders 
 of cities, well instructed in the holy mysteries of the orthodox faith, 
 should be chosen and instituted into their office by the reverend bish- 
 ops, the clerks, notables, proprietors, and the curiales. With regard 
 to their installation, it must be committed to the glorious power of the 
 
26 
 
 prefects of the prgetorium, in order that their authority should have all 
 the stability and weight which the letters of admission granted by his 
 magnificence are likely to give." — Guizot on Civilization, p. 52. 
 
 Turning aside from this first disastrous and minatory experiment, 
 let us look at the operation of religious corporations in other countries, 
 and especially those in the west of Europe, to whose people and in- 
 stitutions, ours are most nearly assimilated. First look at 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 According to "Le Cabinet du Roi," in France, before the Revolu- 
 tion the property of the church consisted of 180,000 fiefs, of which 
 83,000 had superior courts, 249,000 farms, 1,700,000 acres of , vine- 
 yard, besides 400,000 acres, from which the ecclesiastics received one- 
 third or one-fourth of the wine, 600,000 acres of unoccupied land, 
 ,245,000 water-wheels in flour and paper-mills, iron works, &c., 
 1,800,000 acres of woods, 1,400,000 acres of pasturage. The greater 
 part of the soil of the whole of France was also subject to the title of 
 the clergy j and there was not a patch of ground on which there was 
 not a mortgage, rent or religious foundation, or an annual tax of from 
 5, 10 to 50 sols for a mass, burning lamps, &c., &c. 
 
 Allison, in his History of Europe, Vol. I. pp. 51, 52, in a note says, 
 upon the ^.uthority of Neckar: "The total revenues of the church de- 
 rived from tithes were 130,000,000 francs; of which only 42,000,000 
 were in the hands of the parochial clergy. The number of ecclesias- 
 tics was 80,000." (Sieyes is his authority.) He adds: "but this 
 revenue, large as it was, was inconsiderable compared to the extent-of 
 the territorial possessions of this body, which embraced nearly a half 
 of the whole land of France." For this assertion he quotes Rivarol, 
 93, and De Stael, 1.13. He adds: "The nobles and the clergy pos- 
 sessed two-thirds of the whole estates of the kingdom ; and the other 
 third was in the hands of the Tiers Etat, upon whom fell the greater 
 proportion of the burdens of the state ;" and for this assertion he 
 quotes Rivarol 93, 94, and De Stael I. 44, 198. In the text of his 
 work he says : " Within the bosom of the church and in all who fell 
 Avithin the sphere of its influence, the seeds of deep-rooted discontent 
 were to be found.. This arose from the invidious exclusion of all 
 persons of plebeian birth from the dignities and emoluments of the 
 ecclesiastical establishment. In extraordinary cases, indeed, the force 
 of talent may. have procured elevation, without the advantages of 
 blood; but, generally speaking, the dignitaries of the church were 
 composed of the same class as the marshals or princes of the empire. 
 While the bishops and elevated clergy were rolling in wealth, or glit- 
 
27 
 
 tering in the sunshine of royal favor, the humbler clergy, to whom the 
 whole practical duties of Christianity were devolved, toiled in virtuous 
 obscurity, hardly elevated either in rank or comfort above the peasant- 
 ry wlio composed their flocks. The simple piety and unostentatious 
 usefulness of these rural priests, while it endeared them to their parish- 
 ioners, formed a striking contrast to the luxurious habits and dissipated 
 lives of the high-born dignitaries of the church. Their enormous 
 wealth excited the envy both of their own estabhshment and of the 
 lower classes of the people, while the general idleness in which they 
 passed their lives afforded no possibility of justifying the scandalous 
 inequality of their fortunes. Hence the universal indignation in 1789 
 at the vices and corruption of the church, and the facility with which, 
 in the very commencement of the Revolution, their property was sac- 
 rificed to relieve the embarrassments of the finances." 
 
 Were it requisite a world of proof to the same effect might be pro- 
 duced. But there is no gentleman before the Committee, who will 
 have the temerity to deny the enormous abuses of church property 
 and church power in France, nor to express even a doubt as to its in- 
 fluence in bringing about that terrific explosion, which has scattered its 
 lava over Europe, and its ashes over the world. 
 
 CHANCELLOR TUCKER. 
 
 Judge Henry St. George Tucker in his 'Opinion,' as Chancellor, 
 "in the case' of Selden and others against the Overseers of the Poor 
 of Loudoun and another," says: (p. 16,) "The vast domains of the 
 clergy, acquired in the lapse of centuries, by the Catholic establish- 
 ment of France, are known to us all. There seems to be little reason 
 to doubt that from this fatal source, among others, a revolution sprung, 
 which deluged the loveliest country of Europe in blood; and in its 
 horrible progress, spread desolation over adjoining states, and shook 
 the civilized world to its very centre. But it may be said " that this 
 was anti-christ," and that it is not fair to attribute' to the Protestant re- 
 ligion the errors which they had been forward to denounce in the prac- 
 tices of popery. Look then across the channel to Protestant England, 
 and there we shall see, notwithstanding every legislative precaution^ a 
 church establishment possessed of overgrown wealth, less devoted to 
 the cause of genuine religion than to pamper the luxury and indolence 
 of the high dignitaries of the church." 
 
 ENGLAND, 
 
 This introduces us to England, of whose Constitution I am free to 
 say, that, with one exception, (our own,) it is the best in the world. 
 
28 
 
 At an early period, (we need not stop to enquire when,) the power ot 
 taking, holding, and transmitting property, was granted to the church* 
 From that time to the present, incalculable wrongs to private individu- 
 als, and inestimable dangers to the State have frequently arisen from 
 this source. The statute books are covered over with evidence of this 
 truth. Thus Blackstone (Book 1st, ch. xviii. Vol. I. pp. 478, 479,) 
 says : " We before observed that it was incident to every corporation 
 to have a capacity to purchase lands for themselves and successors ; 
 and this is regularly ti'ue at the common law. But they are excepted 
 out of the statute of wills, so that no devise of lands to a corporation by 
 will is good ; except for charitable uses, by statute 43, Eliz. ch. iv. 
 which exception is again greatly narrowed by the statute 9 George II, 
 ch. xxxvi. And also, by a great variety of statutes, their privilege even 
 of purchasing from any living ' grantor is much abridged : so that now 
 a corporation, either ecclesiastical or lay, must have a license from the 
 .king to purchase before they can exert that capacity, which is vested 
 in them by the common law ; nor is even this in all cases sufficient. 
 These statutes are generally called the statutes of mortmain, all purcha- 
 ses made by corporate bodies being said to be purchases in mortmain, 
 in mortua manu ; for the reason of which appellation Sir Edward 
 Coke offers many conjectures ; but there is one, which seems more 
 probable ijian any that he has given us ; viz. that these purchases be- 
 ing usually made by ecclesiastical bodies, the members of which (being 
 professed) were reckoned dead persons in law, land therefore, holden 
 by them, might with great propriety be said to be held in mortua 
 manu." 
 
 Mortmain, according to Angel & Ames on Cor. p. 90, means "the 
 dead clutch of ecclesiastical corporations." 
 
 So also in Book IV, ch. viii,. Vol. iv. pp. 108, 109, Blackstone says : 
 " Another engine set on foot, or at least greatly improved, by the court 
 of Rome, was a masterpiece of papal policy. Not content with the 
 ample provision of tithes, which the law of the land had given to the 
 parochial clergy, they endeavored to grasp at the lands and inheritances 
 of the kingdom, and (had not the legislature withstood them) would by 
 this time have probably been masters of every foot of ground in the 
 kingdom. To this end they introduced the monks of the Benedictine 
 .and other rules, men of sour and austere religion, separated from the 
 world and its concerns by a vow of perpetual celibacy, yet fascinating 
 the minds of the people by pretences to extraordinary sanctity, while 
 all their aim was to aggrandize the power and extend the influence of 
 their grand superior, the pope. And as, in those times of civil tumult. 
 
29 
 
 great rapines and violence were daily committed by overgrown lords 
 and their adherents, they were taught to believe, that founding a mon- 
 astery a little before their deaths would atone for a life of incontinence, 
 disorder, and bloodshed.' Hence innumerable abbeys and. religious 
 houses were built within a century after the conquest, and endowed, 
 not only with the tithes of parishes, which were ravished from the sec- 
 ular clergy, but also with lands, manors, lordships, and extensive baro- 
 nies. And the doctrine inculcated was, that whatever was so given to, 
 or purchased by, the monks or friars, was consecrated to God himself; 
 and that to alienate or take it away was no less than the sin of sac- 
 rilege." 
 
 Indeed Magna Carta itself " established the testamentary power of 
 the subject over part of his personal estate, the rest being distributed 
 amongst his wife and children," thus arresting the power of disinherit- 
 ing a man's own household. See Blackstone, Book IV, ch. xxxiii. Vol. 
 iv, p. 424. 
 
 We find Edward the First (the English Justinian,) attempting to ar- 
 rest this evil " by obliging the ordinary, to whom all the goods of in- 
 testates belonged, to discharge the debts of the deceased." "He. also 
 effectually closed the great gulph, in .which all the landed property of 
 the kingdom was in danger of being swallowed by his reiterated stat- 
 utes of mortmain ; most admirably adapted to meet the frauds that had 
 then been devised, though afterwards contrived to be evaded by the in- 
 vention of uses." See Blackstone, Book IV, ch. xxxiii. pp.. 425, 426. 
 
 This brings. us to the consideration of the Statute 43 Elizabeth, con- 
 cerning charitable uses, which statute, like those of mortmain, was in- 
 terpreted by the Courts under the influence of the maxim, smnma est 
 ratio quae pro religione facit, aiid led, as many cases show, to innu- 
 merable abuses, until it was further limited by the statute 9 Geo. IL 
 Yet this celebrated statute (43 Eliz.) pronounces a superstitious use 
 " to be where lands, tenements, rents, goods, or chattels are given, se- 
 cured, or appointed, for and towards the maintenance of a priest or 
 chaplain to say mass ; for the maintenance of a priest, or other man, 
 to pray for the soul of any dead man, in such a church or elsewhere ; 
 to have or maintain perpetual obits, lamps, torches, &c. to be used at 
 certain times, to help to save the souls of men out of purgatory ; these, 
 and such like uses, are declared to be superstitious, to which the king, 
 by force of Several statutes, and as the head of the church and state, 
 and entrusted by the common law,, to see that nothing is done in main- 
 tenance or propagation of a false religion, is entided, so as to direct 
 and appoint all such uses to such as are truly charitable." . 1 Bacon's 
 Abridgement, p. 581. 
 
30 
 
 Can the Legislature of Virginia put any such check as thi;' to their 
 own grants ? Is it competent to grant power to take and hold funds to 
 encourage the saying of prayers for the living, and not for the dead 1 
 If so, where is such competency declared ? If you begin to grant, you 
 must grant indiscriminately to Protestants, and Romanists. 
 
 It is curious, yea more, it is instructive, to note the decisions under 
 the statute of Elizabeth. I Avill cite a few of them. Here is one : 
 
 " ..li, being a beneficed clergyman, devised 600£ to Mr. Baxter, to 
 be distributed by him among sixty pious ejected ministers, and added, 
 that he did not give it to them for the sake of their non-conformity, but 
 because he knew many of them to be pious and good men, and in great 
 Want ; he also gave Mr. Baxter 20£, and 20£ to be laid out in a book of 
 his, entitled, Baxter's Call to the Unconverted ; and this was holden a su- 
 perstitious use, which though void, yet the charity is good, and shall 
 be applied in eodem genere; and it was decreed for the maintenance 
 of a chaplain in Chelsea college. lb. 582. 
 
 What a beautifully tangled hank our courts would have to unravel 
 in the application of the whole doctrine of cy pres, were you to go into 
 this business, as the petition proposes. To circulate Baxter's Call, 
 yea to feed sixty hungry and eminent servants of God, (the best men 
 of their day,) was a piece of superstition. Therefore, the money must 
 go towards 'supporting a man of truckling servilitj^ a Chelsea chaplain. 
 
 The above decision was made in the days of Richard Baxter, by 
 North, Lord Keeper, and was not reversed by the Lords Commission- 
 ers until 1 W. & M. by which time I' suppose most of the sixty pious 
 ministers had gone to their "Everlasting Rest." 
 
 I will give another case : 
 
 " ji, by will, charged his estate with an annual sum for the mainte- 
 nance of Scotchmen in the university of Oxon, to be sent into Scot- 
 land, to propagate the doctrine of the church of England there ; and 
 presbyteries being settled in Scotland by act of parliament, the ques- 
 tion Was, Whether this devise should be Void, and so fall into the es- 
 tate and go to the heir, or should be applied cy pres? But the matter 
 doth not appear by the report to have been determined," — lb. 
 
 It seems then that the Act of settlement or something else has thrown 
 the English Courts into doubt whether poor benighted Scotland is not 
 tobe left wholly unillumined by the great lights from Oxford. Pos- 
 sibly some decision may have been made in later times, so that ere 
 now the Oxford Doctors (the Tractarians) are able to shed a little light 
 over their Northern neia-hbors. 
 
81 
 
 Here are some more decisions under this statute. 
 
 "In tlie case of an individual, if an estate be devised to such person 
 as the executor shall name, and no executor is appointed, or one being 
 appointed dies in the testator's hfe time, and no one is appointed in 
 his place, the bequest amounts to nothing. Yet such bequest to char- 
 ity would be good, and the Court of Chancery would in such case as- 
 sume the office of executor. So, if a legacy be given to trustees to 
 distribute in charity, and they die in the testator's life time, -although 
 the legacy is lapsed at law, (and if they had taken to their own use, 
 it would have been gone forever,) yet it will be enforced in equity. 
 Again, although in carrying into execution a bequest to an individual, 
 the mode in which the legacy is to take effect, must be of the substance 
 of the legacy; yet where the legacy is to charity, the Court will con- 
 sider charity as the substance ; and in such cases, and in such cases 
 only, if the mode pointed out fail, it will provide another mode, by 
 which the charity may take, but by which no other than charitable 
 legatees can take. A still stronger case is, that if the testator has ex- 
 pressed an absolute intention to give a legacy to charitable purposes, 
 but has left uncertain, or to some future act, the mode by which it is 
 to be carried into effect, then the Court of Chancery, if no mode is 
 pointed out, will of itself supply the defect, and enforce the charity. 
 Therefore, it has been held, that if a man devises a sum of money to 
 such charitable uses as he shall direct, by a codicil annexed to his 
 will, or by a note in writing, and afterwards leaves no direction by 
 note or codicil, the Court of Chancery will dispose of it to such chari- 
 table purposes as it thinks fit. So, if a testator bequeath a sum for 
 such a school as lie should appoint, and he appoints none, the Court 
 of Chancery may apply it for what school it pleases. The doctrine 
 has been pressed yet farther; and it has been established, that if the 
 bequest indicate a charitable intention, but the object to which it is to 
 be applied, is against the policy of the law, the Court will lay hold of 
 the charitable intentidn, and execute it for the purpose of some charity, 
 agreeable to the law, in the room of tliat contrary to it. Thus a sum 
 of money bequeathed to found a Jew's synagogue, lias been taken by 
 the Court and judicially transferred to the benefit of a foundling hospi- 
 tal! ! And a beqnest for the education of poor children in the Roman 
 Catholic faith has been decreed in Chancery to be disposed of by the 
 King at his pleasure, under his sign manual." — Appendix to 4 Jfhea' 
 ton's Reports, pp. 10, 11. 
 
 Though the statute of Henry VIH. of wills, did not allow of de- 
 vises of land to corporations to be good, yet such devises to corpora- 
 
32 
 
 lions for charitable uses, were held good, as appointments under tlie 
 statute of Elizabeth. Lord Chancellor Cowp'er, in a case where he 
 was called upon to declare a charitable bequest valid, notwithstanding 
 the will was not executed according to the statute of frauds, and these 
 cases were cited, observed, " I shall be very loth to break in upon the 
 statute of frauds and perjuries in this case, as there are no instances 
 where men are so easily imposed upon, as at the time of their dyings 
 under the pretence of charity. ^^ "It is true, the charity of judges has 
 carried several cases on the statute of Elizabeth great lengths ; and 
 this occasioned the distinction between operating by will and by ap- 
 pointment, which surely the makers of that statute never contempla- 
 ted."— 76. j5. 14. 
 
 ' I ask the Committee also to examine the case of the jittorney Gen- 
 eral vs. the Earl of Clarendon, given in 17 Vesey. 
 
 From all these cases and views one thing must be apparent, that if 
 the act of charitable uses, with all its guards against superstition, pro- 
 duced such monstrous results in the English Courts, where the Judi- 
 ciary is so enlightened, we in Virginia would be in a bad condition for 
 settling all the cases which would soon arise under this beautiful doc- 
 trine of cy pres. A sum of money left to circulate Baxter's Call 
 would, I suppose, be decreed to give some Quoit Club a Saturday's 
 dinner. Never did the founders of our government, and the framers 
 of our laws do a wiser thing than to refuse admission into our code to 
 the statute 43 Elizabeth, and thus send the doctrine of cy pref and all 
 its concomitants to seek an abode elsewhere.* 
 
 BlSriOP BURNET. 
 
 I wish to bring another witness on the stand. I think there will be 
 no exception made to his competency or credibility by gentlemen on 
 the other side. 
 
 Bishop Burnet, (Vol. I. part 1, Book 3, p. 303, Hist. Eeform.,) 
 speaking of the efforts to gain money to superstitious uses, and espe- 
 cially by means of the fiction of purgatory says: "They persuaded 
 all people, that the souls departed Avent generally thither: feM' were so 
 holy as to go straight to heaven; and few so bad as to be cast to hell. 
 The people were made believe that the saying of masses for their 
 souls gave them great relief in torments, and did at length deliver them 
 out of them. This being generally received, it was thought by all a 
 piece of piety to their parents, and of necessary care for themselves 
 and their families, to give some part of their estates towards the en- 
 riching of those houses, for having a mass said every day for the souls 
 of their ancestors, and for their own, after their death. And this did 
 
 *The statute 43 Elizabeth was repealed in Virginia in 1792. 
 
33 
 
 so spread, that if some laws had not restrained their profuseness, the 
 greater part of all the estates in England had been given to these houses. 
 But the statutes of mortmain were not very effectual restraints ; for 
 what king soever had refused to grant a mortmain was sure to have an 
 uneasy reign ever after." ' 
 
 Again, p. 490, he says: "The abbots had possessed themselves of 
 the best seats and the greatest wealth of the nation ; and, by a profuse 
 superstition, almost the one-half of the kingdom fell into the hands of 
 the churchmen. The bishops looked more after the affairs of the state, 
 than the concerns of the church ; and were resolved to maintain by 
 their cruelty what their predecessors had acquired by fraud and im- 
 postures." 
 
 And in Part II, Book I, Vol. II, p. 38, he says that the churches 
 which belonged to the abbeys, " were in value above the half of Eng- 
 land." And p. 458, he tells us that in the days of Bloody Mary, "the 
 statutes of mortmain were repealed for twenty years to come." 
 
 No doubt this bitter persecutor and her despicable minions thought 
 twenty years would be long enough to recover the best part of what 
 they had lost in the days of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. So says 
 Burnet in the 29lh page of the Introduction to Vol. III. 
 
 Some may, however, say that all this state of things in England 
 has long since passed by. Let such look into the journals of the day, 
 and their error will be corrected. A late number of the London Pa- 
 triot contains the following: 
 
 "At a recent meeting in Ireland, the following authentic statement 
 was made by the Chairman. He begged to be permitted to read the 
 following document, which had reference to the amount of property 
 left by the bishops of the Protestant church: — 
 
 Fowler, Archbishop of Dubhn, - - £150,000 
 Beresford, Archbishop of Tuam, - - 250,000 
 Agar, Archbishop of Cashel, ... 400,000 
 
 Stopford, Bishop of Cork, - - - 25,000 
 
 Percy, Bishop of Dromore, - - - 40,000 
 
 Cleaver, Bishop of Ferns, « - - 50,000 
 
 Bernard, Bishop of Limerick, - - 60,000 
 
 Porter, Bishop of Clogher, ... 250,000 
 Hawkins, Bishop of Raphoe, - - 25,000 
 
 . Knox, Bishop of Clogher, - - - 250,000 
 
 Stuart, Archbishop of Armaii, - - 300,000 
 
 '•"otal, £1,875,000 
 
34 
 
 And these men call themselves the successors of the twelve poor 
 fishermen of Galilee ! 
 
 The following statement is taken from the Eclectic Review. 
 
 "The Canterbury chapter, consisting of a dozen canons, enjoys 
 about £15,000 per annum; at Durham the same apostolic number 
 share about £30,000 a year. London is nearly the same. Westmin- 
 ster and Windsor come very close to £20,000 a year each. The 
 Warden and ten Winchester fellows share about £10,500 for positively 
 doing nothing. Not a sermon can be extracted from one of them that 
 we are aware of. The entire income of our cathedral and collegiate 
 bodies stands in the parliamentary report at £284,241, exclusive of 
 fines, leases, residences, and the like ; which, as is well known, and 
 was demonstrated in the House of Commons by Lord Monteagle, 
 would add another £150,000 of annual revenue to the amount by a 
 fair change of leaseholds into freeholds. It is not too much therefore 
 to take the gross sum, comprehending within it about sixty sinecure 
 rectories at 550 representing a capital of about eighteen millions sterl- 
 ing, at the present prices of landed property." 
 
 Does any man wish to see such a state of things in this land ? Even 
 to contemplate it as possible a thousand years hence is revolting to our 
 best feelings. Surely, then, you will not render it certain, nor even 
 probable, by a wholesale grant of charters. Who, that knows the his- 
 tory of manners in England for the last hundred years, can be ignorant 
 of the fact that highly salaried clergymen, and, by their permission, 
 their sons have often figured in fox-hunts and steeple-chases, to the 
 great annoyance of the humble laborer, whose crops they have injured 
 and exposed ? 
 
 HOW THIS THING GREW. 
 
 The question arises, how was all this property of the English es- 
 tablishment acquired ? The answer is given by Judge Tucker in the 
 opinion already quoted. He says: "The evil has not sprung from 
 the particular creeds, or the peculiarities of confession of faith ; it grows 
 out of the very nature of the thing. The. church, while it is continual- 
 ly acquiring from the liberality of the pious, or the fears of the timid, 
 or the credulity of the ignorant, never can part with any thing ; and 
 thus, like those sustaining powers in mechanics, which retain whatever 
 they once have gained, it advances with a step that never tires, and 
 that never retrogrades. The natural cupidity of the human heart is 
 watched by the devotee himself, with the.less jealousy in his pursuit 
 after acquisitions for the church, since he flatters himself that it is pu- 
 rified from the dross of selfishness, and is sanctified by the holy objects 
 
35 
 
 oi' his ambition. Thus it is, that, however humble in its beginnings, 
 a church establishment must gather strength in its progress. 
 
 Parva metu prime ; mox sese attoUit in auras 
 lagrediturque solo, et caput inter nubila condit." 
 
 In other words it was by the ''paulatim process," that all this pro- 
 perty and power have been accumulated through the course of many 
 centuries. When Apelles was asked why he took so much pains with 
 a piece of painting, his answer was, " I paint for eternity." 
 
 His fame and his saying have come down to us. When you lewis- 
 late I hope you will remember that you are legislating for ao-es as late 
 as shall hear of the fame of Apelles. 
 
 If you go into this business, I hope it will not be until the legislature 
 shall have appointed a large committee, learned in the history of law, 
 who shall present you a scheme guarding in every point the liberties 
 of the present and coming generations — a committee wiser than all the 
 world that has gone before them, for none have been wise enough hith- 
 erto to prevent the atrocious abuses just alluded to. 
 
 MEXICO. 
 
 Some may, however, say that these examples are drawn from mo- 
 narchical governments, and from the old world. Tha;t is true. Let 
 us come to the new world, and to a sister republic. I refer to Mexico. 
 Like ourselves, she cast off", by a successful revolution, the authority 
 of the mother country. She established the Constitution of 1824. Un- 
 der the most sacred forms of law, decree, and grant, she invited the 
 people of the United States to settle in at least a portion of her territo- 
 ry, guaranteeing to them a federative system, free toleration of the 
 Protestant religion, the inviolability of private property, and a republi- 
 can form of government. The nation, though long oppressed and de- 
 based, was beginning to rise. In provincial assembhes, and in the na- 
 tional congress, men were learning, that they had rights. They even 
 ventured to think for themselves, and to maintain their opinions with 
 argument. Some began to think, that if they could judge for them- 
 selves in affairs of government, and international law, possibly they 
 might learn the will of their Maker from his holy word, without tlie 
 infallible guidance of a priest. In short, the spirit of freedom wns 
 growing among the people. The Church dio-nitaries took the alarm, 
 and enquired, " whereunto will this thing grow ?" They looked about 
 for a tool of their evil designs, A man supposed to be of the right stamp 
 was found. His name was D, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Under the 
 
36 
 
 plan of Toluca, which bears date 29th May, 1835, the Constitution i« 
 destroyed, and a Central Government is to be established. The Priest- 
 hood is again triumphant. The car of Liberty is rolled back, and 
 chained to the altar of these miscreants. Santa Anna is at the head of 
 affairs, the tool of bigotry, despotism and cruelty. But things had gone 
 too far to allow such a revolution without at least a passive resistance 
 in some quarter. Therefore, war must be waged, and war costs money. 
 True to their instincts, the priests came forth, with the Arch Bishop of 
 Mexico at their head, and pledged the needful' sum. Two Bishops 
 gave one million of dollars. 
 
 Thus the business of enslaving mankind to the hierarchy went brave- 
 ly on, until a certain San Jacinto affair checked the progress of this 
 chief and tool of tyrants. But it checked it only as to one of the States, 
 (Texas,) and that now righteously and lawfully freed from Mexican 
 misrule. The rest are caught in the trap of these priests. 
 
 To give some idea of the splendor of this church property in Mexi- 
 co, allow me to present one item : 
 
 In the Cathedral of Puebla de los Angeles hangs a chandelier of 
 massive gold and silver, not of ounces avoirdupois, but whole tons in 
 weight, collected under the viceroys from the various tributary mines. 
 On the right hand side of the altar stands "a carved figure of the Virgin 
 dressed in beautiful embossed satin — executed by the nuns of the place. 
 Around her neck is sdspended a row of pearls, of precious value, a 
 coronet of pure gold encircles her brow, and her waist is bound with a 
 zone of pure diamonds and enormous brilliants. The candelabras in 
 the cathedral are of silver and gold, too massive to be raised even by 
 the strongest hand ; and the Host is one mass of splendid jewels of the 
 richest kind. In the Mexican cathedral there is a railing of exquisite 
 v/orkmanship, five feet in height, and two hundred feet in length, of 
 gold and silver, on which stands a figure of tlie Virgin of Remedois, 
 with three petticoats — one of pearls, one of emeralds, one of diamonds : 
 the figure alone is valued at three millions of dollars. In the church 
 of Gaudeloupe there are still richer and more splendid articles ; and in 
 that of Loretto they have figures representing the Last Supper, before 
 whom are placed piles of gold and silver plate, to represent the sim- 
 plicity of that event. It is the same in all churches and cathedrals in 
 Mexico. The starving Lepero kneels before a figure of the Virgin, 
 worth three millions, yet would die of want before he would allow him- 
 self to touch one of the brilliants in her robes, worth to him a fortune* 
 About a hundred millions of dollars are thus locked up in church orna- 
 ments, while nothing is laid out in public education, roads, canals, pub- 
 lic improvements, and true national glory. 
 
37 
 
 MORA. 
 
 I hold in my hand a volume of a work by an eminent Mexican, who 
 for many years has resided in Paris. His work is in 2 Vols, 8 vo. 
 The title page reads thus: " Obras Sueltas, (Loose Leaves,) de Jose 
 Maria Luis Mora, Ciudadano Mexicano. Paris, 1837." On pages 372 
 and 373, Vol. I, he gives extended tables of the Church Property up 
 to the year 1832. According to him the total annual nett income of 
 the hierarchy is $7,456,593, which invested at the rate of 5 per cent, 
 per annum, corresponds to a capital of $149,131,860. The value of 
 the unproductive property, vases, images, pearls, precious stones, &c., 
 &c., is §30,031,894. This is exclusive of Libraries of Convents, &c. 
 Thus the whole church property of Mexico is equal to $179,163,754. 
 
 Let it be remembered, Sir, that this view is given by a Mexican, a 
 Patriot, a papist, a man, who desires to see the Romish Church pros- 
 per in that country, a man, who in the same work has given a '' Fre- 
 supuesto,'" or estimate of what he was willing to allow for the support 
 of the Clergy in Mexico, amounting to $4,889,200 per annum, and cor- 
 responding to a capital, at 5 per cent., of $97,784,000 ; and which is 
 contrasted with the present amount, viz : $7,456,593 per annum, or a 
 capital, productive and unproductive, of $179,163,754. 
 
 In these tables, so long as they correspond with the facts in the case, 
 the doom of Mexican liberty is written. 
 
 OUR COUNTRY. 
 
 Leaving other countries, let us come to our own. Have we no warn- 
 ings from corporations of overgrown wealth in our own land ? Is there 
 not already a great accumulation of wealth in the corporation of Trini- 
 ty Church, New. York ? An intelligent gentleman from that city re- 
 cently informed me, that he supposed it to amount to one hundred 
 millions. Probably his estimate was too large. Suppose it too large 
 by one-half, or even three-foarths, and yet that sum ($25,000,000,) 
 continually augmenting. AVhat a mighty engitie may it become in de- 
 stroying our. noblest institutions ? I may say what an engine has it al- 
 ready become for the destruction of the purity of religion, and the de- 
 cency of manners in the person of the highest church dignitary con- 
 nected with it ! I have no heart 6ven to mention the degrading vices 
 and lewd majiners of which he has been found guilty by the proper 
 authorities of his own sect, yet, behold, how he is defended, excused, 
 and hugged to the bosom by many, and even by the convention of his 
 own diocese. 
 
 Does any man believe that but for the influence remote and imme- 
 
38 
 
 diate of these vast chartered funds he could have hekl his present po- 
 sition even for a day ? Very sure am I that EpiseopaUans in Virginia 
 have no more sympathy ^vith such men than other denominations have. 
 A long course of corruption, founded probably as much on the evil in- 
 fluence of wealth as any thing else, is necessary to bring a church to 
 such a condition. 
 
 I am happy that one of the gentlemen has had the candor to say 
 that : " It is unquestionably true, that there are examples of ecclesias- 
 tical opulence, far transcending what we can conceive to be safe, legit- 
 imate, or useful." I ask the committee to note the admission, and 
 make the proper inferences from it. He does not indeed say that these 
 cases are to be found in our country, but if you create two thousand 
 religious corporations by one act, who will be security that our coun- 
 try will not soon furnish as many of them as any other ? 
 
 STATE OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 But it seems that careful as I was in the beginning of this debate to 
 state the question, I am met with a flat denial, that any corporate pow- 
 ers, any chartered rights are sought at your hand. I confess I am 
 amazed at this denial; and I must say that it is inconsistent with the 
 oft-repeated language of the petition itself, and of the whole history 
 of this movement. See pp. 8, 9. I ask the attention of the Com- 
 mittee to the nature of corporations. Judge Blackstone, Book 1, 
 chap. 18, Vol. 1, pp. 473, 476, thus defines the "incidents which are 
 tacitly annexed of course" to a " corporation already formed and 
 named." 
 
 "1. To have perpetual succession. This is the very end of its in- 
 corporation ; for there cannot be a succession forever, without an in- 
 corporation : and therefore all Aggregate corporations have a power 
 necessarily implied, of electing members in the room of such as go off. 
 
 2. To sue or be sued, implead or be impleaded, grant or reeeive, by 
 its corporate name, and do all other acts as natural persons may. 
 
 3. To purchase lands, and hold them for the benefit of themselves 
 and their successors ; which two are consequential to the former. 
 
 4. To have a common seal. For a corporation, being an invisible 
 body, cannot manifest its intentions by any personal act or oral dis- 
 course ; it therefore acts and speaks only, by its common seal. For, 
 though the particular members may express their private consents to 
 any act by words, or signing their names, yet this does not bind the 
 corporation ; it is the fixing of the seal, and that only, which unites 
 the several assents of the individuals, who compose the community, 
 and makes one joint assent of the whole." [The modification of this 
 
39 
 
 principle it is unnecessary to state. Later authorities give the excep- 
 tions clearly.] 
 
 5. To make bj^-Iaws or private statutes for the better government of 
 the corporation, which are bincUng upon themfi&lves, unless contrary 
 to the laws of the land, and then they are void. This is also included 
 by law in the very act of incorporation; for as natural reason is given 
 to the natural body for the governing it, so by-laws or statutes are a 
 sort of political reason to govern the body politic. And this right of 
 making by-laws for their own government, not contrary to the law of 
 the land, was allowed by the law of the twelve tables at Rome. But 
 no trading company is witli us allowed to make by-laws which may 
 affect the King's prerogative, or the common profit of the people, under 
 penalty of £40, unless they be approved by the Chancellor, Treasurer, 
 and chief justices, or the judges of assize in their circuits; and even 
 though they be so approved,, still if contrary to law they are void. 
 These five powers are inseparably incident to every corporation, at 
 least to every corporation aggregate: for two of them, though they 
 may be practised, yet are very unnecessary to a corporation sole: viz: 
 to have a corporate seal to testify his sole assent, and to make statutes 
 tor the regulation of his own conduct." 
 
 From this quotation it plainly appears, that unless the petitioners do 
 ask for acts of incorporation, they ask for nothing; and then there is 
 nothing before you, and then this whole debate is idle. But do they 
 not ask for '-perpetual succession" in the legal sense of that term? 
 Do they not ask the power of ^eing and of being sued? If not, how 
 will they i-ecover money due them? Surely not by violence. Do 
 they not ask the privilege of investing their funds as they think most 
 safe and productive? Tiien-they wish the power of "purchasing 
 lands." A deed of trust, or a mortgage on real estate is but a condi- 
 tional purchase of lands, and if the beneficiary in said deed may not 
 actually purchase, the (\cqx\ may be a nullity. De they not desire to 
 "have a common seal," to be used in deeds and covenants? If not, 
 then they propose, after getting all they ask, to act in their own per- 
 sons just as if you had granted them nothing, become personally own- 
 ers of the real estate they may manage for the congregations they rep- 
 resent, and of course they will be nothing but ordinary and irresponsi- 
 ble trustees, such as we have now. Do they not desire the power of 
 making by-laws? They maybe few and simple; they may not be 
 published in a code; they may be unwritten; they may be mere 
 usages ; but they may be by-laws notwithstanding. If the petitioners 
 wish no such power then they wish to govern their property without 
 
40 
 
 any principles whatever, or as Blackstone says, without political rea- 
 son." 
 
 But as tliere is positively nothing in all this discussion, except an 
 unmeaning war of words, and as you can do positively nothing for the 
 petitioners over and above what they .now possess, except by giving 
 corporate powers, I must be permitted to dwell a little on this new 
 turn attempted to be given to the discussion. All business in courts 
 of law and equity must be in the name of some person. Persons are 
 either natural or artificial. The petitioners, as natural persons, labor 
 under no disabilities. They can take, hold, and transmit property, 
 sue and be sued, give, alien, sell and convey as may please them best. 
 But they ask to be made artificial persons for certain purposes. In 
 other words they ask that natural persons may variously and numer- 
 ously associate all over the state and be empowered to perform in law 
 what natural persons may perform. I ask the Committee to consider 
 the following legal authorities. The first is found on page 1 of Angel 
 and Ames on Corporations : 
 
 WHAT IS A CORPORATION? 
 
 "A corporation is a body, created by law, composed of individuals 
 united under a common name, the members of which succeed each 
 other, so that the body continues the same, notwithstanding the change 
 of the individuals who compose it, and is, for certain purposes, consid- 
 ered as a natural person." 
 
 If any thing at all is sought by the petitioners, do they not ask as 
 much as is here declared to constitute a corporation? Their alleged 
 grievance now is not that they have been disfranchised as natural per- 
 sons but that they have not been enfranchised over and above what 
 they naturally possess. 
 
 Here is another authority. 
 
 Kyd, tlie first Englishman who professed, to write exclusively and 
 systematically on corporations, says : (1 Kyd, 13.) 
 
 "A corporation, or body politic, or body incorporate, is a collection 
 of many individuals united in one body, under a special denomination, 
 having perpetual Succession under an artificial form, and vested by the 
 policy of the law with a capacity of acting, in several respects, as an 
 individual, particularly of taking and granting property, contracting ob- 
 ligations, and of suing and being sued; of enjoying privileges and im- 
 munities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, 
 more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the 
 powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any 
 subsequent period of its existence," 
 
41 
 
 This is just what I have all along said was asked for by the peti- 
 tioners. 
 
 Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Dartmouth College vs. Wood- 
 ward, (4 Wheaton, R., p. 636,) says: 
 
 "A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and exist- 
 ing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it 
 possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation con- 
 fers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. 
 These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for 
 which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, 
 and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality ; properties, by 
 which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the 
 same, and may act as a single individual." 
 
 The same eminent jurist, in the case of Providence Bank vs. Bil- 
 lings, (4 Peters, R., 562,) Says: 
 
 "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and 
 
 properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." 
 
 Some of the terms in which these definitions are given, require some 
 
 explanation. I will give authoritative interpretations. Thus say Angel 
 
 and Ames, pp. 4, 5, 6: 
 
 "A corporation, we have seen, is a political institution merely, and 
 it has, therefore, no other capacities than such as are necessary to ef- 
 fect the purpose of its creation. It cannot be deemed a moral agent, 
 subject to moral obligation; nor can it, like a natural person, be sub- 
 ject to personal suflering. This principle explains many of the inca- 
 pacities ascribed to a corporation, and without, as Mr. Kyd says, hav- 
 ing recourse to the quaint observation, common in the old books, "that 
 it exists merely in idea, and has neither soul nor body." It is reported 
 by Lord Coke, that C. Baron Man wood demonstrated that corporations 
 have no soul by the following curious syllogism : "None can create 
 souls but God; but a corporation is created by the King; therefore a 
 corporation can have no soul." On these principles it is that a cor- 
 poration cannot be guilty of a crime, as treason or felony." 
 
 " The immortality of a corporation means only its capacity to take 
 in perpetual succession, as long as the corporation exists ; so far is it 
 from being literally true that a corporation is immortal, many corpora- 
 tions of recent creation are limited in their duration to a certain num- 
 ber of years. A corporation without Hmitation may be dissolved, and 
 consequently cease to exist, for want of members, voluntary surrender 
 of franchises, forfeiture by misuser, &c. When it is said, therefore, 
 that a corporation is immortal, we can understand nothing more than 
 
42 
 
 that it may exist for an indefinite duration; and the authorities which 
 have been cited to prove its immortality in any other sense, do not 
 warrant the conclusion drawn from them." 
 
 " Upon the application of the epithet invisibility to corporations, 
 which is often met with in the books, Mr. Kyd has bestowed the fol- 
 lowing just criticism : "That a body framed by the policy of man, a 
 body whose parts and members are mortal, should in its own nature 
 be immortal; or that a body composed of many bulky, visible bodies 
 should be invisible, in the common acceptation of the word, seems 
 beyond the reach of common understandings. A corporation is as 
 visible a body as an army ; for though the commission or authority be 
 not seen by every one, yet the body, united by that authority, is seen 
 by all but the blind. When, therefore, a corporation is said to be in- 
 visible, that expression must be understood of the right in many per- 
 sons collectively, to act as a corporation, and then it is as visilile in 
 the eye of the law, as any other right whatever, of which natural per- 
 sons are capable : it is a right of such a nature, that every member, 
 separately considered, has a freehold in it, and all, jointly considered, 
 have an inheritance which may go in succession." 
 
 "The above criticis^n will apply to the intangible nature ascribed 
 to corporations, and it seems equally impossible to comprehend why a 
 number of bulky persons may not be touched, as M'ell as be seen. In 
 one sense, however, a corporation is intangible, and that is, if an exe- 
 cution issue against it, there is no body which can be arrested; for 
 although the officer may both perceive and touch the bodies of the 
 individual members, yet he cannot take the body of either of them by 
 virtue of the execution against the corporate body. It was held, as 
 long since as the reign of Edward IV., that a corporation could not be 
 imprisoned ; and the same doctrine has been since repeatedly recog- 
 nized." ' 
 
 I then refer it to the Committee candidly to judge, whether the peti- 
 tioners are not asking for acts of incorporation. Nor are they asking 
 to be erected into quasi corporations, (see Angel and Ames, p. 17,) 
 and if they were asking to be made quasi corporations, they would be 
 asking for that which is perhaps more general, less definite, and less 
 controllable in some respects than corporations themselves. "The 
 overseers of the poor" for any county are a quasi corporation. That 
 is, for certain purposes they may act as if they were a corporation. 
 They have perpetual succession; thej^ can take and hold, sue and be 
 sued. They are called a quasi corporation because the fact of their 
 
43 
 
 •appointment does, without an act of the Legislature concerning them, 
 invest them with these powers. 
 
 Lord Bacon says: "Iterations are commonly loss of time: but there 
 is no such gain of time, as to iterate often the state of the question; 
 for it chaseth away many a frivolous speech as it is coming forth." I 
 trust, therefore, I shall be pardoned for this clearing of the state of the 
 question. Having done so, it is proper I should here call attention to 
 the fact that the committee and legislature have no evidence whatever, 
 that the people of this State do generally desire any such law, as that 
 I oppose. On the contrary I believe a vast majority are utterly averse 
 to it. 
 
 THE MKTHODISTS. 
 
 The Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, called the 
 "Virginia Conference," in session at Norfolk, Notember, 1845, adopt- 
 ed with entire unanimity, the following preamble and resolution, intro- 
 duced by Rev. Dr. Smith, (now, 1847, President of Randolph Macon 
 College.) viz : 
 
 "Whereas, the existing laws of Virginia, securing the right of pro- 
 perty in houses of worship and in two acres of land in towns, and in 
 thirty acres of land in the country, to boards of trustees, for the use 
 of the church or congregation, are amply sufficient; and whereas, any 
 act for the general incorporation of churches or their benevolent insti- 
 tutions, empowering them to hold any greater amount of money or 
 property, would, in our judgmentj be of dangerous tendency both in a 
 political and ecclesiastical point of view, because calculated in practical 
 operation to endow the ministry of the several churches and, render 
 them independent of the active liberality of the people they serve ; 
 therefore. 
 
 Resolved, That we do not concur in the efTort now being made by 
 the Protestant Episcopalians and others, to secure from the Legislature 
 of Virginia a general act incorporating the several churches with their 
 benovolent institutions, and that we earnestly recommend to our breth- 
 ren of the laity maturely to investigate the probable results of this 
 movement before they lend their names or influence to further its ob- 
 jects." 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIANS. 
 
 The Presbyterian Synod of Virginia took up the subject at its. ses- 
 sions at Norfolk in the fall of 1844, and voted as follows: 
 
 " Whereas, the Synod of Virginia are informed through the public 
 prints, that petitions Mall be presented to the Legislature of this Com- 
 monwealth, earnestly calling upon them to enact some general law for 
 the indiscriminate incorporation of institutions, claiming to be Literary, 
 
44 
 
 Benevolent, or Religious, and that gi-cat efforts are making by gentle 
 men every way entitled to respect for their piety, talents, and high 
 character, to present these petitions in an imposing form; therefore, 
 
 1. Resolved, That this body, composed of the ministers and Elders 
 of the Presbyterian Church in Virginia, are imperiously called upon 
 for an expression of their views on a subject so deeply affecting the 
 religious and political interests of the community, among whom they 
 dwell, and of whom they form a component part. 
 
 2. Resolved, That this Synod, in the main, cordially approve of the 
 general policy of the Legislature, in abstaining from all interference 
 with religion, farther than to spread Over it the shield of their protec- 
 tion, so as to secure entire religious freedom to every inhabitant of the 
 State. 
 
 3. Resolved, That this Synod cannot view without serious appre- 
 hensions, the adoption of such a measure as that set forth in the fore- 
 going preamble, which the history of the church and of the world, 
 proves to be fraught with so much evil to the welfare, both civil and 
 religious, of mankind. 
 
 4. Resolved, That this Synod do enter their most solemn protest 
 against the enactment by the Legislature of Virginia, of any general 
 law for the indiscriminate incorporation of institutions, claiming to be 
 Literary, Benevolent, or Religious. 
 
 5. Resolved, That this Synod do most respectfully ask of the Leg- 
 islature of this Commonwealth, that they will make no fundamental 
 change in the existing laws of the State, which have any bearing upon 
 the subject of Religion or Religious Institutions; — but that they will 
 leave themselves at liberty to consider each particular application, 
 which may hereafter be presented to them, on its own merits, and to 
 act on it under a sense of their duty to God and to their country. 
 
 6. Resolved, That should the petitions, above referred to, come up 
 for consideration in the General Assembly of Virginia, the Stated Clerk 
 be directed to forward an attested copy of this preamble and these 
 resolutions to the Speaker of the Senate, and to the Speaker of the 
 House of Delegates." 
 
 I understand that to the last General Assembly a memorial, adverse 
 to the petition before you, was presented. Not having seen it I shall 
 say nothing concerning its contents. 
 
 BAI'TISTS. 
 
 There has been an attempt made to produce the impression upon the 
 Committee, that the Baptists favored the passage of a general law. 
 This I believe is an entire mistake. That denomination does, I be- 
 
45 
 
 iieve, desire acts of incorporation for two or three religious societies ; 
 but I hold in my hdnd a paper, which has been laid upon the desks of 
 all the members of the Legislature, signed by the Reverend J. B. Jeter, 
 Pastor of the First Baptist Church in this city, in which he denies for 
 himself and his denomination, that he or they desire any corporate pow- 
 er to be granted to religious congregations. 
 
 EPISCOPALIANS, 
 
 The "Journal of the Convention" for May last, shov,^s that there 
 are in tjie Protestant Episcopal Church in this Diocese, 4,328 commu- 
 nicants of both sexes, and all white except eleven. Now I do not be- 
 lieve a majority, or even a moiety of the males among them desire the 
 passage of any such law. I have heard many lay members of that 
 communion express their views on the subject, and out of this city I 
 have heard but one say a word in favor of the measure. I have heard 
 many here and elsewhere utterly condemn the movement, not as ill- 
 meant, but as the fruit of mistaken views. No people in the Common- 
 wealth have given me more aid and comfort in resisting the petidon, 
 than zealous and respectable communicants in the Protestant Episco- 
 pal church. But I infer the opposition of the body of the Episcopa- 
 lians of Virginia to the petition from grounds far more conclusive than 
 my oWn observation. The Convention of that church has been voting 
 in favor of this matter for some years, as I have already shown. What 
 has been the eifect ? Have the pfeople responded '! No, Sir. In 
 Bishop Meade's address to the Convention last May, I find these re- 
 markable words : " It is proper to state, that, in order to call the atten- 
 tion of the ministers and members of the Episcopal church in Virginia 
 to the resolution of the Convention recommending petitions to the Le- 
 gislature from the different parishes, I addressed them in a Circular 
 through the Southern Churchman, during the last summer. I am 
 sorry to say that the resolution of the Convention was complied with 
 in but few instances. Of course, nothing but failure could be expect- 
 ed, if friends of the measure exhibited such lukewarmness in its prose- 
 cution." Here, then, with all Bishop Meade's powerful influence, 
 backed by the Convention and a Circular sent out. Episcopalians in 
 Virginia generally decline to have any thing to do with the measure. 
 But " few" even sign a petition. They are generally "lukewarm." 
 This statement or something else caused the Convention at its last 
 meeting by a formal resolution to " call upon all the ministers, mem- 
 bers and friends of the Episcopal church of Virginia to adopt such 
 
46 
 
 measures on their part, as the Committee shall advise." Journal, 1845. 
 p. 33. 
 
 Let us now see the result. You have one solitary petition before 
 you purporting to be from the Episcopal church, drawn up or present- 
 ed no doubt by the Committee in this city, and, if the printed copy be 
 correct, not a solitary name of man, woman or child, is affixed to it. 
 
 I have no doubt that the great body of Episcopalians in Virginia, 
 notwithstanding the urgent efforts made to bring them up to the peti' 
 Honing point, are utterly opposed to the whole plan. 
 
 All the foregoing general statements derive great force from the fol- 
 lowing considerations : 
 
 1st. Human nature is ever and every where the same. If history 
 teaches any thing, it teaches the corruptibility, the depravity of human 
 nature. If observation teaches any thing, it teaches that there is a 
 great deal of human nature in mankind in our own day. A state of 
 things may yet arise in this country, in which nothing may be so in- 
 secure as those sacred things, which men have made odious by attempt- 
 ing to legislate too much concerning them. 
 
 One gentleman tells us, I suppose in order to allay apprehension, 
 that " we live in a new and advanced stage of civilization." Sir, the 
 greatest wrongs, and the greatest abuses have been perpetrated in 
 the highest stages of civilization. Was not the last century the most 
 civilized century in the history of the world ? Yet what did we behold 
 in the two most civilized nations on earth in that century ? The wrongs 
 of England against India and America were chiejfy committed in that cen- 
 tury. In that century France presented a spectacle, which the world had 
 never before witnessed, and I pray may never witness again. Who 
 but God has fathomed human depravity ? Lord Bacon in his Essay 
 on Superstition says : "Atheism did never perturb states." This was 
 true up to his time, and even until within the last hundred years. Since 
 that time a very large portion of the distress and perplexity of nations 
 has been from atheism. All the horrors of the French Revolution, and 
 its immense evil consequences to other nations sprang from atheism. 
 The same immortal writer confirms also the view given of " civiliza- 
 tion." He says: "We see the times inclined to atheism, as the time 
 of Augustus Caesar, were civil times." Civilization therefore may not 
 be trusted to defend us against the native wickedness of man. Per- 
 haps a very great man was never more mistaken than when he said : 
 " Vice loses half its evil by losing all its grossness." A wounded glad- 
 iator, adjusting himself to die gracefully, is to my mind in some respects 
 an object of greater abhorrence than if he were to fall awkwardly, or 
 
47 
 
 stagger and stumble like a bullock that had received the deadly blow. 
 
 2nd. Wealth is power. It is a tremendous power in itself. The 
 love of it, like pride, is an universal sin, and is the root of all evil. 
 Though money itself is a good thing, yet its abuse is most easy and 
 natural. Money is a good servant but one of the hardest masters men 
 or nations ever had. Let the churches all become wealthy corpora- 
 tions, and is any man so blind as not to see that they must exert a vast 
 secular power ? Suppose five churches to be entitled each to hold a 
 capital yielding at six percent, per annum 2,000 dollars (total $10,000.) 
 This is the legal interest on $ 1 60,000. Seven times that amount would 
 be $1,120,000. This money would be invested in real estate, or loan- 
 ed on bond and mortgage. Now when we remember that we have the 
 highest authority for asserting that " the borrower is servant to the 
 lender," and, by parity of reasoning, that the tenant is servant to the 
 landlord, can we doubt the immense power, that the corporators of such 
 vast church funds would ere long exert in political elections, and pub- 
 lic measures ? They would become — 
 
 Pdrvis componere magna— 
 a kind of baronial Lords surrounded by their serfs and vassals. 
 
 3rd. It cannot be denied that the greatest good and the greatest evil 
 have alike flowed from sources apparently contemptible. So true is 
 this that.some men have even doubted whether the distinction between 
 great and small events had any foundation in the nature of things, but 
 only in our modes of conception. However we may decide that point, 
 man certainly cannot see the end from the beginning. To do that is 
 the prerogative of Omniscience. " Behold what a great forest a little 
 fire kindleth." This remark holds with tremendous force in some 
 kinds of legislation. A government may waste millions on unworthy 
 objects, and if their acts be not regarded as precedents, they do but ex- 
 haust the Treasury, which a year or two of thrift will replenish. But 
 when a legislature adopts a new principle into its policy— a principle, 
 which IS to extend to every corner of the Commonwealth in all coming 
 time— It puts to work an engine whose results no finite mind can fore- 
 see. ^ An eloquent writer says : " A new principle may shake a conti- 
 nent. ' The enormous wealth of the corporation of Trinity church, 
 New York, has, I am told, all flowed from a few acres of pasture 
 ground. 
 
 4th. It is also taken for granted that the people of Virginia, and the 
 members of this Committee, believe that an honest attempt to esti- 
 mate consequences is som^ part. of the duty of a Statesman, and that 
 as prescience is not granted to any mortal, it is the duty of all. some- 
 
48 
 
 times at least, to learn from the experience of past generations. I ac- 
 knowledge the superior wisdom and distinguished virtue of the gentle- 
 men, who have urged the granting of the chief prayer of this petition, 
 and as Mr. Burke said of Pitt and Fox: "I should very much prefer 
 their judgment to my own, if I were not obliged by an infinitely over- 
 balancing weight of authority to prefer the collected wisdom of agesto 
 the abilities of any two men living." One of the gentlemen has said 
 that *' pne must look far ahead * * * to redeem his opposition [to the 
 petition before you,] from the appearance of unreasonable and capri- 
 cious hostility." Sir, I ask the Committee to "look far ahead," and 
 far back also. "Our hind sights are better than our foresights." We 
 ought to use some sagacity — especially ought the past to instruct us. 
 If you go into this business it will have lasting and ever-growing con- 
 sequences. Unless, as the French Comedian said of some, we are 
 "plus sages que les sages, ^^ we must consent to learn from the past. 
 
 5th. In state affairs it is not meet that the officers of government 
 should depend upon the voluntary contributions of inditiduals for 
 their support; but on this point and many others, ChrisVs kingdom 
 is not of this world. One of the great laws of his empire is, "the 
 Lord loveth the cheerful giver." Aiiother is, "that they who sow spir- 
 itual things shall reap of their hearers carnal things," in sucl) measure 
 as their wants re^juire. The very life of religion, in a vast majority 
 of cases, depends upon the contributions of the people to the support 
 of their pastor being absolutely voluntary. " The act, establishing re- 
 lio-ious freedom," does, in my judgment, speak important truth when 
 it mentions ''the comfortable liberty of giving one's contributions to 
 the particular pastor whose niorals he would make his pattern, and- 
 whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness," and much 
 more to the same effect. 
 
 6th. By the consent of a large number of good writers on the sub- 
 ject of charities, testamentary bequests to religious objects are gener- 
 ally of suspicious character, especially when made in extremis. 
 "Nothincr is so rash as fear," and no fear is so powerful as the fear of 
 meeting an offended God. A dying man will ordinarily do any out- 
 ward act, which he believes will propitiate the favor of his Judge. 
 Let it once be generally thought that a man may buy a pardon for all 
 the ffuilt of a misspent life by leaving to the church a part or the whole 
 of his sordid pelf, perhaps thereby disappointing the reasonable ex- 
 pectations of his poor and dutiful relatives, and it will not be half a 
 century until more than a tithe of all the property in this country will 
 be in the hands of ecclesiastics or their tools. Among some in this 
 
49 A 
 
 country it is said, and I believe truly said, that the doctrine is taught 
 and practised upon, that money has something to do with forgiveness 
 of sins, both before and after death. It is said that the number who 
 hold this doctrine is rather increasing. Is this the time to open the 
 door and give license to practices which will grow out of this doctrine? 
 Would not a host of evils follow such a grant? Would not the rela- 
 tives of dying men, who had property, be more than ever jealous of 
 the visits of clergymen to their rich, sick friends, and a thousand ob- 
 structions be put in the way of an approach of the most pious pastor, 
 who only desired to point the dying man to the Lamb of God, but who 
 was suspected of wishing to influence his last will? Suppose the 
 faithful pastor visits, with the best intentions, his dying parishioners, 
 and never alludes to property, yet four out of five, or even one out of 
 five, shall be found to have left a will virtually disinheriting a worthy 
 family, how must the reputation of this minister suffer? He may 
 protest his innocence, but he cannot prove it. Suspicion rests upon 
 him with all the malign influence of positive proof. As a minister of 
 the gospel, and feehng that "a good name is rather to be chosen than 
 great riches," yea, that a clergyman's reputation is his capital in his 
 dealings with men, I hope that no such law as is solicited by the peti- 
 tioners may be passed. One gentlemen has asked, am I afraid to trust 
 myself in such circumstances ? I answer. Yes ! My daily prayer is 
 "Lead me not into temptation." I believe that the "heart is deceitful 
 above all things, and desperately wicked." I believe that this is as 
 true of my heart as of any other man's. If I know any spiritual wis- 
 dom, it is that the strength of the best of men consists in a strong dis- 
 trust of their own ['goodness, and a constant desire to avoid, rather thar. 
 to court trial of their principles. 
 
 What will be the eff'ect of the passage of this law on ecclesiastical 
 litigation in church courts, I will not stop now to inquire. But it may 
 be well to inquire what will be the probable effect in bringing the par- 
 ties that may arise before the courts of law and equity, and filling the 
 judicial dockets with painful controversies between heirs at law and 
 church corporations, between persons of different denominations, and 
 between those of the same denomination. I have witnessed one of 
 these contests before a court in another State, and although in the end 
 justice did wonderfully triumph, yet I must say that in my opinion even 
 the party gaining in such suits is always a loser, and the cause of true 
 religion the greatest loser of all. There is in the Scriptures a remark- 
 able passage which relates to Christians going to law. I refer to 1 
 Cor. vi. 1—7. 
 4 
 
60 
 
 I am aware that there is considerable diversity among men of re- 
 spectable learning in the interpretation of this passage, but I am willing 
 to give it the most liberal construction, contended for by any serious 
 and respectable commentators, and yet I contend that it does give a 
 solemn rebuke to all religionists, who shew a spirit of contention, and 
 of readiness to go to law. Shall the church of God then solicit and 
 obtain from the Legislature a "boon," as one gentleman calls it, which 
 will shut her up to the necessity of litigation ? A private person may 
 lawfully and honorably relinquish his right to property, but a corpora- 
 tor, like an executor, must defend the rights of those he represents. 
 Does it not look like courting temptation to seek to bring questions of 
 church property under the laws and into the courts ? Is it not better 
 that churches and religious people should continue to settle their con- 
 troversies about church property, as they always have settled them in 
 Virginia, by a private contract, or by a reference to a few persons of 
 teputation? Whatever others may think of this matter, to me it seems 
 to be entitled to the greatest weight. 
 
 Lord Bacon has well said : " He that defers his charity until he is 
 dead, is, if a man weighs it rightly, rather liberal of another man's than 
 of his own." 
 
 7th. Should the petition, as to churches, be granted, who will be the 
 chief gainers of money by it? I suppose none doubt, that the least 
 pure portions of the church will be the readiest to avail themselves of 
 it in a dangerous manner. The men who pant for the dust of the earth 
 on tlie heads of the poor, who sell the poor for a pair of shoes, who 
 hold that o-ain is godliness, these will first fill well their cofl^ers. 
 "VVhether they shall be my own or another denomination, is to this ar- 
 gunient, irrelevant ; but that the most corrupt would first introduce 
 abuses, cannot be doubted. I only repeat that human nature, under 
 the best moral and religious discipline, has, when too severely tried, al- 
 ways proved, itself a very poor thing. 
 
 8th. It seems to me that we owe something as a nation to the other 
 nations of the earth. There is a great war of principle now going on 
 between the old, rotten and ruinous principle of making the church of 
 God independent of the free-will offerings of the people, on the one 
 side, and the voluntary principle on the other. Throughout the world 
 the friends of liberty point to the United States and say : '"Behold a 
 successful experiment." I myself admit that the time is far too short 
 to settle anything very conclusively. The inherent strength and right- 
 eousness of the voluntary principle must as yet be its chief commenda- 
 tion. Yet an experiment of nearly seventy years is worth something, 
 
51 
 
 and over masses of men it has great influence. In the name of the 
 down trodden of other lands, in the name of our common humanity, I ask 
 this body to pause before they wrest from the friends of liberty in other 
 lands, the argument drawn from the example of at least the " Old Do- 
 minion ;" before they spoil a pattern by which other lands seem dis- 
 posed, in some little degree, to model their institutions. 
 
 9th. Nor ought it to be forgotten that in our country, while the 
 agrarianism of some excites disgust and horror, aristocratic princi- 
 pks in Church and State, have for some years past, had a most rapid 
 growth, in almost evtry respect. A kind of aristocracy of talents is 
 to be expected in a free government, nor is it very dangei'ous, for talents 
 are not hereditary. No man knows beforehand whether his son will be a 
 wise man or a fooL The aristocracy of personal wealth is also slight- 
 ly dangerous among us, for it changes hands very often, and the aboli- 
 tion of the rights of primogeniture makes it comparatively harmless] 
 But the aristocracy of politics is a dangerous affair. Just in propor- 
 tion as it gains strength, does it both feed and provoke the agrarian 
 spirit. But the •aristocracy of the church is the most dangerous of all. 
 It is more deeply seated. It moves strong^rand more hideous passions. 
 In a land where no chui'ch is by law established, and where there can 
 be, therefore, no dissent, it ignorantly and audaciously calls those out 
 of its pale, " Dissenters." It assumes a magisterial, or what is no less 
 offensive, a patronising air. It calls its party '■'■ the ChurchI ! V It 
 denominates its dignitaries by the city or commonwealth where they 
 happen to reside. Thus we have the " Bishop of New Jersey," and 
 "the Bishop. of Richmond," and the "Bishop of Virginia." It speaks of 
 other churches, which outshine it in talents, piety and numbers, as be- 
 ing at best "religious societies," It refuses its houses of worship to 
 other communions, even to preach a sermon over their dead. I care 
 not where this spirit is found, I abhor it. It is hideously anti-Ameri- 
 can and anti-Christian. When I have found it in a Presbyterian, I 
 have abhorred it most of all. Well did Luther say : "Every man is 
 born with a pope in him." Let us not then by legislation, foster and 
 fatten this pope. Henry Sacheverell is indeed dead. But his spirit 
 lives, and must be resisted, while men have any regard for truth and 
 righteousness. 
 
 •10th. A wise man will hardly believe that our country is forever 
 hereafter to be free from wild extitement, leading to violence and 
 rancor. There is always, at least, a war of argument and of principle 
 between sin and holiness, good and evil. Time may disclose in tlie 
 bosom of this Commonwealth, the fiery elements of a moral Vesuvius. 
 
52 
 
 It has already been seen in a city North of us, that pistols and muskets 
 can be used at such times, both to assault and defend church property. 
 With every precaution such times may come upon us, but will not the 
 horror of them be fearfully magnified by corporate powers well used 
 in hoarding ? In such times ecclesiastics become too often the fautors 
 of violence. And a wicked, revengeful ecclesiastic is the most cruel of 
 all excited men. Pilate was not so unrelenting as Caiaphas. If we 
 search for the reason of this extraordinary depravity, I suppose it is to 
 be found, ^r«/, in some supposed sanctity of office, turned into the fuel 
 of evil passions, and, secondly, in the fact that these men have been 
 better instructed, and perverted it all to the hardening of their hearts 
 against good impressions. Many have been worse men, worse citizens, 
 and worse neighbors for being zealous but hypocritical professors of 
 even true religion. 
 
 1 1th. Should this petition he granted, will it not, especially in times 
 of high excitement, probably have a powerful influence over elections ? 
 Mankind are depraved. Politicians are men, and " the tribe of vulgar 
 politicians," says one, " are the lowest of our species. There is no 
 trade so vile and mechanical as Government in their hands. Virtue is 
 not their habit. They are out of themselves in any course of conduct 
 recommended only by conscience and glory. A large, liberal and pro- 
 spective view of the interests of States passes with them for romance ; 
 and the principles that recommend it for the wanderings of a disordered 
 imagination. The calculators compute them out of their senses. The 
 jesters and buffoons shame them out of every thmg grand and elevated." 
 It is no slander to assert that such is the character of many noisy men 
 in our country, and that the number seems to be on the increase. 
 Grant this petition, and in fifty years religion, or the adjuncts you shall 
 give it, will determine thousands of votes in this Commonwealth. 
 Many a vote, it is now believed, is sold for a gill of whiskey. The 
 same vote might easily be influenced by the terrors of a constable or 
 sheriff distraining goods, or by a threat of protest at bank. Shall such 
 an engine be erected here? 
 
 12th. The only way, as it seems to me, that the Legislature can 
 grant the petitioners what they ask will be by delegating their power 
 to some court or body to act for them,. You have not even the names 
 of all the societies and churches before you. You must, therefore, 
 pass a general law, directing those who would get your "boon" to ap- 
 ply to some chancellor, judge, court or magistrate, with an exhibition 
 of proof that the requirements of the general law have been complied 
 with, and then they shall have their charter. Quifacitper alium,facit 
 
53 
 
 per se, is a dangerous maxim to introduce into this business; a principle 
 for centuries denied in England quoad hoc, and to this day regarded 
 with jealousy under the British Constitution. See Angel and Ames, 
 p. 49. 
 
 13th. It is also worthy of remark, that in our country we are 
 making a great experiment as to the extent to which corporations 
 may be carried in all matters. There is nothing equal to it in the 
 history of the world. We have corporations for digging coal, and cop- 
 per, and lead, and gold ; for making iron, and railroads, and blankets ; 
 for insuring houses ; for spinning cotton and wool ; for almost every 
 thing, even for burying the dead. Indeed, say Angel and Ames, "we 
 have in our country an infinite number of corporations aggregate which 
 have no concern with affairs of a municipal nature. * * * There 
 is a great difference, in this respect, between our own country and the 
 country from which we have derived a great portion of our laws. 
 What is done in England by combination, unless it be the management 
 of municipal concerns, is most generally done by a combination of in- 
 dividuals, established by mere articles of agreement. On the other 
 hand, what is done here by the co-operation of several persons is, in 
 the greater number of instances, the result of a consolidation effected 
 by an express act or charter of incorporation." See Preface. So that 
 it would be wise for us to watch this peculiar feature of our institu- 
 tions as to secular affairs, before we launch forth on this sea, as yet but 
 Mttle sounded and explored by us. I am not here to dehver lectures 
 on secular corporations. I am free to say I know no valid objection 
 against them, if necessary. I have no prejudice against them. But I 
 do say, that in all respects, and as to all institutions, " the price of lib- 
 erty is eternal vigilance." 
 
 14th. I also ask the committee carefully to consider the legitimate 
 ends of legislation in minute detail before they enter upon the work 
 of filling the land with corporations. If I have utterly failed in ab- 
 stract argument, yet if the committee think I have history on my side, 
 that is enough to carry my point. I scarcely know a more just obser- 
 vation than that of a great writer upon Government, who has said : 
 " Politics ought to be adjusted not to human reasonings, but to human 
 nature, of which the reason is but a part, and by no means the greatest 
 part." What were the jus civitatis, the jus commercii, the jus connu- 
 bii, the jus hereditatis, the jus suffragii, and the jus honorum so libe- 
 rally bestowed by the Romans, compared to the lavish bestowment of 
 corporate powers asked for by the petitioners ? I cannot now spare 
 time to trace all the differences between them. One may suffice. All 
 
 4 
 
54 
 
 these rights bestowed by the Romans tended to make men in interest, 
 in sympathy, in conscience, one with the state. Corporate rights, for 
 religious purposes, all the world over, for more than 1400 years, have 
 led the corporators to pursue a line of policy commonly adverse to, and 
 always diverse from, the state, unless the state were a tyranny, or un- 
 less the head of the state were the head of the church, • 
 
 15th. The Committee will keep in mind that all church prO])erty 
 in Virginia is virtually held in mortmain. It is not taxed. There 
 is no disposition to tax it. It pays nothing into the revenue. The 
 reasons for this pohcy are, doubtless, weighty. Should the chief prayer 
 of the petitioners be granted, the amount of church property in Vir- 
 ginia, in a hundred years, will amount to some millions. It is probable 
 it will amount to many millions. Let those whose sworn duty it is 
 not to legislate for religion, but rather to let it alone, estimate, in their 
 action on this petition, what will be the influence of the withdrawment 
 of so large a portion of the. property of the State from all share in the 
 support of the public faith, and in the common defence. " The revenue 
 is the State," says Mr. Burke. 
 
 16th. Let it never be forgotten that so far as we can learn from 
 the history of all charities, foundations, and societies, states and do- 
 nors profess to have been actuated, and probably in creating themy 
 were actuated by motives of benevolence. There was at least a spe- 
 cious appearance in their original establishment; but "an ilUfounded 
 plausibility in great affairs is one of the sorest evils under the sun." 
 If any thing is to be done in this business, let us have light, and much 
 of it. Let antiquity, history, experience aiid argument, disperse the 
 darkness in which some appear to be. To one in the dark all colors 
 are alike. If I have only darkened this " counsel by words without 
 knowledge," let gentlemen on the other side prove me mistaken. Let 
 them bring forth the lessons of experience taught by any country for 
 three centuries together, and shew us that all I have said is but mistake. 
 
 17th. The history of the Jews gives no example to encourage this 
 grant. One of the gentlemen has had the kindness to say that I was 
 a greater lawyer than himself. I do not like to be outdone in kind- 
 ness, courtesy, or a compliment. What less, therefore, can I say than 
 to admit that he is the greatest theologian I ever saw, and the greatest 
 scholar the world ever produced? Something has been said about the 
 taste of holding such a discussion as this. If there be any bad taste 
 in it the charge falls on the gentleman who ha^ at last come into it, on 
 his friend who at first consented to it, and on the Committee who pro- 
 posed it, no less than upon myself. In noticing the charge of bad 
 
55 
 
 taste, for the sake of dismissing the matter as unworthy of serious 
 attention, I unfortunately quoted the expression, "jDe gustibus non est 
 disputandum,'' and the gentleman has not only repudiated the senti- 
 ment, but has called in question its Latinity. I had supposed up to 
 the time of his remarks, that Blair's Rhetoric was a book of some, 
 authority in such matters ; I had also for some time esteemed Dr. 
 SamuelJohnson as more than a mere sciolist in language, and I had 
 observed that in his Life of Congreve he gave this very sentence in 
 Latin; but I now retract, confess and bewail my error, and admit that 
 Dr. Johnson, had he lived in Richmond, Va., in this glorious 19th cen- 
 tury, would never have been guilty of such egregious error. I hope 
 however, that his. memory will not instantly become infamous, aa he 
 was a good sort of man, and Avould if present, no doubt, make humble 
 acknowledgments. 
 
 I have also admitted that the gentleman is a great theologian. Nor 
 do I mean to retract this admission; nevertheless. Homer nodn some- 
 times; and I suppose it is not disrespectful to say, that the allusion of 
 the gentleman to ancient Jewish institutions in favor of the prayer of 
 the petition, is perhaps the most unfortunate that he could have made. 
 The learned Rabbi, David Levi, than whom the modern Jewish church 
 has had, I believe, no greater luminary, speaking of the support of the 
 Jewish Hierarchy, says: 
 
 Although "the whole tribe of Levi had no inheritance in the land," 
 yet "was it not lawful for the priest or Levite to come and demand the 
 tithe as a right, but only to ask for it as a free gift of the husbandman; 
 (who might give it to whatsoever priest or Levite that he chose;) much 
 less had they any power to take it by force; or to institute a process 
 by law against them for non-payment." — Rabbi David Levi v. .Paine, 
 p. 97. 
 
 "In this year, (Jubilee,) all the estates that had been sold were to re- 
 turn to their former proprietors, or to the families to which they origin- 
 ally belonged ; so that no family could be sunk and ruined and doomed 
 to pepetual poverty, as the family estate could not be alienated for more, 
 than fifty years." — lb. p. 101. 
 
 Dr. Jennings says that this law was famous among the heathen. 
 Diodorus Siculus (lib. 40) mentions it, and Aristotle says, the Locrians 
 had a similar law. Why will not the gentleman "give himself to 
 reading?" I fear he has never read Selden's immortal work. "i}e 
 successionibus in bona Defuncti ad Leges Ebrueorwn.^^ If he has 
 not, I should not be surprised^, for he so little understands the history 
 of even the English church as to talk about its "Theocratic Pretenr 
 
56 
 
 sions."* Sir, it never had, it never made any "theocratic pretensions." 
 This is mere grendiloquence. Theocracy is a government administer- 
 ed by God, not by a vicegerent, nor by those appointed as ordinary 
 rulers are. There never was but one theocracy on earth; that was 
 the ancient Jewish Commonwealth. 
 
 Indeed the most casual reader of the Scriptures ought to have ob- 
 served that no man in all that renowned Commonwealth of the He- 
 brews could lawfully alienate to prince or priest his patrimony. The 
 Law of Moses is express. See Numbers xxxvi. 7, 8, 9, and Lev. 
 XXV. 13—16, 23. 
 
 This matter is strikingly illustrated in the history of Ahab and Na- 
 both. The latter owned a small vine)^ard, which the former proposed 
 to buy. Naboth, fearing God, refused to alienate his inheritance. 
 That woman Jezebel, Ahab's wife, considered it outrageous that a poor 
 man should refuse to conform to the desires of the prince, and con- 
 trived his death. His life was taken; but what was Ged's message to 
 Ahab? "In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, shall 
 dogs lick thy blood — even thine." The whole history of the transac- 
 tion is given in the 21st chapter of 1st Kings, and is well worthy of 
 a careful perusal. I therefore assert that no argument for corporations 
 having power to take, hold and transmit real estate, acquired by devise, 
 gift, or sale, can be drawn from the Jewish Commonwealth. 
 
 Another small mistake into which our theologian has fallen, is that 
 he asserts that "Judas was a common carrier and Paul was a trustee."! 
 He expresses surprise that I should not have known this difference 
 between these two men. 
 
 Cunningham in his "Law Dictionary," says: "All persons carrying 
 goods for hire, as a master and owners of ships, lightermen, stage-coach- 
 men, &;c., come under the denomination of common carriers." 
 
 The same writer in the same work, describes a trustee as one who 
 has "a right to receive the profits of land, and to dispose of the land 
 in equity. Holding the possession and disposing thereof at his will 
 and pleasure are signs of trust. A trust is but a new name given to 
 an use, and invented to defraud the statute of uses." 
 
 Now, Sir, I assert that neither Judas nor Paul was a trustee, or a 
 common carrier, in the management of funds committed to them, pro- 
 vided the terms "trustee" and "common carrier" are to be used ac- 
 cording to their technical legal meaning. Neither of them were respon- 
 sible to the law. The accounts of Judas were not even audited. Nor 
 have we any reason for supposing Paul's were. When I said Judas 
 
 •Printed Speech, p. 24. 
 
 tSee Printed Speech, p. 24. 
 
57 
 
 was a trustee before Paul, I used the term in its general sense, as desig- 
 nating one in whom confidence had been reposed by his Master and 
 brethren in the management of the little funds of Christ's family. I 
 never imagined that I should be understood as asserting, as the gentle- 
 man does, that Paul was a trustee in a technical sense, in opposition to 
 a common carrier, as Judas was. I will not agree to give up my argu- 
 ment, but I will agree that the gentleman is the profoundest theologian 
 and lawyer in the world if he will prove that Paul was a trustee and 
 Judas a common carrier, in a technical sense, as he has asserted. This 
 is indeed a small matter, but in this discussion an effort to degrade 
 what I esteem truth has been so often resorted to that it may not be 
 amiss to brush away some of the cobwebs. 
 
 18th. Let it be remembered, too, that it is now the settled doctrine, 
 that the books of a corporation are to be considered as the books of a 
 private individual, and no inspection can be compelled by any man, 
 however actuated by a public spirit, unless he have personal interest 
 hi its affairs. 
 
 See Angel & Ames, p. 535, for numerous cases. In 5 Cowen, (N. 
 Y.,) R. 419, in the case of the Utica Bank vs. Hilliard, it was held, 
 the defendant could not compel the cashier of the bank to produce the 
 tooks and papers, even by a subpaena duces tecum, so that the corpor- 
 ations may laugh at men who come and demand their books for the 
 purpose of detecting abuses. 
 
 19th. If the doctrine contended for by one of the gentlemen be 
 true, and there would seem to be some ground for it by the Girard 
 Will Case, and according to the doctrine of Angel and Ames, p. 116 
 and onward, it suggests the propriety of special caution on the part 
 of the Legislature. That doctrine is, that the principle of the law of 
 "charitable uses," or "pious uses," is a part of the common law. Let 
 this doctrine once obtain in the courts of Virginia, and the petitioners 
 need not come to the Legislature for power to take and hold. I men- 
 tion the matter here to show that the people of Virginia will perhaps 
 have the subject brought home to them in some way, and I would 
 commend to them the motto: ^^Obstn principiis." The Attorney 
 General, in the case of Hart's Executors, (4 Wheaton,) argues the 
 same way, and quotes Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, Lord Keeper 
 Henly, and Lord Thurlow, as authorities. On the other hand, Mr. 
 Leigh, in the same case, says: "All the elementary writers and com- 
 pilers concur in deducing the jurisdiction of the English Court of 
 Chancery over charitable bequests, from the statute of Elizabeth ; 
 tracing all the powers of the court, as a court of equity over this sub 
 
58 
 
 ject, to that source." Lord Loughborough,. Lord Eldon, and Sir W. 
 Grant, ate among his authorities. 
 
 Judge Marshall argues to the 'same effect in the decision in the same 
 case. . 
 
 Under the opinion of Judge Marshall we have long had quiet and 
 freedom from contention, but as there is evidently to be at last an at- 
 tempt to introduce a new construction of the law on this point, I sol- 
 emnly ask the Committee to pause before giving an existence to some 
 thousands of aggregate corporations, which with all the power they 
 must have under any construction "of the act 43 Elizabeth, .must have 
 that power vasUy augmented by the settlement of the law contrary to 
 the opinion of Judge Marshall. 
 
 Let us look at some of the reasons urged for the change sought by 
 the petitioners.' 
 
 L The first is that much property is now last to the church. To 
 this I reply, 
 
 1. It is not lost to the State, and the great duty .of the Legislature 
 IS performed when it well provides that the Commonwealth shall suf- 
 fer no detriment, and that every man shall have all his personal and 
 hereditary rights, and be .free to worship God in the manner most 
 agreeable to his own conscience without let or hindrance. If the king- 
 dom of God were meats and drinks, and ptomps and funds, the aid of 
 the Legislature might be necessary. But it consists in righteousness, 
 in peace, and in joy in the Holy Ghost. 'Surely, then, it can be estab- 
 lished without aid from the Legislature. 
 
 I reply, 
 
 2. That it is riot lost to the heirs at lawj who in an overwhelming 
 proportion of cases, in our country, need all they are legally entided 
 to, for the purpose of educating their children', supporting the infirmi- 
 ties of age, and' enabling them to reach that position in society the 
 most conducive to vii'tue, intelligence and usefulness. 
 
 3. Can that money be said, in general, to be lost to the church, 
 which is in the hands of the heirs of pious men, who have died and 
 left it, together with their good example, ah inheritance to their chil- 
 dren ? Could it, in general, be in better hands? When Queen Eliza- 
 beth was taunted by. a foreign minister with the scantiness of her ex- 
 chequer, she wisely and indignantly replied: "My excheqjier is in the 
 hearts of my people," Could it have been in a better place?' And 
 can the exchequer of the church be jn a better place than in the hearts 
 and hands of the people of God and their children ? . 
 
 4. It is freely admitted, that some hard cases will probably arise 
 
59 
 
 under any legislation wliich the wit of man may invent. Some such 
 may have arisen in this State. But what are they all compared to the 
 intolerable evils of indiscriminate acts of incorporation? The remedy 
 proposed by the petitioners, is like taking the club of Hercules to 
 brusli a fly off an infant's face; you will certainly bruise, and proba' 
 bly kill it, in protecting it from the winged insect. 
 
 5. I must again remind the committee, that whatever is givien to 
 these corporations, is never, except by despotism or revolution, yield- 
 ed, be the social or national distress ever so great. To every religious 
 corporation may be applied the fable of the serpent and the file. It 
 always takes, and never gives. It is like the cave of Caeus — Aven-: 
 tinae timor atque infamia sylvae — the soli of Vulcan and Medona. The 
 tracks of the oxen are seen going in, but never coming out. 
 
 This retention of funds by. rehgious corporations is a necessary re- 
 sult. I know nothing more dishonorable and infamous than for a cor- 
 porator to take funds created for one object and give them to another 
 and a diflerent object. Funds bequeathed to support a religious society 
 can never, but by baseness in the corporators,' or by a mob, or a revO- 
 lution,'be used, even to stay a famine or repel an invasion. This prin- 
 ciple is as sound as it is strong. Let the committee keep it in mind. 
 
 II. But ive are told that other States have set us the example of 
 passing laws similar to that sought by the petitioners, and we are 
 asked, with an air of triumph. What evil has resulted from their en- 
 actments ? To this I reply — ■ 
 
 1, Few States have passed laws so comprehensive and so indefinite 
 as that petitioned for. Most of them go no farther than the act of the 
 General Assembly of Vn-ginia, passed at the session of 1841-2. 
 
 2. The examples cited, even if no ill had resulted, would be useless; 
 for time has not yet sufficiently tested their operation. The age of a 
 nation might fairly be put down as averaging more than a thousand 
 years. How can Arkansas, or Michigan, or even the oldest State in 
 the Union, rise up, summon the world to an audience, and pronounce 
 that it has wrought out a great problem in politics ? Such an attempt 
 would look like a child of five years old instructing Methuselah. The 
 profoundest jurist that Virginia ever produced said it was not possible 
 for any sagacity to foretell the operation of a constitution. Time alone 
 could test its eftects. The same remark is equally applicable to a law 
 like that asked for. The very oldest law that I have seen quoted ni the 
 published arguments on this subject was passed in the year 1813, less 
 than 33 years ago, and not, as has been said in this debate, more than 
 50 years ago. Gentlemen, you must excuse me if I excuse mysel* 
 
60 
 
 from attempting to show that so brief an experience falls far short of 
 demonstrating any thing conclusively in favor of religious corporations 
 in our country. 
 
 3. I wish to speak very respectfully of the laws and people of other 
 States ; but I shall speak truly and fearlessly. I do, therefore, declare, 
 that in my soul I utterly detest many of these laws and judicial deci- 
 sions, as utterly subversive of all the great principles of personal and 
 religious freedom. I go further, and declare that, in my opinion, there 
 is not a man in this hall who does not, when informed, agree with me. 
 It is because people will not read that they think every thing is right 
 in our country. I believe many of these foul blots on the fair name of 
 sister States would not be there were it not that they have pursued a 
 line of policy different from Virginia on the whole subject of religion. 
 I say, then, that some of these laws, and judicial decisions under them, 
 do loudly warn us to beware how we enter upon the first steps towards 
 imitating them. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 I hold in my hand 8 Johnson, and ask the attention of the commit- 
 tee to the remarkable case of the People vs. Ruggles, p. 290. In 
 this case, Kent, C. J., still living, affirms a judgment given in a lower 
 court by which Ruggles, whose coarseness seems to have been equalled 
 only by his folly and depravity, ''was sentenced by the court to be im- 
 prisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of 500 dollars." The 
 crime charged in the indictment was " blasphemy ;" and the Chief 
 Justice argued that blasphemy was, in New York, an offence at com- 
 mon law. 
 
 Are the people of Virginia in favor of such decisions here ? If blas- 
 phemy may be pun,ished by fine and imprisonment, why may not he- 
 resy and schism ? These often injure the morals and destroy the peace 
 of communities to an unspeakably greater extent than any such coarse 
 language as the poor sinful man Ruggles used. If this wretched man 
 had been let alone, or only treated and exhorted with genuine kind- 
 ness, possibly he might have been brought to repentance. But I will 
 venture to opine that he left his prison more a scoffer than he entered 
 it. I rejoice that in Virginia the courts cannot punish blasphemy, or 
 heresy, or schism. 
 
 MARYLAND. 
 
 As this appeal to other States approaches much nearer to an appear- 
 ance of argument than most I have heard from the friends of the peti- 
 tion, allow me to give some other examples. I will take our sister 
 Maryland next. In her policy there is much to admire and much to 
 
61 
 
 abhor. I take her, for she seems to be a favorite with the petitioners. 
 Well, sir, to Maryland we go. 
 
 In "Maxcy's Revised Laws of Maryland," vol. 1, p. 169, is found 
 the following statute. Should any one be disposed to adopt proper 
 legal measures for prosecuting a violator of its provisions, and he be 
 proven guilty, the jury must convict, and the court must sentence him, 
 or be guilty of perjury. The statute is in these words : " That if any 
 person shall hereafter, within this province, wittingly, maliciously and 
 advisedly, by writing or speaking, blaspheme or curse God, or deny 
 our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy 
 Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the 
 Three Persons, or the Unity of the Godhead, or shall utter any pro- 
 fane words concerning the Holy Trinity, or any the persons thereof, 
 and shall be thereof convict by verdict or confession, he shall, for the 
 first offence, be bored through the tongue and fined twenty pounds 
 sterling to the lord proprietor, to be applied to the use of the county 
 where the offence shall be committed, to be levied on the offender's 
 body, goods and chattels, lands or tenements, and in case the said fine 
 cannot be levied, the offender to suffer six months imprisonment with- 
 out bail or mainprise ; and that for the second offence, the offender be- 
 ing thereof convict as aforesaid, shall be stigmatized by burning in the 
 forehead with the letter B, and fined forty pounds sterling to the lord 
 proprietor, to be applied and levied as aforesaid, and in case the same 
 cannot be levied, the offender shall suffer twelve months' imprisonment 
 without bail or mainprise ; and that for the third offence, the offender 
 being convict as aforesaid,- shall suffer death without the benefit of cler- 
 gy." See also Dorsey's Laws of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 63, 64. 
 
 Maxcy's Laws were published in 1811. Of course the whole sta- 
 tute was in force then ; yes, sir, and for years afterwards. In Dorsey's 
 Laws of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 706, (edition of 1840,) 1819, chap. 49, 
 it appears that so much of this statute as relates to whipping, burning 
 .in the forehead, and boring through the tongue, was repealed; but no 
 more. For the third offence it is still death without benefit of clergy 
 by the law as revised in 1819, for the third time to be guilty of blas- 
 phemy, as defined in the act above. Let me ask if Maryland should 
 be a guide to Virginia? Do not the gentlemen wish that they had 
 never cited Maryland in this controversy I I also ask the committee to 
 read the whole act of Assembly of Maryland of 1798, Dorsey, vol. 
 1, pp. 359 — 367, and say whether we in Virginia wish a law fining a 
 man pretty heavily for refusing to "register" a man as a member of a 
 
62 
 
 particular church, if he demands it, and pays the fee of 6 cents ? 
 There are other things in the act worthy of notice. ' 
 
 The truth is Maryland was far Behind Virginia during the last quar- 
 ter of the last century in her views of religious freedorh. In her "Dec* 
 iaration of Rights" is abundant evidence of this. In section 33 it is 
 provided that her glebe lands shall forever remain the property of one 
 sect; and they do still remain so to this- day, although bought and 
 paid for by funds raised from Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Papists, 
 Presbyterians and others, in common with members of the Church of 
 England. That section in Maxcy. reads thus : " That as it is the duty 
 of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most ac- 
 ceptable to him, all persons professing the Christian religion are equally 
 entitled to protection in their religious liberty ; wherefore, no person 
 ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of 
 his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, un- 
 less under colour of religion any man shall disturb the good order, 
 peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or 
 injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights ; nor ought any 
 person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless 
 on contract, to maintain any particular place of worship, or any parti- 
 cular ministry ; yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a 
 general and equal tax for the sUpport of the Christian religion, leaving 
 to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the 
 money collected from him to the support of any particular place of 
 worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomi- 
 nation, or the poor in general of any particular county ; but the churches, 
 chapels, glebes, and all other property now belonging to the Church of 
 England, ought to remain to the Church of England for ever. And all 
 acts of Assembly lately passed for collecting moneys for building or re - 
 pairing particular churches or chapels of ease, shall continue in force 
 and be executed, unless the Legislature shall by act supersede or repeal 
 the same ; but no county court shall assess any quantity of tobacco or 
 sum of money hereafter, on the application of any vestrymen or church- 
 wardens ; and every incumbent of the Church of England who halh 
 remained in his parish and performed his duty, shall be entitled to re- 
 ceive the provision and support established by the act entitled 'An act 
 for the support of the clergy of the Church of England in this pro- 
 vince,' till the November court of this present year, to be held for the 
 county in which his parish shall lie, or partly lie, or for such time as 
 he hath remained in his parish and performed his duty." 
 
 In Dorsey all of this section is found except that relating to " laying 
 
63 
 
 a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion/' 
 When that part was stricken from the "Rights" of Maryland, 1 do not 
 know. But it was since 1811, of course. For any thing I can find, 
 it may have been very much later. But the glebe lands still remain in 
 the "Church of England," as the Declaration of Rights says they shall 
 "for ever." And "all persons professing the Christian religion 
 are equally entitled to protection." I abhor such doctrine, confining 
 protection to Christians. Why did they not say all men are entitled 
 to equal protection ? 
 
 I give an extract from the life of William Paca, who was chosen 
 Governor of Maryland in November, 1782, and served one year. 
 During this time his biographer says : 
 
 " The same paternal care which he thus displayed on behalf of lit- 
 erature, he extended to religion ; not the religion of a sect or a party, 
 but that general inculcation and diffusion of the great principles of sac- 
 red truth which, as they form the happiness of individuals, so they se- 
 cure the welfare of nations. Peace was scarcely established, when, in 
 an address to the General Assembly, he thus revived a subject which 
 he justly deemed inseparably connected with the interest of the State. 
 ' It is far from our intention,' he said, 'to embarrass your deliberations 
 with a variety of objects, but we cannot pass over matters of so high 
 concernment as religion and learning. The sufferings of the ministers 
 of the Gospel of all denominations, during the war, have been very 
 considerable ; and the perseverance and firmness of those who dis- 
 charged their sacred functions under many discouraging circumstances, 
 claim our acknowledgments and thanks. The Bill of Rights and Form 
 of Government recognize the principle of public support for the min- 
 isters of the Gospel, and ascertain the mode. Anxiously solicitous for 
 the blessings of Government and the Vy'elfare and happiness of our citi- 
 zens, and thoroughly convinced of the powerful influence of religion, 
 when diffused by its respectable teachers, we beg leave, most seriously 
 and warmly, to recommend, among the first objects of your attention 
 on the return of peace, the making of such provision as the constitu- 
 tion authorizes and approves.' 
 
 "This suggestion was met with a corresponding spirit by the Legis- 
 lature, and some of the sects at that time most numerous in the State 
 obtained its aid. The Episcopalians, especially, having met in con- 
 vention about that time, prepared and presented to the Governor an ad- 
 dress, in which they thanked him for his ' great care and attention man- 
 ifested for the Christian Church in general, and her suffering clergy of 
 all denominations ; and prayed the continuance of his powerful inter- 
 
64 
 
 cession till some law is passed for their future support and encourage 
 ment, agreeably to the constitution.' And in tlie same liberal and cath- 
 olic spirit, Mr. Paca answered, " that it would give him the highest 
 happiness and satisfaction, if either in his individual capacity or public 
 character, he could be instrumental in advancing the interests of relig- 
 ion in general — alleviating the sufferings of any of her ministers, and 
 placing every branch of the Christian Church in the State upon the 
 most equal and respectable footing.' 
 
 " At the meeting of the Convention of the same church in the fol- 
 lowing year, his friend, the learned I>r. Smith, dedicated to him the 
 sermon which he delivered by appointment." — Biography of the Sign- 
 ers of the Declaration of Independence, vol. iv., pp. 124, 125. 
 
 These doings of Governor Paca and the Legislature led, as I am told, 
 to a long and very bitter controversy, in which, at last, the principles 
 of liberty prevailed. 
 
 Let me read again from "The Declaration of Rights" of Maryland, 
 35. "That no other test or qualification ought to be required on ad- 
 mission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and 
 fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by 
 this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of 
 a belief in the Christian religiony No man shall excel me in praise 
 of what was excellent in Maryland during our Revolution, but I must 
 say here is a foul blot. I rejoice that in Virginia different counsels 
 prevailed in '76. In Maryland an odious religious test was established 
 by a strange misnomer, as a "Right." That test remains in force to 
 this day. A man cannot be a lawyer, a magistrate, a constable, or any 
 officer, without this test being submitted to by him, unless he is by birth 
 a Jew, and it was not until 1824 that an "act for the relief of the 
 Jews in Maryland" was passed. (See laws for that year, ch. 205.) 
 In other words it was 48 years after the Declaration of American In- 
 dependence before any Isrealite could hold an office of profit or trust 
 in Maryland. I have no doubt that there are many excellent people in 
 Maryland who abhor all these things, or would abhor them if they 
 knew that their code was defiled with them, and they will excuse me 
 if I say I abhor such laws as these ; they are Draconian. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Nor will I take for a pattern Pennsylvania, whose laws are, in many 
 respects, an outrage on liberty. I cannot dwell on the particulars. I 
 will give you one legal decision in her Supreme Court. 
 
 In II. Sergeant and Rawle, Updegraph vs. the Commonwealth, in 
 
65 
 
 ^fror, it is decided, that " Christianity is a part of the common law of 
 Pennsylvania;'' that the act of 1700 against blasphemy, is neither 
 obsolete nor virtually repealed." The whole case is remarkably in- 
 teresting and instructive.* 
 
 I myself have been served with three writs for a vote or votes given 
 by me in an unincorporated General Assembly. The intention was to 
 fine and imprison me for doing what I believed right. One of these 
 writs was sued out by Rev. Philip Hay, one by Rev. Miles P. Squier, 
 and one by a Judge (I think his name was Brown) from Ohio. It is 
 true the attempt of these men covered them with dishonor ; nor did I 
 ever feel more than pity at their proceedings. But what must be the 
 state of laws, where such things can be done ? 
 
 MASSACHUSE'^TS. 
 
 In some of the States, sir, they have parsons, that is clergymen, who 
 are sole corporations. We have none such in Virginia ; I trust we 
 never may. Angel and Ames say : 
 
 "Sole corporations, it is believed, are not common in the United 
 States. In those States, however, where the religious establishment of 
 the Church of England was adopted, when they were colonies, together ^ 
 with the common law on that subject, the minister of the parish was 
 seised of the freehold, as persona ecclesise, in the same manner as in 
 England ; and the right of his successors to the freehold being thus es- 
 tablished was not destroyed by the abolition of the regal Government, 
 nor can it be divested even by an act of the State Legislature. This 
 was held by Mr. J. Story, in giving the opinion of the Supreme Court 
 of the United St&tes, in the case last referred to." 
 
 " We are not awafe," says the learned Chief Justice of Massachu- 
 setts, " that there is any instance of a sole corporation in this Common- 
 W'ealth, except that of a person who may be seised of parsonage lands, 
 to hold to him and his successors in the sam_e office, in right of his par- 
 ish." 
 
 I remero_bcr, also, the flagrant and atrocious perversion of funds in 
 the Ilollis professorship in Harvard University, in the same State. I 
 also remember that many houses of worship, and much other church 
 property, created by Orthodox men, have been decreed by the courts of 
 Massachusetts to Unitarians who have long carried on a predatory war 
 against the Orthodox, I also ask the committee to examine (7. Pick- 
 
 * So mucli is charter-making multiplied in Pennsylvania, that now (1847) it is 
 
 devolved on tlie Supreme Court. " Sic transit judex in legislator em.''' Is liberty, is 
 
 property safe when ihe legislative and judicial powers of Government are thus blertd- 
 
 •ed ? If so, our fathers were great ninnies in insisting so much on their separation. 
 
 5 
 
66 
 
 ering (Mass.) R., especially pp. 329, 330 ; and 12 Pickering R., espe^ 
 daily pp 262, 263,) the case of" Murdock vs. Philips' Academy." It 
 will give them a sweet foretaste of what we shall see in our courts in 
 Virginia, if we go into this wholesale, indiscriminate chartering of re- 
 ligious societies. 
 
 I cannot, therefore, take Massachusetts as a guide in legislation in 
 religion. I detest many of its legal decisions and the spirit of several 
 of its laws on religion. I could easily travel the round of the old States 
 appealed to, and show you enough to alarm any wise man on this sub- 
 ject. But I have detained you too long already. What becomes now 
 of the declaration of the gentleman, " that in one and all of these States 
 civil liberty is as secure as among us ?" 
 
 III. It is said that the Legislature can affix safe and adequate lim- 
 itations to the proposed corporations. 
 
 To this I reply, that limitations must refer either to the duration of 
 corporations, the number of them, or the amount of property which 
 they can hold. 
 
 1. I suppose no limitation of time is desired by the petitioners. To 
 say that the powers sought by them and granted by you should cease 
 and determine in 20 or 50 years, would be fatal to their wishes. These 
 religious corporations are very different things from the ordinary cor- 
 porations of the country, in which the charter may be surrendered, and 
 a dividend of the effects be made among the stockholders at any time 
 without embarrassment. In South Carolina church corporations are 
 limited to 14 years. AVould this please the petitioners? 
 
 2. If there be a general law there can be no limit in the law as to 
 the number of corporations. The Legislature cannot say how many 
 each denomination shall have. This would be invidious ; and if they 
 were to attempt a restriction it would be found fruitless. Surely the 
 Legislature is not prepared to say that churches hereafter formed shall 
 not have equal rights with those already formed. 
 
 3. No limit, as to the amount of property, will be found practicable. 
 Let me state a case. A man dies leaving property to a church corpo- 
 ration, the annual avails of wliich reach the maximum permitted by 
 law. Will the Legislature say to the corporators, if you manage that 
 property well and cause it to yield one dollar more than it does yield 
 by bad management you shall forfeit the whole ? Besides, it would be 
 very easy, in many cases, to create a new society, or congregation, to 
 hold any surplus above the maximum fixed by the law. Would it be 
 wise to drive men to these miserable, evasive shifts, or to shut them up, 
 by a kind of necessity, to an unskilful management of their funds ? Is 
 
67 
 
 U not to the intefest of the State that all tlie property in it be rendered 
 as productive as possible I 
 
 4. Almost innumerable cases can be cited to show that every corpo* 
 i-ation aggregate has, incidentally, at common law, a right to take, hold> 
 and transmit in succession property lo an unlimited extent or amount. 
 See Angel and Ames on Cor., p. 87. 
 
 5. It is worthy of inquiry, who, in case of forfeiture, shall take the 
 forfeited property. Shall the Commonwealth? I suppose a moderate 
 degree of political information would convince any man, that it is highly 
 dangerous to personal and political liberty, that the State or govern- 
 ment should become proprietor of a large portion of the soil. History 
 feo declares. On this point Americans ave extremely jealous, and re- 
 quire both the State and National Legislatures, to offer their lands at 
 a very low price. Shall the forfeited property take the direction of 
 fines and escheats, and go into the literary fund of Virginia? This, 
 perhaps, might please some of the inconsiderate-friends of education. 
 But I ask them to inquire, whether this would not be buying education 
 at too dear a price. 
 
 IV. Of the visitatorial power, I ask the Committee to read and examine 
 the whole of Chapter XIX. of Angel and Ames, and then decide two 
 questions : 
 
 1 . Whether this power, unless a visiter be named in the charter, is 
 of any practical force in our country ? 
 
 2. If it be practicable, what would any man's character be worth by 
 the time he had visited ten religious corporations in or out of his own 
 denomination, and exposed their abuses, and the authors of th«m? 
 
 As to the power of visitation exerting a restraining influence, one of 
 the most eminent judges of Virginia, recently said in conversation, 
 "that it was all moonshine." Let it be remembered that this power 
 in England may be exerted very ditferently from what it can be amongst 
 US. I ask the attention of the Committee to the views of this subject 
 presented in 1 Blackstone, p. 480. I know, indeed, that the donor 
 while living is in some sense charged with a visitatorial pov/er, and 
 that the heirs at law have the same right; but can gentlemen on the 
 other side, wilh ail their vast attainments produce a single instance in 
 which either the donor or his heirs, have exercised this pov/er, in a 
 controlling manner, in any State of our Union ? 
 
 One gendeman told us, that if a charity should be abused, there 
 would be no lack of informers. Does any man seriously believe that 
 voluntary information could be legally given by the best man in the 
 State, as to a dozen institutions of this kind, thus detecting abuses, and 
 
Jie not find his character riddled by the darts of envy, slander ov suspi" 
 cion, before he had half done his work? Some man may believe this, 
 but surely his powers of credulity must be enormous. 
 
 V. One of the gentlemen has submitted a remarkable proposition ; 
 it is, that the Presbyterians, at my instance, shall be excepted out of 
 the proposed law, in order that their churches may not be corrupted. 
 To this I ansv/er : 
 
 1. It seems, then, that the gentleman would be M'illing to rec(?ive by 
 •law, what he esteems a "boon," or a '"right," and have it appear on 
 
 the very face of the law, that another. denomination cannot avail itself 
 of the same boon or right. How consistent this is with the language 
 of the petition I leave the Committee to juclge. But, 
 
 2. I have no authority either to ask or refuse any thing for my own 
 denomination or any other. At the opening of this debate, I explicitly 
 informed the Committee, that I acted as a private person, representing 
 no one. 
 
 3. Presbyterians wish neither to ride nor to be ridden. They wish- 
 to remain on a perfect equality with all their fellow-citizens.. They 
 seek no legal ascendancy for themselves over others ; they are determ- 
 ined that others shall have no legal ascendancy over them. 
 
 4. Should I accede to the gentleman's proposition,' and should the 
 Legislature pass a law of the kind he proposes, the very first judge 
 before whom the lav^/^ should judicially come, would righteously and 
 promptly pronounce it unconstitutional, or would violate his oath of 
 office. I think, therefore, this proposal is out of the question. 
 
 VI. It may be said, indeed,. that the Legislature can dissolve these 
 corporations if they become dangerpus. If it be so, it ought to be re-- 
 membered, that even under the British Constitution, where Parliament 
 is- said to be omnipotent, there have been to this day but two occasions 
 on which that power has been exercised, viz: in the time of Edward 
 II. and of Henry VIII.; the first, in the suppression of the order of 
 Templars; the second, in the suppression of religious houses. The 
 very highest judicial authority has repeatedly decided, that to dissolve 
 a corporation is contrary to the Constitution of the United Slates, 
 which forbids the passage of any " ex post facto law, or law impairing 
 the obligation of contracts;" and that the Legislature cannot rrepeal, 
 impair, or alter a charter, against the consent, or without the default, of 
 the corporation, judicially ascertained and declared. See the following 
 cases: Dartmouth College i;s. Woodward, 4 V7heat. R. 518; Fletcher 
 vs. Peck, 6 Cranch, 88 ; The State of New Jersey vs. Wilson, 7 
 Cranch, R. 164; Terrett vs. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43; The town of 
 
€9 
 
 Pawlet vs. Clark, 9 Cranch,202; Wales vs. Stetson, 2 Mass. R. 143; 
 Enfield Toll Bridge Co, vs. Connecticut River Co., 7 Conn, R. 53, 
 per Daggett ; J. McLaren vs. Pennington, 1 Paige, (N. Y.) Chan. R| 
 107, per Walworth, Chan.; 2 Kent, Comm. 245, 246; Green vs. 
 Biddle, 8 Wheat. R. 1. The Society for establishing useful Manu- 
 factures vs. the Morris Canal and Banking Co., cited Halst. Dig. 93. 
 According 'to the best authority, (2 Kent, Comm. 247, and Angel 
 and Ames, 128, 667,) in case of the dissolution of a corporation, the 
 real csUtte would indeed revert to the donor or his heirs, if they could 
 be found; but the personal property would become the property of the 
 people, in other words, tlie proptrtj- of the Commonwealth. But even 
 real estate would in most cases have b'een purchased in some way by 
 funds variously contributed. And we have the highest legal authority 
 for sajing that "private' subscriptions to a public institution are consid- 
 ered in the light of a dedication to the public. They merge in it, and 
 are not susceptible of reclamation;" and that if any would reclaim 
 money thiss subscribed, "it is necessary that each claimant should be 
 a party, and distinctly trace his title from the first subscriber down to 
 himself, ii even a resulting trust could be raised in favor of those from 
 whora the purchase money moved."* 
 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 , I hold in ray hand a letter relating in good part to the mattei's before 
 us. I beg leave to read it. It is from a subject of the British crown, 
 a gentleman most reputably connected, both at home and in this coun- 
 try, a gentleman very favorably known in the best circles in this State, 
 and who has long held both my respect and my esteeia. It reads thus : 
 
 Richmond, January 12th, 1846. 
 Rev'd. and Dear Sir : 
 
 It was with deep regret I heard to-da}-' that you had, in a speech de- 
 livered before the Committee of the Courts of Justice, reflected very 
 strongly upon the character of the Established Clergy in England — 
 that, amongst other things, you denominated them as «teeple-chasers 
 and sporting parsons. I was likewise informed that in animadverting 
 upon the abuses of the Church Establishment you alluded to the enor- 
 mous wealthr of the clergy, and, in support of your assertions, that you 
 read a statement from an a:rtiele in the Eclectic Review. ' 
 
 I am very sorry that I did not hear your speech, 'as I certainly, how- 
 ever feebly, should, with permission of the Com.mittee, have endeavor- 
 <?d to vindicate the Clergy of England (than whom a more excellent and 
 
 *Chancdior Tucker in case of Selden et al., &c- 
 
70 
 
 pious body is not, in my opinion, to be found in the world,) before the 
 Committee — and in doing so I should have informed the Committee 
 that tlie Eclectic Review was instituted for the avowed object of "t/jn- 
 ting dawn'''' the Established Church in England, a foct of which I 
 doubt not you are perfectly aware, and consequently a very prejudiced 
 and questionable witness against it. I should further have informed 
 the Committee that the average incomes of the Clergy of England did 
 not exceed £'209 per annum : That by the Church Temporalities Act 
 passed in 1834, the large incomes before enjoyed by the superior or- 
 ders of clergy, such as Bishops, Deans and Prebendiaries had been re- 
 duced to increase the stipends of the inferior orders in the Establish- 
 ment — and that by the " Church Discipline Act," commonly called the 
 Bishop of London's Act, any Clergyman so oblivious of his sacred of- 
 fice as to attend races, steeple-chases, or the like, would be rendered 
 liable, for the first oifence, to suspension for two years, and for a repe- 
 tition of the offence, to the loss of his gown. 
 
 I would then have referred to the favorable testimony borne by the 
 Bishop of Virginia, (an eye-witness,) a man eminent for his piety and 
 virtue, to the conduct of the English Clergy. 
 
 I do not presume to dictate to you what you ought to think or say 
 of the Clergy of England, or of the Church Establishment — but I trust 
 you will pardon me for lamenting that you should have lent the sanc- 
 tion of your high authority to the abuse of a church to which I am 
 much endeared, and to which, in my liumble opinion, tlie whole of 
 Christendom owe a debt which they will never be able to repay. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respef't and esteem. 
 
 Your obedient humble servant, 
 
 A. F. D. GiFFORD. 
 
 To Rev. Dr. Plumer, &c., &c. 
 
 In regard to the foregoing letUn-, I observe that it was written at my 
 instance and request, after a conversation with Mr. Gilford^ Finding 
 that gentleman laboring under misapprehensions as to the course of my 
 remarks hitherto, I desired an opportunity of publicly correcting any 
 misapprehensions, under which he or any portion of the public might 
 labor. I assert that I have not abused tlie English Church, and I refer 
 to the Committee for the truth of this remark. 
 
 Concerning the Eclectic Review, it is sufficient to say, that it is sup- 
 ported by a large body of as intelligent and loyal Englishmen as the 
 British Empire affords ; and that John Foster was long a large con- 
 tributor to its pages. Surely the editors of that Review can hardly be 
 believed to be so depraved as to publish deliberate falsehoods about 
 
71 
 
 matters concerning which at least one-half of the English people must 
 be supposed to have correct information, or concerning which there is 
 record evidence to expose any want of veracity. 
 
 As to "the Church Discipline Act" referred to by Mr. G., 1 would 
 observe that the very passage of such an act by the British Parliament, 
 presupposes a strong necessity for it, and argues a more extensive and 
 deep corruption of manners among the English Clergy than any thing 
 I have said on this occasion. 
 
 It is not the custom of Legislatures, and particularly of the British 
 Parliament, to spend their time in making laAvs that are likely to apply 
 to no case. Bishop Meade himself, as already quoted, argues thus 
 in another case in relation to this colony. Legislation purely m thesi 
 is practised only by foolish and idle men. And here, let mie ask, what 
 sort of Church Discipline is likely to obtain where such men as Bulvver 
 establish the canons of morality ? 
 
 I would further observe that I am perfectly willing to take Bishop 
 Meade, chosen by Mr. G. himself, as a witness in this case. On pp. 
 13, 20, 22, of his address to the Convention of his Diocese, May, 1845, 
 I find the following : Speaking of the Episcopal church in England be- 
 fore 1776, he calls her the "Mother Church, over whose defects there 
 was so much cause to mourn." He quotes with approbation the up- 
 braiding words of one in Virginia, to the Clergy of England, thus : "Do 
 they not either wilfully hide their talents, or keep themselves at home 
 for fear of losing a few pleasures ?" Again : " Though not so deeply 
 corrupted as the Church of Virginia, yet was the English Church most 
 sadly defective, both in doctrine and practice." He then speaks of a 
 k\v eminent men, whom God raised up in England, " to bear testimo- 
 ny against the jejune morality of the pulpit, and to condemn, as well 
 by their writings as example, the worldliness both of clergy and peo- 
 ple." But among those named as thus raised up, I do not see the 
 name of one, whom I suppose to have been a bishop, though he names 
 three laymen and one woman, Mrs. Moore, a name indeed, which the 
 good must venerate. He then speaks of "some in the Episcopal 
 church ot England and America" who "have embraced exploded er- 
 rors, and subjected the whole church to the charge of retracing its steps 
 towards apostate Rome." 
 
 Now, Sir, weigh these things fairly, and call to mind the character 
 given by Bishop Meade of the Foreign Missionaries sent out by the 
 Bishop of London to Virginia, during our colonial existence, and if 
 they do not contain far more severe reflections on the English church 
 
72 
 
 than any thing I have said, I will make any amende that duty may 
 
 require. 
 
 Bishop Meade is Mr. G.'s chosen witness. Mr. G. would have 
 
 been more wise to have chosen me. I at least have not testified so 
 
 terribly. 
 
 But, Sir, I must choose my witness in my turn. He shall be both 
 
 competent and credible. 
 
 I hold in my hand " The History of the Church of England, by 
 Thomas Vowler Short, D. D. Bishop of Sodor and Man." I suppose 
 his testimony against the state of tilings in England -is entitled to some 
 weight. On pag'e 308, speaking of the connection between Church 
 and State, he says: It " has fettered the church with many evils. It 
 has justly authorized the state interfering with clerical appointments, 
 and, from the value of the revenues, which are attached to them, has 
 unfortunately induced those at whose disposal they are placed to select 
 their friends, who are not always the proper persons to fill the situa- 
 tions ; while it has induced the clergy to seek for the preferments. 
 The poverty of many of our spiritual cures prevents them, humanly 
 speaking, from being properly taken care of; and God knows whether 
 the wealth of others does not tend to diffuse a want of spirituality 
 through the church." Pretty strono" language this for an English 
 Bishop — ^language implying fully as much as any thing I have said. 
 But he uses stronger still : " It has induced the state, from mistaken 
 kindness, to connect civil penalties with ecclesiastical censures, and by 
 altering the nature of such control, by diverting it from the consciences 
 to the present fears of the sinner, has done away with the utility of 
 them altogether." Worse and worse for a bishop to say. Sir, what 
 must be the state of a church in which ecclesiastical censures have no 
 utility whatever ! But he proceeds : 
 
 "It has put a stop in a great measure to the exercise of discipline 
 over the members of the church itself." Again : " There are many 
 offending memhers in it, for the correction and cutting off of whom, no 
 steps are, or perhaps can be, taken." 
 
 This is the testimony of a man who thinks " that the establishment 
 contains perhaps as large a number of the real servants of God as any 
 other body of men of the sams size," § 818, and who says that "In 
 his parish he [Richard Baxter] did that, which I believe the pastor is 
 directed in Holy Scripture not to do ; he tried to draw aij outward line 
 between the godly and ungodly;" and who thinks that " the private 
 , admonitions of a clergyman and the occasional interference of the civil 
 magistrate [in church discipline] may promote the cause of religion 
 
73 
 
 witli grea.er advantage " than such church discipline as Baxter used. 
 § 613. Ill note 7, p. 225, the Bishop says explicitly "that ecclesiasti- 
 cal dis-^ipline among the clergy has been destroyed ;" and he undertakes 
 to tell how ; 'l only add that Dr. Short has been made a Bishop since 
 he wrote this History. Ifof course was not considered a scandalous 
 pubhcation, but at least sufficiendy mild towards the estnb'lishment. 
 
 I have made these citations not simply because they speak the truth 
 as I beUeve, but because I wished to show the Committee that I had 
 been modetate and guarded in my statements respecting" the English 
 Establishment, I rejoice, and no man shall hinder me from rejoicing, 
 that among the eleven thousand of tlie English Clergy there are many 
 who manifest a christ-ian temper and are valiant for the truth. " But 
 this is despite the connection between church and state. May the num- 
 ber of sucli increase many fold. 
 
 RELIGION IN VIRGINIA ADVANCING. 
 
 Allow me to observe, that, if I am not greatly mistaken, true religion 
 has made more progress in this Commonwealth the last 50 years, than 
 in all iis previous history. I think the address of Bishop Meade to 
 the Convention of his Diocese clearly maintains the same truth as to 
 the Episcopal Church. He dates all its cheering progress-to the last 
 33 years in his own church. Be it remembered that .all this progress 
 has been made under the policy of the government, respecting religion, 
 which' it is now proposed to alter. Indeed throughout the United States 
 a degree of religious and moral influence has been reached whi^ih has 
 attracted the attention, if not the admiration, of every candid foreigner 
 visiting our shores. I have before me a work which is, in some re- 
 spects, the most remarkable production of the age. It is De Tocque- 
 ville's "Democracy in Amorica." He says (vol 2, pp.27, 28) : 
 
 " The American ministers of the Gospel do not attempt to draw or 
 to fix all the thoughts of man upon the life to come ; they are willing 
 to surrender a portion of his heart to the cares of the present, seeming 
 to consider the goods of this world as important, although secondary, 
 objects. If they take nojijjart themselves in productive labor, they are 
 at least interestad in its progression, and ready to applaud its results ; 
 and while tliey^never cease to point to the other world as the great ob- 
 ject of the hopes and fears of the believer, they do not forbid him 
 honestly to court prosperity in this. Far from attempting to show that 
 these tilings are distinct and contrary to one another, they study rather 
 to find out on what point they are most nearly and closely coimected. 
 
 "All the American clergy know and respect the inlQllectual suprem- 
 
74 
 
 acy exercised by the majority ; they never sustain any but necessary 
 conflicts with it. They take no share in the altercations of parties, but 
 they readily adopt the general opinions of their country and their age ; 
 and they allow themselves to be borne away without opposition in the 
 current of feeling and opinion by which every thing around them is 
 carried along. They endeavor to amend their contemporaries, but they 
 do not quit fellowship with them. Public opinion is, therefore, never 
 hostile to them, it rather supports and protects them ; and their belief 
 owes its authority, at the same time, to the strength which is its own, 
 and to that which they borrow from the opinions of the majority." 
 
 "In the United States, on the seventh day of every week the trading 
 and working life of the nation seems suspended; all noises cease; a " 
 deep tranquility, say rather the solemn calm of meditation succeeds the 
 turmoil of the week, and the soul resumes possession and contempla- 
 tion of itself. Upon this day the marts of traffic are deserted; every 
 member of the comniunity, accompanied by his children, goes to church, 
 where he listens to strange language, which would seem unsuited to 
 his ear. He is told of the countless evils caused by pride and covet- 
 ousness ; he is reminded of the necessity of checking his desires, of 
 the finer pleasures which belong to virtue alone, and of the true happi- 
 ness which attends it. On his return home he does not turn to the 
 ledgers of his calling, but he opens the book of Holy Scripture ; there 
 he meets with sublime or affecting descriptions of the greatness and 
 goodness of the Creator, of the infinite magnificence of the handiwork 
 of God, of the lofty destinies of man, of his duties, and of his immor- 
 tal privileges." — lb., vol. 2, p. 152. " Give democratic nations educa- 
 tion and freedom, and leave them alone." — lb., p. 153. So say I. 
 "Give us education and freedom, and leave us alone." 
 
 DON QUIXOTE. 
 
 One of the gentlemen has attempted to be witty, and has said that I 
 seem to be " imitating Don Quixote." Concerning this Don, I am not 
 very bright in my memory. But if I remember rightly, the Don rode 
 a sorrel horse. In,this I do sometimes imitate him ; but my horse is 
 not, I think, so lean as Rosenante. I think, too, the Don was far from 
 being a malignant man. If the gentleman intended to say the same of 
 me, I thank him for his good opinion. I might admit, also, that the 
 fates of the Don and myself had been somewhat similar in at least one 
 respect. If I am not mistaken he encountered a ifind-m\\\ or two. I 
 am not sure but that I have done the same. But, if I do not forget, the 
 Don had a squire. In this I am unlike him. I stand here all alone. 
 
75 
 
 The said squire, if I remember rightly, did often praise his master, yea, 
 highly applaud him for that, in which others could not, from want of 
 perspicacity no doubt, see any thing to commend. Now, sir, who has 
 acted tlie part of Sancho Panza in this debate but the very gentleman 
 who esteems me Quixotic? When his colleague [or knight] made his 
 speech, [or tilt,] the squire, I suppose, for fear the committee would not 
 s'ee the merits of his master, instantly rose and told us that the speech 
 was "eloquent, powerful and unanswerable." Is not this just like San- 
 cho ? If I remember rightly, Sancho did also, on one occasion, undergo 
 an operation called "blanketing." Whether any one here has suffered, 
 or is suffering any thing like the same, I will not even conjecture, others 
 may judge. 
 
 HALLUCINATION. 
 
 But the Same gentleman says that I " seem to be laboring under a 
 hallucination." On this point it may suffice to say, that if I labor un- 
 der any hallucination, so did the ablest men we ever had in Virginia. 
 I shall deem it sufficient at this point, to fortify positions previously 
 taken, by adducing some additional authorities, which, I am sure, will 
 have weight with the committee, and ensure respect from aU. I do this 
 the more readily as the opinions I shall quote are, in several points, 
 confirmatory of the general grounds I have taken in this discussion. 
 
 I suppose no man thought Henry St. George Tucker, as President of 
 the Court of Appeals of Virginia, a weak or visionary man. When he 
 resigned his place in that court to become, with great applause. Profes- 
 sor of Law in our University, I remember that the judges and lawyers 
 in that court unanimously passed resolutions, which, I believe, were as 
 just and true as they were spontaneous and respectful and commenda- 
 tory. Certainly they did not esteem him as laboring under any "hal- 
 lucination." 
 
 Now, Sir, in the case of Gallego's Ex'rs. vs. Att. General, 3 Leigh, 
 pp. 477, 478, 479, Tucker, President, says : " No man at all acquaint- 
 ed with the course of Legislation in Virginia can doubt for a moment, 
 the decided hostility of the Legislative power to religious corporations. 
 Its jealousy of the possible interference of religious establishments in 
 matters of government, if they were permitted to accumulate large 
 possessions, as the church has been prone to do elsewhere, is doubt- 
 less at the bottom of this feeling. The Legislature knows, as was re- 
 marked by the counsel, that wealth is power. Hence, the provision 
 in the Bill of Rights; hence, the solemn protest of the act on the sub- 
 ject of religious freedom; hence the repeal of the act incorporating 
 the Episcopal cluirch, and of that other act wliich invested the trus- 
 
76 
 
 tees appointed by religious societies with power to manage their pro- 
 perty : hence, too, in part the law for the sale of the glebe lands * * *. 
 The Legislature seems to have been fearful that the grant of any privi- 
 lege, however trivial, might serve but as an entering wedge to greater 
 demands. Nor did this apprehension of the dangers of ecclesiastical 
 establishments spring up for the first time, with our republican institu- 
 tions. The history of ages had attested the proneness of such estab- 
 lishments to vast accumulations of property. (He here cites the his- 
 tory of England and France, and adds :] With these examples before 
 our eyes, it is not wonderful that our statesmen have been cautious. 
 They have been wise in their caution. The evil has not sprung from 
 particular creeds, or the peculiarities of a confession of faith. It 
 grows out of the very nature of the tiling. * * * * Property, indeed, 
 it [the church] need not ask of the Legislature. The power to take 
 and accumulate, alone, is necessary : all time has shown that the influ- 
 ence of feeUngs of devotion will do the rest. I speak of those feel- 
 ings which exist without any undue influence from the pastor of the 
 Society. But if we go further and suppose it possible that those 
 abuses which once have existed, may exist again, the progress will be 
 more rapid, though not more certain. "What (says the accomplished 
 Sir Samuel Romilly,) is the authority of a guardian, or even of a pa- 
 rent, compared with the power of religious impressions under the as- 
 cendancy of a spiritual adviser, with such an engine to work upon the 
 passions ; to inspire (as the object may be best promoted) despair or 
 confidence ; to alarm the conscience by the horrors of eternal misery, 
 or support the drooping spirits by unfolding the prospect of happiness 
 which is never to end?" ^ 
 
 The bar and the bench in Virginia have both been elevated and dig- 
 nified in our times by one of whom I am sure the gentleman on the 
 other side will not say he has labored under any " hallucination." I 
 refer to Judge Stanard, of the court of appeals, himself, like Judge 
 Tucker, educated in the Episcopal Church, having long attached to 
 himself, I am told, the gentleman on the other side, by' a most valuable 
 friendship. 
 • What does he say ? 
 
 In the case of Selden et al. vs. Overseers of the Poor, decided in the 
 Court of Appeals of Virginia, and reported in II Leigh, Stanard, judge, 
 gave the opinion of the court. Speaking of the time that elapsed from 
 the act concerning tlie glebe lands to the year 1830, he says (p. 133) : 
 " During that period, one or more applications have been made to the 
 Legislature, by one or more religious sects, for acts of incorporation. 
 
to enable tliom to hold and administer more conveniently for the relio- 
 lous objects of the petitioning sect property to a limited amount, volun- 
 tarily contributed for those purposes. It is well known that such ap- 
 plications encountered in the Legislature the twofold objection of their 
 incompafibility with the principles of religious freedom, declared by 
 the act of 1785, and of the inexpediency of exercising the power to 
 create such corporations, though it were constitutional to do so ; and 
 that under the influence of one or other of these objections, or of.both 
 combined, those appUcations were rejected by large majorities." He 
 then recites the hiBtery of the refusal to grant such power by the con- 
 vention which in 1829-30 formed our present constitution, declares his 
 belief in the righteousness of the decision of the court in the case of 
 the glebe lands, &c. I recommend an examination of the whole opin- 
 ion of J. Stanard. The other sitting members of the court concurred. 
 So much concerning " hallucination." 
 
 THE PRESBVTERIANS. 
 
 It has been a§ked here and elsewhere, Did Presbyterians never seek 
 any corporate privilege from the Legislature of Virginia ? 
 
 I answer frankly, yes, some of them once did, yet never for an un- 
 defined object, but clearly and simply for a theological seminary. Is 
 not this very different from seeking corporate privileges for every con- 
 gregation and society which has been or may be formed ? I am also 
 free to yrant that Presbyterians are fallible, as all men are. Whether 
 they erred in this case or not, I will not now discuss ; but one thing I 
 \v\\\ assert, they took the denial in good temper and with a good grace, 
 and never petitioned a second time for the same object. Their semi- 
 nary is still unincorporated, and so I suppose it will remain. 
 
 To bring opposition to the measure before you into disrepute by the 
 argicmcnfum ad hominem, it has been said another State has granted 
 corporate powers to the trustees of the General Assembly of the Pres- 
 byterian Church. To this I reply : 
 
 1. This act of incorporation was passed some years before I was 
 born, and, therefore, if it were wise to seek it, I deserve no praise ; if 
 unwise, no censure. 
 
 2. Said corporation, though for the whole Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America, can by law hold property yielding only an 
 incom.e not exceeding ten thousand dollars per annum. The value of 
 all its investments in May last was less than $83,000. Its accounts 
 and the whole state of its funds are published every year in the most 
 
78 
 
 open manner. If it should err, its errors and abuses must be known 
 to the whole country. 
 
 3. Other churches have sought and obtained in the same State, or in 
 other States, the same power. From the first case reported in 4 
 Wheaton, it appears that the Baptists of Pennsylvania were incorpo- 
 rated in 1797, which was prior to any act of incorporation granted to 
 the trustees of the Presbyterian General Assembly. The Methodists 
 have in New York an incorporated book concern, which is worth not 
 less than $700,000, as I have been informed. The Episcopalians in 
 the same State hold corporate property by scores of millions of dollars. 
 
 4. Where these corporate powers are granted to one denomination 
 they create a necessity for every other church to seek the same. They 
 find that as acts of incorporation are multiplied, public opinion and trus- 
 teeships furnish less and less security to any property they may hold. 
 Besides, example is contagious, and has an influence none the less 
 powerful because silent. I have no doubt that if you grant the chief 
 prayer of the petition, one church after another will avail itself of the 
 use of it, until at last those persons most opposed to the principle in- 
 volved will be compelled, in self-defence, to follow the example set 
 tliem. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL ASPIRATIONS. 
 
 You have been told that "the Constitution of Virginia shuts clergy- 
 men out of legislative halls," and that it must therefore be certain " ec- 
 clesiastical aspirations " that lead me thus publicly to oppose this pe- 
 tition. On this remark I have several things to say. The first is that 
 I have hardly seen a more remarkable instance of feeble reasoning. 
 " The law forbids murder, therefore you must not give a man a mouth- 
 ful of bread, for a crumb has sometimes killed a man," wouljl be as 
 good reasoning. I have no objections to stating what I think of the 
 provision of our Constitution, which excludes clergymen from a seat in 
 our Legislature. It is that there are no men more fit to sit in that body 
 than some clergymen in Virginia, but if you should offer them ten 
 thousand a year, you could not induce them to come there. These 
 men in various churches I am willing to trust. There may be some 
 other clergymen in Virginia, who would like to be in the Legislature 
 even more than to preach the gospel. If there be any such, I am glad 
 I do not know them, and I am unwilling to trust them, to make laws 
 or to execute them. I, therefore, regard the present fundamental law 
 as excluding no man, who is fit and willing to be there. It is there- 
 fore good in its operation, however it may seem to contravene some 
 principles that have been held dear by Americans. Of course I am 
 
79 
 
 speaking of ordinary times. Nothing shall induce me to say one word 
 which might throw a shade over the memory of Witherspoon, Ten* 
 nent, Hall, and a host of patriotic and eminent divines, who served 
 their country in the Senate or in the field as duty called, in the days of 
 our glorious revolution. When such times return, I hope many will 
 imitate their example. But may not a clergyman come into this hall 
 and listen to the debates ? May he not present a petition and memo- 
 rial in respectful terms ? May he not be heard at the bar of the house ? 
 May he not be heard before a standing committee of the house for or 
 against a measure proposed ? If it is proof of " ecclesiastical aspira- 
 tion " in a clergyman to ask the committee to let our laws touching re- 
 ligion alone, what is it to ask the Legislature to change those laws ? 
 If it be proof of " ecclesiastical aspiration" to appear before this Com- 
 mittee, why did the two lawyers opposed to me bring in a clergyman 
 to help them out in debate ? Sir, " those who live in glass houses 
 ought not to throw stones," or, as a friend has expressed it in Johnso- 
 nian numbers : " Those individuals, who are domiciliated in silicic 
 messuages ought not to project granitic fragments." The course of 
 gentlemen, thus involving all they represent, and themselves too, re- 
 minds me of Sternhold & Hopkins' version of a part of one of the 
 Psalms : 
 
 " He digs a ditch and delves it deep, 
 
 In hope to hurt his brother ; 
 But lie shall fall into the pit 
 
 That he digged up for other. 
 Thus wrong returneth to the hurt 
 
 Of him in whom it bred ; 
 And all the mischief that he wrought, 
 
 Shall fall upon his head." 
 
 AN ATHEIST. 
 
 But, Sir, one gentleman has told you that he has found an atheist 
 somewhere, who is on my side of the question, and therefore, he thinks 
 I must be wrong. In reply I will, ask him, 1. If I will find two athe- 
 ists on his side of the question, will he admit that he is wrong ? He 
 ought to, if he is sincere in offering such an argument. I have not, 
 however, gone about talking to those be^le-headed animals, called athe* 
 ists, to get arguments for or against my side of the question. If I had, 
 I suppose I should have used much such arguments as the gcndeman 
 does. 
 
 2. If there be peaceable, orderly, law-abiding atheists in the commu- 
 nity, and such men have often lived, then I contend that they are not 
 to be annoyed by any legislation concerning religion. If there be but 
 
■s(J 
 
 Oile such, pit}' jihn, pray for him, treat liim kindly, live ^k bettek 
 LIFE THAN HE DOES, with iiieeliness and fear give him your reason^ for 
 believing as you do ; but do not begin to goad him by laws, wKiwi'put 
 him under ouiou-' disabilities. If there be such an atheiiot as I have 
 described, I liope he does agree Avith me in opposing the petition. 
 
 3. But the gentleman's own history for a short time back furnishes 
 a full answer to this argument. Last spring he was a candidate for..the 
 Legislature. Did he then refuse the vote of his old atheist friend ? I 
 I do not know that it was offered, but if it had been, would he have re- 
 fused it? Yet to have accepted it might have looked like le?guing 
 with atheists. I will yenture to say that he took all the legai votes he 
 could get from any quarter. But this is not all. \\\ that contest there 
 was strong opposition from a brother Whig, and, it is said, that I'emo- 
 cratic votes decided the contest in favor of the gentleman before you. 
 Now if my cause is not good on Christian principles because an 
 atheist would vote with me, was his cause good on TVh'j principles 
 when the Democrats did vote fo7' him ? If the point bears hard, let 
 the gentleman remember that he made it himself. 
 
 CHAMBER COUNSEL. 
 
 But it has been said (though I cannot "see how it ca^ts any light on 
 the subject before yoa,) that I have piles of books by jpe. and that I 
 have been borrov;ing books from an eminent lawyer in town. In re- 
 ply I say : 
 
 1. I wish I could say as m.uch for the other side. I have noi seen 
 either of the gentlemen with a book in his hand, except one, out, of 
 which two lines were read. My opponents are origin;il geniuses, who 
 poar far above constitutional law and the history of the world. They 
 contem.n such dull prose writers as have reco'rded the opinions and 
 deeds of generations gon^ by. 
 
 2. But, Sir, if it was intended to insinuate that I employed •' cham- 
 ber counsel" or any person to study my argument for me, I can only 
 say it is a' mistake. No man has dons it, although several of my 
 friends have been very obliging, some of them Episcopalians too, in 
 lending me books and in giving me hints to authorities. 
 
 3. Lord Bacon says : "The greatest trust between man and man iS 
 the trust of giving counsel;" and I know unasked advice is seldom 
 well reccircd. Yet my counsel is so good that I think it ought to be 
 received. It is that when this question is next argued before the Com- 
 mittee, gentlemeii shall read the books they have in their own libi-anes, 
 and then borrow some- more from lawyers, clergymen .or booksellers, 
 and not taky it for granted that the Legislative Committee will } ield to 
 
the personal authority of petitioners. I really regard this as whole- 
 some advice, and will very cheerfully lend to either of the gentlemen 
 any book, in my library. 
 
 SOME HEAT. 
 
 I ask the attention of the Committee, for a moment, to the energy (?) 
 with which my humble request, that you will carefully deliberate be- 
 fore you act, has been met. Argument can be weighed, and, if un- 
 sound, may be answered. But 1 cannot reply to such remarks as 
 these — "infidel objection," "profane attack," (fcc, &c. "From all 
 uncharitableness. Good Lord, deliver us." I remember of whom it 
 was said that "being reviled, he reviled not again." But I call atten- 
 tion to this matter for the purpose of asking: If gentlemen, who ap- 
 pear before you as humble petitioners, feel free to use such language, 
 what would they not do, if once they were fairly entrenched behind a 
 few millions of corporate property ? 
 
 As to the sentiment of Rousseau : " that the man, who first enclosed 
 a field, was the author of all the social ills that followed," which one 
 gentleman says, I " seem to have adopted," I say I abhor it, and he 
 knows that I abhor it, as much as himself, his colleague, or any of the 
 Committee. Nor was there any occasion, much less a cause for his 
 remark. I quoted from Paine a few sentences so clear, so sound, so 
 well-expressed, that not a gentleman in the house doubts the truth they 
 contahi, and for this he would make me responsible for a vile, an infa- 
 JHOUS sentiment. This is contrary to the very first rule of manly de- 
 bate, which is " never to impute to an adversary any opinion, which 
 he is known to reject." This attempt, like the statement so often 
 made by the other side, respecting the origin of this debate, and al- 
 though corrected half a dozen times by the Chairman, still persisted 
 in, can do no harm to m-e, and I predict it will do no good to my op- 
 ponents or their cause. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I hope I may say that in the remarks I have submitted, no offence 
 has been taken ; certainly none was intended. If I have spoken free- 
 ly, I have done only what I am willing all others should do ; if I have 
 spoken earnestly, the magnitude of the interests at stake must be my 
 excuse. I have had one source of considerable pleasure in this dis- 
 cussion. It has been the conviction that if there be fallacy in my ar- 
 gument, my skilful opponents are the proper men to detect it ; and the 
 Committee is the proper tribunal to judge between us ; on the other 
 hand, if Troy could be defended by any, she could be defended by 
 those on the other side. I express the wish, that the question may 
 
82 
 
 now bo settled by the Legislature for at least half a century to come ; 
 although I am not ignorant that out of doors it has been declared as the 
 purpose of some to agitate it from year to year. In his address to the 
 last Convention, Bishop Meade says: (p. 12, of Journal,) "For my 
 own part, whatever may be done bj^ others, I shall continue to inform 
 the church of Virginia [I suppose he means his own branch of the 
 church,] of all such violations of our just rights, and shall be glad to 
 see the Convention uniting, from year to year, with other bodies, in 
 presenting our claims to the liCgislature, and making known the griev- 
 ances under which we labor. Perseverance in a cause so just must 
 eventually, by the blessing of heaA'en, be crowned with success." I 
 fear we shall see all this efibrt from year to year. I am sorry that we 
 shall. I can only say, " if anv man, or set of men have a native fond- 
 ness for standing behind a tree, it is no offence to me." 
 
 In conclusion, I reciprocate all the personal kindness, wliicli has 
 been expressed by gentlemen on the other side ; and thank the Com- 
 mittee for the patience and courtesy manifested by them through the 
 whole discussion.