instituted for a perpetual memory of his death and sacri fice, until his coming again," what must be the answer? The sacred vessels of the temple have been scattered, they have passed in some instances into impious hands. Within our own times has the fact occurred that a reckless sensualist has administered the morning dram to his guests from the silver cup which has often contained the consecrated symbol of his Saviour's blood !* In another instance, the entire set of communion plate of one of the old churches is in the hands of one who belongs to the society of Baptists. It has fallen to the lot of the Bishop of Virginia, in the course of his visitations, to witness the conversion of a marble baptismal font into a watering-trough for horses. These facts last recorded did not take place by virtue of the law of 1802; for that authorized no sale of the furniture of the church: but still they are a consequence of that law; they prove that when once the decree has gone forth which touches what a church claims as its lawful rights-when once the public are taught that their legislators feel obliged, on such a subject, to yield to their demands-the barrier is broken down; might makes right; and no man can foretell how far the zeal of the people will outstrip the intentions of their legislators. It is a fact worthy of notice that the records of history present few or no instances in which the spoliation of property devoted to literary or ecclesiastical purposes, has not failed, first, to accomplish the benefit which was avowed as the cause of the interference with it; and, secondly, to be stayed within the limits contemplated by those who advised it. In view of the facts just related, we are constrained to say, that if in her former prosperous condition the church in Virginia had sinned more deeply than she is accused of having done, even by her enemies, verily, in the ruin which MS. letter in the author's possession, from one of the Virginia clergy. t Ibid. we have now seen overtake her, she has made an ample, and, to her, costly atonement. It was not long after the passage of the act of 1802, before the church found it necessary to bring the constitutionality of that law before the proper tribunal for consideration. This was done in the year 1804, in the celebrated case of Turpin et al. vs. Locket et al., commonly known as the Manchester case. The defendants, as overseers of the poor, had undertaken to sell the glebe lands of the parish of Manchester, under the act of 1802; and the plaintiffs, who were the churchwardens and vestrymen, filed a bill in chancery, to prevent the sale by an injunction.* The cause finally, by an appeal from the decree of Chancellor Wythe, came before the court of appeals, the highest tribunal in Virginia; which, at that time, was composed of Judge Pendleton, the president, with Judges Carrington, Lyons, Roane, and Fleming. The last named gentleman, however, did not sit in the cause, because he considered himself interested in the decision.† As the principles involved in the case were of great im portance, and the property of the glebes was of much value, it may readily be supposed that the cause excited a deep interest; and, after an elaborate argument, the court declined then giving an opinion, and held it under adviseIn the vacation which succeeded, Judge Pendleton prepared his opinion in writing; it was, that the act of 1802 was unconstitutional, and that the glebes belonged to the Protestant Episcopal church. But, on the night before the opinion was to have been pronounced, Judge Pendleton died; and as Judges Carrington and Lyons were both known to be of a similar opinion, the judgment of the court, but for the death of its president, would have been rendered on the next day for the church. * 6 Call's Reports, 113. + Lee's Review of the Chancellor's opinion in Selden et al. vs. overseers of the poor of Loudoun, p. 17. + 6 Call's Reports, 187. After the death of Judge Pendleton, Judge Tucker was appointed to succeed him, and the cause was again argued. The grounds taken were briefly these: on the part of the defendants it was argued, 1. That if the church had power to hold the glebes before the American revolution, that event destroyed such power; and upon a dissolution of the former political system, the glebes devolved upon the commonwealth. To this it was answered, that by various legislative acts adopted after the change in government, the very framers of the constitution, who adopted these acts, conclusively showed that they did not suppose the revolution had destroyed the church: thus, on the very day after the declaration of independence, the convention of Virginia altered the Book of Common Prayer, to accommodate it to the change in affairs; and it should here be added, that Judges Carrington and Lyons, both of whom were members of the convention of Virginia, declared, in their opinion, that the destruction of the church was not supposed, at the time, to have resulted from the change of government. It was also answered, that revolutions are intended to preserve rights, not to take them away; and that alterations in the form of a government do not affect the rights of private property. 2. It was urged that a distinction obtains between a natural person and an artificial body, such as a corporation: that even admitting the rights of the first to be unmolested by a revolution, yet the rights of the latter are thereby lost. In reply, it was said, that as all property was matter of civil institution, and the right to it was not natural, but in all cases created by law, the ground on which private property was held sacred applied as forcibly to a society as it did to an individual. 3. It was argued that the church, as a society, lost its corporate existence by the revolution: first, because the king, one of its integral parts, was gone; secondly, because incorporated religious societies were contrary to the sixteenth article of the bill of rights; and, thirdly, because the profits of the glebes were emoluments, which were forbidden by the fourth article. It was answered, that neither of these positions was true. First, the king never was an integral part of the established church, even in England; but, if he were, then a society is not destroyed by the removal of one of its parts, provided enough be left to carry on its operations. Secondly, the sixteenth article of the bill of rights relates simply to the rights of conscience, and the mutual charities due from man to man.* Thirdly, the fourth article does not relate to property at all, but to emoluments and privileges subsequently to be created in favour of the great officers of government; and refers to magistrates, legislators, and judges only. Upon the second argument, Judges Carrington and Lyons still retained their former opinion, Judge Tucker concurred in opinion with Judge Roane that the act of 1802 was constitutional, and that the glebes might be sold; while Judge Fleming, who was known to agree with Judges Carrington and Lyons, still declined, for the reason before given, to sit in the case. Thus the court was equally divided; and, of course, the decree below, from which an appeal had been taken, was affirmed; though it has never yet been determined by a majority of the court of appeals in Virginia, that the law of 1802 is constitutional. * The article is in these words :-"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." CHAPTER XIII. 1805-1816. Convention of 1805-An assistant Bishop proposed-Itinerating Clergy recommended-Suspension of Conventions-Death of Bishop Madison -Election of Dr. Bracken to the Episcopate-He declines-Utter Prostration of a part of the Church-First dawn of Improvement in her Prospects-Election of Bishop Moore to the Episcopate-Clergy not more numerous than they were about Two Hundred Years before-Revival of the Church-Zeal and Labours of the Bishop and Clergy-Bequest to the Church-Discipline of the Laity-A number of new Churches built -Old ones repaired-Difficulties arising from the Bishop's being a Parish Minister-Theological Education. THE Convention of 1805 opened with an attendance of fifteen clergymen and sixteen laymen; and when it is remembered that the posture of affairs was now such as put in peril everything to which the church had a claim, and therefore made a loud call upon Episcopalians to come to her aid with their counsels, we are constrained to consider the limited number of attendants upon the convention as evidence, that in the minds of Churchmen generally the further prosecution of their cause was deemed useless. Such, however, was not the sentiment of the few who did assemble. Though feeble in numbers, they were yet resolute in purpose; and considering the great question of the title to the glebes as yet undecided, they did not fail to put upon their records a solemn protest against the law of 1802 as being unconstitutional, and unanimously resolved that the bishop and standing committee should be authorized and requested" to pursue to the end" the defence of the rights and property of the church. They called also upon every parish to send its contribution towards a fund for the pur |