Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-06-19


Of excluding those who did not cortovnl
| TO II, from what they CONCEIVE io tc q
benefit and privilege, and II -r-s en-
tain it Uould stop here, there might - 40
great harm in the resolution. Il wptid
only then be liable 10 The objection Oh aa
unnecessary manifestation of folly. 4
would prove how little the cOnVoniNU
understood OF human nature IL .Wodii
bring into some doubt their hny
ledge of the true principles of the Fps
copal church-but il would be disregard
ed and soon forgotten. This, hoWcyti,
seems not 10 have beenihe intention, nor
is il probable thai it will he the effect OF
the resolution. Ii vas adopted aVoW ed
ly, for the purpose of producing con.
formity Of conduct aud unanimiiy of o.
pinion among all the members of the
communion" Ii is declared in Tire siron-
gest terms that the prescribed amuscnents
shall be reiinqushsd by all the communi-
Giants of the church as having the bad ct
feet of staining the purity OF the christi
an cllaracter-of giving offence 10 their
piouS brethren (meaning themselves OF
cOurse) and OF endangerlng the salvation
OF their own souls. All the clergy present
were unanimous IN This violent IL decided
denunciaiiOn. And ai,erthis, Will any one
doubt that IL carries With II, ana was M
tended 10 carry with il all the authorities
of Canon Ii must have been known
that no persons of common sense or de-
cency, would, with that resolution before
their eyes, 10 which all the clergy had as
sented, offer themselves to the commu-
Mon table. after going TO ball, race, or
theatre. IL would be enough for them,
Il a.
clared such conduct stain upon the pu-
rity OF the christian character, an offence
to him who was 10 distribute the sacred
symbols, and equal in guilt TO sc soul
murder" They could not after this, al
though they NIGH; " conscientiously en-
tcrtain Il different opinion" ask to partake
of the holy rife, from The hands of him,
who had formally, and in the strongest
terms, declared them altogether unworthy
OF 1T. Ii is not 10 be presumed that 10 OBJ
viate this objection, and 10 reconcile
them 10 the church, The minister would
hold different language in private or in
public, or would give countenance TO the
idea that such practices furnished no re-
al impeachment TO the receiving the sacra-
ment. Tie effect of the resolution there
fore, must be 10 exclude all who differ
from the Convention and are independent
and honest enough TO avow and act
up TO their opinions-and this effect is so
palpable that IT must have been III the
contemplation of those who adopted if.
Indeed the resolution has very much the
appearance of endeavoring to do that in
directly, which il might not have been
thought altogether prudent TO attempt
openly. Ii might be stroke of policy 10
consider II a canon orno canon, according
TO the temper with which il should be re-
ceived. If favorably,i III would be aresolu-
ton having the effect of canon and Of
the same binding authority. If unfavo-
rably, If would be mere expression of
opinion simple recommendation, which
those who differed from the Convention,
might il they thought proper. copscienti-
ously disobey For my own part, would
rather that ii had moi this double aspect.
| dislike these masked batteries III a state
of peace. We have right 10 be fairly in
formed Of the real objects of those who
think themselves entitled TO govern the
Episcopal Church, and even the appear
ance of palieriDg with us in double
sense" is disagrecable and offensive. That
majority sfihe Convention had no such
design, but really meant (what they said)
reproduce by their resolution, conformity
nf conduct and unanimity of opinion, on
the points III question, | do conscienti-
ously believe--aBd therefore shall in my
next proceed 10 short consideration OF
the subject in this view of il.
PHlLO-MARCUS.