The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-05-17

Arch, slesat e. chass and q. c. aS, lr
Clerical support Messrs. Walter II. ETay-
ior. ,ynmes M. Shields, ~ illiam r. AbbUtt,
James W. Claiborne, K,tH II, pulaneyy FheAs
r.. Preaton. Thomas Moore, B. j. BARBOUR,
81: 81. Ruode, md &. il. Phillips.
On the Brotherhood Messrs. j. M. Pat
ton, John W. BeTeridg and Il IL d. Black
~ a,.;ss flHoURs FOB MEETING. q 9tl.sft;4it
r4oif emotion Of Rev. T.lMs Carson IL was
ordered that the Council meet ats "a: IA.
and adjourn at 2 ri. nj. daily, with recess ut
liam. for divine service. M I 80
LIMITATIONS OF FEDERAL POWER as THEY
-;fss ifi3fa AFFECT THIS DIOCESE. ..,, ,,,s,.f,
Rev. DR.. Norton, from the, committee an.
pointed bythe Council ct its session in 1876
to INQUIRE into the origin and limftaslons OF:
the Federal power as they affect ibis diocese,
and To ascertain. to what extent and liz. what,
way '(ff az n1r the Church in this diocese has,
parted with her original right OF self-goV--
erment, and how far she is TO be governed
by the nets and opinions Ut other eccIesias-i
tical bodies, whether Anglican or American!
whether OF modern or former times, after
DaIient examination of the subject the COM
mittee say that from the first settlement OF
I the country until the Revolution there was
ne bond OF union among the Protestant
Episcopal churches in the several colonies,
which afterwards became united States. save
/ in their common subsection to the 1urls-
diction Of the Bishop OF London in some
what underlined obligation to obey the
ecclesiastical laws Of England, and in the
use of the Book Of Common Prayer. The
Revolution "seYered the union between
the colonial churches and that OF the pa
rent land" and destroyed also the union
among themselves, In the language OF
Bishop White, tsthey had been heretofore
detached from, and independent, Of, one an
| other except in the bond which had sub
sisted through the medium Of the Bishop
LOT London. That medium OF connection
/ had been confessedly DESTROYED by the Rev.
loiution, and, therefore, it was evident that
without the creating OF some new tie a1sl'2
: THE CHURCHES IN THE DIFFERENT STATES. -
and even those in the same Estate, might
adopt such varying measures'a as would 1or-:
ever prevent their being combined in one
communion" - =. -.
| No one who has studied the history OF
those times can doubt the statement OF DR..
Hawks, s.that in each State the Church con-
sidered itself an integral part OF the Church
OF Christ, perfectly independent in its gov
eminent OF any and every branch OF the
Church in christendom." - ,s.,.
During the years from 1888 to 1889, when
the constitution CT the General Church was
finally adopted, there were conventions OF
delegates from the several dioceses, bishops
were consecrated, and important prclIm1na-
nv measures adopted; but there was moth
| ing to interfere with the independence Of
the churches in the different States.
The adoption Of the constitution OF the
4 General Church has been supposed to modl-
| iy that independence, and was expected 10
ascertain to what extent the union OF the
Church in Virginia with the other processes,
undera general constitution, has Invested the
diocese OF the right Of seif-government, con-
fessedIy belonging to her from 1888 to 1859.
| When a similar question is propoundcd
with regard to State-rights under the Fede-
raj Constitution the answer is made easier
| by the fact that the Constitution enumerates
| certain powers which may be exercised by
the General Government, and expressly de-
clares that "the powers not delegated to
| the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States; are reserved
| to the States respectively or to the people"
No such enumeration or declaration is
found in the constitution OF the Church,
and we are therefore lett to
STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF,
and the history and the circumstances OF
| its formation, to learn the relative extent OF
Federal and diocesan powers. The inquiry
NAV be conveniently divided into two ques-
| tionS-YiZ.':
L. So long as the diocese of Virginia re-
mans in union with the other dioceses,
! what powers can be exercised exclusively
by the General Church, and what powers
remain with the diocese?
| .. Has the diocese OF Virginia surrender
ed such an exercise OF independence rs
would permit her to withdraw from the
union, under any circumstances, without
the assent OF the other dioceSes? 1t'1
The committee then proceeds at" great
TO ANSWER THESE TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS,
and says the great object aimed at was to
secure uniformity in doctrine, discipline,
and worship" which appears from the
| fundamental principles enunciated by the
voluntary assembly Of clergy and laity in
| New York, October, 1884. and is expressly
stated in the preamble Of the constitution
| set forth and recommended to the dioceseS
! by the General Convention OF 1855. Pro-
visions to secure such uniformity are found
in the constitution as proposed in 1885 and
as adopted IN 1889. .....
Every year of the last twenty-seven has
shown the steadily-increasiHg power OF the
General Church and the diminishing iuris-
diction OF the dioceses. Now, il we be
asked whether the constitution itself deter
mines any limit beyond which this process
of absorption cannot go, after the best eX-
animation we can give that instrument, we
are compelled to answer in the negative.
The " General Constitution and Canons"
have been submitted to by the dioceses since
1889 as the supreme law OF the Church;
superseding all identical and annuling all
conflicting diocesan legislation upon what
ever matter the General Church has decided
to legislate, and there seems no check or
hindrance in any express provision OF the
constitution itself to the gradual enlarge
ment or Federal power and the reduction OF
diocesan authority to n mere shadow.
II we turn to the ~, -, - r,s..a..
HISTORY OF THE FORMATION OF TIE coNsTI-
+ go >'," TUITION, 49, Il . =.
however, it will be found that there were
conditions sine qui6us NON OF its adoption.
Among them We're: s;1i..!.sf
b /. Adherence in all essential points tothe
doctrine OF the Church OF England. o,S.:3
9. The Limitation of the exercise OF ,Epis-
copal powers. by law. Il 1oiaa y lIG
s. The, effective voice Of presbyters and
laymen 10 all legislation OF the Church, eX-
Guiding, every possible claim Of bishops to
legislate without the cooperation of both
clergy and laity: ,@ 49,