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

or resisting sttcnf pY0pOscu au'el0s
meats, .pi. course. belongs to. exsryrs alocesa.
But suppose..all these methods fail IN sue rue
d case lias the Diocese OF yirgin Ia, suppos-;
ing her still firm In adhe renee TO the pftn'
cfples OF 1850. no remedy r. Mnst she DOW
to the ecclesiastical tyranny, leaving .indi-
yidual members to steal away one BY one,
from the Church which 81 - 80
SHELTERED .TREIE FATHERS FoR MANY GENE
g = = RArfoNs? y. s. -, ,,,f Il. 45..,st
or has the. diocese her. reserved rights,
equal to the crisis, which shall enable her,
without lust charge of ,chism, to: separate
herself from uncongenial coDpani ons. even
without their consent, standing fast, In her
integrity as o diocese Of the Church :fof
Christ and claiming tbesr respect and, fellow-
shir, OF all the faithful in chrlstendomf
This is grave question. r. i@I, IA:
Your committee believes such rishteor
withdrawal for reasons OF great magnl-
tude from unworthy companionsbip is a
part OF the liberty wherewith Christ has
made every diocese free; that, all human
arrangements and constitutions are made
with the implied understanding OF such re-
served rights. While affirming the right OF
our diocese to withdraw from union with
the General Church without the consent OF
the other dioceses. it is not Intended 10
claim the right of withdrawal, at pleasure.
The solemn bond OF union among the no
ceses cannot be surrendered lightly without
sin. Though voluntary union OF indie
pendent churches, it is compact to Wbicn
each is bound so long as the terms on when
The compact was made remain fulfilled. NO
considerations of feeling or mere expe'
diency can Justify rupture Of the bond,
5! In any case of contemplated withdrawal,
tue possibility OF the entire diocese not con-
curing in such withdrawal must likewise
be taken into account. It is certainly sup
possible that some congregations, and that
individual members Of many congregations,
might think it their right and duty to re.
main members OF the Protestant Episcopal
Church, OF the United States. These con-
gregations and individual members might
claim rights OF property, which could only
be adjusted in the civil courts. and what
ever might be the result OF litigation, so far
as property is concerned, there can be no
doubtas to 5=:g go
THE EFFECTS UPON MORAL AND RELIGIOUS
$50 .s.. INTERESTS. 49, sra-,f Esn
Ill.vill and controversies, rending fami-
lies, Congregations and communities, so
dishonoring to the Masters name, have
always resulted from divisions in the
Church, and perhaps always must result.
These are facts which must always make
Christian people slow to resort to separ;l-
ton as remedy, even for great evils. But
such facts ought not to make us deny that
our diocese has right, under the great
charter which Christ has given to the cath
olic Church, 10 withdraw from union with
the General Church, should evils become
intolerable. "'r
lfaythat dayneuer Gomez is the prayer OF
your committee. isl. -.
At the conclusion of the reading OF the
report, at 2 p. NJ, Rev. Dr.. Hanckel rose to
read to the Council, in connection with the
report, an historical view OF primitive do
cescan independence, when, on motion OF
Rev. DR.. Spriss, under the order to adjourn
az . O'Clock, the first days session was ter
minated. In addition to the paper referred
TO. 4 document embodying succinct state
ment OF principles, understood to be the
work OF Judge Shelley, will also be read.
Second Day.
lSpccial telegram 10 the Dispatch.J
LYScuBURG, May 16.-The second days
session OF the Council was very largely at
tended, and the deliberations OF the bedy
OF much interest.
The Bishop read his annual address, much
of which is devoted to q detailed recital OIL
his episcopal .labors during the past year.
There has been considerable increase In the
number of combinations. He refers at
length to the evil OF mountaineering, and uses
some very plain and emphatic LANGUAGE.
Upou the subject Of division Of the diocese
he expresses his opposition, but says he
would gladly have an assistant. This part
OF his address was referred to special com.
mittee OF eleven.
Rev. z. N. Jones, OF Petersburg, sub
mitled the following: ,.'
TO the Clergy and Loity of The Diocese OF
Virginia: -ss -..a ".
at the fall session OF the Petersburg Con-
vocation. held at Nottoway Courthouse in
November, 1877, a committee was appointed
to consider the feasibility OF applying to
the Diocesan Council for such canonical re-
coenition OF the Conyocation as would rem
der them more efficient in their work, and
more thoroughly identify them with the
work OF QUIZ Diocesan Missionary Society.
At the spring session held at Hampton in
April, 1878, the accompanying report was
presented by that committee, and the fol-
lowing resolutions adopted concerng it:
Resolued, That this Conyocation approve
this report, and commend some such meas
ure as it advises to the serious considera-
ton of the clergy and laity of the Diocese
OF Virginia.
Resolved, That copy OF this report be
sent to the Bishop and to the president Of
each Convocation, and published in the
Southern Churchnan.
2 THOMAS SPENCER, Secretary.
3 Churchill u. Gibson, President.
The committee appointed by the Peters
burg Convocation at its last meeting. to
whom the expediency Of dividing the Do
cese of Virginia into conversational districts
by the Council was referred, begs leave to
submit the following report: -
Although the diocese is now well en-
braced by voluntary congregations. your
committee believe that more formal dlvi-
sion into canonical organizations, so consti-
tuted as to include its whole territory with
to the extension Of the Church and its rapid
and symmetrical growth. We therefore
earnestly recommend the apportionment OF
the diocese into definite CONGREGATIONAL dis
trictS,I having such metes and bounds as are
prescribe. We further recommend that
each Conyocation thus organized by canon
be represented by clerical and lay delegate
in all the meetings Of the Diocesan Mission
airy Committee. While including all the
possible advantages Of our present volun-
tary system; convocations thus sanctioned
by the Council itself, and invested with such
authority as it might see tit tosconfer, would
be rendered not only more efficient in their
local operations, but become valuable aux
iliaries OF the Diocesan Committee and
sources OF information to our diocesan him
self. 49,, .
/. While persuaded that the !onerous and