Richmond Enquirer

Resolution of the Episcopal Convention.
To the Editor of the Enquirer.
No. I.

SIR....I perceive by your hint at the
foot of Marcus's communication, that you
are unwilling to occupy the columns of
your paper with theological discussions.*
Nor does it excite my surprise that you
should feel this reluctance. We all of us
know that in such controversies a temper
the least likely to lead to truth and con-
viction has been usually manifested—that
the combatants have parted more angry
than each other than they met—and that
their discussions have been conducted
with an intemperate zeal and persevering
obstinacy, disgraceful to themselves and
injurious to their cause.

This would probably be of itself a suf-
ficient reason for excluding such writers
from the columns of a well regulated
press. But there are other paramount
considerations which ought to induce an
editor to be cautious of encouraging dis-
putes purely theological. They have upon religion itself and its ministers an un-
happy effect. They have a tendency to
bring the one into contempt, and to shake
the very foundations of the other. They
weaken in the public mind those senti-
ments of reverence and respect for Chris-
tianity, which are essential to a complete
developement of its benefits; and they
produce in one class of men a straight
laced austerity, in another a gross licen-
tiousness—equally hostile to an enlightened and practical piety and to the peace
and well being of society. But these are
effects that a wise and prudent editor will
deprecate, even if he considers the ques-
tion in no other character than as a poli-
tician. For it is now universally admitted in the civilized world, that the Christian religion, whether of divine or human
origin, has had upon society the most be-
neficial effects; has tended in an eminent
degree to improve and exalt our nature;
and has promoted in a remarkable man-
ner the views of the legislator, by adding
sanctions to the moral code, of the most
powerful and interesting nature.

of
course such an editor would rather seek
to strengthen and confirm its benignant
influence, than to destroy it by giving
currency to the effusions of fire-eyed fa-
naticism or thoughtless infidelity.

Yet on the other hand, it must be ac-
knowledged there is some danger of fall-
ing into the opposite extreme, and it is no
easy matter to draw the true line of sepa-
ration between them. It is, I think, appa-
rent, that the fundamentals of religion
ought always to be held sacred, and even
its long established dogmas ought to be
respected. But if we extend this indul-
gence to every new opinion or wild inven-
tion of any particular sect, it may lead to
the most dangerous and fatal errors. The
maxim of our republic, consecrated in
the act for establishing religious freedom,
is that truth is all-powerful in any con-
flicts with error. "unless she is disarmed of
her natural weapons. free argument and de-
bate." But she is so disarmed, if her voice
cannot be raised where it may be heard,
and if the press is closed to one side, while
the pulpit is open to the other. We know
and feel the powerful influence of this last
upon public opinion. Next to the press,
it is the most formidable of all auxiliaries
to either good or evil, and within its par-
licular sphere of action, it has even more
influence than the press itself. If then,
most unhappily, it should lend itself to
error, what security have we against every species of false doctrine and ridiculous
pretension, other than the independence
of a press which will come fearlessly for-
ward, and arm truth with her natural
and proper weapons? We have none other.
We should look for it, to the wisdom, the
prudence, the unambitious humility of
our clergy, in vain. The ministers and
leaders of every religious sect have been
at all times more or less fond of the pos-
session and exercise of power. It is natu-
ral they should feel the same anxiety to
extend their influence over the rest of
mankind, as any other class of men; and
accordingly we find they have never been
the last in attempting to acquire it. Con-
nected with the civil authority, they have
uniformly persecuted those who were un-
fortunate enough to differ from them in
opinion. Unsupported by it, they endeavor to attain their objects by working on
the fears, the feelings, and passions of
men. No church is altogether free from
this spirit—the history of all proves it.—
They have all been in their turns the ob-
jects or the instruments of persecution...
They have all offered human victims as
an acceptable sacrifice to the God of
mercy—and when the spirit of the age has
driven them from this abomination, they
have all resorted to other expedients to
fetter the minds and tyrannize over the
consciences of non conformists. First
they used whips and dungeons, pains, pe-
nalties and forfeitures. The immortal
Locke opened the eyes of men to the cru-
elty, the injustice and inefficacy of these
attempts to produce "uniformity of opinion," and they were necessarily relinquished. But one strong hold still remained—
men might be governed by their hopes,
if not by their fears; and a negation of
rewards could not be complained of as a
punishment. Of course the governing
sect was at liberty to monopolize all the
honors of the state, and deny them to
their opponents. From this, and as it was
supposed, their last entrenchment, they
were dislodged in this state, by the glori-
ous act for establishing freedom, which
places all attempts to influence the mind
by "civil incapacitations," on the same
footing with attempts to influence it by
"temporal punishments or burthens," and
indignantly denounces "the impious pre-
sumption of legislators and rulers, civil as
well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have as-
sumed dominion over the faith of others,
setting up their own opinions and modes
of thinking as the only true and infallible."

Seeing then this tendency to mischief and
evil even in the best establishments, ought
any man to be blamed for attempting to
counteract it? Is it enough to say that in
this country no such scenes can be re-
peated? And are there no dangers to be
apprehended here from priests & bigots?
I do not affirm that they will ever again
have the same authority which they once
possessed. I do not think it at all likely
that in this enlightened age any Court of
High Commission can be instituted, or
solemn league and covenant renewed, or
inquisition established: but I verily do
think that a clerical influence may, even
here, be obtained, which if not resisted in
time, might prove fatal to a free and manly expression of opinion—fatal to the liberty of conscience—and fatal to domestic
peace and happiness.

We have indeed heard in some of our
sister states, of the existence and effects
of this influence, and even in our own, if
report is to be believed, it has reared a
daring and presumptuous head, I would
willingly conceal the facts which are said
to exist in proof of this assertion : but I
owe it to truth to state the prevalence of
a report, which I heartily wish may be
proved to be without foundation—“that
in certain parts of Virginia, communi-
cants of the Episcopal Church have not
only been sharply chidden in private let-
ters by their Pastors, for daring to differ
from them in opinion, but have, when
coming to the communion table, been
stopped with the question 'have you been
to a ball or the theatre?' and if they answered in the affirmative, refused admission, until they had signed in the face of
the congregation a promise to abstain
from them in future: which test it is added, has been offered, and the promise
in that situation extorted even from young
inexperienced, unprotected females." If
these reports are true, it is time for those
to bestir themselves, who are unwilling
to be priest ridden—Obsta principiis, is a
sound maxim applicable to church or state.
We ought if we would resist successfully, to
oppose the first encroachments of power.
The oak in the fable, which admitted
the small point of the wedge, soon paid
for his temerity by his ruin—Designing
men disguise their ultimate objects under
pretexts apparently harmless; and the
poet of nature has admonished us, that,
"Those who with haste will make a mighty fire,
Begin it with weak straws."

I state these considerations for your
and the public's meditation, and as a suf-
ficient apology for the late communica-
tion of Marcus, on the subject of the fa-
mous resolution of the Episcopal Con-
vnention—And I state them for him be-
cause I am about to follow his example
in attempting to shew its impolicy and in-
justice. You have, however, in the pre-
vious expression of my opinions, a gua-
rantee that I shall treat of no sacred mys-
teries—no controverted points of belief—
nor doubtful texts of scripture; & altho
I shall speak freely, I shall certainly en-
deavor to preserve my temper.

Having thus settled the preliminaries,
I should proceed at once to the main ques-
tion, if I did not feel myself obliged to
answer one argument of the friends of
the convention, which meets us at the ve-
ry threshold—This, say they, is not a
Canon binding on the minister and com-
municants, but merely an opinion and re-
commendation, which may be conscienti-
ously disobeyed by those who differ from
the convention. If it were true that this
was a mere opinion, and was not intended
to exclude, and would not have the effect
of excluding those who did not conform
to it, from what they conceive to be a
benefit and a privilege, and it was certain it would stop here, there might be no
great harm in the resolution. It would
only then be liable to the objection of an
unnecessary manifestation of folly. It
would prove how little the convention
understood of human nature. It would
bring into some doubt their knowledge
of the true principles of the Episco-
pal church—but it would be disregarded
and soon forgotten. This, however,
seems not to have been the intention, nor
is it probable that it will be the effect of
the resolution. It was adopted avowed-
ly, for the purpose of "producing con-
formity of conduct and unanimity of o-
pinion among all the members of the
communion." It is declared in the stron-
gest terms that the proscribed amusements
shall be relinquished by all the communi-
cants of the church as having the bad ef-
fect of staining the purity of the christi-
an character—of giving offence to their
pious brethren (meaning themselves of
course) and of endangering the salvation
of their own souls. All the clergy present
were unanimous in this violent & decided
denunciation. And after this, will anyone
doubt that it carries with it, and was in-
tended to carry with it all the authorities
of a Canon? It must have been known
that no persons of common sense or de-
cency, would, with that resolution before
their eyes, to which all the clergy had as-
sented, offer themselves to the commu-
nion table, after going to a ball, race, or
theatre. It would be enough for them,
that the minister who officiated, had de-
clared such conduct a stain upon the pu-
rity of the christian character, an offence
to him who was to distribute the sacred
symbols, and equal in guilt to "soul
murder." They could not after this, al-
though they might "conscientiously en-
tain a different opinion," ask to partake
of the holy rite, from the hands of him,
who had formally, and in the strongest
terms, declared them altogether unworthy
of it. It is not to be presumed that to ob-
viate this objection, and to reconcile
them to the church, the minister would
hold a different language in private or in
public, or would give countenance to the
idea that such practices furnished no real impediment to the receiving the sacrament. The effect of the resolution there-
fore, must be to 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 in the
contemplation of those who adopted it.
Indeed the resolution has very much the
appearance of endeavoring to do that indirectly, which it might not have been
thought altogether prudent to attempt
openly. It might be a stroke of policy to
consider it a canon or no canon, according
to the temper with which it should be re-
ceived. If favorably, it would be a resolu-
tion having the effect of a canon and of
the same binding authority. If unfavo-
rably, it would be a mere expression of
opinion : a simple recommendation, which
those who differed from the Convention,
might if they thought proper, conscienti-
ously disobey. For my own part, I would
rather that it had not this double aspect.
I dislike these masked batteries in a state
of peace. We have a right to be fairly in-
formed of the real objects of those who
think themselves entitled to govern the
Episcopal Church, and even the appear-
ace of "paltering with us in a double
sense" is disagreeable and offensive. That
a majority of the Convention had no such
design, but really meant (what they said)
to produce by their resolution, conformity
of conduct and unanimity of opinion, on
the points in question, I do conscienti-
ously believe—and therefore I shall in my
next proceed to a short consideration of
the subject in this view of it.

PHILO-MARCUS.