Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1874-10-30


not to have been regarded with the same
reverence by his associates in the Faculty.
DR.. Seymour complains that he was placed
in false position, having tried to divide
the resolutions, and also to place on re-
cord qualification Of his negative vote,
but these were refused. From his own
statement he did not regard the offence OF
the student as one of note, even if he did
so at all. He, however, claims he did not
make an issue on the seundness of dogmas,
but on the policy Of the procedure entered
into by the Faculty.
On the second point it seems almost a
logical and direct deduction. as it certainly
is fairly implied one, that the professors
could see little or nothing reprehensible in
the practice of coming fasting to the COM
munion. The pamphlet is instructive on
! this issue.
On the third point, which is the one that
has been used with most telling effect in
| the long debate now about to close, that OF
the ''retreat,' DR.. Seymour says in his own
words, printed and circulated by himself,
speaking as the professor of Ecclesias-
tical History" that: s'The Professor de-
sires, however, to avow most distinctly
and emphatically his entire and hearty APP
prevail OF young men preparing by special
prayers and meditation and devout recep-
ton of the Holy Eucharist for their ordi-
|
of this explicit declaration by saying it is
mruaterial to him whether such prepara-
ton be called a retreat" or ''prayer-
meeting"
The words I have quote are, l find,
generally accepted as a full valuation, OF.
DR.. SeymoW's part. Of the most excep-
tional views of ritualism-the private adj
ministration of the elements, the adora-
ton Of actual presence, the fasting prepa-
ration, and various other doglnas. In one
place DR.. Seymour says that there are
grave doubts over the Interpretation OF
early canons relating to the Eucharist
No one can read his own paper without
concluding him to be RitualiSt.
He Counters" on the Dean and Faculty
by charging perfunctory performance Of
duties, affirms that the Dean and profes
sors were not present at prayers and ser
vices, and generally establishes that DR.
Seymour was the chief and most devoted
of the shepherds in charge Of the thee
logical flock.
THE VOTE.
During the morning session letter was
read from Bishop-elect Seymour, in which
he said the investigation had developed
charges against him, the circumstances Of
which were known only to himself ane
others not members of the convention
and they could only be disproved by him
self and them, and he asked permission tt
speak before the house.
He deprecates the idea that he evel
sought to be elevated to the episcopate Il
was decided that this letter should not bt
accepted. and permission to speak before
the house was not granted.
Late in the afternoon the vote was takel
on the confirmation, the doors leading t.
the house being locked and guarded. The
vote was taken by dioceses, and DR.. Sey
mour lost by a large majority. In thu
clerical vote forty-one dioceSes were rep
resented. 1t was taken first, and resulted
as follows: Yeas 10, nays 10, divided Il
the latter being counted in the negative
Ii the lay vote there were forty dioceses
represented, the delegates from Arkansa
being absent. Result, yeas Is, nays Is
divided 8.
The dioceses stood as follows:
Clerical Vote.-Alabama, division al
bany, aye; Arkansas, division; Contra
New York. aye; Central Pennsylvania
aye; Connecticut, no; Delaware, no Eas
: ton, aye; Florida, no Georgia, aye; Hi
noIS, aye; Iowa, aye Kansas, no; Ken
lucky, no; Long Island, aye; Louisiana
no; Maine, aye; Maryland, no; Mass;
chusetts. division; Michigan, aye; Min
nesota, aye; Mississippi. aye; Missouri
, aye Nebraska, division New Hampshire
aye ; New Jersey. division New York
aye: North Carolina, division; Ohio, n"
Rhode Island, division; South Carolina
division; Tennessee, division Texas, dl
, vision; Vermont, aye; Virginia, no
{ Western New York, aye; Wisconsin, aye
California, aye.
Lay Vote. Alabama, aye; Albany, aye
!, California, no. Central New York, divis
: ion; Central Pennsylvania, division; Con
> necticut, division Delaware, no; Easton
division ; Florida, no Georgia, no; Hi
nois, aye; Indiana, no; Iowa, no; Kansas
no; Kentucky, no; Long Island, no; Louis
lana, no; Maine, aye Maryland aye; Mas
! sachusetts, division Michigan, aye !; Min
nesota, aye; Mississippi, aye; Missouri
aye; Nebraska, no : New Jersey, aye New
York, aye; North Carolina, aye Ohio, no
Pennsylvania, no; Pittsburg, division
) Rhode Island, no; South Carolina no
Tennessee, division; Texas, division; Yer
mont, aye; Virginia, no; Western New
York, no; and Wisconsin, no.
Of the Illinois clergy and laity all voted
aye with the exception of Rev. DR.. Sulli.
van, who voted in the negative. Accord
ing to the constitution of the convention
DR.. Seymour required the suffrages of !;
majority of the dioceses represented in OF.
der to be elected.
By the constitution of the house it is ne
cessary that a candidate for the bishoprio
should receive a majority vote of the do
ceses represented in the convention. 1,
was learned froln a delegate that DR.. Sey
mour's defeat was due principally to a let
ter written by Bishop Cox over a year ago
and papers written 3y Professor Buell., OF
the New York Theological Seminary, III
which he is charged with allowing Father
Graften, extremist, of Boston, to have &C.
cess to the students in the semina y OF
New York. In defending DR.. Seymour
yesterday Judge Otis said that the commit
tee on canons had prepared a most CON-
plete ritual on the canons. He was of the
opinion that such an occurrence would
cause the delegates to vote for him.
The Illinois delegation admitted he could
never have been elected, as he favored the
practices of confessional and eucharistic
alteration.
The convention then adjourned until ten
O'Clock tomorrow morning, when it will
go into open session.
The friends of DIR. Seymour claim that
the vote in his case, counted by individ.
uals, shows clear majority in his favor.
1t was only the peculiar mode of voting by
dioceses and orders that secured the defeat.
1t is we'll known that q majority Of the
bishops are in his favor.
SERIOUS CHARGES AGAINST A Con-
GREssMAN.-The suit of Hugh Maher
against Hon. g. B. Farwell, present men,
Der of Congress from Chicago, is on trial
in that city 1t is brought to recover
eighty acres of land which Maher alleges
was obtained from him by Fsrwell in set
Element of a gambling debt. In Mr. Ma
hers bill of complaint he alleges as rea-
son for bringing the suit that the game at