Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1874-05-29
CAPTAIN L. A. SALE, OF BEDFORD,

said he did not think there was so much
unity on the question of the revision OF
the Prayer Book as was represented. AS
for himself he did not favor the change Of
word, the dotting of an i, or the crossing
of t. II read in the spirit Of the book,
nothing there could bring harm; but he |
was not unmindful of the views OF others
who differed with him, and he would sug- I
gest that Mr.. McKim' resolution be refer |
ed to a committee for consideration.
REV. JAMES GRAMMER, OF CHARLES
TOWN, WEST VIRGINIA,
gave notice of his intention to offer an
amendment to Mr.. McK's resolution, in
structing the delegates to earnestly appeal
to the General Convention, to amend
''such points as will give peace to the
Church." He said he would vote for a
committee to prepare a Declaration of
Principles to be submitted to this Council. |
He favored the omission of the words sa-
cerdotal, altar, priest, and regenerate
in the Baptismal service. 1t was expected
throughout the whole country that this
question would come up in this Council,
and he was sorry to see arts being used to
foreclose argument upon it. He also regret
ted to see an effort on the same side. to
prejudice their opponents by speaking of
them as making ATTACKS on the Prayer
Book" No attack on the Prayer Book
was intended, their object being rather to
defend it from perversiOn. If no action is
taken by this Diocese, upon which the eyes
of the whole Church are fixed, it will be
prejudicial to the opposition to Ritualism.
Mere legislation against Ritualism will not
reach it. We cannot legislate against doc
trine, and we all know that their ceremon-
les, genufexions, and so forth, are the out
growth of their doctrine. We must go to
the root of the matter and lay down our
own unmistakable doctrine.
Rev. Mr.. Wall, of Richmond, said that
any resolution introduced here looking to
a revision of the Prayer Book, would meet
with negative, the sound OF which would
raise the roof from the church.
MI. Grammer continued that he could
not agree that the resolution would en-
| barraSs our delegates in the Convention in
| the matter of Ritualism. Are the opin-
ions of this church so feeble that they
would be Shelved or set aside by SO small a
matter as a movement of this sort brought
in as an independent question? So far
from embarrassing, this resolution will be
the underprop of the movement against
Ritualism. No movement can affect Rit-
ualism unless it goes to the root OF the
matter and remove the words containing
it. The Church of England cannot. In
the case OF Bennett, who said he taught
his people to worship the real prese,. ee of
Christ in the Sacrament, it could ely say
he was perilously near false doctE me; and
| that was it's sentiment on what we call
idolatry rendered because the words in the
form gave ground for the belief. The
question is critical one. Have we,
a Protestant Church, gotten to a position
that open Romanizers, can preach their doc
trines under our jurisdiction, and we
can't lay our hands on them without q
| iodi ptr Of
fumes, genufexions, &C.? 1t goes deeper
than these ceremonies, which come from
the opportunity the book affords to turn
words to their purpose, and we are not
afraid of the cry of Radical, for it any
| thing is to be done it can alone be done
by going to the root of the matter.
REV. 7. H. LACY, OF MASON COUNTY,
WEST VIRGINIA,
spoke against the resolutions. He thought
the part of wisdom was to be satisfied
with what we should obtain in the right
direction now, and wait for further pro-
gress hereafter.
REV. JOHN g. AMBLER, OF FAUQUIER,
thought 'sreyision" used by the oppo-
nents of the resolution, was too big a
word for the subject-no one asked for a
total revision of the Prayer Book. 1t was
a Protestant book to the core, but there
were few things in it that might be al
tered. They might be explained in tho
roughly Protestant sense, but they are ex-
planned by some III an unprotestant sense,
and thus explained by persons who are not
of Protestant, but Of Romish proclivities
! That being the case, what ON earth is
there to prevent our removing even an
appearance of evil from the book? l am
incapable of understanding the feelings of
| those who object to such a removal. [
| love my mother church-We all love her,
but if an apparently cancerous spot APP
pear OH her fair face to mar it's beauty, is
it not the part of true fi!ial love to remove
it 2 is it not unflial to hesitate about its
removal?
| REV. DR.. NORWOOD, OF RICHMOND,
thought that if, now, that this question
| had been introduced here, it were killed
off, it would, in his judgment, and he had
served in the ministry 43 years, do the
church in Virginia great harm. 1t would
simply be published that the resolution
had been voted down, that we were afraid
to trust to our brethren at the North, and
that we uphold the absurdity that
prayer book, that has been already alter
ed four or five times, cannot be altered
again when there is a necessity for it. It
| Is uO CttSG lIOu DUOk GiltU CttlllOG DG
ed, nor is it the book framed by the Mar
tyrs, but it is the book as altered by
Queen Elizabeth IS politicians. That great
woman, or rather great man, was anxious
to make room in the Church for Roman
lists, of whom she already had several
in her cabinet, and the English Prayer
Book was altered to suit that purpose. She
wanted the support of Romanists and
Protestants, and she was making plat
form both could stand on. 1t is not the
book of the Martyrs if it were we would
have in it barrier against ROmanism
now.
A vOice-Would that we had it now.
Mr.. Wall-What book do you mean +?
Mr.. Norwood Book of Edward vi.
Mr.. VALVE use that now-the gen.
tleman is mistaken.
Mr.. Norwood-Yes, but we use it as
manipulated by Elizabeth's politicians 1
thought some Ignorant person might ques-
| ton the statement, so | have the book
here. (Great laughter). Listen and learn.
| Mr.. Norwood here produced the book to
show the alterations which had been
| made, calling the attention of the council
to them. He said that these alterations
were made that the Romanists might re-
main in the Church of England, and so
successful was it that Romanists remain
ed in the church until ten years after that.
It is absurd to claim infallibility for
Prayer Book. and when l see it my
Christian patience, is tried, Circumstances
like the present, may always arise, which
render a change necessary. Under the
English Prayer Book four hundred cler-
gymen have applied for authority to inau-
gurate private confessional. I, here in
Virginia, have been applied to by
MOST INTELLIGENT AND ADMIRABLE
LADY
to confer upon her the greatest possible
favor, by privately confessing her and Civ
iIg her dissolution and in aneighboring do