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

detective-was recognized by Admiral
Semmes as a deserter from the Confed-
crate States steamer Sumter In the trial
it leaked out that the warrant was made
out t,uo aoeeks before the political offence
was alleged to have been commi tied. This
is the way Radicalism is rulin g the South
ern States.
REJECTION OF BISHOP SEYMOUR
CAUSES OF HIS DEFEAT--THE STATEMENT
OF HIS CAsE-THE VoTE-ANALYsIs
OF THIS OWN Defence.
&C., &C., &c.
The confirmation Of Bishop Seymour, of
Illinois, was defeated in the Episcopal
General Convention last Friday. The gene
raj charges preferred against DR.. Seymour
are as follows: 1. Irritability of temper,
not befitting a bishop and hindering his USE
fitness in that position. 2. The teaching
and practice of extreme Ritualistic or
Catholic doctrines, such as the Alteration
Of the Real Presence in the Sacramento
Elements, Auricular Confession, fasting
before communion, private devotions at
the Altar as token of Eucharistic Ador-
alton, the hearing of Confession from stu
dents at the seminary over which he pre-
sides, and view of the priestly character
which is certainly far removed from Pro-
testant ideas. Most of these accusations
are warmly denied.
DIR. SEYMOUR's STATEMENT.
A pamphlet privately printed by Dr.,
Seymour, giving his statement of his case,
is thus summarized by a correspondent of
the Philadelphia Bulletin:
After a critical though hasty reading,
cannot, for myself, see how it is possible
to avoid believing that Dean Seymour has
convicted himself of very close and direct
sympathy with ritualistic views.
The title page Of the pamphlet states
that 1T was intended for circulation among
the trustees of the General Theological
Seminary and such other persons in the
Church who would be entitled to under
stand the controversy then pending. The
Rev. DR.. Forbes was then Dean Of the Fa-
Guilty Ia position DIR. Seymour now fills),
and his opponent was Professor of Eccle-
y
then (1S70) was the Rev. DR.. Rudder. DR..
Vinton and DR.. Seabury. The two latter
were editorial contributors to the Church
Journal,' point on which DR.. Seymour
dwelt with force, as illustrating the dis
courtesy wherewith he claims to have
been treated by his associates in the Fa-
Guilty. He charges that the Church Jour
nal'' was informed in advance of the trus-
tees of the action of a resolution passed
by the Faculty. Before proceeding to the
charges against himself, which Dr.. Sey
mour conbats, as we'll as those which he
makes in retaliation, it will be proper to
state that tine Rev. DIR. Forbes is a divine
well known for having eighteen years ago,
or whereabouts, left the Episcopal Church
and gone over to that of Rome, in which
he took orders, and for ten or twelve years
served as the parish priest of a large con-
gregation in this city. During that time
he was an active ultramontane controver-
sialist, writing books, pamphlets. and
preaching sermons OF rropagandizing
character. Dir. Seymour makes it point
against Dr. Forbes that he not only &C
cepted the doctrine of the Immaculate
ton Of the Virgin Mary that he wrote
strongly in defence Of the dogmas of GER
tain controverted fathers and so-called sa-
cred books or apostolic epistles, etc. At
the end of the period named DR.. Forbes
returned to the Episcopal Church, stating
in a letter to Archbishop Hughes that the
denial Of the right of private judgment,
scriptural Interpretation, &C., compelled
him to his course. DR.. Seymour, with the
skill of a professional pleader, endeavors
to turn the point on DR.. Forbes by calling
attention to the fact that he does not, in
the Hughes letter, specially adjure the
NJ rop, n,t win la oIy Tho
Professors object in this is apparent. He
has been accused of avoiding a committal
for or against ritualistic ideas during the
controversy then existing, and he wanted
to show by a parity of reason that the
Dean might as justly be accused of being
a Catholic
AS to the matter on which the pamphlet
was printed, it resolves itself into three
points:
l. A sermon delivered by member of
the senior class Of $40 which the Faculty
decided to contain statement of the ac-
tual presence in the sacramen.al elements,
using the thought, wrought out with some
thing of involved and mystical rhetoric,
that the Savior presented his body on the
altar to be used and even abused by men
as He did when on earth.
2. A dispute over frequency of commn-
MON by students, and as to partaking of
the Eucharist while fasting, according to
the Romish practice. Certain students
desired to partake at other than morning
prayer because their health would not per-
NIT them to come fasting.
8. Supporting the students in going into
retreat" previous to ordination. Eight
of the senior class of the year in
dictated went to the house of the Rev. Mr..
Bishop, Bridgeport, Conn, and there went
under the direction Of famous ritualist, |
the Rev. 'EFather' O. S. Prescott, into
''retreat,'' fasting, prayer etc
On the first point the chief dispute arose. |
The student referred to was, by vote OF |
the Faculty, sent with his sermon for dis
cipline to Bishop Clark, Of Rhode Island,
his diocesan. The young man afterwards
the obnoxious point; but there
is certainly little room for dispute, for the
words are nearly as direct as was
DR.. DeKevan's enunciation at Baltimore.
The Bishop and Faculty finally accepted
the statement that he (the deacon) did not |
not mean to say the bodily presence, but
only the mystical or spiritual Ego
DR.. Seymour came to ''loggerheads'
with his colleagues on the sending of the
case to the Bishop. He argued that it
would be wrong and impolitic; the Facul- /
ty could deal best with such cases. Evi-
IDENTIFY, however, from his own words, he
could not be got to say whether the doc
trine was or was not wrong in his judg-
ment and opinion. Hespeaks in the formal
phraseology of the s'Holy
avOws his full acceptance of