The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-10-23
The Episcopal General Convention.
THE SEYMOUR CASE-TzEEp PRIVATE
PARsPHLEE.
lSpec 9 correspondence of the Iniladclphin Eye
ming Ruliet'p.i 49,! - 81

the public interest, as the seventeenth rule
was designed To make the vote as well as the
debate within closed doors. The injunction
of secrcSy will also be, il is expected. re-
moved from the delegates. Yesterday the
rule requiring intending speakers to send
their cards to the president, aud then be as
signed the tloorefn order of their reception,
was ahrogatcd, and. as In the more worldly
assemblies, whoever caught the eye Of the
presiding officer was entitled to the floor.
Another barrier on speech was set up in the
limitation Of each speaker to thirty minutes.
II must have been hard work for the venera.
bic DR.. Mead to struggle through in that
time-not that he could not say good deal
ia that time, but that he had so much more
to express that he was compelled to leave
unSaid.
Having had the opportunity of examining
to-day the privasely-printed pamphlet OF DR..
Seymour'S, Of which so much has been said
i'll this controversy, propose to briefly
summarize its facts and position. Very few
copies OF this document are in existence,
and it is understood as having been quoted
on both sides OF the charges against its
reverend author. After a critical though
hasty reading l cannot, for myself, see how
it is possible to avoid believing that Dean
and direct sympathy with rituaIistic views.
The titlc-page Of the pamphlet states that
it was intended for circulation among the
trustees Of the General Theological Semina-
" and such other persons in the Church who
would be entitled to understand the contro-
ver>y then pending. The Rev. DR.. Forbes
was then Dean Of the Faculty "a position
DR.. Seymour now tils), and his opponent
vas Professor of Ecclesiastical History.
Among the professors then (1S70) was the
Rev. DR.. Rudder, DR.. Finton, and DR.. Sea-
bury. The two latter were editorial con-
tributorS to the Church Journal, point on
which DR.. Seymour dwelt with force, as
illustrating the diScourteSy wherewith he
| Claims to have been treated by his associates
in the Faculty. He charges that the Church
journal was informed 10 advance Of the
trustees of the action of 81 resolution passed
by the Faculty. Before proceeding to the
points against himself, which DIR. Seymour
combats, as we'll as those he makes in retaia-
| ton. it will be proper TO state that the Rev.
DR.. Forbes is Il divine well known for hay
ing eighteen years ago, or Whereabouts, left
the Episcopal Church and gone over to that
OF Rome in which he took orders, and for
ten OF twelve years served AS the parish priest
OF large congregation in this city. During
that time he was an active utramontane
controversialist, writing books, pamphlets,
| and preaching sermons of a propagandizing
character. DR.. Seymour makes it point
against DIR. Forbes that he not only ac-
! cepted the doctrine of the Immaculate
! Conception. but also that Of the Assumption
of the Virgin Mary; that he wrote strongly
| in defence Of the GosmaS Of certain contro-
verified fathers and so-cale sacred books
| ~, nntZf or thr ot,1 g
| the period named DR.. Forbes returned TO
the Episcopal Church, stating in letter to
Archbishop Hughes that the denial Of the
right of private judgment, scriptural inter-
probation. &c, compelled him TO this course.
DR.. Seymour, with the skill of special
pieader. endeavors to turn the point on DR..
Forbes by calling attention to the fact that
ne does not, in the Hughes letter, speci6.
cally abjure the ultramontane views he adj
yoca;ed. The Professors object in this is
| apparent. He had been accused of avoiding
| 4 committa for or against ritualistic ideas
| during the controversy then existing. and
| be wanted to show by parity of reason
! that the Dean might as justly be accused of
| being Catholic.
AS TO the matter on which the pamphlet
was printed, it resolves itself into three
points:
l. A sermon delivered by 4 member Of the
senior class of 1870 which the Faculty de-
| cided to contain q statement of the actual
presence in the sacramento clements,
| using the thought, wrought out with some
| thing of involved and mystical rhetoric, that
the Saviour presented his body on the altar
| TO be used and even abused by men as He did
when on earth.
| .. a dispute over frequency of communion
| by students, and as to partaking OF the Eu-
chariSt while fasting, according to the Romish
practice. Certain students desired to partake
| at other than morning prayers because their
health would not permit them then to come
| fasting.
3. Supporting the students in going into
| :s retreat" previous 10 ordination. Eight
members of the senior class of the Year in
Dictated went to the house OF the Rev. MIR.
Bishop, Bridgeport, Conn.,, and there went
under the direction of Il famous rtuallst, the
Rev. "Father" o. S. Prescott, into ore
treat" fasting, prayer, etc.
ON the first point the chief dispute arose.
| The student referred 10 was, by vote of the
Faculty. sent with his sermon for discipline
70 Bishop Clark, of Rhode Island, his dioce.
san. The Young man afterwards withdrew
the obnoxious point but there is certainly
little room for dispute, for the offending
words are nearly as direct as was Dr. Deho-
ven's euunciation at Baltimore. The Bishop
and Faculty finally accepted the statement
that he ube deacop) did not mean 10 say the
bodily presence, but only the mystical or
spiritual ego"
DR.. Seymour came to 'sloggerbcads " with
his colleagues on the sending of the case 10
the Bishop. He argued that 1t would De
wrong and impoitic; the Faculty could deal
hest with such cases. Evidently, however,
from his own words. he could not be got to
say whether the doctrine was or not wrong
in his Judgment and opinion. He speaks IN
the formal High-Church phraseology OF the
:. HOLY Eucharist" avows his full acceptance
OF the six Ecumenical Councils, which seem
not to have been regarded with the same re-
yereuce By his associates in the Faculty. Dr.
Seymour complains that he was placed IN
false position, having tried TO divide the reso-
lutions, and also to place.on record quailhci-
ton of his negative vote, but these were re-
fused. From bis own statement he dld not
regard the offence Of the student as one OF
noIe. even if he did SO at all. He, however,
claims he did not make an issue on the sound
ness of dognas, but on the policy OF the pro-
cedure entered into by the Faculty.
On the second point it seems almost q logl.
cal and direct deduction, as it certainly is a
fairly implied one, that the professors could
see little or nothing reprebensible IN the
practice of coming fasting to the commu-
MON, The pamphlet is instructive on this
issue. =, ).
ON the third point, which is the one that
has been used with most telling effect IN tue
long debate now about to close, tnat OF tne
| "retreat," DIR. Seymour says IN MS own WI