Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1874-05-29

on the Prayer Book, or in the attitude q
revision of it. He did not
consider the offices Of the church part
of the Prayer Book, but only bound up
with it for convenience. Being satisfied
that the General Convention would not
consent to a revision of the Book, he was
to do anything that would be
mistaken for an attempt in that dlrec-
tion.
REV. DIR. MINNEGERODE, OF RICHMOND,
repeated Mr.. Sheffey's statement that the
committee had only considered the simple
legality OF the Office of institution. There
had been clergymen and laymen. for years
and wears, who had contended that the
institution of ministers was not part OF
the book, but this was not question be-
fore the committee for decision it was
something for the General Convention to
decide.
Mr.. McKim said he was not satisfied to
90 before the General Convention and ask
them to decide If the lice was legally
there. Suppose it decides it is there legally
what length of time we "ild have
wait for further action and it ii decide
on the other hand thst it is MT Legally
there, still it stands there dacetful to thu
ear.
Mr.. Minneg arole- You omit the con-
GLIDING portion of the report, which pro-
vldes if it is not legally there it is to b.
omitted.
Mr.. McKim-Never theless would wish
to have an expression of opinion by this
council on the subject.
JUDGE PARKER. OF WINCHESTER,
thought the adoption of Mr.. McKim 8
resolutions would be a reprOach on the
H,,,,,,;++ao % Tl,;rtnop AdOpt fhnir
port and then you can consider his reso-
lutions.
Mr.. McKim-I consent to that.
REV. MR.. pETERKIN, OF RICHMOND,
said that he doubted if thu eccentric indi-
vidual who arranged the Office of institu-
ton in the Prayer Book, had any design in
inserting the words objected to, and more
than likely got them from the Methodists,
who were just at that time coming into
prominence. He thought in this report
the Committee Of Thirteen had done all
that could have been required of them I'M
der the circumstances, but he thought
some decided measure should be adopted,
for, unless we could remove this institu-
ton office from the Prayer Book, there
will always be a
SUBTERFUGE FOR RITUALISTS.
He had been told of minister, who, be-
ing forbidden to mingle wine with water
in the communion service, had gotten
around it by mingling the water with the
wine, Qaughter) and that was a sample Of
what may be done in the way Of evasion, as
long as the institution office remains. I'm.
less it is totally abolished the roots are left
for Ritualism to grow from.
DIR. WILMER
said he would offer a resolution as a sub
stitute for the committees report, re-
affirming the position taken by Bishop
Johns in his address, which he thought
pointed to non-action. He thought it in.
expedient to express any opinion in the
matter.
REV. DIR. LAIRD .s.a
favored the committees report fearing
that if Mr.. McKim's resolution wai
adopted, it would be connected in the mind
Of the General Convention with an at
tempt to revise the Prayer Book, and we
would surely be defeated.
The committees report was then adopt
ed with only one dissenting voice.
Mr.. McKim then renewed his resolution
thought we could not discharge our duty
to the Master and the truth without vo
ting on this question. This institution Of
fee was stone of stumbling and should
be removed.
REV. MIR. WALL OF RICHMOND
said the adoption Of such a resolution
would certainly impair the usefulness OF
our delegates at the General Convention.
REV. DIR. HANCKLE
said it was useless to attempt to apply the
gag law to such body as this council. II
was the duty of the independent Diocese
of Virginia to define It's position ON this
| question. She had a right to define hen
| position on this question. She had right
to define her own position and even to con.
struct her own liturgy if she chose to &C
back to primitive principles. He heartily
| favored the resolutions of the gentleman
from Alexandria, (Mr. McKim.) The
| question as to what offices are, and what
are not legally in the Prayer Book, is a
separate one. There are different opinions
about it, but this resolution defines our pc.
| sition as condemning one that is there
whether legally OF not, and we should pass
| upon it-and this diocese is happily in d
position to do it. for it is Of one heart and
one mind on all questions of Importance
before it.
REV. DIR. MORRISON
/ thought the only way to put down Ritual
ism. was to enforce the strict cannon law.
1t was of little use to alter phrases. Per
version commences by deception. Its con.
verts first lose moral honesty, as in the
case of DR.. Newman, who confessed hav.
ing lived a life Of deception, long before
leaving the Church. Th9 true way to put
a stop to it is to bring the offenders to
trial
REV. MIR. DEsHIEL, OF RICHMOND,
thought the General Convention was a
body of too much good sense to let the
presentation of these resolutions, prejudice
them against the efforts of the Virginia
delegates against Ritualism.
MAJOR R. c. SAUNDERS, OF CAMPBELL,
said he had heard great deal about being
s'discree5''-indeed too much, and every
body seemed afraid the passage of the res
olution would affect the weight of influ-
ence of our delegation in the General Con-
vention. AS for himself, he had come
here to see some unmiStakable resolution
on this question adopted. If he under
stood it, sacerdotal authority is the high
est of authorities the Bible, and he want
ed a definite expression of opinion by this
Council about it. We know the whole
Church, elsewhere, is torn by this conflict.
We talk of harmony among ourselves, and
l believe it, and as it is 50, let us express an
opinion upon subject on which we are
not divided.
REV. R. T. DAVIS, OF LEEsBURG,
said he had read in the bible the history of
prisoner who was sent for trial bound,
but with no charges against him, and now
this Diocese has sent its prisoner. in the
Committees report, to the General Con-
vention for trial, we should send the
charges with him Why not make the
charges They say possession is nine
e.,,.