, 1879-06-01
REFORMED EPISCOPAL, ::
Discussion Regarding the Revision
of the PraYer-Boox.
Method Of E'ecting B;shops--Nomino.
ton of Committees,


sion OF the Reformed Episcopal Council: vezts-
day morning. after which the body beean -,
business deliberations, Bishop Nicholson nr..
siding.
The Standing Committee Of the SYNOD =,
Chicago reported as to its labors during the mast
year. setting forth the fact that several Presby.
tiers, ministers, and Deacons had been admitted.
REVISING THE PRATER-BooK.
Revising of the Prayer-Book was next con.
sfdered, and the subject ELECTED long discnss;o,
and variety Of sentiment. In the opinion ~
some deiegates action OF this kind WIS prem,.
tu1e. Bishop Nicholson, Chairman Of the Com.
mittee on Doctrine and Worship, explained thu
amendments proposed to the rubics and PRAYERS
Several of the Canadian delegates urped
earnestly that nothing be done in the matter Of
revision unless it could be shown that the
Prayer-Book was found to contain doctrfna
errors; If not, it should be left alone. The Rev.
Mr. Richardson. delegate, from Eneland.
echoed these sentiments, saying the churches
there did not intend to make single alteration in
the Prayer-Book unless doctrinal errors could he
shown. The Rev. Dr.. Howard Smith felt It "a,
unjust on the part OF those who had spoken tn
minute onY desire TO make frequent chance.
in the book on the part OF those VINO favored
the alterations. There were great many little
things which ought to be revtsed,-fn maay
cases grammatical errors. II the pro-
posed change was unwise, then
negative It. The Council should not be 30
afraid OF outside opinion as to refuse to take
action On the subject. He did not favor exten-
s1ve changes, but wanted to hea% all the reasons
for and against them. II the question was now
passed over, there would not be change in ten
or twenty years that would put "amen " vhere
"amen" belonged. Judge Hughes, Of St.
Thomas, Ontario, advocated the changes, md
was surprised to hear bis colleagues say that Tue
sentiment Of the Canadian churches was against
them. He positively knew that severai conQre-
cations there had not been consulted, and It.
was presumptuous to saw that all were opposed
! to the measure. The Rev Mr. Mccormick, Of
Barry, Ontario, was strong in his assertion that
whatever was thought best tor the Church In
the United States would be fully acceptable to
| the Church people IN the Dominion. He knex
| the Canadian feeling On this subject, and urged
the Council to decide the question at once falY
and squareiy, and have it over with There va
| no use in dodging the issue aud postponing ths
revision until some lar 11ture session OF tha
General Council.
Presiding Bishop Nicholson said that some Of
! the delegates from the Dominion Of Cansd2
| were uow endeavorlng to staVe the Issue Cd,
| who, ut the General Council in Ottawa in Ga
| had advocated postponemeDt until the present.
| aud solenn!y p'edgeo themselves 70 meet us
| issue at this session It was upon that express
argument that the postponement was then e.
! fccred, and it was not good faith for the reprt-
sentatives Of the Church in that section to risa
| in this General Council and attempt to eyaas
the great ISSUE
o,1In5 ter+h h1 ~ rosn,rt;on nresante1 hv the
D., ~ ~ t.,o,a fnr sha nnrnosc of TESTING The
fsei;ng ~ ne GeneraI Cnnne;i. that the oues-
tton = r. rcv;sne1 The Prarrr-B -Boos be- postooned
.ton y. tes.sn Th;a ne roast;o,e wos e1rse.hIo
~ ~ he majority If rhe Ganadian deleeaton,
a,a ~ +hr. +he 1;ns. 1raro clearly drawn hstue2n
tha chnrch in fhe Dominion and The United
S+,.os as a aaa;nst and frr the nronosed revision.
t;on ~ vote it. foefl or adontiou. and, the ques
| t;on than recrrr;n1 nnon the first proposition
s,s:,e;t+od h1- rho romm;ttce IN Doctrine snl
Worsh;n T. was adonted. This oGds the word
tsetandsnru ~ the rnhric immediately preced-
1ha ean+ancae ~ he reod in chnrrl, rs mo
ing te % ~ ~ t6e ianrno of The General
Eounc;1 ~ 1S76 and Il viii therefore read, s.And
tHe minister shall saw. standing" It also adop.s
the nrnyer following. rs set forth on the same
mare Of the same Journal. The following pro-
posed alterations we're adopted: Ihe[ prayel
for those in authority on page % ol ~ ss.1J
Journal was aooptea LOT .nG f 1noo !, IN
s'shail u in the ruhric following the conisssioa
! in the Communion service r.
Penntny f11rther consideration Of the amend
| mems an adin1rnment for luncheon was effect
| 81 gha foraoo;nr horizons Of the report, as
e9. lne .oino6 g. 1esr+etr I disnns,d NJ Int yf
aoopteo, aio NV uensJ hs.;ors - +ha renort as
go over, WITH sucn otner poFlons .sp ns.+
| may be hereafter agreed upon' un1n "oe n9A'
session OF the General COUNCIL. ,'.~f
AFTERNOON SESSION.
.ftor 40 ;,onou-,t;on oY Ind.
lmmeolately alter I've in.u Ta.a@ :, "1ssnd.
ness, the heV. u. ouch1S ua ~ ~ '-.
| ment to the seventeenth rule OF oroef, as gos.
| erung this body, making it obligatory upon Eae
| Chair, whenever prayer shall be called Tor oy
| member entitled to the floor, to designate soma
narsnn ~ lend in that service. This appeared
| :" 80 Ram orornnted hy the fact that towards
~. -. n,osa ~ tf,. forenoon session. and pendlng
LIE eiuSe " - ~. e..o,;s;o. ~ onnan1mentq
~ +,o prorar.RonEa me clerical delegate callel
for PRAYER. to which objections we're made On
the ground that it was not essential. r
RishoDs Nicholson and Cheney, the kev k,. ~.
r. Smith. and Messrs. H. B. Turner and MIL
iam Newton, the Committee on Hsmna1, r.
norted that they had made sucn collection, but
we're unable to present printed copy on ae
ru,1nt Of 4 lack of funds The Council adop1eo
the report. :. ~:
.o>xrv.r,oua oY couvrrrExs.. e..
,,'n.:a,s ,.9 os ..aaa . .evort from
-, ue neV. atl. hcSlasA ..!>.;a." 80 fo11ous:
Tue to'ntniStee on ASott4lua.!uno' - Howard
For Executive Commlttee- ~ lseE, Ray - William
Smtn, ". y, MemaEh. se. ~. T. a @S s,Ith the Rey
i. nao1ne, ene M he'. a M,it,m Se,vton. d. H.
= =. AeacoGh' ]Ae net' man ~. Wi1fiam C,