The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-10-22
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
CONVENTION AT CHICAGO AGAIN
DISCUSSES
The Omission of the Words "PrOt-
estant Episcopal"-The PROPOSE.
tiGn Defeated.

Chicago, ILL, October 81 When
the convention of the Protestant
EpiscOpal Church was called to order,
this forenoon, President DIX sub
mitted two communications from the
National Council OF the Congregational
Church, recently in ssssion in this
city, relating to MoTmonism aud on
the subject of family and divorce.
Toe first named was referred to the
State OF the Church and the second to
the Committee on Canons. The
bou'e directed the secTe ary to ac-
Knowledge the rectipt of the commu.
nicatiops AID to advise the officers OF
tie council cf the action Of the house.
After receiving snd referring vari-
Gus committee reports the house re
sumed discussion on the proposition
to- drop the words "Protesatt Bpis-
copsl" from the title page Of the
prayer bo0E. This was, apparently,
regarded by q number OF the delegates
as renewing, in another form, the
proposition # Mr. Jrdd, defeated ear
lier n the stsi, on, which contemp ated
expuDgirg The words from all the
books md laws Of the church.
TIE Rsv. D.. Egar. OF Ceutral New
York, opened the discussion, declar-
ing that the prayer book did not be-
long to America alone but to all
Chris,endom. The Rev. Rufus W.
Clark, OF Michigan, conten6ed that the
present wOrdirg prevented other
Christian Dor les from using tee book.
The Rev. Dr.. Goodwin, of Pennsyl-
vaois. opposed the proposition acd
argued that this appeared 10 be the
enterir g wedgs to ob,iterate the name
of the church.
Dr. Huntington, of New Yoik, sup
poried The proposition, but offered an
amendment so IS 10 make the title
read: ''Tbe Book OF Common Payer
and Admspist:ation of the Sscram ants
and Other Rites aud Ceremonies Of
the Church, According to the Use Of
the Church in the United S'aes of
America"
Dr. GRAY moved to amend the
amendme mt so az to omit the words
According 10 the Use of the Churci
in the United States Of America"
Mr.. Phil ips Brooks, of Massachu-
setts, contended that the same objec-
ton urged to the original proposition
of MI. Judd applied to The present
one.
Mr.. James Mcconnell, Of Louisiana,
held TO the same view, AID as he
deemed a renewal OF the arguments
idle at this session, aud that { ne prop
csiticn should be allowed to rest untll
the next gene al convention, he
wo'li move TO lay the res ,lution and
amendments on the table. The vote
on this pr. position was called for by
diccssrs end was watched with close
interest, many voting net 70 lay on the
table who had voted against the Judd
resolution. The motion 10 lay on he
table was lest and discussion was
renewed.
DR.. Dilzell then moved as a snbsii.
tute that ii was inexpedient to consid.
er sny change in the title of the pray
er book at tie present session. This
was lost on a rising vote OF 151 to 129.
TIE amendment offered by DIR. Gray
was with drawn. The amendment Of
DR.. Huntington was defeated. The
vote then REQUIRED upon the resolution
OF DR. Egar, and was lost by narrow
majority. The vote in detail was as
follows: Clerical delegates, 40 do.
cases, voted - 80 dioceses voted aye, l3
voted no, and 6 were divided.
OF the lay delegates, "A diocsses vet.
ipg-l5 voted aye, 20 voted no, and 8
wera divides.