The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-10-18

slderatlon were placed on the calendar
| and viii be disposed OF at some future
| time.
CHRISTIAN UNITY.
Then came a proposition that has
! caused more discussion than any other
since the convention met, and which may
! not be disposed OF for several days. 1t
/ arose upon the submission by DR.. Hunt
| ingdon, Of New York, of the proposed
| amendments TO the constitution. The
first OF these provided for the incorpora-
ton Of the Greed in the constitution of
| the Church. This, by general consent,
| was taken up, and occupied the attention
| OF the House up 10 the hour Of adjourn
ment To many st seemed If the High
| and Low Church elements were divided
on the question, but the lines were not
| very sharply drawn, as Mr.. Biddle, OF
| Pennsylvania, Broad churchman, antago-
nized the change, while Or. Lightner OF
| Kansas. High churchman, favored 1t.
| The idea OF those favoring IL was TO take
| from the Prayer Book these salient points
| of the Lambeth conference, with the ex-
! pressed purpose OF bringing about Church
! unity, but IL was feared by the opponents
| IL would leave too much Of an opportU-
! nifty for evasion. Rev. Or. Faute, OF
Minnesota. brought in the minority re-
| port recommending that the report be
| not adopted.
DR.. Huntingdon started the discussion.
| He said that this Church was to-day on
| the Threshold of d great opportunity,
| and because Of this opportunity OF a
| great responsibility. This resolution
/ brings before the convention two great
! questions which are destined TO occupy
! the hearts Of all Christians. These are
| The industrial questions and the question
! OF the reunion Of Christendom. The
! former belongs to the legislative bodies
/ Of the State and the latter concerns the
| Church.
! The speaker then gave Il history OF the
| Lambeth conference, giving in detail the
work accomplished with reference to
! Church reunion He explained that 6ood
results could only follow the incorpora-
! ton OF the Creed In the constitution,
/ making il possible to bring many within
the folds Of the Episcopal Church. He ac-
| knowledged that the utterances OF the
| Lambeth platform carried no legal
weight, but that they We're. nevertheless,
| entitled 10 worthy consideration.
Rev. DR.. Jewett, of Wisconsin, who fol-
| lowed, characterized the amendment as
| an ingenious attempt on the Ordinal by
! taking the faith of the Church and
| placing # in constitutional law. He at
| tackled the proposition, and concluded
! with. I've must look for the faith OF
| the Church as set forth in our Prayer
| Books, and for our laws in our constitu-
| ton"
Rev. Mr.. Cattell, Of Indiana, said this
was a subject Of Importance to the Amer
| lean Church, and he spoke as an Ameri-
! can citizen in kinship daily with Chris
| tan men who are separated by some
| things that seem artificial. For that rea-
son he hailed the report. in that 1t gave
new life and new responsibilities. "All
this Church can do" said he, lis TO put
! herself in ccnsonance with the English
! Church as nearly as self-respect will
| allow. The time has come 10 show some
| Christian charity"
Rev. DR.. Faute, the author Of the mi
nority report, stated that the committee
gave only half of the Lambeth declara-
ton, and that he was opposed thereto
unless it was given in its entirety.
Stephen +. Nash Of New York, did not
favor the change while the 20 criticize
were left out.
Or. Elliott, Of Maryland, one Of the
committee, made an impassioned appeal
for the change. He held that there should
be a distinction made between faith and
doctrine. When a convert came he was
asked TO take faith and not the doctrine
to obtain eternal salvation. Faith is Tor
the masses and doctrine for the ministry.
He did not believe in uniformity, which
had often strangled the Church of Eng
land
Mr.. Burgwin, of Pittsburg contended
that the placing Of the Greed In the
constitution would degrade 1t.
Several Of the lawyers who opposed the
change gave the opinion that If it were
made, the courts of law might be asked
to define Catholic Creeds" " in case OF
disagreement and an appeal.
This view was concurred in by Mr..
Biddle of Pennsylvania. He character
| lied the amendment as a scheme out
lined in the Lambeth platform He
thought the idea of Church unity as
proposed was IAN irridescent dream, a
real bubble" The whole business would
accentuate our internal differences, said
he. and there would not be so much unity
| as there was before the change was
| adopted He ridiculed the idea OF bring
| ing into the Church any other Chris
/ tians.
The debate concluded with a strong
! address, and the most eloquent OF the
day, by DIT. Lightner, Of Kansas, who
held that the American Church had
reached a point where all ways meet, and
that she could not recede. He favored
progress. Without taking a vote the
House adjourned.
HOUSE OF BISHOPS.
In the House of Bishops a resolution
| was referred 10 the committee on canons
! providing for the retirement of bishops
when they were sixty-five years of age.
The committee on Prayer Book reported
| having ratified the last revised edition,
| adopting the same with all the changes
made. and declaring it shall be in use
from and after the Feast Of All Saints
In 1892.
The book of hymnals was accepted as
amended, and ii was decided TO publish
the names of all the authors of the
hymns.
The canon of marriage and divorce was
finally adopted as amended
II was unanimously decided to hold the
next convention at Saratoga Springs. n.
y.