Evening star., 1897-06-16
DIVISION FAVORED
Meeting Of the Oonvocation Of the N-
ocese Of Maryland
INTERESTING PROCEEDINGS TODAY
Three Convocations May Take the
Place of the Present One.
DIR. ELLIOTS RESOLUTION

DIR. ELLIoTs RESOLUTION
The convocation Of the Episcopal diocese
| Of Washington. which is being held at st.
Marks Pro-Cathedral, corner of Sd and A
| streets southeast, today, is an important
| gathering, and the probabilities are that the
members Of the clergy and the laity present
will decide to meet many Of the exigencies
which have arisen from having q single
| convocatfon for the entire diocese and will
| make a division which will relieve many
annoyances that exist at present.
The diocese Of Washington Is composed
OF the District Of Columbia and the Mary
land counties Of Montgomery, Prince
Georges, Charles and st. Mary's. In the
missionary work Of the diocese the extent
| OF the territory embraced and the means
| ministers have Of travelling from one por-
| ton of 1t to another have presented vexa-
tious conditions. The committee on canons
| at the general convention recommended the
abolfshment Of the convocation immediate
! ly.- As is well known, q convocation is a
gathering Of members Of the clergy ana
Representatives Of the laity Of a diocese
where they discuss with the bishop or his
representative the plans and ideas to be
followed IN mission work.
In the absence of Bishop Satterlee, who
| Is In Europe, the convocation today was
presided over by Archdeacon T. g. Childs,
with Rev. Arthur 8. Johns. secretary of
the diocese Of Washington, as secretary.
The business session Of the convocation,
which began at II O'Clock, was preceded
prayers at 9:30 am. followed by the lit
| any and communion services at 10 am.
which were conducted by Arehdeacon
Chiids assisted by Rev. w. L. Devries.
| rector of ST Marks and Rev. CharieS II.
Hayes the latter's assistant. All of the
ministers present and many Of the laity
partook OF communion.
| The Members Present.
The members Of the clergy in attendance
were Revs. John A. Aspinwall. David
Barr, Obre R. Bourne, Charles E. Buck.
James A. Buck, DID,; Thomas 8. Childs.
DID,; James w. Clark. James b. Craighill,
William L. Devries. Ph.D.; John H. Elliot,
STD; Frank NJ. Gibson, Ph.D.; H Allen
Griffith. Alfred Harding, Arthur s. Johns,
| Geo. h. Johnston. DID,; Tnos. A. Johnstone,
Randolph w. Lowrie, DID,: Chas. J. s. Mayo,
John NJ. e. McKee, Walter A. Mitchell.
| Edward NJ. Mott, Josiah b. Perry, H. f.
Saumenig. John E. C. Smedes. William T.
Todd. William R. Turner. William G. Ware
and Robert s. w. Wood.
| The lay delegates present were Gen. Dun
| can 8. Walker George w. Minnick, Joseph
| r. B. B. Chew, J. W. Sebastian, Charles
r. Gibson, Charles Albert, Barnabas Bryan:
VIM. A. Meloy. Gen. l. G. Parke. W. D.
| Baldwin and Charles Birney.
| Archdeacon Childs made his report which
| recited that during the year he had visited
| all the four countries in the diocese. out
side Of the District. and held services in
| thirty different churches. He suggested a
change In the present system, which i'm
poses the necessity of personal visits to
outlying parishes.
An Interesting Statement.
The archdeacon was followed by Rev.
Thomas A. Johnstone. who read a very in
teresting paper on the. subject of the pro-
posed abolition Of the convocation, which
! was recommended by the committee on
,canons. to the last general convention of
| the diocese held several weeks ago.
| It was felt. he said. by large majority
OF the members of the convocation that as
| no alternative scheme had been presented
| the acceptance Of the report of the COM
mittee on canons would be an act of hasty
| legislation. not in harmony with the tradf-
tions inherited from diocese always dis
| tinguished by conservatism always jeal-
Gus Of innovation, either of a distinctive or
constructive character. The suggestion to
| divide the convocation, said Mr.. Johnstone,
should not be discussed until 1t was fully
| understood whether there would be any
| thing to divide. He asked II it was worth
while trying to continue the conversational
system in the diocese of Washington; if 1t
| had been successful in the past in the at
tainment of its purposes; if it had been
| missionary force in the diocese or accom-
plished anything of substantial value in
| bringing clergy and parishes, urban SUBJ
urban and rural. into closer and more cor
dial relations? Mr.. Johnstone said it was
true that in the past few years it had been
moribund, but this was not due to any in
herent defect In the system.
A Division Recommended.
| There Should he mora heartv s,tpnprt of
the convocation, and he suggested a di-
vision Of the diocese into two convocations,
| one embracing the District of Columbia,
| Montgomery county, Md, and the three
parishes in Prince Georges county, leaving
| the remaining part of Prince Georges
county, with Charles and st. Mary's coun-
| ties. for the other. He suggested that
deans should be elected according to the
procedure in the case Of the archdeacon in
the present convocation, these deans as
well as the archdeacon Of Washington to be
members ex-officio Of the committee of
missions Of the diocese.
| Each convocation should frame its own
| bylaws. elect Its officers, decide as to the
| frequency Of meetings, and their time and
place. In concluding his address Mr. john
| stone said his guiding thought in outlinins
his plan had been that Washington did
| not need or desire a convocation but that
| the rural part of the diocese did Under
his plan, however, the clergy of the Dis
| trtct would not be deprived of missionary
work In the four counties.
DR.. Eliot's Resolution.
A resolution was adopted in favor of
| continuing the conversational system, and
then. In harmony with Mr.. Johnstone's
address. Rev. DR.. John H. Elliot, rector Of
Ascension Church, offered the following
resolution:
That this convocation recommends the
division OF the diocese into three conyoca-
| , nons, one to be conterminous with the
District of Columbia, the second or north
ern TO be composed Of Montgomery county
and the parishes in Prince Georges county