Evening star., 1898-10-13

earnest man at it's head, and the fact that
| his followers had been accustomed to gov
| ernment by bishops, and wished to con-
| tinue such government.
Other Participants.
| Rev. Charles W. Leffingwen, DID,, Of
Quincy corrobcrated what DIR. Faude had
said about the Swedish movement. In the
course of his remarks he made a strong
| argument in behalf of increasing the uni
versatility of the prayer book. He wanted to
see the words Protestant Episcopar' elm
| irated from its title page, so every Chris
| tan in the country could read it as his
own For his part. he would sooner have
outsiders come to the prayer book before
| they came to the church door.
The discussion was continued by Rev. DR.
William Prall of Michigan, Rev David H.
Greer, ID, of New York, who made a
most powerful argument in favor OF the
broadening of the path by which outsiders
| may md their way to the church, pleading
| Tor the adoption of Dr. Huntington's res
| oiution; Rev. Harry P. Nichols and others.
| Warned Against Sentiment
The venerable Rev. E. w. Jewell of Mar
| quette, in speaking to the resolution, hoped
| the deputies would not permit sentiment TO
| hnhd them to the danger of interfering
| with constitutional law. There was a broad
wide door through which entrance to the
| church might be properly secured, and he
| depIored the opening of a side door. Side
| doors, ne said. were always suspicious. and
| frequently dangerous. The church was
bound to stand by the prayer book, and
this resolution would strike the ak at the
very root of it 1t meant disunion instead
/ of unity.
Rev. DR.. Stone of Chicago followed. He
believed in church unity and hoped for the
day when all Christians would be gathered
into one church, but he did not think the
resolution under consideration would help
or lead toward unity. There was no neceS-
slty for 1t, anyhow. Its own supporters had
already shown that certain bishops had
already admitted outside congrega tions into
tne cnurch under certain conditions, nota-
biy the Swedish Church in Minneapolis
and 1t might be done again. He did rot
1aVor the admission of congregations who
were not willing to accept the whole form
OF worship and the entire doctrine of the
Episcopal Church. DR.. Stone said the reso-
luton sought to permit strangers to have
privileges denied to son. 1t permitted the
ordination in the Episcopal Church of those
who would not be required, all the breth-
rem present were, to recognize the forms of
worship.
He believed in church unity as devoutly
as the deputy from New York, but he be-
lleved his resolution would lead to dislnion
rather than union.
DIR. s. D. Mcconnell of Long Island sup
ported the resolution. The bishops, it was
declared, already had, and in some in
iisiu cAeiciSeu, powers or aQ-
| mitting outside congregations There was
nothing, however, to regulate or govern
| lnat power, and Dr. Huntington's resolu-
tion wisely provided to fill this void.
| Proceeding, DR.. Mcconnell declared that
nearly one-third of the ministers in the
Episcopal Church are converts from other
churches Now they must come alone, but
Il the present resolution was adopted in
| most instances the minister would bring
| MS congregation with him. Did the church
| ne asked, want these congregations, and to
| grow, or did it want to remain select? In
! conclusion, he declared amid EXPLANATIONS
| of Hear, heart" that the defeat of the res
| olutlon would give the lie to the promises
| held out by all the bishops of the American
! and English church in the Lambeth confer
| ence.
Ola traditions No Longer Tenable.
Rev DR.. Leighton Parks of Massachu-
| setts followed in a short address that scin-
| tillated with humor and shone with wis
| dom He said we had come to a point
| in the history of the country when the old
| rules and the old traditions would no long
er meet existing eXigencies The same con-
| dition was confronting the church It was
! face to face, as the nation was with great
| problems of expansion, and the time had
| come to break away. where Necessary, from
| past customs. Changed conditions demand
| ed it. He strongly urged the adoption Of
| the resolution.
| Mr.. Edward L. Temple of Vermont I'm 4
| Few words made a striking point in favor
| OF the resolution by quoting from the re-
| port of the last Lambeth conference the
| recommendation that the cnurcn should not
only hold out invitations for Christian
| unity, but push energetically toward it.
| Mr Temples position was made the strong
| er by reason of the fact that lie was a
| member of the committee who signed the
| minority report at Minneapolis against Dr.
| Huntington's resolution three years ago
| The hour of recess having arrived. the dep
! utieS adjourned
The afternoon session of the house of dep
uties was largely devoted to a discussion
| of article 8, providing for courts of final
| instances and courts of appeal. A number
| of amendments were offered and abled and
| one, offered by Mr.. F. L. Stetson of New
York, accepted. 1t was as follows:
From time to time the general conven-
| ton by canon may establish or may pro-
vide for courts of appeal with power TO
review the final determination of an infer
ior court in the manner and to the extent
to be provided by such canon.
After lengthy debate the entire article
was recommitted to the committee on re-
vision of the constitution. Proposed article
10 was then taken up.
An amendment providing for church unity
was offered by DR.. w. r. Huntington of
New York, and discussion of the latter was
IN progress when adjournment hour arrived
1he members of the committee to act on
the memorial of colored church workers
Presented to the house yesterday morning,
were announced as follows: Rev. John
of Kentucky Mr. George c. Thomas of
Pennsylvania. Judge J. NJ. WooIworth of
Nebraska and Mr.. Markley Lee of South
Carolina.