New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-25
Discussion Results in Definite
Action by Deputies on Init
alive of Or. Rogers.
BISHOPS OATH OF OFFICE
Question of Revision Referred
to Joint Commission, Which
Will Report at Meeting
in St. Louis in 1915.

probably for the last time at this General
Convention. And for the first time at this
convention il resulted in definite legisla-
tion. provided, of course. the harrled
House OF Bishops approves the deputies
course.
The bishops oath of Office was the Inn
mediate subject under consideration. The
Rev DR.. 3. Talbo; Rogers, archdeacon
OF the Diocese Of Fond-du-Lac, proposed
resolution that the question OF a re-
vision Of this oath be referred TO Joint
commission. which should make its re-
port at the next General Convention, in
St Louis. in 1916.
IL happens that the words Protestant
Episcopal Church" occur twice in TINS
oath and once in the rubric preceding 1t
three times, that is, out OF the seven
times in the entire prayer book Inc
ardent frierds OF the present name, there
fore Immediately scented danger and
Jumped 10 the defence.
one Of them, DR.. n. II. Powell, of Cah-
s,rnia, sought 10 have the question re-
ferred 10 the committee on the revision
and enrichment If the prayer book. which
has no jurisdiction over the question oil
change OF name. and he offered an amend
ment 10 the resolution 10 this effect III
was overwhelmingly defeated.
The original resolution was then put 10
the test and carried by a vote Of 25l to lSl
Victory for Or. Rogers.
The victory for Dr. Rogers appeared
even more complete when the names OF
the deputies appointed TO the proposed
Joint commission were learned They are'
DR.. Rogers the Rev. DIR. Henry Lubeck'
rector Of the Church of Zion and 81
Timothy, New York; the Rev Charles n.
Lathrop, California; ex-Judse Charles
Andrews. Central New York: Richard ii.
Dana. Boston, and George Wharton Pep
per. Philadelphia
The rubric in the Ordinal at that part
which refers 10 the conservation Oh
bishops. after saying that the presiding
bishop shall demand the testimonials OF
the persons to be consecrated, continues
He shall then require of him the fol-
lowing promise OF conformity to the doc-
trine. discipline and worship of the
Protestant Episcopal Church
The oath itself reads:
"In the name of God, Amen. j. NJ
chosen bishop Of the Protestant Episco-
pal Church in n. do promise conformity
and obedience to the doctrine, discipline
and worship OF the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States Of America
So help me God. through Jesus Christ.
The question of a revision OF TINS oaIn
was raised in the Diocese OF Milwaukee
a year ago In connection with that OF
change of name This fact coupled with
Dr. Rogers's known position in favor OF
a change of name, helped TO hndle the
suspicion in the minds OF some OF the
Low Church deputies
DR. Rogers explained, however, that
his primary consideration in introducing
the resolution was to remedy what ne
considered the incongruity of the oath.
II differed he said, from that in the Eng
lish Prayer Book, taken by the bishops
of the Anglican Church.
He pointed out that the promise of con-
fornnity in its present form had led TO
many misunderstanding between bish-
ops and clergy. since there were many
interpretations. particularly of the "wor-
ship" Of the Protestant Episcopal
Church.
DR.. Rogers himself believes that the
promise of conformity. instead OF being
10 the doctrine. discipline and worship
Of the Church, should be to the consti-
tuition and canons of the Church
Action BY indireetion.
Dean Grosvenor, of the Cathedral Of ST.
John the Divine, Immediately arose to
ask DR.. Rogers II II was not true that
this oath was the only oath in the Ordinal
containing the words. Protestant Epis-
copal Church" Or. Rogers agreed that
this was true.
DR.. Leighton Parks. of st. Bartholo-
news. took the platform to say:
III we pass this resolution We shall do
indirectly what we have all been against
doing directly
II was then that DR.. Powell proposed his
amendment 10 send the question TO tho
committee on the revision and enrichment
Of the Prayer Book. This DR.. Rogers
strenuously opposed. He contended that
the revision Of the oath was constitu-
tional matter. and he didn't wish the body
considering il to be restricted in any way.
Dean Grosvenor reminded the house
that IT had passed an amendment TO the
constitution providing that any change In
the Prayer Book should require two
thirds vote, and that the committee on the
revision and enrichment of the Prayer
Book had come forward and moved that
all questions relating to the Prayer BOOK
be left until final action could be taken
on this amendment three years hence.
"AppI. of Diseord.'
1t is too bad" said Dean Grosvenor.
that at the very end of the convention
when the spirit Of harmony has been SO
carefully maintained. this apple OF discord
should be thrown into this house.
II see no apple Of discord,' declared
DR. f. 1. Parsons. OF California. unless
some gentleman wishes to take II so.
This promise Of conformity ought TO be
taken UP. II is very real question
which should be considered on It's merits.
And 1 believe that the deputy from Fon
iu Lac had no Interior motive In intro
ducing his resolution"
1t was done In perfect good faith.
said Dr. Rogers, "as the report OF this
commission could not be given until three
years hence, and at thattime two
thirds vote would have to be taken"
George Wharton Pepper. who has
STRENGTHENED out so many tangles in the