discreet men, to be chosen by yourselves, shall make a report containing in any event vastly valuable information to the Church, at the next session of the General Convention. It binds nobody. It pledges no one by way of committal to any of the recommendations of that commission, because we do not know now what the Commission may report. When it comes up at the next session of the General Convention, the Convention then in being-and I trust that it will be as wise, that it will be as conservative, that it will be as true to all the teachings of the Prayer-Book and of the Church as we are-when that report comes before as wise, as loyal, and as true a body of men as we are, that body will then say, "We approve this suggestion," "We approve that suggestion." And upon that proposition a majority of all the Lay Deputies and of all the Clerical Deputies must be had, and then the House of Bishops are to say, "We approve this suggestion in concurrence with the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies." What then? Then for three years more the entire mind of this great Church, from California to Maine, and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Lakes, will consider again the proposed points of Rubrical revision. In the name of all that is just or according to common sense, if at the end of nine years this Church, thus advised, thus cautioned, and thus put upon its guard, chooses to say this or that change shall be made, may it not then be properly made? I say again, I am not afraid to trust this noble old Church of ours. I am not afraid to trust it in its constitutional modes of acting. It is not dependent on the will of party or the will of man here or there; but the consentaneous will, three three times expressed, of a great Church, involving its usefulness, its success, its effort, to the devotion and glory and honor of God. Representing as I do the sentiment of the old Diocese of Virginia, I may be pardoned for making one remark. It is this: Again has Virginia been twitted for her old back policy; but in this demonstration that I now make I place Virginia alongside of the progress of theChurch in favor of developing the power and resources of the Church for its ultimate purposes; and permit me to say that if, in the providence of God, calamity should befall this loved Church of ours, if the storm should come, and the gallant old ship should, as God forefend, ever be driven upon the breakers-mark what I say-Virginia, the Diocese of ancient tradition, will in that hour of trial be found opposed, as she has always been, to extremes on the one side and extremes on the other, standing nearest to the mast, if the ship ever goes down. As Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. well as I can in the five minutes allotted to me, I propose to meet the argument urged this morning by the very eloquent Lay Deputy from South Carolina [Mr. Smith]. He argued that if we passed this resolution, we should stultify our previous action in passing the Canon on Ritual. I desire, if I may, to turn the argument against him in this way: We stultify ourselves in having passed that Canon; if we do not now pass this; for what was that Canon? It was a Canon for the better enforcement of the Ritual law of the Church. That Canon did not make Ritual law. It provided a method for the quicker enforcement of law already existing. That is the true character of that Canon. Things that were lawful before are lawful now. Things that are unlawful now were unlawful then. It is, in other words, precisely parallel to the measure lately passed in England known as the Public Worship Bill; and what was the state of things there? The moment the Public Worship Bill had been passed, the need of a Commission for Rubrical revision was at once ap parent; and so it has come to pass with us. The moment we passed our Canon, which might properly be entitled "a Canon for the better enforcement of the Ordination Vow," that moment we saw the absolute necessity of ascertaining what the Rubrical law of the Church is. And let High Churchmen in this body disabuse themselves of the idea that this measure is being pushed by radicals for radical ends. Nothing of the sort. There is no desire on the part of the promoters of this measure to impoverish the Liturgical worship of this Church. Their only desire is that we may avail ourselves of its riches. Their only desire is that this admirable wonderful service may be better adapted to the needs of this land; and there is no other way in which it can be done save in this way of Rubrical revision. Six years ago the discerning eye of the now Bishop of Long Island, then a member of this House-and I may, without impropriety, refer to a member of the other House-saw that this was the only proper course, and he advocated it here. He was met, if I remember rightly, by the learned and venerable Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin (Dr Adams) with the rejoinder that in six years it was hoped the trouble would be over, which his measure was intended to meet. Sir, those six years are past, and the trouble is still more aggravated than then. The proper remedy was then, and is now, Rubrical revision, carefully, lovingly, and studiously, of the text. Do you speak of hasty action? Can any action that extends over a period of nine years, and tentative at that, be properly called hasty? But now, sir, I have only a few moments of my five minutes left. Allow me also to try and meet the argument of another Lay Deputy from South Carolina [Mr. McCrady], from whom I always differ with pain, and consequently am almost always in pain, for we are almost always differing. [Laughter.] He argued that the measure is unconstitutional. How unconstitutional? What method could be more constitutional than this? We do not even propose a change in the Rubrics; we simply propose a Commission to enquire whether any change, and if any, what change, is needed to make the Common Prayer-Book better meet the needs of this Church; and he says, if we are to do it at all, let us do it piecemeal. I ask the gentleman if he had an old family mansion falling out of repair, is that the method in which he would go to work to remedy the evil? No; he would call in a skilled architect; he would say: What is needed to make my old family mansion weather-proof; give me your plan, now; I will do it; and put it in such shape that I shall not have to touch it for thirty years to come. We want, sir, to put the worship of this Church in such a shape that it shall not have to be touched for one hundred years to come. I know not whether this measure is destined to meet with success or failure, but I know this, that the minorities of the present are the majorities of the future; and feeling almost as confident that before this Church has completed the first century of its independent life this measure or some measure kindred to it will be passed, as that this Church will be in existence then, I feel the hope, and shall not allow myself to be discouraged, whatever may be the fate of this measure. But depend upon it, it is not a radical measure; it is conceived in the true spirit of conservatism, that spirit which we find illustrated by God working in Nature, where we see that everywhere the law of life is conservation by repair. Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President, the gentleman from Virginia put the true state of the case before us when he said that if this is to be done, it is to be done by the consecutive good-will of three different Conventions. I agree to that. Consequently, the portion of his argument, which was that because it goes to two more Conventions we are to send it regardless of our own opinions, is not good. If we, to-day, believe that the Prayer-Book should be amended-that its Rubrics should be changed-then we are exactly right in sending it to a commission. But the gentleman has said that we are one of three, and so we are, and we are not to delegate our opinions or our authority to the next Convention, nor the next after. If we believe that the Prayer-Book should be amended, we should send it to a commission; but if we, exercising our own rights and our own duties, first, as representatives of this Church here; second, as members of this Church at large; third, as clergymen in this Church, believe that it is better now than it can be made, that it is unsafe to send it to a commission to hunt up its faults, to compromise with this party and with that-I say if we believe that the history of the Irish Church is such that it is not exactly safe to part our Prayer-Book into anybody's hands, if we believe that the faith kept in the old garment is better than it would be distilled into a new; if we believe that the house which the gentleman speaks of does not need repairing, that it has stood as it is almost one hundred years and is sound now; if we believe that all tearing down and tinkering is wrong, then resting upon our duty we refuse to send it to a com mission. I say to you now that the first thing that ever attracted my attention to the Episcopal Church was that its faith was done up in sound words and sound forins, and I knew just where to find it. There is another fact. You say you are not going to touch the faith, but you may. You may take out the soul from the body of the Prayer-Book by these Rubrics; you may do it in spite of the text. Allow now this to be said and now that, put in this Rubric a little different and that a little different, and the very congregations will not recognize the old Prayer-Book in what is read and prayed in their hearing and by themselves. I love the Prayer-Book; I love it as it is. I hope to live and to die by it, and I will never raise my hand, as I now understand the case, to send it to any Commission on earth. If there is a word of change needed, let that change come before the Convention; let it decide that it is needed, and send it down to the next General Convention with its approval upon it, and then, when it shall have passed through the Dioceses from end to end of this country, and come up at the next General Convention; if that Convention believes with the one that sends it down, the change is made, and we know what we are doing. But when this comes in here three years hence, with a Commission's report upon it, every member of that Commission is pledged to it, and they come here, they say, in the spirit of compromise. I say in the spirit of destruction. When the time shall come for voting upon this great, this most momentous question, in my mind, that has been before this Convention from the first to the last, I hope the voice will be one that shall tell from Maine to California that the Prayer-Book is safe in the hands of its friends and the Church. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, it seems to me a very great pity that some remarks made in favor of this measure should have evidently, in the mind of the Convention, told against it. Certain speeches that were made have left the impression that the object of the appointment of this Commission was in some way to touch the baptismal service. I am free to say that if I thought this Commission was to be appointed with any such intention, or if I supposed, provided it were appointed with any such intention, that it would be possible for this Church to throw the slightest doubt upon the great doctrine of baptismal regeneration, I should be utterly and totally opposed to it. It may be supposed, on the other hand, that the fact of my supporting this may be because I fancy that in some way some new doctrine in the other direction may be introduced into the Prayer-Book. Allow me to say for myself how far I speak for others. I can say that I want no alteration in the Book of Common Prayer doctrinally in any direction whatsoever. I accept it, and have always accepted it ex animo, from the beginning to the end. I never have to supplement it in any direction, even in the deepest recesses of my own heart. I suppose that the object of appointing this Commission is nothing of that sort. It is neither in one direction nor in the other, but to meet a difficulty which, put it aside from us as we may, unquestionably exists, and I believe that this difficulty, which I will speak of in a moment, is the cause of one of the troubles that exist in our Church at the present day. Have we, or have we not, a distinct law of worship in this Church? And I answer-and I believe that there is no one here but will agree with me-I answer no, for if anybody pretends to say that the Rubric, the Book of Common Prayer, prescribes a system of worship, he is only saying what there is not a clergyman in this Church who does not assert by his acts that he does not believe. It was an instance of confusion on this subject which prevails even amongst those who are supposed to understand the matter the best, that the Bishops when they sent down the amendment to the Canon of Ritual, actually proposed-or at least it was proposed in the Committee of Conference-that there should be in this Church of ours, in its worship, nothing done which was not ordained or authorized in the Book of Common Prayer; and from the bowing in the Creed at the name of our Blessed Saviour up to the use of any vestments whatsoever, we are doing things which are not ordained or authorized in our Book of Common Prayer. Why, Mr. President, if the Book of Common Prayer be a directory of public worship, actually we have no right to use even a surplice, a stole, a cassock, or bands, or any thing else. Everybody knows that we have no distinct law of worship. Put it off if you please; if this is not the time; if there are hidden difficulties which people know of, and which are not upon the surface in this matter, it may be right to postpone it; but it seems to me that to vote down this resolution is to declare against the solitary measures which have been brought forward in this House, which shows, as the Clerical Deputy from Massachusetts said the other day, anything like true statesmanship. Rev. Mr. HASKINS, of Long Island. I believe, sir, contrary to the opinion of the last speaker, that this commission changing Rubrics will touch doctrine, as the doctrine of regeneration in baptism. I believe it in this way. We have had it brought before us by the Deputy from Pennsylvania [Mr. Welsh), that the Rubric requires baptism to be performed after the first and second lesson of morning service. Suppose that Rubric be changed, so as to allow that baptism be done in a corner, or, as is done now frequently, between services, or after service, will it not in the course of a few years drop out entirely the belief in the doctrine of regeneration on the part of this Church? As an illustration, I would say that some twenty years ago, I was in the Diocese of Ohio, and I requested the rector of a church to allow me to stand sponsor for a child to be baptized, and to present that child that afternoon for baptism. He said, "Yes, bring the child at one o'clock." I told him the service was at three o'clock, and I wished to present the child after the second lesson of the afternoon service, as the Rubric required. Said he, "It is never so done here." " 'Very well," said I, "I am a rubrical man, and I wish so to present that child to be baptized. "Very well, sir, we will do it." He gave out notice in the morning, at the time of giving the notices, that the usual monthly baptisms would be held at one o'clock, and also after the second lesson in the afternoon service, as the Rubric required, and he was very glad to say that the Church had appointed that Rubric, and his attention had been called to it, and therefore he would baptize children in the afternoon at that time. I presented the child, and it was done. I maintain that all those churches where the child is not baptized after the second lesson and before the congregation, who ought to join in the prayer, where the thing is done in a corner, gives the whole doctrine the go-by; the congregation do not know as to what the Church believes and holds as to the doctrine of baptism. Our children are brought up without the knowledge of the true interpretation of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. Mr. President, the argument of the reverend gentleman who has just spoken is not against the wisdom of the appointment of this Commission, but against the wisdom of acquiescing in some possible recommendation of theirs. Therefore it must fall to the ground. No proposition to alter Rubrics is before the House. The question is simply, shall we appoint a commission to take this whole matter into consideration, a commission of wise men to deliberate what changes, if any, are practicable and advisable ? Sir, there are many on this floor, I doubt not, who, like myself, are in favor of this proposition were it to be decided upon its merits, who yet may be obliged to vote against it, inasmuch as at this hour of the session we are not prepared carefully and deliberately to acquiesce in its terms. The resolution provides that we shall, by ballot, select seven clergymen and seven laymen, who shall be charged with this matter. It is a very important matter, and one that we should undertake with exceeding deliberation, to select fourteen such men. I know of no body of men proposed to be appointed by this House whom I should feel disposed to select without some delay, without much care and scrutiny. Therefore I say that many who are in favor of the proposition may be obliged to vote against it on that ground simply. If, however, it shall pass on its merits-and I do not propose to debate its meritsperhaps the difficulty may be got over in this way, by deciding now upon the Commission, and fixing an hour to-morrow when we shall go into this ballot, giving us twenty-four hours to think and consult with each other, in order to select, if possible, a body of men who shall know something of the doctrine of the Church, who shall know something of its practice, who shall know something of its needs, who shall be fit and proper men to be charged with this most important work. I hope that we shall not let this matter go by, for sooner or later it will come up before us, and the sooner we begin to think upon it, the better. Some gentlemen are in favor of individual concrete propositions being brought up, and decided individually on this floor; but we know that these propositions all originate in the minds of single individuals who have their own favorite schemes to further. Therefore, they do not consider the proper relativity of things; they are only in favor of this one proposition, without considering how it may affect, immediately or remotely, a score of others. That is one argument why the matter should be undertaken by men who will have the full subject in charge, who will do everything with deliberation, and where the wisdom of each one will be supplemented by the wisdom of the others; and then, if they shall agree upon their result, still this Convention-not now, but hereafter-will decide on each one separately on its merits. Surely it is not fair by a vote to lay on the table a proposition like this, which so many on this floor have so nearly at heart! Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of hesitation that I venture to say one word that would bring me in conflict with one so skilful in debate as the Rev. Deputy from Wisconsin; but when I heard his statement of the grounds upon which he intended to support this measure, and the advantage that would result from it, I must confess that I was greatly surprised. I have always understood from the expression of his views, and from the general idea that I had of the views of many who are supposed to be in sympathy with him, that what they desired was not a rigid law of uniformity, but something that would allow freedom of opinion and freedom of practice. But I have heard him here distinctly assert that we have no law or definite rule of worship in the Church, and that it is the intention and design by means of this Commission to get a system of Rubrics which will define just what a person shall do and just what a person shall not; just the garments, for instancefor he specified the garments he shall wear, and just what he shall not. He did not use those words, but by illustrating by means of vestments, it is a fair inference from his speech. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. It was not my idea. Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Still I inferred it, and I think it would be inferred by the Convention, from the gentleman's statement, that something more precise, defining just what we are to do and what we are not to do, was sought. I felt satisfied that the general sense of this House, the general sense of the Church, would be opposed to any system of Rubrics which would so accurately define or lay down laws to bind us in the conduct of public service; that there is under our present system ample law to hold us to a general course of uniformity ; that there is under it also ample liberty and toleration for different opinions. I am utterly averse, therefore, after spending so long a time as we have here in bringing things to a settlement, and determining some point, to crowning the work of the Convention by voting that we upset everything and leave all in confusion. The PRESIDENT. The question is on the resolution reported by the Committee on Canons relative to Rubrical revision. The resolution was rejected, there being on a division, ayes 53, noes 66. co is hereby detached from the jurisdiction of the Missionary Bishop of Colorado. "2d. That the Territory of Arizona be detached from the jurisdiction of the Missionary Bishop of Nevada. 3d. The Territories of New Mexico and Arizona are hereby constituted the jurisdiction of a Missionary Bishop, and the House of Bishops informs the House of Deputies that it has nominated as Missionary Bishop for New Mexico and Arizona, the Rev. William F. Adams, Rector of St. Paul's Church, New Orleans, in the Diocese of Louisiana." Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I move that the formal part of the message of the House of Bishops be concurred in, and that the House proceed to the election of the Missionary Bishop at once. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I offer an amendment fixing it for five o'clock. Unless we get through a great deal of business to-day, we shall have to remain till Wednesday night. If we work to-day, we can get through to-morrow night. Several DEPUTIES. Say half-past four. Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I do hope the motion made by the Clerical Deputy from Louisiana will prevail. I myself am compelled to leave the House permanently in the course of an hour at most, and I should like to give my testimony in favor of the nominee before I leave the House, and I should like to have the pleasure of voting for him. There are several others I know who are going. I am the only Lay Representative from our Diocese now here, and to tell you the truth, I stayed over from last night to this time for the express purpose of saying something on this subject and voting on it. Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Will not four o'clock do? Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is the mover willing to suspend the rule about closed doors in this case? Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I am. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Very well. Then I am willing. Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I second the motion to suspend the rule as to closed doors. Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It would be invidious, after having sat with closed doors on other gentlemen who have been sent down to us, to remove it now. Having adopted it, we ought to stick to it. Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It would be a very dangerous precedent, because we should not know what we are doing. The PRESIDENT. It is moved to suspend the rule which requires the House to sit with closed doors on the nomination of a Bishop. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I am willing, as a compromise, to fix on half-past four. Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. gentlemen going away. Here are The PRESIDENT. The motion is that the House proceed to the election of a Missionary Bishop at half-past four. ["Four." "Four."] Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I am willing to make it four o'clock. Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I move an amendment to go into the election at half-past three o'clock. Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I move to proceed immediately. The PRESIDENT. The original motion was to proceed immediately. The amendment is to proceed at four o'clock. The question will be taken on the motions in their order. The first question will be on fixing four o'clock. The motion was not agreed to. half-past three for the election of the Missionary Bishop to New Mexico and Arizona. The motion was agreed to. SPANISH PRAYER-BOOK. Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. I move that the Committee on the Translation of the Prayer-Book into the Spanish Language be enlarged by the addition of Mr. Stark, of Connecticut. The PRESIDENT. I will state that Mr. Stark's name was accidentally left off the Committee. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The nomination will be sent to the House of Bishops, because they have already acted on our previous nomination. DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. There is an order for the day for this time, but we cannot do anything with it in ten minutes, which is all we have left. Let it be read, however. The House proceeded to consider the following resolution reported by the Committee on Canons: "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 4, of Title II., 'Of Differences between Ministers and their Congregations, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Connection,' be amended so as to read as follows: "Sec. 2. The five Presbyters thus designated shall constitute a Board of Reference to consider such controversy; and shall meet in the city or county in which such rector or assistant minister lives, or elsewhere, as the parties may agree. It shall be the duty of such Board to adjust, if possible, the differences without dissolving the connection between the rector or assistant minister, or the vestry or congregation; and for this purpose the Board is empowered to recommend terms of settlement; and if after hearing such allegations and proofs as the parties may submit, a majority of the Presbyters, the whole Board being present, shall be of opinion that there is no favorable termination of such controversy, and that a dissolution of the connection between such rector or assistant minister and his parish or congregation, is necessary to restore the peace of the Church, and promote its prosperity, such Presbyters shall recommend to the Bishop that such minister shall be required to relinquish his connection with said Church or parish, on such conditions as may appear to them proper and reasonable, including the adjustment of all pecuniary claims between the parties. "Sec. 3. If the Bishop approve the recommendation of the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant minister refuse to comply with the requirement of the Bishop and Presbyters, made in pursuance of such recommendation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him the exercise of any ministerial functions within the Diocese, until he shall retract his refusal; and if he persist in his refusal, it shall be the duty of the Bishop to dissolve the connection between the said rector and vestry or congregation; or if the vestry or congregation shall refuse to comply with any such recommendation, they shall not be allowed any representation in the Diocesan Convention until they shall have retracted their refusal." Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. We concurred in certain amendments sent down by the Bishops as an independent proposition, and we then presented on our part certain amendments to the Canon. I should like to know which this is. I will Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. say that the Canon was reported by us, and then recommitted on the motion, I think, of the gentleman from Texas. Inasmuch as I believe there will be The PRESIDENT. The question now is on fixing something said in reference to it on the other side, I should like to put before the House the precise action of the Committee. With reference to Section 1, a proposition came from the House of Bishops to amend the phraseology in the fifth and sixth lines, beginning with the words, "make application to the Bishop of the Diocese, who shall"; they proposed to amend that so as to read, " may refer the matter to the Bishop of the Diocese, who may." That was the first action of the Committee. The House of Bishops also proposed an amendment of Section 3, providing that if the minister shall not retract his refusal, and shall continue not to retract, he shall then be liable to have his connection entirely severed. The Committee, however, have introduced other amendments. In Section 2 they propose to introduce after the word "controversy in the third line, a provision requiring the Board to meet in the city or county of the clergyman who constitutes one party to the suit so as to make it convenient to him, and not permit him to be dragged to inconvenient and perhaps impossible distances, involving him in such ruinous expense that he would be obliged to throw up the case rather than meet it. Then, again, the Committee propose to amend Section 1 by requiring that the whole Board shall be present when its decision is rendered. As the section stands now, it is only required that "the majority of the Presbyters shall be of opinion that there is no hope," etc. Previous to that we have introduced an amendment that the whole Board shall be present at the final decision. Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Is it required that the whole Board shall hear the evidence? Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. No. That was not before the Committee, and it was suggested only after the Committee made their last report, and the matter went on the Calendar. The Committee also propose to insert in that section a provision by which this Board of Reference shall be enabled to mediate between the parties, and if possible, settle the case without a dissolution of the connection. If, however, they find that to be impossible, if all being present, when the finding is given, a majority shall be of opinion that there is no hope of a favorable termination of the controversy, that a dissolution is necessary; then they shall recommend, etc., as the Canon goes on to state. Only that in the second section they may provide for the settlement of outstanding pecuniary claims, which may exist between the parties. A case was brought to the knowledge of the Committee in which there were large arrears, and still the vestry insisted on cutting the tie, leaving the clergyman to get his money as best he could. We thought it was right to provide for that in the final action of the Board of Enquiry. The Committee also propose to amend Section 3, but that amendment came up in their previous report. The Board having made their recommendation to the Bishop, if the rector or assistant minister shall refuse to comply with the requirement of the Bishop made in pursuance of this recommendation, then the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him the exercise of his ministerial functions, and if he persists in his refusal, then to sever the connection between him and his parish. The Committee have endeavored to ameliorate the Canon in the interest of justice in every direction. As to the matter referred to by the Deputy from Long Island, it was not brought up until the report was made. The PRESIDENT. The hour has arrived for going into the election of a Missionary Bishop, under the message from the House of Bishops. The doors having been closed, the House proceeded to consider the nomination of a Missionary Bishop for New Mexico and Arizona. On the elec Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I beg leave to submit the following report from the Committee on Conference regarding the Lectionary: "The Committee of Conference on the disagreement of the two Houses on the subject of the Lectionary, recommend the adoption of the following resolution: "Resolved, That the following be proposed as an amendment by way of addition to the Eighth Article of the Constitution, to wit: "Provided, however, that the General Convention shall have power from time to time to amend the Lectionary, but no act for this purpose shall be valid which is not voted for by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to seats in the House of Bishops, and by a majority of all the dioceses entitled to representation in the House of Deputies. "Resolved, That the Secretary of the House of Deputies cause the foregoing proposed amendment to the Constitution to be made known to the several Dioceses, according to the Constitution and Canons of the Church. "ALEXANDER GREGG, "Chairman of the Committee on the part of the House of Bishops. "ALFRED B. BEACH, "Chairman of the Committee on the part of the House of Deputies." Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Is not that exactly what we voted against a little while ago? Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. The words are "to amend the Lectionary." That means the present Lectionary. Would that permit the addition of a Lectionary specially for Lent? Could we do it under the Constitution?. Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Undoubtedly. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. If I am not mistaken, the point was made a little while ago in this House, that this gave to the Convention the right at each session, provided it passed by a majority, to alter or change the order of lessons. That point remains, and I only bring to the notice of the House whether they intend to recede from the position they then took. Mr. DE ROSSET, of North Carolina. I am utterly opposed to this measure, and I shall be very sorry if it is adopted. It provides for the alteration of the Book of Common Prayer so far as the Lectionary is concerned, and I call for a vote by Orders on the question. The PRESIDENT. There was another matter before us, and this could only come up, I think, by general consent, and be passed upon. If it is to be argued, and the vote taken by Dioceses and Orders, we must go back to the business which was interrupted by the election of a Missionary Bishop. Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I trust that general consent will be given to carry this on, because I am sure now it will be rather quiet, and when brought up a third time it will begin to be wearisome to the House. If I may go on, I will answer the question just put to the gentlemen on the Committee on Conference. |