The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, October 10, 1901, Page 2

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1901 MASTER MINDS. DISCUSS REVISION OF THE SCRIPTURE S L2 MARGINAL READINGS ARE PARTLY ADOPTED House of Deputies the Subject After an Inter- esting HERE was a large attendance of members of the House of Deputies when that body of the iscopal Convention resumed its sitting yesterday morning. The galleries of Trinity Church were crowded with I visi- tors, who listened to the debates with great interest. After the reading of the journal of the previous day and its acceptance the chalr- man called for reports from committees. T Rev. Dr. Duncan of Louisiana re- ported for the commiitee on the state of the church that it favored good municipal government and that it urged all members of the ehurch to aid in the suppression of evil and vice as tolerated in many cit The report was placed on the cal- endar. The Rev. Henry Easter of Tennessee, n behalf of a special committee, pre- ted resolutions on the death of Presi- McKinley, which were adopted b: rising vote. The resolutions are pub- ished on another page of The Call. On motion of Deputy George C. Thomas of Pennsylvania the house expressed its on of the great mass missionary of Tuesday night at Mechanics’ he House of Bishops expresses its apprecia- n of the efforts of the Bishops, the deputies e congregations and choirs of San Fran- cisco and vieinity, which resulted in, the mag- nificent mis ng of last evening, the Ereatest the American church, ot fail to exert an influence. he Rev. Richard P. Willlams of Wash- gton offered a resolution that the Hous for the new diocese of the Philippine Isi- ands ess of Rhode Island objected to e action in the matter and the resolution was placed on the calendar. A report of the committee on the gen- | eral 1 slogical seminary that the dean of the institution be given a seat in the | convention was referred to the committee on general seminar; Depuly Charles G. Sanders of Massa- chusetts proposed a change in Article V. of the constitution as adopted on the pre- ceding by inserting in the provision for 1. ew dioceses the words “with the o of the General Convention,” and to make the concluding sentence read as follows: When 4t shall appear to the satisfaction of the Ger Convention by a certified copy of the proceedings and other documents and pa- pers laid before it that all the oonditions for the formation of the new diocese have been complied with, and that it has-aceeded to the constitution of this church, such new diocese shall thereupon be admitted to union with the General Convention. He explained that this would restore the practice to the same condition in which it is under the present constitu- tion The matter was referred to the commit- tee on constitution. BOSTON SECURES CONVENTION. Pierpont Morgan of New York then ented the following report, which pro- s that Bos place of the next convention: E ommittee upon the place for hold- the committee has considered their notice and have listened carefully to has b adduced in favor of each, and have come unanimously to the decision to recommend to the two houses of the comven- tion the adoption of the following resolutior Resolved, That Boston be chosen as the place for holding the next General Convention, The resolution was adopted. A morial referred to the committer NEW ‘ADVEBTISEMEN'TS. HERPICIDE'S MISSION. New Remedy That Destroys the Dan- druff Germs. Nothing is more annoying to men or women of middle age when they notice that their hair is growing thinner, when they must admit that the #irst indications of baldheadedness have commenced to ap- pear. Many would give a thousand dol- lars and more for a remedy with which to preserve their natural headdress. How- ever, they don’t need to. Newbro's Herp- icide removes the effect of dandruff by destroying the cause, the only dandruff cure that actyally destroys the dandruff germ. on by adopting the following resoiu-{ f Bishops be requested to elect a Bishop | on shall be the meeting | ral Convention would report | from all of the places brought | Acts Favorably on Debate. | touching the securing of a hall for the | meeting and not a church, was referred to the local committee without recom- mendation. A resolution by Deputy M. F. Gilbert of Springfield, that amendments to the constitution should not take effect until after the last day of the convention, was referred to the committee on amend- ments. A resolution from the committee on elec- tions, recommending that J. H. Cammel of | West Michigan be seated as a deputy in place of W. R. Shelly, who is absent, was referred to a committee. On motion of the Rev. Dr. Alsop of Long Island the house proceeded to take § | i up report No. 2 of the committee on canons, relating to the election and translation of missionary bishops. The canon provides that when a missionary bishop is translated, after five years’ ser- vice, to an organized diocese, he shall not MYP jurisdiction of the missionary dis- trict. The canon wad explained by the Rev. Dr. Davenport of Tennessee in answer to questions propounded by the Rev. Dr. | Fulton of Pennsylvania. | A series of cross-questions and answers between the two clerical deputies followed and Deputy George F. Lewis of Iowa | spoke against the adoption of the report. | Lewis moved to amend the report and have it voted upom in two parts, but this | was ruled out of order by the chalir. The Rev. Dr. Henry of Iowa moved to add the words “coadjutor bishop” to the | resolution, thus providing that a co- adjutor bishop be protected equally with a bishop in the matter of translation from a missionary district to an organized dio- cese. The Rev. Dr. Parks of New York moved to lay the amendment on the table, which | was done. £ | _At this point of the proceedings the | | Rev. Dr. Lindsay was obliged to leave the chair, being called away on business, and | | the gavel was placed in the hands of | Judge Stiness of Rhode Island. A number of motlons, resolutions and | amendments were presented at this point, all relating to the translation of bishops | from missionary districts to organized | dioceses, but the tangle was settled by re- | ferring 'the entire question back to the committee on canons. DISCUSS MARGINAL READINGS. | The Rev. Dr. Greer of New York called | for the order of the day on the marginal | readings and the matter was at once taken up. The seeretary, Rev. Dr. Hutchins, then read the message received from the House of Bishops on the subject of marginal reixdlnis. which was to the effect that the upper house had adopted the report of the special committee on marginal readings and authorized its use by the clergy and the publication of the Revised Scriptures. The Rev. Dr. Mann of Missouri dis- cussed the rflmn of the speclal committee and paid a tribute to the magnitude of the work. He was not in favor of accept- ing the entire report of the commission, as recommended by that body, and pre- sented the following amendment: Resolved, That this house concur with mes- sage No. & of the House of Bishops, amended | 50 6s o read as follows: Resolved, that the marginal readings reported to this General Con- | vention by the joint commission appointed in 188 and reappointed in 1898, to make such re- port in o far as such readings are taken from the margin of the authorized version, from the text and margin of the English revised ver- sion and from the text and margin of the Amer. ican revised version, are hereby adopted and allowed for use by the ministers of this church in the lessons read at morning and evening prayer. The | grouoser of the amendment hoped that the resolution of the commission would not prevail. He said: 1 hope this house will not accept this entire report on the marginal readings to the Scrip- tures, when it is remembered that the body has made changes which the original trans- lators, the English revisers and the American revisers have not made. The Rev. Dr. McKim of Washington said: The proposal to touch the holy Seriptures al- ways arouses a deep feeling. The early trans- lations were greeted with opposition, and St Jerome sald: “In vain is a lyre pl in the presence of an ass.” The report of the com- mission will be received with all respect and gratitude. ‘The commission proposes to give the people the best results of the study of scholars. Certain verses in the Bcriptures are ot to be found in the orlginal record and some translations are quite incorrect. 1 think, however, that the commissioners have made 4 | mistake in presenting here a large number of | corrections and alterations made by them- selves. I am not prepared to accept the changes made by @ small commission. = Their duty was to gather data and not to Eive w their own opinions on certain things. CRITICIZES THE COMMISSION. The reverend speaker then quoted a number of the proposed alterations sug- IR WVHITEHEAD (5 BIgHor oft BT TEIGHTON COLEMALT BIgHOFP oF BREV PELAWARE oZ SOME PRELATES WHO DISCUSSED THE CANON ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. Commend the Committee for Its Faithful Serviees. Sl gested by the commission and some hilar- fty was caused by the reading. Continu- ing, the speaker said: These changes 1 have quoted were made on be no loss if we read ‘‘possessed by devils” i of “‘possessed by evil spirits”; there WhI“be B lows 4f we continue to read “itne fish's belly’” for ‘“‘the whale's belly”’; we shal ot be doing Wrong by g S;t\: to hegll” for ‘‘cast down to the under- world.”” Then again I cannot understand c;r- tain Greek transiations that have been mad e It we adopt the report of the commission we shall be introducing a Protestant Rpiscopal Bible. 1 want something more catholic. ' 1 hear that there are many different versions of the Bible in use. I am opposed to the In!rnductlolxj into that number of a Protestant Episcop one. ev. Dr. Watermann of New Hzr‘:-nepsl'fi{re, in discussing’ the subject, said: t a One of the great arguments in favor o work like (hls rather than the sdoption of her the Canterbury revision or eri- z’fllneievlilon, lies in this: It was said very freely and frequently of the Canterbury revision When it first came out that it was admirable for scholars, but it was not good after all for the common people; admirable as a commen- tary, not good for the lectern. I take it that any company of echolars meeting together to do a work of this Kind must necessarily, to be hongst and true with themselves, bring in a great many more corrections than any of them would ever think of reading in public. 1 myself certainly have voted for a great many more of these marginal readings than I should ever think of using in public reading in church; nevertheless, 1 belleve it to be my duty in taking part in a work like this to vote on the general principle of always voting for what I'belleve to be'an accurate statement of what was really the work of all. On_the }(’)lh!r hand, in reading the Scriptures in church, I should think it was not worth while to use more than a very few of such passages. My own bellet is that in practical Dse, if this were .adopted, we should come very soon to use only a very small portion of these numerous readings in-church at all. Suppose, for instance, there are 500 of these marginal readings marked “C.’’ of which you Qisapprove of 400. You don’t have to use them. Suppose, for Instance, you disapprove of the change from ‘‘generation of Vipers” to ‘‘brood of vipers,” you need not use it in public read- ings in church; if you do approve of it, you may use it. Is there any harm done? FAVORS PROPOSED REVISION. The Rev. Dr. Hart of Colorado ex- pressed himself as being in favor of ac- cepting the report of the commission on the marginal readings. He said: Somebody here has sald he is opposed to everybody putting o;let‘nnxalhl;.k lw.mf nal::e. the bes e I know of, thae wan provided by & Biymouth Brother in England about fifty years ago. In one respect only would he suggest an improvement of the work of the commis- sion, the speaker said, viz., by introduc- ing in_place of “Lord” and “God’ the word “Jehovah” wherever it finds its place in the original. It was, he said, the word of salvation which was the pivot upon which the Word of God turns. The Rev. Dr. Crawford of Virginia then addressed the house, in part saying: 1 heard somebody say that they do not want a Protestant Episcopal Bible, Well, if the Anglican church s not to produce a new Bible, 1 would like to know what church is to do it. The Roman church can't do it Sixtus VI put upon them the Vulgate and he put upon them the anathema if they un- dertook to touch it. There are a thousand mistakes in the Vulgate, and if any of the boys in the form over which I presided had made_those mistakes I, would have caned him. The Vulgate can’'t be ‘touched by the Catholic church. Then who is to give to the church an amended and better explanation of the Bible? Why, the home of all Biblical learning, or very nearly all, is the Anglican chureh, and the Protestant Episcopal church of this country has had no little share in throwing those illuminations which the textual critice s the | the responsibility of the commission. If | amendment is adopted there will be no lose to the work of the commission. There W continuing to read ‘‘cast | j of the land have given the people to help them in the use of the Word of God. I think it will be a distinguishment of this convention if only it will adopt the report on marginal readings that the commission has put forth. ITESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. The hour of adjournment having been reached the chair announced that the fol- lowing messages from the House of Bish- ops would be read: Notifying the deputies that it had adopted a resolution for the appointment of a joint committee, according to title §, canon 8§ to nominate 'seven persons to serve as trustees of the fund for the relief of the widows and orphans of deceased and disabled clergymen, its part of the committee being the Bishops of Colorado and West Missourl. Zhat it had adopted the following resolu- on esolved, the House of Deputies concur- ring, that a joint committee be appointed, consisting of five Bishops, five presbyters and five laymen, to take the whole subject of a change of the name of this church into con- sideration; to ascertain as nearly as possible the minds of church people in 'general con- cerning it, and to make a report at the mext General Convention, with such suggestions may commend_themselves to their judgment, and that the House of Bishops had appointed as members of 'sald committee on its part the Bishops of Missourl, New Jersey, West Vir- ginia, Pittsburg and Ohlo. The deputies concurred in this action of the Bishops. The House of Blsho%s also by message notified the deputies that it had adopted a_resolution concurring with the action of the latter in selecting Boston as the place of meeting of the next General Con- vention. The session of the house was then ad- journed until 8 p. m. DISCUSSION ON MARGINAL READINGS ENDS ABRUPTLY Delegate From New Hampshire Closes Debate and Matter Laid on Table. Upon the House of Deputies reconvening yes- terday afternoon Chairman Liridsay announced that business before the body was the resump- tion of the discussion of the report on marginal readings. Rev. Dr. McConnell moved that a vote be taken on the subject at 3:30 p. m. Dr, Spalding sald it was hardly desired to limit the action or consideration of this matter, which, he sald, was most impor- tant, and that as it had not come before the house before he thought unlimited discussion should be permitted, The Rev. Dr. Carl E. Grammer, D.D., of South Virginia followed in the same vein. He saild he was not in favor of closing the debate so soon. The Rev. Dr. Talbot made an amendment to the motion that a vote be taken at 4 o'clock. Dr. McConnell accepted the amendment and it became the original motion. The Rev. Dr. McKim of the Washington diocese offered as an amendment to the amendment that the vote be taken at § o'clock. A delegato from New Hampshire closed the subject by making a motion to lay the whole matter on the table. It was so voted. AFTERNOON DEBATE BEGINS. The Rev. Dr. Grammer of Southern Virginla opened the afternoon debate on the subject, galalfllng for the resclution of the Rev. Dr. ann, on four considerations. The first was esthetic. King James' version had become so entrenched in the affections of the people that it should not be changed until the superiority and necessity of the substitution were made apparent after the most careful study and thor- L e o i i i ] ] To Cure a Cold in One Day Take Laxative Bromo Quinine Tablets. Al druggists refund the money if it fails to cure. E. W. Grove's signature is on each box. 2, * ough critictsm. The second objection was that the proposed changes lack authority in weight of scholarship. The third was that they would be an obstacle to the migsionary operations of the church. The fourth!was that there was too large an element of interpretation and com- ment in many of the proposed readings for them to be called accurately a transaction. Numerous questions were asked Dr. Gram- mer at the close of his argument. He said he was not criticising the committee as a whole, but only portions of its report. The Rev. Dr. Spalding of Alabama then took the platform apd said in part: “I am almost afraid that taking the plat- form will incline me to a speech, but I will try to conform myself in regard to that. I arose simply to urge the division of the whole question. T would like to have what Dr. Gram- mer has been discussing come before us as to what goes'in the marginal reading. “It we settle it should go into the mar- gin. Then I think a separate question should come up as to whether a clergyman should be allowed to read that, in the lessons, in the place of the King James text, or whether he should bring it forward as the command of the church In the way of a commentary; that these mar- ginal readings would not be the individual commentary of some learned man, but would be the authorized commentary by the council of this church, and when those points have been discussed then I think we should come to final action on the whole matter. This mat- ter should be adopted separately and in order. I have heard here that certaln words were blank to certain laymen. I never found any difficulty in expounding the word of God to the ordinary layman.' I think very little instruction on the part of the clergy will fa- millarize them with its meaning. Some of it 1 have heard expounded in modern slang. I don’t think the sacredness of the word can be preserved in any such way as that and I would rather, as far as I am concerned, make use of the wisdom of this committee and all other committees and preserve the text that has been sacred to our Anglican life. WANTS QUESTION DIVIDED. ‘‘Therefore, I move you, Mr. Chairman, that this question be divided in the way I say: first, the question brought up by the motlon of Dr. Mann and then the question of the mar- &in as distinctive from the interlining method, and then the other question following. The Rev. Dr. Kim arose to a point, of order. He said it was substantially a repe- tition of the resolution of the committea for Which Dr. Mann's was an amendment. That being the case, Dr. Spalding's suggestion was out of order. Chairman Lindsay ruled that Dr. Spalding’s amendment was mnot strictly speaking an amendment to Dr. Crawford's amendment. Dr. Spalding later asked Dr. Mann if he had any objection to dividing this question. Dr. Mann sald he had, as it would confuse things. He stated that-the only actlon before the house was to allow the use of certain readings in the public reading of the lessons | of the Old and New Testaments. Nothing, he | stated, is sald as to where they are being printed or in what manner they are being printed. He said this was a question that could not be divided. The Rev. Dr. Percival H. Hickman of Colo- rado followed and said: I submit that when the version of 1611 was presented to the Anglican church there was no_resolution, no canon, no motion of uniformity which ever established the author- ity of that version. I further submit that in- asmuch as we are under no obligation what- ever to the use of the authorized version at the lectern, where it is not definitely, clearly and precisely the word of God, I submit that it Is an outrage that any priest should be asked on Christmas morning to read on ome of our two great festivals the worst translated plece of Hebrew in the whole of the Old Te: tament. ‘I further submit that inasmuch as there is no authorized’ version it is in the nature of a limitation of liberty that I should be asked to accept a compromise, which is the nature of this marginal reading report; a compromise which challenges the specific objection and the only tremendously weighty objection which lies to the revised version. The chief objection against the revised ver- sion is simply this: that the most eminent body of scholars that the Anglican church has ever produced did make a special text for the Greek on which that revised transla- tion is,based, I submit that this marginal reading which I hold in my hand acts pre- cisely in that way.”” The speaker illustrated this by the citation of_specific passages, and concluded: “1 submit that, as there is no Anglican church and in the American church that it is a limitation of our Jliberty to ask us to take such a report as ihis, for apart altogether from these emendations made by this conven- tion seven-eighths of all the changes made are simply excerpts from the report of 1381 and He proposed in conclusion the following sub- stitute for the pending resolytion Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that the revised version set forth by the con- vocations and the report In A. D. 1881 and A. D. 1885 {s hereby authorized for alternative use by the ministers of this church for the pub- lic services of the church. DEFENDS THE REPORT. The Rev. Dr. Carey of Albany on behalf of the commission, of which he is a member, spoke at length’in defense of the report, giv- ing in the course of his speech a history of the commission and its work, and detailing the methods pursued by it in arriving at its result. He pleaded earnestly and forcibly for the adoption of the report. Mr. Russell of North Dakota followed and said in part: “It is accorded to a delegate from a mis- sionary district to have a volce in the deliber- ations of the church. It is not given to him to have a vote, however. I come before you this afternoon as a delegate from North Da- kota, where thirtv years of my life has been spent. I come to earnestly ask yoy gentle- men of the convention to give us these mar- ginal references that the commission appoint- ed in '9% has presented to us. I sincerely ap- peal to you that you will accept the decision of the House of Bishops and let these mar- ginal references be adopted, that they may be placed in the hands of those people who are scattered along the prairies and who will take hold of them with eagerness.” The Rev, Dr. Eccleston of Maryland sald: “No one feels more than 1 do the need for some relief where this report proposes to give it; and yet, feeling deeply that need, and while sympathizing profoundly with my breth- ren who ask for it, if we are driven to vote on the first proposition some of us will be driven to vote against it most unwillingly. It is because we can vote on the line of Dr. Mann's amendment but cannot on the other, that we have asked its consideration. No one has any more respect for these gentle- men that I; no one wishes to acknowledge their worth more than I do. No matter what is done with that report I expect to keep it in bound form within my reach. I know many others who will do so, and are glad to have it. But when it comes to saying that a matter which required the careful study of seventy men, all acknowledged to be ex. perts, for over twenty years, and then to take the work of men acknowledged to be the best experts and which did not take three, T sub. mit that our hesitation—I do not say refusal is not without ground, to give these men carte blanche to £o on. ““The expression, ‘inarginal reading,’ is mis. leading; it is someéthing more than marginal reading. Who is ready to say that the text of the Old Testament is in condition for ex perts to come here and ask us to accept their work_ blindly, unless they will take the text of which we have all been talking, the text on which the revision was made in known as the Canterbury revision? Thar 1 exactly what we want you to take. I asic you, are you ready to accept not Feadings, but textual corrections; it I3 smom: confusion.” Lay Delegate Richard H. Battle Carolina, arose to a point of order at this yor Ho contended that under the rules of the house the substitute offered by the Rev. br; Crawford, whicl been ruled out . was in order. g Chairman Lindsay replied that intention to permit the resolution ('o‘ c:.: ,’,'i! fore the house for action. Dr. Hickman then asked whether the resolution he offered would come up at the same time. Dr. Lindsay 1a answer to the question stated that as a mat. ter of equity it should come before the hou. that both resolutions would be Introduced. it was for the convention to say whether they Continued to Page Four, * | Learned Theologians Diseuss Changes in the Holy Book of Prayer and 'PROHIBITS REMARRIAGE ‘House of Bishops ' Passes Canon 36. NE of the most important pleces of church legislation considered present session is canon 3, re- lating to the solemnization of marriage and the prohibition of remarriage of divorced per- =ons, which was adopted yesterday by a vote of 37 to 2. The debate on the sub- { Ject was long‘and interesting. This cahon will come up for discussion in the House | of Deputies to-day, and from the senti- ments of many members it is thought the measure will not be concurred in. This canon has long been under consid- | eration by the clerics and laity. It has | been advocated for many years. Commit- tees were appointed by both houses at the ninth triemnial convention, which held joint séssions and framed amendments to i the canon. These committees reported back to their respective houses. Yester- day the House of Bishops took action, and to-day the deputies will in all proba- | bility follow its example. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. The canon passed is ds follows: The solemnization of matrimony in this church is a service in which the mutual con- sent of the parties entering into this state of life is given In the presence of a minister, who, having pronounced them in the Name ¢ the Holy Trinity to be man and wife, invokes the divine blessing upon their union. In the solemnization of matrimony the min isters of this church shall be careful to ascer- tain and to observe the law of the State gov- erning the civil contract of marriage in the place where the service shall be performed. No minister shall solemnize the marriage of any person, who under the law of the place of marriage is not free to marry without the consent of parent or guardian, unless the parent or guardian of such minor is present and con- | senting, or shall have given written consent to | the marriage, or is permanently resident in & foreign country. No minjster shall solemnize a marriage except in the presence of at least two Witnesses, nor, in case the parties are unknown to the minister. without the presence of witnesses to whom the | parties are personally known, unless n the judgment of the minister it shall be impracti- cable to obtain such witnesses, Every minister shall without delay formally record in the proper register the name, age and residence of each party. Such record shall be signed by the minister who performs the cerew mony, and, if practicable, by the married par- tles and by at least two witnesses of the mar- riage. No minister wshall = marriage between any two ) unless nor until by inquiry have satisfied himself that neither person is the h and or the wite of any other person t han been the husband sr tho Srize of any other person then iivime: unless the former marriage was an- nulled by a decree of ’ome ci.vll court of competent jurisdiction for Continued to Page Four. Pears’ It is a wonderful soap that takes hold quick and does no harm. .No harm! It leaves the skin soft like a baby’s; no aikali in it, nothing but soap. The harm is done by alkali. Still more harm is done by not washing. So, bad soap is better than none. What is bad soap? Im- perfectly made; the fat and alkali not well bal anced or not combined, What is gopd soap? Pears’. All i l o sa!:ol stms“:lli'l:.upcklly druggistey — 4 by the House of Bishops at 3t <