The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-10-28
RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.
Protestant Episcopal General Triennial
Convention.

The Protestant Episcopal Convention held
their sixteenth days session in New York on
Saturday.
Rev. Dr. Haight, from the Committee on
Canons, reported adversely upon the amend
ment to canon Y, which provides that after the
words ecclesiastical authority" the following
shall be inserted: 1.-THE consent to such for
nation or establishment shall be considered as
granted unless refused within three months
after the ecclesiastical authority has been duly
notified of the intention Of the formation OF
the parish" The action Of the committee was
approved.
The same gentleman, from the Same COM
mittee, reported the following as new canon:
"Canon.-No minister Of this church shall
solemnize marriage in any case between any
parties where there is husband or wife OF
either party still living, save only IN tho case OF
divorce for the crime of adultery"
The canon was laid on the table for future
action.
choral music to b. used at future conventions
gave rise to a somewhat acrimonious debate,
when the resolutions were Withdrawn.
Mr. Doe, Of Wisconsin, introduced resolu-
ton to tho effect that future conventions shall
not be held in consecrated churches. The reso-
luton was debated and laid on the table.
Rev. DR.. Haight, from the committee on
canons reported an amendment to canon II,
title II, on the trial OF clergymen. Laid on
the table.
Two messages were then received from the
House of Bishops. The first asked for the
prayers of the lay and clerical delegates for
the better guidance Of the bishops in their ac-
tion in relation to an Indian bishopric and
the second was on tie subject OF remarrlage
of divorced persons. The House of Bishops
announced that they had adopted the follow.
ing, to be canon IS, title q, on marriage and
divorce:
'No minister of this church shall unite in
matrimony any persons OF whom one has been
divorced for any cause arising subsequent 10
the previous marriage other than adultery, nor
person divorced for his or her own adultery.
For the purposes OF this canon divorce Is here
by defined to be divorce vlnculo matrlmonn,'
formally decided by civil court"
Mr.. s. B. Rugglcs saiG if resolution could
establish the low, the point aimed at had been
already attained, for resolution covering the
ground was adopted in the General Convention
of 1903 by the following resolution:
"ReS0loed, That it is the sense ofthis Church
that it is inconsistent with q law OF God, and
the ministers Of this Church therefore shall
not unite in matrimony any person who ls
divorced, unless it be on account OF the other
party having been guilty Of adultery"
Mr.. Tazewell Taylor of Virginia, said the
minister did not derive his authority to marry
from the Church, but from the State, and there
fore it was not expedent to control his action
by canon; resolution was sufficient.
Rev. DIR. Mulcahy, of Massachusetts, asked
if the cergymen in thus church did not derive
his authority from the church?
Rev. DR.. Clark, of Connecticut, in discussing
the question, mentioned the fact that in one
tenth of tho marriages celebrated in this State,
either or both the contracting parties had been
| divorced. In some other States he understood
| the case was even worse.
MIR. William Welsh said we we're coming in
this country to the fearful state OF things e1-
listing in England.
A South Carolina delegate thanked God that
! he lived in State in which adivorce had never
been granted.
Judge Comstock, Of New York, made the
point that the proposed canon would prohibit
| the reunion Of two persons once divorced
ci,,cuo mat1monii, who might desire to live
| again together.
Another delegate held that o literal interpre-
tation of the Scriptures forbade divorce even
| for adultery.
A Kansas delegate moved to strike out the
words making an exception n the canon IN
favor OF divorces for adultery.
Very many OF tho delegates took the same
view, repeating with considerable emphasis
the quotation, Whom God hath joined no man
shall put asunder."
delegate from Connecticut said that canon,
and all regulations of the General Convention
to the contrary notwithstanding, if clergy
mon refused to marry divorced person, the
person so efused would have civil actlon
against the clergyman.
Rev. Professor Goodwin, Of Pennsylvania,
wished to see marriages indissoluble under all
circumstances. He thought it would be better
for the contracting parties, for society, and TOR
| all concerned. .
Rev. J. S. Hanckel, Of South Carolina said
that the spread of divorce Tas o sln crying TO
| Ha tn1
canon and not resolution on the subject, 30
that the minister violating 1t could be punish
ed for the violation of it.
Rev. MIR. Labah, of Iowa, said he sincerely
bopcd that the question would DO recommltted
10 the Committee on Cauons. The State held
that there were various grounds OF divorce,
and many excellent persons held that there
were four grounds of divorce presented IN the
| Scripture.
Mr. johnson, OF Connecticut, said that the
| frightful prevalence oS divorce was sapping the
very foundations OF society. In nine cases out
OF ten the change Of partner was the moving
cause in the divorce suit. The remedy was TO
| put op to remarrlage, and thus prevent tne
inducing cause. The spcl lker denied that tho
Protestant Episcopal Church was an abettor OF
this divorce mania; it wa5 the Congregational
lists Yale College and Professor Loomis, one OF
the writer's in "rhe New EnGlander, who were
making divorces popular.
Mr.. $. u. useles, of New York, mentioned a
case which occurred in a Western State, where
man married an epileptic wife, aud subse
quently got divorce from her on that GROUND
bridesmaid at his second marriage. [sensa-
tionl. and the clergyman who officiated on that
occasion was q minister OF this church. lSen-
| sation.
Rev. DR.. Adams, Of Wisconsin, knew the
case and said that tho want of such canon
as now proposed permitted the man spoken Of
and his two wifes, with the unuttcrable abomi-
tions of the case, 10 force themselves upon
| clergyman OF this church rs communicates.
Another delegate mentioned case OF which
he knew in tho diocese OF Iowa, where woman
obtained divorce twice. The first time she
got married within twenty minutes after the
divorce had been obtained, and IN the second nd
case, within half an hour. [Lau9hter.1 AND
(the delegate remarked soto ooce) she mar
ried for the third time her first divorced hus-
band.
After considerable discursive debate, both
the canon proposed by the Bishops and the
canon reported by the Committee on Canons
were rccommitted to the Committee on Canons.