The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-10-26

contrary to the doctrine Of aonement and desired TO
Know whether that would be considered hereueal
Rev. Dr. Gadsden reminded the House that some
more stringent control for the government OF the
ministry required and he favored the adoption of
the new Canon. He had himself seen ministers of the
Church attend theatrical exhibitions which were n
disgrace to the cOmmunty-(the reverend gentleman
must have been there himself how else could he know
lD-and which were chiefly intend ed for purposes of
licentiousness
AFTER this speech the vote was taken and the Canon
passed unanimously.
Missionary Bishop for the Indians.
message was received from the House of Bishops
requesting the prayers Of the clerical and lay deputies
or inc better guidance of the bishops in their secc-
ton OF a missionary bishop for the Indians In re-
eponse TO the request the members OF the House kne
ana engaged IN silent devotion.
Marriage and Divorce.
Another message from the House OF Bishops an
nounced the passage by them of the following to be
SHnon Alll, Iltc 2, on Marriage and Divorce:-
No minister Of tins chur rch shall unite in matrmony
any persons OF whom ore has been divorced for any
adultery, nor person divorced for his or her own
adultery; For the purposes of this divorce is
formally decreed by a civil court
With this message the Canon reported in the morn
ing by REV. Dr. Haight was also taken up for debate
Inc discussion was quito lengthy and interesting
Mr.. s. b. Ruggles remarked, that on the Goth day of
~ y, 80, Wy h SeIcIu oohVentlon ol the Church then
III Session had already passed resolution to that
effect, which is now the law of the Church. an d he
Ieau the resolution as follows
Lcs0Ded That it is the sense OF this Church that il
Is inconsistent with law of God, and the ministers
OF TINS church therefore shall unite i'm mntrmony
any person who is divorced hncss be on account of
inc other party having been guilty of adultery.
He also, in the course Of some subsequent remarks
which he submitted the subject old of a case
Where man, unworthy of the name, in one of the
western states, married woman who became epilep-
TIC and he was divorced from her for that and other
cause. The poor discarded epeptic attended, as
bridesmaid his second marriage, which was solem.
nzed by minister Of this chu rch lie wished to put
an end at once to such denominations.
Rev. Dr. Jacob J.. Clark, of Connecticut referred to
ihs TACT mat in some parts Of New England mention
ing especially Essex county, in Massachusetts, one
tenth part OF the marriages is Of persons who have
been divorced from husband or wife. Strong argu-
ments were made against the common practice of
Carolina denounced divorce as sin before God and
man, which viii call upon this land the direct
Delng referred to the Committee Canons, to report
ON Monday next
Clerical SuppOrt-AdiOurnment.
The Chair announced the following rs the Commit
tee of Laymen on the subject of devsng measures for
the better support of the clergy
George n. Gordon, Aabama; D. S. Turner, Califor-
mia; Crigen S. Seymour Connecticut; James Brown,
Delaware; Daniel S. Oakley, Florida; Il. d. Moore
Georgia; Samuel H. Treat, Illinois, John S. Irwin, In
diana; George Greene Iowa; c. c. Parsons Kansas !;
j. w. Stevenson, Kentucky; George s. Lacey Lou
islana Robert II. Gardiner, Maine; F. w. Brune
Maryland; George c. Shattuck, Massachusetts Chas
Z. Irowbrdge Michigan; Isaac Atwater, Minnesota; /;
William T. BafOur, Mississppi; George H. Gill, Mis-
sour; James W. Van Nostrand, Nebraska; Charles A.
Jersey; Samuel B. Ruggles New York; Armand j.
DeRosset, North Carolina; John w. Andrews, Ohio !;
William Welsh, Pennsylvania George w. Cass Pitts
burg; George i. Cook, Rhode Island; Edward Nc
Grady South Carolina; George Il. Fairbanks Ten
nessee James ii. Cutter Texas; ROderick Richard
son, Vermont; j. johnson Barbour, Virginia George
9. McWhorter, Western New York, and j. Bodwell
Doe Wisconsin.
The House adjourned to Monday morning at nine