The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-01-12
"Whai Should Be the Position Of the Church
on the Subject Of 0hoTce?"
THE TOPIC DISCUSSED BY SPEAKERS.
Remarks Made BY Bishop GaIIor Of Tennessee and
bJ Bishop Hall Of Vermont Some Rhcds
Island Divorce Statistics.

The Churchmens Club met at the
Eloise last night, and discussed what
should be the position OF the church on
the subject OF divorce" The speakers
were Rt. Rev. Bishops A. c. A. Hall.
of Vermont, and Thomas F. Gailor of
Tennessee. Among the guests were
Associate Justices Tillinghast and
Rogers. Bishop Coadjutor McVickar
and many of the prominent rectors of
the diocese.
President John Nicholas Brown pre-
faced the speaking by reading few
statistics relative TO marriages and di-
vorce I'm Rhode Island. The marriages
I'm this state i'm 1897 were 3l37 The d.
vorces actually granted were 372, or
divorce TO every s 40 marriages In
the 20 years from 1859 the ratio OF di-
Vorces as to marriages was / 10 IL 5-i0.
These startling features he suggested
should stir the church TO the end that
our divorce laws are radically changed.
BISHOP GAILoR's REMARKS.
Bishop Gailor. in the course OF his re-
marks said:
THE subject is OF extreme import
ance 10 the whole american people. The
two great catastrophes I'M European
history, the fail OF the Roman Empire
and the French Revolution, were ait
tended by a lessening OF reverence for
the family.
THE great virtues have originated
with Christianity Above all is the dig
nifty of the family life and n has been
fostered by Christianity. We cannot
exaggerate the evils OF the present time.
They must be checked. The question
with us as Christian men and Ameri-
can citizens is what remedy we can
propose for these evils.
THE family. the Church and the
state are the great institutions OF God.
The difficulties grow out OF the irrever-
ence which Is one OF the great evils OF
our times We ought To have respect
for persons, for institutions and for
ourselves
Men are tempted 10 ask n there are
any institutions for which we must
have reverence. as we read our daily
papers The wedding becomes n thea
trical display and we do not make II
solemn ceremony.
Those who oppose our present canon
think the section allowing marriage to
the innocent party in a divorce for
adultery should be obliterated. | think
" would take a great deal OF argument
90 convince me that the difficulty lies
in the present execution in the canon.
don't think the position the Episcopal
Church has occupied heretofore is in
ferior TO that occupied bv any other
branch 81 the Christian Church
"I don't think the Roman Church Is
in anv higher position on divorce than
the Episcopal Church has been all these
wears. When IL comes TO the Greek
Church we all know that it has ad-
roMted this one exception OF divorce.
The Church Of England has no law ad-
hitting divorce of any sort but II is
IN established church and is more or
less responsible for what takes place in
PARLIAMENT So long as she Is tied up
70 parllament u isn't a real argument
10 bring the English Church into the
question when Parliament permits d-
vorce for this cause.
"The curse OF mems minds Is the ef-
fort to be logical in religious questions
So i'm reeard 10 this question. don't let
us get down into any narrow logic
about the indissoluhIIty of marriage
We don't know anything about Il. and
all that is revealed TO us is through our
I.o~d Jesus Christ.
so 7 am not in favor OF change in
the canon as regards the nresent ex-
c"Dti0n. wouldn't he willing to in
di-atc that this church has been occu-
pving an inferior moral position. The
great eucstion is that OF individual re-
sponsibilitv"
BISHOP HALL SPEAKS
Bishop Hall when introduced, said in
substance:
should there be allowed in our can
on any exception TO the general rule
that marriage is indissoluble? The
matter OF what the state should allow
is not under our consideration. We
are not considering the question Of di-
vorce by itself as "A separation
from an unfaithful spouse ] believe
that we have no warrant from Jesus
Christ 10 allow n person divorced to
enter into n fresh union.
I'VE believe that thA word OF Christ
on matter % that sort is final. The
question lis whether He did sanction a
remarriage after divorce. In only one
single passage in one single gospel is
such an exception reported. Even when
we come 10 81. Matthews Gosnel, there
the text is doubtful. SO doubtful that
ono rendering omts the words that
seem TO sanction 81.
Are we not bound 20 test II end see
n that Interpretation in not untenable?
That distinction between the innocent
and guilty party is indefensible
"'rhe second argument Is the difficult
~ Of establishing the innocence OF the
claimant. There is n suspicion I'm many,
cases that there is colluslon between