The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1901-10-12

teriss Principally against the fourth section:
whether the laws of the State right or
wrong. but the precise question we have to
for the church to pursue with reference to
persons after they have been divorced? Is it
better for the church to prescribe and prose
ter for the church to extend to them the hand
of friendship, to treat them with consideration
and kindness and try to make better men and
great abuses under the existing divorce laws
to be addressed to the lawmaking power of
the country. They have nothing to do with
the question before this convention.
Il have had considerable to do with the ad-
years as Judge and practitioner, and the result
Of cases applications for divorce are made by
women who seek to be released from worthless,
drunken and criminal husbands, who have been
their hands. and generally, in poverty ask
any man in this convention If he can give
any good. sound. practical reason why
woman who is divorced under such circum-
stances If she finds a man who is willing to
marry her, who will make her good husband
vide support and comfort for her and them,
why she should not have right to marry that
and why an Episcopal clergyman should
not have the right to perform the ceremony.
This legislation our part will have no more
than the Pope's bull had against the comet.
When people seek divorce they do not stop
to consider whether they will be recognized by
the Episcopal church. They know very well
that if the Episcopal church will not recog-
nize them all the other churches of the coun-
try. will Therefore it is trying to do some
thing that is impracticable. 1t is straining
at a gnat and swallowing camel +"
DISCUSSES PARAMOUNT POINTS.
Rev DR.. Bassett of Rhode Island followed
In this discussion there are two great prin-
ciples that underlie everything that has been
said or perhaps be said on this subject
There is underneath everything the paramount
abroad and see the dissolution that to
homes We do for our homes?'
1T is not the question or criticism on what
we are to decide this matter. 1t is the ques-
ton of the great principle that our Savior
bn peo of dea ask what is the nter
probation that Christians have placed upon his
words? They have said in defense of the sane
ed the man at his own Whim and pleasure,
but should only be allowed by a decree of the
I'VE should say to the person guilty of adul-
terry: We will punish you, and to the person
who is innocent the church has no censure to
duct when faithful son daughter of the
the blessing of God rests upon them. Such
it seems to me is the law of God and the law
of man."
DEFINES THE SCRIPTURES.
Rev. DIR. Benton of Kentucky followed and
argued on the indissolublity of marriage He
quoted sections Of the Bible to strengthen his
argument In part he said:
I'VE have been told that this proposed
ton sent down from the House of Bishops is
revolutionary. That it is contrary to the uni
form practice Of 100 years.
IF We take pity, upon the wife who is the
wife of drunkard who turns his home into
a hell. shall we not have pity upon the wife
whose husband has been unfaithful to his
riago vows? If pity is to rule must we not
marry people who are divorced for any cause?
l submit, sir, that the scriptures remain
and they. IN their fullness. declare the indissol-
n n6 M
marry. And now we come to own legiS-
laton. We take up our Book of Common
Prayer, and does it not declare the doctrine
of the church? Does that not declare that after
the marriage vows are taken, that that engage
ment is for 1ife?
DIR. HUNTINGTON'S ARGUMENT.
Rev Dr. Huntington of New York, having