Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1901-10-12
EPISCOPAL CONVENTION.


the proposed canon 81. providing for
the discipline of persons marrying
again after being divorced. The prin-
cipal change made by the substitute Is
the provision that such person may re-
ceive the sacrament on the written con-
sent OF a bishop.
TIE House OF Deputies began the
eagerly. awaited debate OF section OF
the proposed canon SO, which virtually
prohibits the remarrisge 10 the church
of divorced persons. The discussion
will be continued on Monday. The
only vote reached during the day was
on q proposed modification OF Dr.
Huntington's amendment, providing
for determining the cause Of divorce In
the case OF divorced person applying
TO be married. This was defeated.
Five missionary bishops were voted
| for and named by the House OF Bishops
to the House of Deputies, where the
finsl election must take place.
Ga the assembling OF the House OF
Deputies an attempt to take up matters
on the calendar in advance OF their
order was promptly tabled, showing 3
disposition to proceed with the regular
| order.
| The house went into committee OF the
whole on the marriage and divorce
canon, An attempt to strike out re-
ouirement of section 8. that In record
log marriage the clergy shall state
the ages OF the parties, was defeated. A
requirement that when practicable the
parish register record shall be signed
by the married parties and the witnesses
was, after much objection, retained.
Section 3 was then adopted as
whole. This brought the argument TO
article 4, already adopted by the bish-
obs. which forbids the marriage OF per-
sons divorced for cause not existing be-
fore their former msrriage-a practical
bar to the remarriage OF divorced per
sons by the Episcopal Church. Mr..
Lewis, of Pennsylvania, rose to correct
a misspprehension of the public report
OF his canon. He explained that 1t does
not propose to prevent any one at ell
from being married. 1t proposes only
10 forbid ministers OF the Episcopal
Church to marry any divorced person
whatever whose former husband or vile
is sill living.
Rev. Huntington offered an amend
ment intended to except the innocent
party to divorce obtained for the cause
of adultery when the fact is made to ap'
pear by certified record from the court
granting the divorce. He supported biz
proposal by an appeal TO the authori'y
OF Jesus Christ, which, he said, canno
be attacked except by the assistance o
what is known as the higher crlti
cism," and this could be fully answer
ed il the need arose.
Rchard II. Battle, OF North Carolina
argued strongly for Or. Huntingdon
amendment as being in accordance viii
the Scriptures and free from the charge
of impracticability.
Thomas G. Elder, OF Virginia, urged
that evidence regarding divorces shoulC
be sought for 10 the entire record rath
or than in the decree OF the court alone
which would not In every case reclt'
the ground OF the divorce. He moved
AN amendment 10 that effect.
: DR.. Huntington approved Mr.. FL
der's amendment. DR.. Rsdford, OF Della
ware, advocated the passage OF the sec
ton Just as il came from the house o
bishops. He said the conditions OF 30
ciety and common decency required
jus. such stringent legislation as wal
proposed.
Raw, DR.. Greer, OF New York, citeC
the fact that more divorces are granted
in this country than in all the countries
OF Europe together. Every coDsidera
ton OF social purity OF our country, o
the sacredness OF the home and oil the
teachings OF Christ, led him to oppose
DR.. Huntington's amendment and tt
favor the measure just as it came from
the bishops.
Rev. DR.. Fiske, OF Rhode Island, APP
peaIed for the support of the deputies
to the original measure.
Rev. DR.. McKim, Of Washington
had deep sympathy with the motive o.
the canon as 1t came from the bishops
but he did not believe it would accom-
pish the end intended. 1t was revolu
tionary legislation in the church. He
differed from those who, with the
Church OF Rome, held marriage to be
absolutely indissoluble. The claim wa:
unscrptural, he said. He cited Bishop
King, OF Litohfeld, England as unable
to regard marriage as indissoluble.
This view was supported by Bishops
Lightfoot, Wordsworth and French.
Rev. DR.. Foley, OF Central Pennsy''
vauia, acknowledged himself convert
since coming to San Francisco to the
stricter views of the case, largely be-
cause the laity seemed to him to de-
mand II. He said the public sentiment
of the American people could never be
brought into line with the vigorous
restriction here contemplated.
w. II. Adams, OF Western New York
said the church certainly had the righl
to legislste on stricter lines than those
OF the civil law, but he regarded the
proposed restrictions an unwarranted
interference with the rights OF the
people.
John p. Thomas, jr., OF South Caro-
lios, where no divorces are allowed by
the State law, said the law OF the
church should correspond with the high
standard adopted by mis- State.
George II. Williams, of Oregon. OPP
posep all restrictions upon the subject
by the church. He would leave all
such restrictions to the civil law.
I'VE ind," he said, ".hst the sancity
of the home has been grossly violated
in very many csses. 10 such cases the
guilty should be punished, but the In
nocent should be SLOWED to 90 free.'
| Raw. DR.. Huntington, OF New York,
asked leave 10 withdraw bis acceptance
of certain additions to his amendment
| and 10 Hneak nnon that amendment a.