Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-11-21
BISHOP COLElIAN'S
VIEW or DIVORCE

General Convention OF the Episcopal
Church at Sau francisco on the pro-
posed canon forbidding remarriage of
divorced persons was the Right Rev.
Leighton Coleman of Delaware. lie
stood from first to last stanchly for
the new canon. and, row that the matter
has been SGT at rest so far as the con-
vention OF 1901 is concerned, he has
spitomized rs follows the grounds on
which he took his stand in the House
of Bishops:
II -.While desire to speak with all re-
spect as to the action of the House Of
Deputies in every case, yet l cannot
forbear expressing my great sorrow and
concern at its failure finally to adopt
the canon on marriage aud divorce as
II was sent down by the House of
Bishops.
;,Is was the one subject above all
others in regard to which churchmen
generally felt, in view of the General
Convention, the greatest interest and
anxiety.
1t is a question that SO affects every
nommunity, and affects every COM
munity in so many various ways, that
the utterances of this branch of the
Catholic Church with regard to it must
always be reckoned among the most
influential factors in society.
''With others, l feel just as strongly
in favor of the restrictive features of
that canon as ever Indeed, the more
the other side of the controversy pre-
scented, the more earnest do ones con-
victions become as to the absolute me-
oessity OF some such legislation.
while on this account am with
others again grieved and disap-
pointed at the failure of concurrence
with our action upon the part of the
House of Deputies voting by dioceses,
yet it Is great comfort and satisfao-
tiop to know that by substantial
maiority OF all the members of both
houses chat of the deputies as indi.
Gated by vote Of the committee of the
wholel the church in this General
Convention has set its seal against the
remarriage, SO called, Of persons divorced
on any account
This is Judgment In this great
matter which has never bsfore been so
formulated and distinctly rendered,
and. notwithstanding the final issue Of
the discussion in the House of Depu.
ties, 1t is, III | mistake not. Judgment
which will be Of great weight through
out the country.
1.-THE majority Of the House of Bishops,
IL may be allowed to speak for them,
took the position which they did be.
cause Of their believing that there was
nothing In the Holy Scripture nor in
the traditions and legislation of the
Catholic Churoh to warrant her permits
sion to any divorced person to marry
again.
\ "Those who think that our blessed
Lord in the nineteenth chapter of the
Gospel according to st. Matthew allowed
divorce for certain specified cause
cannot, in my opinion, by any course
If reasoning or Interpretation success
July sllege that in the passage to which
hey thus refer our blessed Lord in
ed to sanction the remarriage Of a
forced person.
This is point Of distinction which
ices not seem to me to have been sui.
iciently considered in the discussion
,f this matter. 1t Ia one thing to allow
b divorce (granting, for Arguments
sake merely, that our blessed Lord did
make this allowance), but quite another
thing to allow the remarriage OF per
son thus divorced
sfAnother point that seems to have
been overlooked by many is that, Will.
there may not be any objection to a
separation between man and wife be-
cause Of cruelty, or even more grave
reasons, ii is not necessary, In my judg.
nlent, that relief should be granted, nc
matter how hard the case may be, by
an absolute divorce from the bonds o.
holy matrimony.
''No such relief lie possible under the
language OF the marriage service itself
Cor in that service the man and tbs
woman agree to be husband and wifi
under all circumstances and condition.
until death shall part them.
tFinally there is an inoonsistenc,
between this explicit language of th,
prAyertook and any other languag,
which would for any cause permit di
yorce.
.'There is hardly any pastor of lonI
and wide experience who lias not yerl
frequently encountered cases where /
was most difficult, IL not impossible, Il
determine which of two parties wa
the innooentsparty, the door being wild
open under present arrangements boil
in Church and State for collision an
falsehood.
i.There can be no question whatso
ever that II 1t were distinctly under
stood by all that under no circumstances
would the church give her sanction t.
divorce land, therefore, OF course
vorced person holy matrimunyl, ther
would be very much more caution oh
served by many people before enterin
into that estate.
sit is the knowledge of the ease wit
which divorce can be obtained aud di
vorced people can be married agai
without that ban which used to te pu
apon such persons that tempts man
persons to enter into this holy estat
unadyisedly, irreverently, indiscreetl
and without the fear of God.
. Ii had been hoped by many of 1
shat this church of ours, to which ii
American Republic is advisedly lool
ing for leadership in this matter, woul
have spoken in some such way as Ii
House of Bishops and the majority
the members of the House of Deputi,
have already spoken for it may not /
known except by those who are OF
peoially interested in the matter no
widespread and intense was the desii
: of the dey2ut laity of the church an
the deyout members of other religio,
BODIES that some such legislatic
should be enacted.
1.-The matter has been referred by IL
House Of Bishops anew to tie jon
commission on the revision Of canon
This will insure its reconstruction du
ing the recess and report upon 81
subject 10 1904, when it is hoped th
by intervening education of our sever
dioceses 1t may pc possible to have bo
houses enact the canon as it was pass,
In the House of Bishops.
/ speak earnestly upon the suble
beosuse of the depth Of my conviction
d i