The age-herald., 1901-10-12
Both Houses of the Episcopal Convention Are Debating
 This Subject
FIVE MISSIONARY BISHOPS
VIII Be Sent to the Philippines, China and Porto Rico-Dr. Huntington Offers an Amend
 ment.

San Francisco, October 1.-The question of marriage and divorce was before both houses of the triennial convention of the Episcopal Church of America today. The bishops adopted substitute for the pro- posed canon ST. providing for the disci- pline of persons marrying again after being divorced. The principal change made by the substitute is the provisions that such person may receive the sacra- ment on the written consent of a bishop.
 The house of deputies began the eagerly awaited debate on section of the pro- posed canon se. which virtually prohib- It's the re-marriage in the church of divorced persons. The discussion will be continued on Monday. The only vote reached during the day was on proposed modification of Dr. Huntington's amend ment providing for determining the cause of divorce in the case of a divorced person applying to be married. This was defeated.
 Five missionary bishops were voted for and named today by the house of bishops to the house of deputies, where the final election must take place.
 House of Deputies.
 ine house of deputies of the Episcopal convention at 1oSo this morning went into committee of the whole on the new mar riage and divorce canon. An atternpt to strike out requirement of section &. that In recording a marriage the clergy shall state the ages of the parties was defeated. A requirement. that when prao- tical the parish register record should De signed by the married parties. ard the witnesses was after much objection re- tained.
 section was then adopted as a whole. This brought the controversy down to the Famous article 1, already adopted by the bishops, which forUids the marriage of persons divorced for cause not existing petore their former marriage-a practical par 10 the re-marriage of divorced per- sons by the Episcopal church.
 MT. Lewis of Pennsylvania rose to cor- rect misapprehension of the renub,io report on his canon. He explained that if does not propose to prevent any one at all from being married. It only proposes to forbid ministers of the Epjscona,
 
 church to marry any divorced persop whenever the former husband or wife is still living.
 Rev. pr. Huntington offered an armand ment intended to except the innocent ner- son to divorce obtained for the cause or adultery when the fact is made to an pear by certified record from the court granting the divorce. He supported his Proposai oy an appeal to the authority xuhi iDh !, "a attacked except by the assistance of what IS known as the higher criticism and this could be fully answered if the need arose.
 Consideration of the Huntington amend ment was continued until after recess.
 Richard H. Battle oI North Carolina argued strongly for Dr. Huntineton,a amendment as being in accordance with the scripture and free from the charge of impracticability. Thomas c. Elder of Virginia urged that evidence regarding divorce should be sought for in the whole record rather than in the decree of the court alone which would not in every case recite the ground of the divorce and moved an amendment to that effect.
 Dr. Huntington said he saw the point referred to by MT. Elder and approved the amendment.
 Society Requires ft.
 Di. duVOCdCcQ the DaSSdR6 Of the section just as 1t came from the House of Bishops. He said the conditions of society and common decency required just such stringent legislation as is proposed.
 Rev. Dr. Greer of New York cited the fact that more divorces were granted in this country than in all the countries of Europe put together. Every considera- ton of social purity of our country, of the sacredness of the home and of the teaching of Christ, as he understood it. led him to oppose Dr. Huntington's 8 amendment and to favor the measure just as 1t came from the bishops.
 Rev. Dr. McKfm of Washington said the canon as 1t came from the bishops was revolutionary legislation in the church. He differed from those who, with the Church of Rome, held marriage to be absolutely indissoluble. The claim was unscriptural he said. He cited Bishop King of Litchheld. England, as unable to regard marriage as indissoluble. This view was supported by Bishops Lightfoot, Wordsworth and Trench
 Dr. Bacchus of Long Island claimed that the proposed measure did not have the warrant of Holy Scripture as found at least in St. Matthew. Nor did 1t command the warrant of common sense and moral judgment.
 John P. Thomas, Jr., of South Carolina, where no divorces are allowed by the state law. said the law of the church should correspond with the high standard adopted by his state, and always recog- nized there except during a few years of the reconstruction period
 Ex-United States Attorney General c. H. Williams of Oregon opposed all re- strictions upon the subject by the church. He would leave all such restric- tions to the civil law.
 Rev Dr. Huntington of New York asked leave to withdraw his acceptance of certain additions to his amendment, and to speak upon that amendment as originally proposed by him. He added: ''1n our zeal for sancity let us not for get justice. There are innocent parties in some of these cases under diBcussion to whom consideration ought to be shown Mir. Elders amendment to MT. Hunting toms amendment was put to vote. and