Evening journal., 1915-05-12


ing with financial obligations in the
multiplication Of provincial machin-
cry, in establishing needless links be-
tween general boards and the clergy
of the church. We must be on our
guard against this. lest we lose power
of free and vigorous action through
ENHANCEMENT in the meshes of net
work of committees. In this diocese
we must keep in touch with all gen.
eral movements, for missions, for re-
ligious education. for social service,
for church unity, for every general
object. and we must not refuse TO bear
our fair share in all the church's
responsibilities Yet the normal way
in which every message of the church
should be brought to church people
is through bishops stimulating clergy.
clergy speaking directly to their con-
gregations and using vestries as spe-
cial committees for many needs, in
stead of having. as there seems now,
tendency to suggest, normal church
authorities superseded by a constant
ly ramifying bureaucracy.
Women as Parish Voters.
81 have often been questioned con-
parish meetings. As our canon relat-
ing to requirements for parish voters
uses the word person only; no per-
son shall be entitled to vote, with
out specifying man or woman, have
replied that there was canonical inn
pediment; and that, in view of the
fact that, both in this and other do
ceses. II is not uncommon for qualified
women to vote at parish meetings, GUS
tom has established their right to do
so, unless prevented by some parish
regulation. / have also urged the de-
STABILITY of having well attended par
ish meetings. and the fairness of al
lowing our women to take so large
a share in the church's work, to have
both voice and vote in the selection
of parish officials. Not only is It just (;
but il is also good for the church
that the influence of churchwomen
should in this way make itself felt.
But in answer to the question
whether or not women were eligible
to election as members of vestries or
delegates to convention, I have an
swered that they were not Our do
cesar canons relating to qualifica-
tions of vestrymen and convention
delegates use the word person only,
but | have urged that in this case
person must be understood to mean
| man. even if the word 'vestryman'
be assumed not to be a masculine
noun. The unbroken custom of the
diocese, the obvious intention of the
trainers of our canons, possibly the
analogy of the general canons in spe-
cifying 'laymen' as alone eligible as
deputies TO general convention, are de-
cisive in binding us to elect men
only to these official positions in the
church. Moreover. quite apart from
what Is established by custom. Chris
tian principle is involved. There is
an essential headship of man over
women which neither physiology nor
Scripture will allow us to ignore.
The work of the ministry was in
trusted by our Lord to men only
and consistently with this all respon-
sibility for leadership has always, in
all parts of the historic church, beer
laid upon men. While special TespQn-
sibilities have always rested on The
women of the church. one of theil
chief rights in the family and house
hold of God as well as in the human
family, have been to have the aggres
sive, combattive. legislative work o
social life done for them. It is onl'
by a direct contradiction of Chris
tian principle that We can fail L
make distinction between the func
tions and responsibilities of men ant
women; and only by open opposition
: TO the principle involved in our Lord
Z choice Of His twelve apostles coul
Al. -
{ of Office in the church from the shoul
/ der of the men and impose it upo
the women. Nevertheless, il is no
. inconsistent with this to urge tina
b il is just to the women, and good 70
9 the church, that those who do so muc
- of the church's work should hav
; share in the choice of officials. spea
Y only of affairs of the church. What
have said has. / think. the sanction q
both Christian principle and Chris
\ tan precedent.
{ AN apparent exception to the rul
g that offices in the church should b
r held by men might appear in the fac
4 that women are sometimes appointe
}, members of mission committees.
k Delaware none but a male commun
s cant has ever been appointed warde
= of a mission; but in some small mis-
e sions in which there we're not enoug
d interested men to form a committe
T. women have i'm a few instances bee
G appointed. In this Delaware has onl
G followed the custom of other diocese
d ] have in several instances agree
j. TO the appointment of women on mi
e sion committees, always with the III
l. derstanding that IL was desirable Thu
r all places should. when possible,
o filled by men, and this exception
l. the formation Of mission COMMITTEES
S, formed no precedent for election
e vestrymen in parishes.
l. Christian Law Of Marriage.
3 "The difference between the STAN
i ards of State and church in the ma
Il ter of marriage occasions many diff
e. culties in action and in judgment. III
Al State permits-some States even Ell
is courage-divorce for many cause
d and remarriage after divorce: II
is church discourages divorce. and pc
II mits remarriage after divorce in' OF
l. case only and even then under car
full restrictions II is scarcely strani
Id that many should with difficulty u
in derstand that some things quite leg
IL in the eyes of the State are intole
rs able in the eyes of the church.
e ut ought TO be unnecessary to T
Is mind you that the one case in viii
l. the law of the church permits 7
IN marriage after divorce is that OF Z
VS. innocent party in a divorce for Z
at cause of adultery. The guilty par
lie in a divorce may never be remarri
ne during the lifetime of the separat