that it will be presented for adoption to the forthcoming General Convention, render the consideration of the present Canon of little use. Your Committee, therefore, has devoted itself to the consideration of the proposed Canon. and the proposed substitute for a section of that Canon, and begs to offer suggestions. The first paragraph reads: "No Minister shall solemnize a marriage the parties to which are within the degrees of consanguinity and affinity defined in the Eighteenth Chapter of the Book of Leviticus." Your Committee is of the opinion that this paragraph is vague. The Church should clearly define the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity. The table as printed in the English Prayer Book would be satisfactory, with the clauses omitted which refer to deceased wife's sister and deceased brother's wife, which have no support in Holy Scripture. The second paragraph, stating that it is the duty of Ministers to admonish the people from time to time that the Church discountenances clandestine marriages, together with the fifth paragraph, which refers to registration, seem out of place in the positions they occupy in the Canon, and ought to be together at the end of the Canon. The fifth paragraph seeks an important and useful end in requiring, at the time of marriage, a record to be made in the Register of the Parish in which the marriage takes place, to be signed by the witnesses. There would seem, however, to be, particularly in the country, great risk involved in carrying the Parish Register from place to place, which risk would form a practical objection to the provision made. Occasions also might arise when the Register might not be obtainable. In view of these objections and difficulties, provision might be made, that in the absence of the Parish Register, entries upon a separate paper, of the required matter, signed by the witnesses and the officiating Minister, to be recorded and filed in the Parish Register, shall be a sufficient compliance with this Canon. The sixth paragraph reads; "No Minister of this Church shall solemnize the marriage of either party to a divorce during the life-time of the other party." This paragraph is based upon interpretations of Holy Scripture strenuously supported by a large and perhaps growing number of learned and godly men; but their intrepretations are believed by many others, equally qualified to pass judgment on the subject, to be erroneous. In these circumstances the ultimate authority, the Word of God, cannot be said to have determined the duty of the Church; and it seems wise not to attempt to change the Church's attitude in so radical a way. The substitute for this paragraph signed by Bishop Potter and four other members of the Commission reads; "No Minister of this Church shall solemnize the marriage of any person who has a divorced husband or wife living. This shall not apply to the innocent party in a divorce suit, on his or her filing with the Minister, as such evidence of innocence, a legally certified transcript of the record, showing a final judgment or decree of a Court of Record having jurisdiction on the subject matter, awarding him or her a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, on the ground of adultery." This substitute seems to your Committee to be eminently proper, and as covering legal requirements in every particular; and they draw attention to the fact that it calls for a legally certified transcript of the record, upon which a Court of Record bases its judgment. Both the sixth paragraph and the proposed substitute omit an important clause found in the present Canon, to wit: "If such husband or wife has been put away for any cause arising after marriage," which implies that causes might exist at marriage. It would seem that the Church should formally recognize the right of marriage in the case of one whose marriage has been annulled, even if she does not define those impediments which in the light of God's Word render a marriage null and void ab initio. Some provision might therefore be made by addition to the proposed substitute, as follows: nor shall this apply to parties to a divorce or annullment of marriage by a Court of competent jurisdiction, for cause existing at the time of marriage." As the whole of the proposed Canon is formed upon the idea of no re-marriage under any circumstances while both persons are still living, and the proposed substitute is concerned only with this idea as expressed in section six, it follows that if the substitute be accepted, provisions must be made in harmony with it. The provision of the present Canon which allows persons divorced from each other to be re-married, is omitted. In such a case it would seem that the Church should not authorize her Ministers to marry those who have been divorced on grounds other than that of adultery, for such a divorce is in the eyes of the Church unlawful, and the parties are still married. They should, therefore, be advised, in order that they may legally live as man and wife, to seek to be reunited by civil authority. It seems proper that some provision should be made for the case of Clergymen who believe that certain marriages authorized by the Church are contrary to the Word of God, and therefore cannot officiate at such marriages. It may be well that their right to refuse so to officiate, without complaint or censure, be recognized, while they be required to permit other Clergymen to do so within their cure. Canon 35, entitled, "Of persons unlawfully married," reads: "No person married otherwise than as the discipline of the Church allows, shall be admitted to Baptism or to Confirmation, or to receive the Holy Communion, without the written direction of the Bishop given upon application and after due investigation of the facts." To this your Committee would add, “and it shall be the duty of the Minister refusing such admission to notify the parties of the right to make such application." It would seem also to your Committee that the provision of the present Canon requiring the Minister to give the Sacrament in any case to penitents in immediate danger of death, should be retained. It is omitted in the proposed Canon. All of which is respectfully submitted. E. CAMPION ACHESON, Committee. L. A. LOCKWOOD, On motion of the Rev. Dr. Hart, it was Resolved, That the President of this Convention be quested to appoint, at his convenience, the person prop Resolution, and the Commission proposed in the fifth R to the Report of the Committee on the Preservation of and adopted by the last Convention. (See Journal 1897 The Annual Address of the Bishop of the I by the Secretary, as follows: THE BISHOP'S ADDRESS My Brethren of the Clergy and the Laity: The most noticeable event in our Diocesan the past year was the Consecration of the Bunce Brewster, D.D., to be Bishop Coadju place in Trinity Church, New Haven, on the I Simon and Saint Jude, October 28th, 1897. and laborious services since that date he wil report. I shall have occasion to refer to this the course of this communication. Four of our Clergy have been called to remaineth for the people of God," viz: the Mowatt Yarrington, the Rev. Elisha Whitt Byron John Hall, D.D., and the Rev. Williar ris, D.D. The whole of Mr. Yarrington's ministry was and in the single Parish of Christ Church, which he was Rector-emeritus at the time of his death. In these days of frequent and oftentimes needless and unfortunate changes in the pastoral relation, such an instance of continuous service deserves a special mention. Dr. Hall had held but one Parish in this Diocese; and Mr. Whittlesey had been connected with it from the time of his Ordination. Both these brethren have left behind them records of faithful service and of godly lives. Three of our Bishops have likewise gone to their reward, viz.: the Rt. Rev. Charles Todd Quintard, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Tennessee; the Rt. Rev. William Stevens Perry, D.D., LL.D., D.C.L., Bishop of Iowa; and the Rt. Rev. Nelson Somerville Rulison, D.D., Bishop of Central Pennsylvania. So the laborers and the leaders fall and pass away; but the Church, thank God, goes forward in its labors and in its conquests. I have been incapacitated for any service during the conventional year. Indeed, I have not left my house during that time. The only Confirmations I have to report are six in private. To these should be added thirty-one confirmed by the Bishop of California, two by the Bishop of Vermont, and one by the Bishop of Tokyo, making forty in all; which, added to those confirmed by the Bishop Coadjutor, bring up the number to one thousand six hundred and eighteen. For the Diocese of Connecticut, fourteen persons have been ordained to the Diaconate, viz.: Edward Livingston Wells, B.A., in Trinity Church, Southport, Jan. 30, 1898, by the Bishop Coadjutor; Frank Ernest Aitkins, Clarence Archibald Bull, George Blodgett Gilbert, B.A., Henry Steele Habersham, Paul Hoffman, B.A., George Nahum Holcomb, B.A., Philip Markham Kerridge, B.L., Clarence Hinman Lake, B.A., Francis Smith Lippitt, Frederick Huntington Mathison, B.A., Welles Mortimer Partridge, Lawrence Sidney Shermer and Frederick Amaziah Wright, B.A., in the Church of the Holy Trinity, Middletown, June 8, 1898, by the Bishop Coadjutor. Ten Deacons have been advanced to the Priesthood, viz.: Rev. Charles Judd, Nov. 18, 1897, in Christ Church, New Haven, by the Bishop Coadjutor; Reginald Rudyerd Parker, Dec. 18, 1897, in Christ Church, Hartford, by the Bishop Coadjutor; Albert Jay Nock, Feb. 13, 1898, in the Cathedral of All Saints, Albany, William Joseph Brewster, March 10, 1898, in St. Andrew's Church, Louis Augustus Parsons, Nathan Tolles Pratt, Charles Albert Smith and Charles James Sniffen, May 20, 1898, in Christ Church, Bridgeport, by the Bishop Coadjutor; Robert Lewis Paddock, Whitsunday, May 29, 1898, in St. Paul's Church, Cleveland, Ohio, by the Bishop of Ohio, acting at my request; and John Wilson Gammack, Trinity Sunday, June 5, 1898, in the Cathedral of the Incarnation, Garden City, N. Y., by the Bishop of Long Island, acting at my request. Nine Clergymen have presented. Letters Dimissory and have been received into the Diocese, viz.: Rev. Archibald R. Balsley, Rector of St. Peter's, Oxford, from the Diocese of Newark; William H. Bean, Rector of Grace Church, Hamden, from the Diocese Anthony T. De Learsy, Rector of St. Mark's, Bridgewater, from the William Stanley Emery, Rector of Christ Church, Norwich, D. Russ Judd, Rector of St. Andrew's, Thompsonville, and St. Mary's, Gideon D. Pond, Deacon, from the Diocese of New York; George W. Griffith, Rector of St. Stephen's, East Haddam, from the William S. Rafter, Rector of St. Paul's, Waterville, from the Diocese Leander R. Sheffield, Rector of St. Paul's, Woodbury, from the Missionary Jurisdiction of Idaho. Sixteen Clergymen have received Letters Dimissory, viz.: Rev. Samuel F. Adam, to the Diocese of Central New York; Melville K. Bailey, Ellis Bishop, John W. Gill, Henry Mitchell and Shureman H. Watkins, to the Diocese of New York; |