New-York tribune., 1883-03-11
THE CHURCHES AND DIVORCE.


Dr. Dix, in the course of his Lenten lecture,
of which full report appeared In yesterday 5
issue, defined the position of his own religious
communion respecting divorce. His words
were " Divorce, with the privilege to re e-marry,
"may be granted but for one cause only ::
"and then the innocent party may mar
Gry again. DR.. Dix himself would pre-
fer the more stringent rule adopted by
the Roman Catholic Church, whereby dl-
vorce and re-marrage are excluded alto
gether; but accepting the canon adopted
by the General Convention OF the Protestant
Episcopal Church, he contends that, with the
single execution mentioned above, the clergy
are positively forbidden to remarry any person
who has been divorced. He goes so far as to
say that such marriage should be regarded by
a clergyman of that Church as adulterous, ana
that the sacrament should DC denied to per-
" sons living together in that state. unless on
" their repentance or in the article of death"
This, them is the rule Of one of the most lntlu-
ential religious communiOns in this country re-
specting divorce. What is the practice under
the rule On the same page in which Or. DIxs
wholesome reflections were reproduced, ap-
peared an account Of the re-marriage III Flr-
guia of a man, once prominent In public LIE,
whose wife obtained divorce from him year
ngo. His domestic affairs had acquired such
notoriety throughout the country that the
clergyman who REMARKED him could not have
been ignorant Of them. This was an Episcopal
clergyman, and according to the canon OF the
General Convention he was forbidden to marry
the couple presenting themselves before hlm
4 a. rtTffa n1g M m
or no canon. BY the decisions OF the highest
courts the marriage may have legal status.
This fact, however, does not affect the question
of canonical obedience and the discipline ac-
knowledged in the ordination VOWS.
This incident has heen singled ont as n curl
GUS commentary on the text OF Dr. Dix's lecture !;
but We are well aware that this Virginia clergy
man is not the only one in that Church who has
lax ideas of caronical obedience aud eccleslas-
teal discipline in this matter OF divorce and re-
marriage. Even when clergymen are too
scrupulous TO re-marry man or woman who has
been divorced bat is not entitled by the rule OF
the Church 10 marry again, they shrink from
proclaiming the principles which they are bound
by their ordination vows to uphold, and from
CARVING them into pracrice at the communion
rail. The bishops, it is true, cannot be charged
with neglect of duty and Inconsistency. In
their diocesan appeals and in their pastoral let
ters To the entire communion, they are con-
stantly affirming the saDctity OF marriage as
divine institution, and condemning in the most
solemn and emphatic language divorce and re-
marriage. But the clergy rs q body avoid the
subject. They preach from Advent to Advent,
year after year. without setting forth IN PLAIN
language the principles and practice of the
Church with respect to divorce and subsequent
marriage. DR.. Dix has the courage Of his con-
v.ctions, but there are few cergymcn who
would venture 10 look their congregations in
the face ana pronounce re-marrages, which are
excluded 10y tho canon, as adulterous ana 10
refuse the sacrament at the altar TO divorced
man or woman who had married again in def
ance OF the rule Of the Church.
Now, we have no wish TO say aught against Il
religious body which has set its face more
sternly against divorce thau any other Protes-
tant body has done. Our sole purpose has been
10 show how easily a strong position in matters
of principle can be undermined by laxty Of
practice az In the case of the Virginia rector, or
10y lack of courage, equiyocdl utterances, or
silence in pulpit and chanccl. The Roman
Catholic clergy are not so lalhJ-nedIleu III pro-
claiming, nor so Ineffective in enforcing the
stringent rule of their communion in respect to
marriage and divorce. They never Tecede from
the high ground which they occupy on this
question Their practice is in line with their
principles. When this can be said OF the Prot
cstant denominations, there will be better
prospect OF securing uniform marriage and di-
yorce laws for the whole country, of diminish
ing the facilities for breaking up families and
homes, and of restoring to Christian marriage
sanctity and indissolubility. Tho Churches CAN
not hope to educate public sentiment in this
gravest of social questions without respecting
and holding last to their own principles.
As MADAGASCAR SEES US.
strange misundcr ,tanding seems 10 have taken