The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1877-1885, 1884-04-23
THEOLOGY IN THE vlClkiT~
OF THE BOSTON EXPOSE
TON.
A Sermon in Favor Of Divorce.

An audience completely filing the
Church Of the Unity assembled in Boston
TO listen to a sermon by Rev. VI. }. Saw
age upon divorce" He said IL IS
commonly remarked that divorce Is
wropg-morally wrong-and that its IN
crease is indicative of the decay of public
morals. There is no divorce IN Italy
there is none in South Carolina yet 90
one will say that these parts OF the world
are on a higher moral plane than, for ex-
ample, Connecticut, where divorces are
very common. In the early days OF the
institution Of monogamy 1t was easy TO
| enter the marriage state and 1t was easy
to leave it. \ man could, tor a slight
reason or within, put away his wife, and,
on the other hand, a woman had the
power to put away her husband, to expel
him from the house. a change IN this
regard has been brought about by mutual
love, love for children, and the mutual
accumulation o. property. Let Us now
see what are the Instructions OF the Bible.
Ii is sometimes difficult to reconcile the
readings Of the Old and New testaments
upon this subject. The Old Testament
! gives US counts of men who We're high
in the favor of God, ana who had many
wives. We have no record that this was
foIbidden Of God, or even regarded by
Him with disapprobation. 1t was easy
to PIT away a wife, but the man SO doing
mus; give the wife a writing of divorce
ment of enforcement. Christ forbade a
man TO divorce a wife except for. one
cause, that of marital infidelity. Moth
ing is said of the wife.
PAUL ADVISES AGAINST MARRIAGES,
but permits it. But he says if an unbe-
lieying wife shall leave her husband, let
her go; if an unbelieving husband leave
his wife, let him go. But such separa-
| tions, new marriages are forbidden.
Paul's teachings, then, were the same
as those of Christ. The church carried
the subject to more stringent lengths
| than did either Paul or Christ. 1t per-
mitted no divorces whatever, for any
cause. 1t, indeed, permitted a separa-
ton for peculiar reasons, such as Ia the
case Of a marriage within prohibited de-
grees Of c~onsanguinity. Has this course,
| as followed by the Catholic church of the
present day, tended 10 an increase of har-
mony in the family relations? La many
eases, especially in Europe, marriages
! have been arranged by the parents and
are simply marriages of convenience. In
France, a man having half a dozen daugh-
tiers is appalled, at the impossibility. I'M
less he may possess wealth, OF marrying
them off, since in that country it is i'm
possible to marry a daughter without a
dowry. The laws Of England and Amer
lea on the subject Of divorce are based on
two utterly contradictory principles. The
early Roman law made marriage a con
tract and allowed divorce. The cannon
law of the church make it a sacl ament
| and forbids divorce. Once it was impos-
sible to get a divorce in England without
a special act of Parliament. Thus our
ideas concerning divorce, both in our law
and public sentiment, are a mlngllng Of
civil and ecclesiastical polity.
What does Jesus lay down as the reli-
gious foundation of marriage? He says
that Moses allowed rolygamy on account
of the hardness Of mems hearts but he
expressly says hat in the beginning it
was not so hat monogamy vas exclu-
siyely practised at the beginning of the
world. But in this
IESJ-c WAC NIST.I-EN