The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1886-11-19


LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
In our warfare with the adversaries
of the gospel and with the growing
evils of our time, we have imperfectly
used many instrumentalties within
our reach but among them all none
has been so much neglected as the
family. We have worked for and
through the church. Our care has
been for the individual or for society
as an aggregate of individuals
or for the state as representing the
order OF society. Meanwhile the fam
lily has been so loosely guarded that
our hold upon it had been enfeebled
and its Christian tone has degenerated.
As the original mould in which all
human life is cast, and within which
authority blending with love first
touches the will and lays the founda-
ton of character, the family, not the
individual, il the true unit of society
and of the church. AS such both reas-
on and revelation require us to treat
it. Unfortunately for it and for the
church and the nation, we have done
so. Overmastered or beguiled by the
spirit of the age we have drifted out
passvely on the current of individual
ism, until we are now called to face
the consequence of wrong theory
aud worse practice touching the very
source of the strongest formative ele
ments of the church and of the state
FALSE VIEWS OF MARRIAGE.
That household religion and moral
ity have changed, and are still chang
ing tor the worse, is recognized by al
Christian people as one of the dark
omens of the time. The causes ar,
not far to seek. Two theories starting
from opposite premises, but both alike
the product of the antl-Christian anC
secular tendency of the day, have beer
eating like moth and rust into th,
domestic conscience, and thus sappine
the very foundations of home life
The one theory declares the individua
to be the supreme unit of society, auC
so demands for every individual com
plete and equal freedom. 1t afirms
all discriminating legislation baset
upon differences of sex to be degrad
ing and tyrannical. 1t teaches that, al
the only ground of marriage is the con
sent of the contracting parties, so th'
continuance of marriage is rightfull,
dependent on the continuance of mu
tual agreement. 1t declares that an,
other view of marriage converts it int,
the worst bondage known to our law
Admitting no power or privileges o
disability in one sex not common t.
the other, and claiming for woman al
absolute control over her patrimon,
AM acquisitions, as well as over he
person, it does not hesitate to affirm
as one of its ultimate dogmas tn 1t ther
is "no more reason why the woma
should take her husbands name il
marriage than why he should tax
hers" Thus the Christian law of tn
household is not only disparaged, 0u
denounced as degradation Of woma
and a social tyranny.
FACILITY OF DIVORCE.
| The other theory-an outgrowlh c
a school of political economy rathe
than of any settled philosophy of socif
life-starts from the radically opposit
principle of the subordination of tn
Individual to the state and insists upo
modern equivalent to the old paga
doctrine formulated by the speculation
OF Plato, which place marriage absC
lutely under the sanction and supeI
vision of the state. Both theories sui
sttute the idea of contract for that {
moral law as embodied in q solem
covenant, the former turning upon til
freedom of the contracting parties
define and limit obligation the latte
upon the inherent subject matter {
the agreement as defining the dut
and prescribing the duration of ii
covenant. Both theories encourage q
unlimited facility of divorce. Bot
theories loosed the ligaments and co
rupt the inmost fibrcs of home life /
robbing it of its religious sanction.
Separation in any form should |
regarded, and is regarded by IL
church, as last and dreadful expe
lent, only to be justified by the gra
est considerations, and, as it were, co
ceded to the unfortunate beings who
position constrains the grant of SUI
relief, But no separation carries WI
it the right TO seek another alliance
nor, except in one case, can subs
quent marriage be permitted, Aft
parties have been lawfully Joined t
gether, according to the will of Go
divorce with permission to mar
again is not conceded by the churc
unless the ground Of divorce be adu
cry, ana in that case the guilty par
is absolutely excluded from marryir
again during the lifetime of the 9th
and to the innocent party only is p
mission conceded to contract anotl
marriage
THE THIRST FOR RICHES.