The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-10-08
THE CHURCH AND MARRIAGE, AND
DIVORCR.
The Right of the Church to Interfere with
Either Denied and Reprobatsd.

To THE EDITOR OF THE suN-Tr: Your
editorial in to-day's issue. entitled The Epis-
copal Church and Divorce concludes with the
statement that the frequent violations OF the
existing canons OF that communion regarding
divorce are due to n declining faith in the
authority OF the Church. This IL no doubt
true but Is 1t not reasonable that the assumed
authority OF the Church over the marriage con-
tract should be thus disregarded?
Those affected by a contract OF marriage are.
first. the two parties making the contract. and
secondly. the State. which may be obliged to
provide habtation and subsistence for tn o
votimized progeny Of ill-cons idered IN marriages.
In every marriage OF two persons financially
unable to educate and provide for their off,
spring a tax Is put upon the community. In
every marriage where one of the contracting
parties Is physically or morally deteriorated
there is contained the threat OF burden to DO
placed upon every taxpayer. whose funds are
demanded by the State for the support OF pub
lie hospitals. insane asylums or reformatories
What interest. then. in this contract OF mar
riage has the Church. which makes no provision
for the unfortunate children OF these unions,
except through small further tax upon the
wealthy members OF its own religious clan or
organization. whereby place Is provided for
but few OF the helpless. compared with the
thousands housed by the State?
A divorce granted by the State provides for
the maintenance Of the offspring of the con-
tract then terminated and gives them a legal
claim to such maintenance Yet Bishops
Potter and Dudley are reported to favor an
"indissoluble relation and a forcble contin-
uance OF i'll -assorted unions with presumably
the aocompanyi wing Biblical adm ontion to I'm
crease and multiply" / doubt II any OF the
clergymen under the jurisdiction OF these two
eminent ecclesiastics ever minutely examined
candidates for matrimony as to their moral.
physical and financial capacity for making a
contract OF marriage. Did they ever refuse to
perform the ceremony when the prospects were
that the offspring of the union would inherit
odious disease or scrofula or tuberculosis. so
long as the parties were in good social stand
inRI l recently read in THE sun OF case
where n clergyman performed a marriage cere-
mony within the confines OF n county jail. the
contracting parties being a felon and his mis-
tress. Is this one of the unions that the Epis-
copal Church desires to render indissouble?
The Church cannot arroRats to itself the right
to regulate marriage and divorce any more rea-
eonably than 1t can assume tho right to regu-
late copartnership and stock companies. The
results Of marriage and divorce are beyond its
control. and hence the contracts themselves do
not require it's sanction.
The Church exists within the State and has
unfortunately been permitted to execute this
one contract. but has no jurisdiction further
laws provd ding for the termination of the con-
tract. as laid down and enforced by the state.
are al least inadvisably ambitious
New YORK. Oct. 5. j. T. FERRIS,