The daily morning journal and courier., 1900-01-29
DIVORCE LEGISLATION.

The Hon. Francis A. Lewis Paper Be- fore the Church Club. "The scope and Limit of Divorce Legislation in the Protestan Episcopal
 Church" was the subject discussed at
 the annual meeting of the Church Club
 of Connecticut, which took place at
 Hartford this week. Hdfl. Francis A.
 Lewis of Philadelphia spoke at length
 on the subject In the course of his
 remarks he said: "The church does not
 marry people; they are married by their own consent; the church simply
 solemnizes the marriage. Why, then,
 should the church take any action at
 all in marriages? The answer for this
 is that the church says that certain
 people shall not marry, and it is her
 office to see that these people do not marry, for it is laid down in the Lords
 word, and his utterances should be recognized"
 In regard to this the speaker said
 that controversy had been going on
 for 1000 years as to what the Lord meant, but as for himself he was willing
 to take the literal meaning.
 Prominent students on the subject, including a celebrated German pro lessor, interpreted the Greek word used in the Lords prohibition against re- marriage a denoting condition of ante-nuptial unchasitity, or want of chastity, but that has never been con- sidered ground for divorce in the, history of the church."
 M. Lewis said that he thought Christ had meant to lay down law and principle of living that would fit us for a higher state, an ideal exist ence. "In the early church there was not much cause for divorce, for the only reason that is now recognized; and not until the Council of Trent was there any pronouncement made by the Ro- man church on the subject. In the United States in 1908, the House of Bishops expressed it's sense that re- marriage was prohibited except to the innocent party. The matter rested there until 1868, when it was decided that the prohibition of marriage after divorce did not apply to the innocent party The question now ie, What IS 1t advisable for the church to do? The church should state what are the inn pediments to marriage. ', An objection made it that the Levatican prohibitions are not complete. The book of Le- viticus does not prohibit man marry ing his own niece, but such a man would find himself in jail'in Pennsyl- vania."
 Mir Lewis dwelt on the difficulty of the church in determining the irno- cent party, saying that there were many instances of oontributory negH- gence, collision and other factors which made that point hard to determine. In New York it was known that man had broken the seventh commandment to give his wife legal cause for di- vorce," and, continuing, the speaker said: 'Unless we can reach point where we can actually determine the nnocent party we had better leave ;hings as they are. Marriage seems and necessary to give people | tome status, some air of responsibility. We shall not, however, have done our luty until we have provided some plan l # disciplinary action"
 In conclusion MT. Lewis said that he | would not repel any one from the altar ut who claimed to be the innocent | ,arty, for by not doing so all would )lace themselves in line with the mericau conscience on the stIbiect