The Minneapolis journal., 1904-05-11
BISHOP EDSALI
FEELS STRONGLY
Continued from First Page.

AAAO ~ 4NVNNLX
Continued from First Page.
system which permits the casting off
of previous obligations and the en-
trance upon sexual relations with
some more attractive partner at every
demand of animal passion.
UNLESS something is done by the |
action of the legislatures of our sew
eral states, and by the concerted opin-
ion of Christian people and pure
minded citizens of all religious bodies, |
there is danger that our social life |
will become hopelessly poisoned; that
the family idea will be enfeebled and
| our people encouraged to live on a |
plane Of selfish animalism, with no
higher ideals than bodily passion and |
physical luxury.
The Christian people Of America
should bring pressure to bear upon the
legislatures of all the states to make
more difficult the remarriage Of peo-
fort should be made to secure uni
formity In legislation, SO that the
| practice of going from one state to
another whose laws are more lax, for
| the purpose Of securing q divorce. or
of marrying after divorce, should be
we'll nigh impossible.
The Christian View.
$50 far I have spoken more as
citizen than as a Christian or a
would say that beyond all question
Christ permitted remarriage after di-
vorce only when the divorce had been
obtained on the ground Of the other
party's adultery. There is a vast ar
ray Of authority for believing that
Christ did not intend to permit remar-
riage after divorce for any cause
whatever.
Under the Jewish law adultery was
punishable by death. Hence there
husband or wife still living who had
committed adultery. Under tho Jew
ish law the former guilty partner
would have been stoned to death. OF
course, therefore, it would follow that
the surviving partner might be free
to marry again. I am aware, how
ever, that there Is widespread di-
versity Of opinion among Christian
scholars upon this subject. There are
many who conscientiously believe that
our Lord, in the expression attributed
to him In st. Matthew's gospel, did
intend to allow remarriage after di-
vorce to the innocent party in a di-
vorce obtained on the ground of adul-
terry. OF course, st. Matthew is the
only evangelist who records our Lord
|
ception.
! TN any event, it follows, therefore,
that 1t Is contrary to the direct COM
mand Of Christ for a person who has
been divorced on any other ground
than that of adultery to marry again
ner. Considering the explicit Ian
guage Of Holy Scripture, it seems
strange that Christian people appear
to be so widely ignorant of this pro-
hibition. It also passes comprehen-
sion how any Christian minister can
|, possibly disobey Christ and scandalize
his sacred office by solemnizing the
so-called marriage Of people, either
,, one ofwhom has been divorced from a
living husband or wife on any other
; ground than adultery.
mo Christian minister has the right
to plead ignorance Of such plain pas
sages of Holy Scripture, whatever may
!, be urged as a matter Of charity in be-
!, half Of the laity. I am frank to say
that recognize the fact that a. great
!; many people who have remarked after
divorce have done so honestly and in
good faith in entire ignorance that
!, they were acting contrary to the law
: of Christ. In such instances we
failure Of some Of the Christian
churches to proclaim and stand for
Christ's law upon remarriage after
divorce rather than upon the indi-
n vidual who has erred thru ignorance.
Value of Publicity. .s.s
y Indeed, this Is one reason why I
. welcome the great publicity which is
. now being given this subject, and the
. kindly aid of our daily press in max
:; !; ing known the truth. It will give less
u opportunity for such ignorance in the
o future and it will make it possible to
. deal more rigidly with such violations
= in time to come than has been pos
J. sible when ignorance upon the subject
: was SO widespread. So I welcome
v this movement toward the co-opera-
II ton Of the Christian churches on the
: subject of remarriage after divorce,
and welcome the aid which the press
Is Is giving all over the country.
= Asfar as the Episcopal church is con-
cerned our present law Is very speci-
= fic in not permitting our clergy to SOL
emnize E. marriage in which either
party has a former husband or wife
still living, from whom a divorce was
obtained on any other ground save
that Of adultery. So far as the dio.
q cese of Minnesota is concerned I have
d op, which Is, that our clergy before
1t presuming to solemnize the marriage
n Of person who claims to have beer
5, divorced on the ground of adultery
shall see certified copy Of the decree
h Of court Of competent jurisdiction
~ obtained upon the ground Of the adul
ii terry Of the other party than the one
:. who is seeking to be so remarked.
8, "A great mistake has often beer
: made in the past Of securing divorce
rs upon the ground Of desertion or som,
j. other plea when the fact would hav,
n warranted decree on the ground O
ar adultery. This has been done osten
sibly for the purpose of avoiding scan
dal. In many cases this was the gen
uine reason for not alleging the rea
cause. But such a course Is a fruit
full cause Of future deception and in
le Justice. Many a conscientious minis
10 ter has been deceived by the ex part
Id statement in which an absent persol
ne is accused of having conmitte,
m adultery without chance Of defense.
>" More Rigid Church Rules.
on There has been widespread move
nd ment in the Episcopal church t
he amend our canon so that none of ou
wv clergy can so1emnize the marriage Q
D. a. person who has a divorced husban
u or wife still living even tho the di
n vorce was obtained on the ground Q
ms adultery. At our last conventio
held in San Francisco in 1901 a ma
,1v jority Of the bishops and Of the clerg
Mt voted in favor Of such an amendmer
of the canon. 1t was only defeated
the nonconcurrence Of the laity. Th
matter will come up again in Bosto
OF fo ha I,