Orange County observer. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1880-1918, 1905-11-09

that whosoever shall put away his
wife saving for the cause of fornica-
ton, causeth her to commit adultery"
And Mark records these words Of
Jesus: "Whosoever putteth away his
wife and marrieth another committeth
adultery against her. And if woman
shall put away her husband and be
married to another, she committeth
adultery" And in Luke we have set
forth the same law of Christ. From
His recorded words we are forced to
the following conclusions: That Jesns
allowed divorce OH one and only one
ground, namely, adultery, and that He
seems to allow the re-marriage Of the
innocent party.
In Ephesians v:22-23 Paul gives the
noblest picture of the sanctity and dig
Rity Of the marriage relation, for he
compares it to the mystic union be-
tween Christ and the glorious church of
the redeemed for whom Christ died.
This is no temporary bond to be
snapped at will. Jesus is to-day the
Head Of His Church, and it is being
purified by Him and made without
spot or wrinkle. Moreover, in Romans
vii:1.6 Paul argues that the Christian
is set free from the bondage Of the
law, as the woman can have new
husband only on the death Of the
former husband. But in Corinthians
vii:12-16 Paul speaks Of the problem in
family life presented where the hus.
band is Christian and the wife
heather and vice versa. He has two
things to say about this new problem
that had not arisen when Jesus spoke
on the subject. His first word is that
the Christian must not force a separa-
tion. II the heather husband or wife
is willing to continue the union, the
Christian Eust be willing to do sc.
The marriage IS legitimate and the
children are legitimate. But the other
word is this: Suppose the heather
husgand or wife is not willing to keep
up the marriage relation and insists on
separation. then what? Well, let the
unbelieving husband or wife CO. says
Paul. He uses the word depart here,
not the technical word "put away
It would seem that this is q case of
voluntary separation, not legal di-
vorce. If this be true, there could. of
course, be no re-inarriage in such
cases, for the marriage has never been
legally annulled. This alternative is
not even raised by Paul in this connec-
ton. 1t may be properly said, then.
that Paul did not advocate divorce for
anything save adultery, though he does
lot even indicate this exception save by
implication
This divine law is set forth in no un-
certain sound OH the pages Of Gods
Word; and the disobedience Of it must
entail sorrowful results to the indi-
vidual, the family, and the community.
Second-A social disease. Divorces
are more hume erous in the United
States in proportion to marriages than
in any other country of which we have
any record. This social disease is con-
tagious and spreading. In 1870. 80
per cent. OF marriages ended in divorce.
In 1880, 4.S per cent. In 1890, g. per
cent In 1900. 81 per cent. In 1890
the percentage of the divorced to the
married was O.5. In 1900 it was OF.
According to the census Of 1900 there
were 2457 divorced women in the
United States under the age Of twenty,
and 1915 divorced women between
! twenty and twenty-five years OF age.
! South Carolina is the only State in
| the Union which grants no divorce.
New York is the only State in the
| Union WnIcn proposes TO grant divorces
only on Scriptural grounds; yet New
York grants, annually, more than a
thousand divorces.
Illinois gives fair illustration OF
the laws OF almost all the States. At
ter reciting long list Of grounds upon
which a divorce may be granted, the
law concludes by empowering the court
to grant divorce upon any plea which
it thinks justifable.
/ The Western States, in order to in
crease their populations, are making
open and shameless bids for those dis
}satisfed with the married state to come
to them and have it dissolved.
Statistics given by the Chicago Daily
News Almanac, 1903, show the follow
4 ing number Of divorces granted in lead
ing cities of our country in 1901:
Providence, 327; Cincinnati, 4O5; Bos-
ton, 406; Cleveland, 454; Philadelphia,
1872; st. Louis, 573; New York, SIT; San
Francisco. SAG; Chicago, 1908.
The statistics of Ca.roll D. Wright
! Commissioner Of Labor, for twenty