Show ERRORS ABOUT Tho subject of ot divorce has hM been heon dis discussed dl cussed tor for some time by theologians t philosophers statesmen and und Journalists and imd lit la still sUIi In In active controversy It la Is of f great to society nA an It tt tho Integrity of ot tho the family and the tho home homo and anil therefore reaches to tho very er foundations tlona of ot tho limo state stale te To con condemn damn divorce unreservedly after nIter tho the fashion of at the tho pulpit In modern times In III Into to nn an extreme step unwarranted by sound Bound reason renson and a n proper under understanding standing of ot tho the scriptures which mo are commonly supposed to rt a 1 po pod l Inhibition against divorce So Vc We will wll endeavor In tile this article to correct a avery 1 avery very HY widespread error arising from n a 1 misconception of ot tho the teachings of at the tho Founder of ot the tho Christian on all this Question Tho The popular notion In ha Christendom In III that Christ forbade divorce except for tor forthe tho the one ono great to tho the nuptial vow the defilement of at the Tinge bed bod But this la Is not substantiated by the tho scripture that In Ia I I 1 In Its support Read carefully Matthew which gives giveR an nn account of ot tho the Wasters Masters Instructions elicited by n a question from tho the Pharisee 8 Th The sub nub jest was waa not divorce on general prin the right or wrong of ot It tt ns ne might bo be determined Judicially but simply lImply whether th the usage under this tho th code codo as lawful that a n man might put away lila his wife for every ewry cause by giving her a bill JIll of ot divorcement n rat The Tho provision la Ia found In Deuteronomy I 1 Tho The answer of ot Jesus Wad VOID n sin Dim Dimply ply In reply to that query of ot tho the wen coca Ho Ue limited that right to tn the tho one capital cause e A man was waa not to 10 put away his will wife In to that peremptory and arbitrary fashion ta unless she was guilty guilt of ot the tho great grent offense There IH III nothing In the tho entire narra narration tion of ot tho the Saviors remarks which Jus the tho conclusion that he ho declared against divorce for reasons that de tie demanded mantled separation when so BO decided upon evidence by hy a proper tribunal All Ml tho the decree decrees of at modern moll ern churches founded upon tho the notion that Christ divorce except for tor the tho one ono crime erlmo are fallacious and absurd It Is III true truo that tho the great Hent Teacher r showed howell the tho Divine DIvino purpose In giving the woman wo woman woman man to tho the man DH nil his wife In the beginning That was wag wn the tho Ideal 1 1 mar marriage The parties given to each other by Deity were to bo ho one llesh lies h The I first pair were Immortal beings when I they thoy were so 80 united according to the tho account In Oen sll 1 I Man was not to put them asunder because It was waa al Clod flod who had Joined them thum together 10 hut But their eternal union was predicated ed cd on their compliance with the condl condi conditions done of or holy hol It Is la unreason unreasonable able to believe bellevo that tho the Eternal Father ather l wishes wl to force torce that which Is If practically Impossible a fusion tu lon of ot Incompatible Inc m elements In n a state stale of ot repulsion i anon sion It la Is If nowhere stated In Scripture that God cannot or will not decree the sep separation ep of ot that which watt was wn Joined under His llla authority Christ In Riving His Zile Apostles power to bind on earth and It should bo ho bound In leaven gave with It authority to 10 loose loone on earth and It should bo ho loosed In heaven Matth IS 18 Persons married un min under under minder der tho the Divine law by divine authority were made ono one under conditions Ions agreed upon Ullon If It these o worn wore violated the same Bam authority could coull loose tho bonds banda and It would be God Clod who put them asunder as much as II It was clod who Joined them together and not tune man manTho The Tho old ohl custom of ot the times In which tho Mosaic law h w wee observed that was discussed by Jesus awl tho the Pharisees la 11 and has baa been for tor centuries obsolete Men lIen oro not permitted to put away their wives In that fashion nowadays oven even for the tho offence named A divorce hat has to bo bar obtained by legal II nl procedure and a 1 decree of ot a 1 court l ccle m law w regulated this matter fur for centuries Marriages were performed under the tha th ceremonies of at tho the church dolt claimed to exercise divine authority and divorces were given under very ver rigid right restrictions by ecclesiastical courts In Ur this country countr and In themes thelle times marriage Is regarded ns as a 1 civil contract and therefore tho the civil law In w regulates divorce It Is le man that Joins It in is man that puts flut asunder As All to tho the grounds on which divorce may bo be properly granted there thero will he hr doubtless acme nemo differenced of ot opinion It If the tho matter Is regulated by Divine authority It Is likely to be he wisely Justly and properly proper adjudicated The marriage ceremony Is then divinely or ordained and performed by hy Gods Gode minis mints ministers tore tera If It the tho covenants and condi condl conditions tlona thus entered Into are violated the same name authority can enn determine whether tho contract may be bo annulled because of at the hardness hann s of ot heart or culpable conduct of ot either of ot the tho parties Parkes render renderIng renderIng Ing lag tho the union insufferable or wrong to tobe tobe tobe be continued It If civil courts are to tl pass plse on the question statutory grounds for tor divorce will bo be decided upon ai at a basla baRlo for tor decrees and they ought alight not notto notto notto to b be of a n trivial character The Th clergy of ot Christendom to the con notwithstanding the rule rulo that forbids divorce except for tor the tho one vile cause causa IA Is monstrous In Its cruelty and Injustice Quite recently a II savage brute bruto of ot a Po husband deliberately brand branded ed and amid burned his wife horribly for tor foran foran an alleged offence tho the proof pro f of or which wait not forthcoming 1 she alto be bl to tho the wretch for tor life lito with I w prow pros poet pact of or relief but death deth 1 Ought an nl habitual drunkard cups cupi Incite him to violence on un wife and children be bo permitted to hold bold terror over thorn them tor for life III Should a u patient toiling tolling wo woman woman man mall continue continuo to wear her life lira away awny with Ith a 1 lazy Inzy Improvident scamp who will not try to furnish t h his hla family with common necessaries nece Is It It right to compel a n pair who cannot dwell together to together gether gather In peace pence be e the tho fault where It may to drag out a n wretched existence of at discord and perpetual strife Should women omen II bo ho forced to bear children child rIll under such conditions and people tho the world with quarrelsome degenerates to evil oll We fully tully agree with tho the view that the tho primary source of ot tho the lIs existing la Is I Improper marriage Passion rules rUleR too loo often otten In ht tho the union of ot the tho sexes flexeR Lib Liberty erty erly of ot choice rune runn to extremes In these there the c days daya guidance and till the voice olce of ot authority are arc Ignored and rebellion against them Is encouraged by popular sentiment and current literature Thin fits needs correcting hut taking society as M c e find n 1 It Is It not far bettor to 10 per permit permit permit mit divorce regulated by law anti and Ju Jo Judicial tidal decree that to 10 put up lip the or ar and aen bar sought to be Interposed against tho the separation of ot the Improperly mated and tho the right to marry after divorce and thus thua per perpetuate ca lla to be borne and 1111 needless In tho the light of It common sense lenAc Wo We ar art are not blind to 10 tho the evils of easy divorce for tor frivolous reasons nor to the tho conne consequences of the disruption of ot families lies lied but at nt the same samo limo wo do not close our eyes to the wrong of ot at attempting attempting tempting to bind together with galling chains men and women whom neither God Cod nor nun man can cnn make harmonious or fit lit to associate In matrimonial rela relations relations tlona |