MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. *

*This sermon was first preached and published several years ago, in Liberia, West Africa. It is now re-published with various alterations, and some additions. The concluding remarks, in brackets, were not repeated in St. Luke's Church; but as the principles therein expressed, are applicable to all nationalities, they are given with the sermon.

Matt. xix:3-90—“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

I feel that I have no need to make an apology for introducing to your notice, the subject which is most clearly indicated by the words of the text. Indeed, so fearful is the flood of iniquity, which is coming in upon society by a disregard of marriage vows, and the facility of divorce that a neglect of this important subject in the pulpit, becomes equivalent to a violation of duty. Alas! that this nation, so young, so outwardly fair, should be so foul! So appropriate are the words of one of the “Homilies of the Church,” that I cannot do otherwise than recite them: “Although there want not, good Christian people, great swarms of vices worthy to be rebuked, * * yet above other vices, outrageous seas of adultery, or breaking of wedlock * * have not only burst in,but almost overwhelmed the whole world; unto the great dishonor 0003 4of God, the exceeding infamy of the name of Christ, the notable decay of religion, and the utter destruction of the public wealth; and that so abundantly, that through the customable use thereof, this vice has grown unto such a height, that, in a manner, it is counted no sin at all, but rather a pastime, a dalliance, and but a touch of youth; not rebukable, but winked at; not punished, but laughed at. Wherefore, it is necessary, at this present, to treat of the sin of whoredom and fornication; declaring the greatness of this sin, and how hateful and abominable it is, and hath always been, before God and all good men.” *

* Sermon against Adultery: Book of Homilies.—No. xi.

What was duty at the time when this Homily was written, is the same now. It is especially the case in these days, in this nation, when there is a wide-spread violation of God's laws with regard to marriage.

The text is our Lord's second recorded notice of the subject of Divorce, i.e., according to St. Matthew's narrative. Once before He spoke of it in the Sermon on the Mount. We find in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, that our Lord referred to it on other occasions. These several references to this subject, by our Lord, is, of itself, evidence of its solemn import. But when we hear him declaring—as he does, concerning several other important topics—“But I say unto you;“ and notice also the magisterial authority and kingly tone in which He lays down this law of marriage and divorce, we may learn here that this is the Law of God, and that it is fixed, absolute, and final.

With this conviction let us proceed to the examination of this important subject.

1. First of all, I remark, that we have here, in our Lord's words, a declaration of the marriage law of Paradise. The Jews were accustomed to uphold the authority of their customs and traditions with respect to marriage. 0004 5They fell back, too, upon the permissive rules of Moses; and by such pleas and arguments they strove to make valid a system of divorce, as loose and lax as the grossness of unfettered lust could demand. Our Lord gives them an historical reference more ancient than any they could adduce, and an authority that far transcends the dictum of their great Lawgiver. He goes back to Paradise. He reaffirms the primary and original law of God: “For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleve to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.”

Now this was the law of Eden; but man shall fell away from original righteousness. From a state of perfectness, he sank down to degradation,and gave himself up to loose ways, and unfettered licence. And indeed, so bold, so persistent was the wayward will, and the fleet steps of man to ruin, that, but for God's merciful interference, his depravity would have reached such a state at lest, that a remedy would have been impossible.

A remedial process for man's moral recovery began at the Fall. It assumed a marked and distinctive from in the Jewish economy. God sent Moses on a mission of moral and social reformation to the Jew; but it was designed through them, in ultimate influence, for all mankind.

The whole mission of Moses indicates most clearly a spiritual intent to correct the gross abuses which had spread abroad and debase the whole human family. But even a casual glance at it, will disclose the fact that it was far from being radical. The Jews had sought out many inventions;“ had gone so very far astray that they could not bear a rigid, spiritual system. Hence, their great Lawgiver bent to their miserable condition; modified and adapted his regimen to their low state, and their narrow intellectual apprehension. He could give them the Law; they were unfitted as yet to the full demands of Grace. Hence he allowed them licence in some earthly 0005 6things; for, in the condition in which Egyptian bondage left them, they could neither understand an unearthly rule, nor endure a yoke at once heavenly and divine.

In fine, the covenant of Moses was, from the necessity of the case, tentative, and tolerative. The history of the Jews during their journey through the wilderness shows how centuries of Egyptian bondage had debased their moral nature. Hence, when Moses undertook their moral training, he found his way hedged up, on every side, by such a lack of spiritual insight, and such deep moral obtuseness, that, instead of imposing a perfect spiritual standard, he adapted himself, in divers ways, to circumstances; and lowered the tone of his teaching to the character of his people.

Let me press upon your notice, however, that this arrangement was a tolerative and expedient one; a concession demanded by necessity; a stop-gap in their rude state, to prevent greater evils; a permissive regimen, merely for the times. Observe, too, that it was not given for license; it was merely preventive. Moreover, it was not law, but expediency; for the old law of Paradise was still in force; and the Jewish system, in this, and in other respects, was a “paidagogos” to lead them back to it again in Christ.

One striking evidence of this is found in Malachi, ii:14,-15; which shows that even under the law, an eye was always kept upon the pristine purity, and the indissoluble nature of the marriage covenant, as established in Eden. “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not He make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore 0006 7take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.”

Here we have both the end and the binding nature of the marriage covenant set forth. But the next verse (16th,) is remarkable as reproving divorce, even under a system which tolerated divorce: “For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith, that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts; therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.” Here the words, “He hateth putting away,” are equivalent to “he hateth divorce.” *

*Possibly Micah ii:9, has the same significance.

The tolerative nature of the law, then, is very clearly exhibited in this matter of marriage and divorce. The reasons are obvious: for, besides the gross example of the Egyptians, their own fathers had more or less gone wrong. The condition and character of woman had been, as a consequence on servitude, low and degraded; hence, divorce had been common. Some of their fathers had married near relatives. A few of them had been polygamists. Moses found it impossible, suddenly to check this tendency; to break up in a moment, a long continued, and deep rooted system.

The Jews, in this conversation with our Lord, seemingly, perhaps really ignorant of these facts, put the question, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.”—St. Matt. xix:7. That “law in the beginning,” our Lord had just declared to them in these words: “He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.” &c.—St. Matt. xix:5,6. Here we have a distinct statement 0007 8of the terms of the marriage covenant; and I beg you will observe the following principles which teaches:

1. Marriage is a divine institution. It came from God. It is not, therefore, the creation of legislative action. It is not, merely a civil contract. It is not the invention of man. The estate of matrimony is a sacred one; originated by the will of God, and governed by His law.

2. The marriage in Paradise, is in its principles, the germ and type of all true marriage; and as the first pair were made one flesh by marriage; so all pairs become bound in inseparable unity by the same sacred ordinance.

3. Polygamy is disallowed, and is unlawful; for, it is but “twain,” i.e., two persons, who are allowed to be joined together in holy matrimony; not three or four; only two. The man, as Adam, is to have but one wife, and vice versa, the woman, as Eve, is to have but one husband. God created but the one woman for the one man.

4. Marriage is indissoluble. “Those whom God hath joined together let not man put asunder.” Hence the obligations of the marriage bond are perpetual. As long as a husband lives he is under the obligation of this law; and so likewise is his wife; and neither party has the right to put the other away, for any trifling or capricious motives. Hence,

5. Jewish divorce is abrogated. The licence heretofore allowed the Jews is forbidden. The primitive, paradisaical, and divine law of marriage is re-enacted; and maintains henceforth absolute authority in God`s church.

II. But though the license which had been permitted the Jews was now broken up by our Lord, Thus re-affirming the rule of Paradise, one ground of divorce is still allowed to man. Our Lords words are as follows: “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, 0008 9committeth adultery.”—St. Matt. xix: 9. Adultery, on the part of the wife is therefore a ground for divorce; and hence, a man who suffers this most distressful of all injuries, has the right to resort to the courts of law for a dissolution of the marriage bond.

But you will notice that all the rules and customs of the Jews, by which divorce, for long generations had been allowed, are here utterly abrogated. “The axe is laid to the root of the tree” of tradition and custom. Our Lord gives but one single cause for the fracture of the marriage bond; namely, adultery. Hence it follows:

1. That no man has the right to divorce his wife on account of incompatibility of temper, permanent ill health, insanity, poverty, or barrenness. According to the beautiful words of the marriage service, he takes the woman to be his wedded wife, in the holy estate of matrimony; and solemnly promises, “to love her, to comfort her, honor and keep her in sickness and in health; and forsaking all others, to keep him only unto her, so long as they both shall live.” Hence no husband can rightly thus divorce his wife; nor can any magistrate. And the man who thus unscripturally divorces his wife, sins against God; and if he marries another woman he is an adulterer!

2. Hence, likewise, no body of men, ecclesiastical or civil, and therefore, no national or State legislature has the right to set aside God's law, as declared by the Lord Jesus Christ, for any of the above reasons. *

*“Marriage being an institution of God, is subject to His laws, alone, and not to the law of man. Hence, the civil law is binding upon the conscience, only in so far as it corresponds to the law of God.”

— Wayland's Moral Science. 3. It follows, from this, that all legal enactments, in any land, which subvert the marriage covenant, except for the single cause laid down by our Lord Jesus Christ, are unscriptural and ungodly.

4. Moreover, let it be noticed, that the man who “marries 0009 10her who is thus (unscripturally and unlawfully) put away, doth commit adultery.”

Thus far we have considered the case with reference to the unfaithfulness of the wife, and have shown that when a woman violates the covenant of marriage, by adultery, her husband has the right to divorce her. But now the question comes, “Is not this a reciprocal right?” When husbands are unfaithful, have not wives right to divorce them?

My reply is, that no warrant for such divorces can be found in the Bible. Under both covenants the right of divorce is given exclusively to husbands. Certainly not one single case can be found in the Old Testament, where, for any cause, a woman could divorce her husband. The right of divorce, in all cases, is guaranteed to the man only. And so far we have the mind of God for its specific reservation to husbands. But we are living under the Christian dispensation, and our law is that of the New Testament. Is the mind of God altered, because the covenant is changed? What then is the law of divorce in the Scriptures of the New Testament? We may ascertain this law by a reference to the words of the Lord Jesus; and by turning our attention to the inspired precepts of the apostles. Our Lord speaks concerning divorce in the following places: namely, St. Matthew v:32; ix:9; St. Mark x:11, 12; St. Luke xvi:18. Now, in each of these cases, our Lord speaks of husbands, and uses this form of expression, vas.: “Whosoever shall put away his wife.” In no case is it even hinted that a woman has the right of divorce, if even her husband be guilty of unfaithfulness. This was an act unknown to the Jews; foreign alike to the national mind and customs, during a history of two thousand years. Latterly, when brought into relations with the Gentiles, a few eminent women among them had availed themselves of the license which the Greeks 0010 11and Romans allowed their women, and had divorced their husbands. But our Lord declares explicitly, if, as at this time to check, at once, a growing evil, “If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”—St. Mark x,: 12.

We turn now to the epistles. And here we find the declaration of inspired apostles in exact accordance with our Lord's precepts. St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans, says: “Know ye not brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”—Rom. vii:1, 2, 3. Nothing can be more explicit and positive than this. The declaration is clear and unambiguous, namely, that a woman once married, has no right to divorce herself from her husband. If this inference is too broad, where in the whole Scripture (save for her adultery), is the limitating clause?

I am aware that it may be urged that St. Paul is not formally stating a moral precept, but using an illustration, to show the permanent authority of the law. But no doubt, the apostle lays down here, as well, though incidentally, a great principle concerning woman's position in the covenant of marriage; for the same statement is repeated in another of his epistles. In 1 Cor. vii: 10, 11, he speaks still more decidedly upon this subject. “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband 0011 12and let not the husband put away his wife.” These words of the apostle set forth, I apprehend, the following principles:

The Lord commands all married women to abide by the covenant of marriage, i.e., to cleave to their husbands; and hence, they may not wantonly and perversely leave them. It is their duty, as also the duty of husbands, even under trying circumstances, to remain with their partners. There are, however, allowable grounds of SEPARATION: cruelty, brutal assaults upon a wife, absolute neglect, or refusal to support her or her family; incompatibility of temper, beastly lust, and adultery. These ofttimes warrant and demand, a legal separation of a wife from her husband. But then, she must remember that she is still his wife. Although legally separated, she is not divorced, and she has no right to be divorced from her husband. Her duty is to remain unmarried. This obligation is repeated in I Cor. vii.: 39.—“The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

The objections which have been made to this mode of reasoning may be noticed here:

(a.) It is objected that our Lord's permission to the man to divorce his (adulterous) wife, is, by analogy, a reciprocal right, and belongs as well to the woman who has an adulterous husband.

But the duties and prerogatives of husbands and wives are distinctively laid down to them, as such, in both the Old and New Testaments; and, except in a few broad and general particulars, are special and peculiar to each; nay, are almost as distinct as those of children from parents. For as woman differs from man, so in scripture her relative civil and domestic prerogatives differ, and are not regarded as reciprocal, noor laid down as correlative 0012 13and undistinguishable. Moreover, you will observe that the word “whosoever,” in St. Matt., v: 32, does not refer to man generically, but to man the husband. And in this sense it was both spoken by our Lord and received by his disciples:

(1.) His disciples understood it as referring emphatically to man as husband, and not indifferently, i.e., to either wife or husband, for “His disciples say unto Him. if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”—St. Matt., xix: 10.

(2.) Our Lord gave utterance to His precept confining it to man as husband. Any other interpretation of the 12th verse would be ludicrous.

“For tnhere are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

(b.) Again, it is said that the broad statement of St. Paul, namely, that “the woman is bound to her husband so long as he liveth,” must be taken with limitations.

My reply is (1) that when limitations or modifications are to be applied to scriptural precepts, they must be found in Scripture itself or suggested by it, and not left to be supplied by the multitudinous imaginations of men. Now here is a broad, general obligation laid upon woman in the marriage relation. No exceptional text can be found in any part of the New Testament. Moreover it is laid down directly and in most positive terms, in the two passages I have referred to, and indirectly in several other passages in the gospels and epistles.

(2.) I reply in the well-known words of the judicious Hooker: “I hold it for a most infallible rule in exposition of sacred scripture, that where a literal construction 0013 14will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst.” That the literal construction “will stand,” in this case is evident from the following considerations: (1.) It is based upon the invariable rule of God's church, patriarchal and Jewish, for 4000 years. (2.) By the positive words of our Lord, which forbid a woman “to put away her husband, “or, “to married to another.” (3.) By the command of our Lord, through the apostle St. Paul, “Let not the wife depart from her husband, but, and if she depart let her remain unmarried.”

(c.) Lastly, I present the objection, namely, that the injunction of St. Paul, “Let not the wife depart from her husband,” [1 Cor., vii: 10.] is not general in its nature, but was intended especially for the cases of mixed marriages. i.e., where one of the parties was a christian and the other an unbeliever. But the objection will not stand. Up to the 16th verse of this chapter, the apostle is speaking to christians, and to none other. At the 12th verse he begins his remarks to persons married to unbelievers, (Pagans); and although the subject is not before us now, yet I may venture to say that a careful reading of 1 Cor. vii: 15 seems to show that the oneness of the imarriage relation is maintained by St. Paul, even in the cases there referred to *. For it seems to me that the 0014 15marriage-bond was to be kept sacred and inviolable, even by the deserted party: on the possibility that the wife or husband, thus deserted, exhibiting christian patience and purity, and holding the vows of marriage as still inviolate, might be the means of drawing the faithless partner to the cross of Christ, and into submission to the laws and requirement of the faith. In no other sense, it seems to me, can one get any significance from the 16th verse. The sum of the matter respecting the woman seems to be this:

*“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

1. The woman is bound by the ties of wedlock during the whole period of her husband's life; and, even under distressful circumstances, has no right to break them, i.e., by divorce.

2. If, perchance, in an extreme case, a woman feels herself compelled to leave her husband, it is her duty “to remain unmarried.” No woman has a right to marry another man while her husband is living; courts, legislatures, legal enactments, to the contrary, notwithstanding.

3. Under no circumstances has the woman the right of divorce. The great head of the Church has put that right into the hands of man; but only for one single cause, namely, the adultery of the woman.

4. If, notwithstanding these plain precepts of scripture, a woman avails herself of the license afforded by the laws and statutes of her country, divorces her husband, and gets married to another man: then, according to the words of our Lord, “She shall be called an adulteress.”

III. But the question is not infrequently asked—“Is not all this unfair to woman? Do not these precepts, thus interpreted, savor somewhat injustice? Do they not impose an unreasonable and unbearable yoke upon her?”

I might rest this question here, by reminding you that, 0015 16as Christians, we take the Bible to be the word of God, the revelation of the Divine will, and, therefore, our great authoritative standard of morals and duty. Hence, if my interpretation of the divine word, in this matter is right, the commands and injunctions I have set forth must be eminently expedient, judicious, and wise.

A few further considerations, however, may serve to show the reasonableness and propriety of these Divine regulations. Take the case of the man: it is objected that superior prerogatives are given him, that greater power is committed to him, than to woman. But, you will observe, that no license is allowed him. He is just as much under the law of purity as the woman. For this is the peculiar pre-eminence of Christianity, a point in which it contrasts with, and excels all other religions, in that it requires stainless chastity of men, as well as of women.

But why should not women have the right of divorce as well as their husbands? The simple answer is—God has not ordered it; and hence we may infer—

1. That it does not comport with family rule and order;

2. That it is not compatible with man's headship in the family;

3. That it is unadapted and antagonistic to the rearing, training and government of children;

4. Scripture, everywhere, seems to lay the burden of family support upon the husband, as a perpetual obligation; and nowhere furnishes any expedient whereby he may be released therefrom. Divorce, as the woman's prerogative, would be such an expedient; and bad men could easily avail themselves of it. Even when separated the obligation of family support abides.

5. Added to these, is what I regard as a most important consideration, namely, that the necessity of divorce, on the part of woman, is not so great as that of man, in the case of unchastity. Morally, i.e., in the sight of God, 0016 17unfaithfulness to the marriage vow is equally foul in man, as in woman; and it shows a bad state of moral sentiment in a community which differences the guilt, on account of sex. But when we come to consider (I.) the organic nature of the family, and (2.) social economy, the sin of the woman is far more demoralizing and destructive. People who look at this subject simply in the light of what is called “women's rights,” fail the sight of a mysterious principle of being, which is the special prerogative of womanhood; and which, rightly used, gives her a sanctity which no man can attain; but which, wrongly used, plunges her to a deadly degradation which man cannot descend to. The subject is a delicate one; and many may consider even allusion to it, as too natural. It is, however, the truth; and important interests depend upon its statement Iand its consideration. There are two aspects of this subject:

First. The adulterous woman becomes partaker of the flesh of another man. She carries that union in her blood. If she guiltily abides with her husband she will force him to mingle his flesh with that of another man. An adulterous husband cannot do this wrong to his wife. He cannot carry in himself the flesh of the woman with whom he has broken the seventh commandment.

It is, without doubt, in consequence of this mysterious physiological fact, that mankind, everywhere, in civilized and pagan society, revolt from the adulteress. The feeling is founded in the nature of things; and is one of the deep mysterious instincts of our nature; and not an unjust sentiment against woman.

This, to use scriptural language, is “CONFUSION.” Its several abhorrent forms are declared in the Pentateuch, and seem, at times more abhorrent to the Almighty than even murder. It was especially on account of this transgression that the terrible indictment of the Almighty 0017 18was announced against the lascivious tribes and nations of of Canaan. In the 18th and 19th chapters of Leviticus its abominations are, in several instances, alluded to, and the wrath of God, clearly announced. *

*See. also, Rom 1:24-32.

Second. An unfaithful man who, forgetful of his marriage vows, begets bastard children, does so beyond the bounds of the homestead, outside of the family precincts. He cannot secretly foist his spurious children upon the household and kindred. He cannot give them family rights to the injury of his legitimate offspring. He cannot make them legal heirs of family property.

In the case of the man, there can be no spurious mingling of blood, no confusion of inherited rights. And, hence, base and monstrous as is the unfaithfulness of such a husband, the FAMILY, nevertheless, remains intact, alike in blood, and as an organic existence; children are not scattered; and under the guidance of the mother may be kept together, raised in unity, and trained to respectability and honor.

And this arrangement seems, in one view, an appeal to the natural tenderness of woman. The husband, perchance, in guilty: but who is to care for the children, if the wife may divorce him? Whence is their support to be derived? And why, indeed, should the man be exempted from the obligation of family support? Why should unfaithful men have this opportunity, through an act of adultery, to rid themselves, by divorce, from wives who they may dislike, and children who are a burden to them? Who, moreover, is to train and educate the children? Who to root in them, and develop the family feeling? Surely, and without doubt, the integrity of the family group depends upon woman's patience and forbearance. You all know how woman, almost universally, takes this burden upon herself. How often, 0018 19when the father is wanting, alike in character and duty, the mother is safety and health to the family group! How seldom does she fail in duty. Isaiah appeals to this sentiment deep in the heart of woman: “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?” Such a thing is possible; may take place in an extreme case: “Yea, they may forget,” says the prophet; but it is hardly probable.

Now, on the other hand, when the woman is guilty, the case is entirely different. She bears and brings forth the children; and if she is secretly false to her vows, what security has a man, and his kinsfolk, for a purely transmitted blood, and for a right inheritance. For society, be it remembered, is founded as well upon property as upon manhood. Wedded to a harlot, how shall a man know his own children? What certainty can he have that his property shall descend, in his own line, to his own children? Indeed the hidden mystery of generation, the wondrous secret of propagated life, is committed to the trust of woman. If she is false to that trust, all the beauty, order and integrity of the family system are made confused, broken up, and obliterated! The clear thread of family life and unity becomes tangled and involved! The pure stream of lineage and descent is made muddy and befouled! Indeed the woman's guilt tends to confound and perplex all those nice questions which pertain to inheritance, legitimacy, consanguinity and kinship; and to bring inextricable confusion into households, families, estates, and society.

Now, just such a sin, i.e. in all its bearings and results, man, owing to sex, cannot commit. So, likewise, for the same reason, the deceptive results of such sin, it is impossible for man to produce. Thosef, with the peculiar mischiefs pointed out, the woman alone can commit. They are entirely beyond the range of man's physical 0019 20power; and are confined, by natural laws, to the limitation of female sex. Hence the sinful woman wages a war against, not only the whole system of family being, but against its very life, its unity, its essence; and in a way sinful man cannot. Inasmuch, therefore, as she commits a monstrous crime against the organic nature of the family; a grievous penalty is laid, by the Almighty, upon her! That penalty is divorce!

[And now I close the consideration of this solemn and important subject. It is well, in general, for ministers to avoid in the pulpit, remarks personal to themselves; for they preach not themselves but Christ Jesus the Lord. “The word that God putteth in their mouth that shall they speak.” Their duty is to stand up in the congregation, and tell them, “Thus saith the Lord God, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear.”

But the peculiarity of this subject, of this nation, and of the times, warrants, I think, a little more freedom than usual. I may say therefore, that never in my life have I approached any subject with as much distress as this. But so monstrous is this evil of divorce becoming in our country, so corrupting to society, so degrading to the church, that I cannot do otherwise than speak freely and strongly upon it. Nevertheless I speak in great sorrow. For the words I speak today are calculated to widely disturb social relations; bring confusion and dismay to many families; to lacerate many a heart. For you are all aware that for some years past, both the legislature and the courts, have been freely granting divorces; and especially those unscriptural ones, that is, of women putting away their husbands. And thus, in fact, but I trust unwittingly, they have been accommodating civil law to the carnal and capricious appetites of gross men and unfaithful women. There can be no truer, and certain sign than this of a 0020 21people's lapse from virtue and true morality! No clearer evidence of the decline of true religion, of the growth of heathenish and infidel principles!

And, as though all this were not gross and ungodly enough, ministers of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ are found, who are willing to marry these women, their husbands still living; and the command of Christ still unabrogated, “Let not the wife depart from her husband!” What can we do here, which will more easily run down to gross confusion, all our social and domestic well-being? What sooner make women gross and monstrous Men unbridled in their lust, and lawless? Children offcasts and vagabonds; disobedient, without natural affection, heady and ungovernable? What more certainly rob us of every virtuous characteristic; turn us into a mere herd of animals? men bearing the name of Christians, living like pagans, and saying in their hearts, “There is no God! “What more calculated to raise up here a nation of covenant-breakers; a breed of marriage violators; tainting the very blood and brain of posterity with falsehood, dissimulation and deceit; and, by the unfailing law of inheritance, transmitting fraud and perfidy to children's children; and they, repeating and exaggerating the character of their fathers, by and by some holy apostle of the future shall arise, and like St. Paul, pronounce against us that withering denunciation, which he fulminated against, the faithless Cretans of old (Titus 1: 12), and by which, with one single stroke of his pen, he has given them a contemptuous immorality! For thus, in very deed, does sin, ordinary at the first, culminate in the centuries, into black, abiding and monstrous guilt. Our marriage faithlessness may generate general national mendacity. What then shall we become but cumberers of the ground? a curse to the very soil we tread! From this may God defend us!

“I wot that through ignorance” many a man, many a 0021 22woman, has sinned in this manner. But what a reflection is not this upon us who are Christian ministers, that the people are not taught in these most important matters. And I must perforce take my part in this blame; and I pray my God, for Jesus' sake, to pardon this my gross neglect, and not to lay the blood of souls upon me, in the great day, if indeed, through my imperfect teaching or neglect, any man or woman has rushed into this great sin. Nor should I fail to say, that if any man or woman has thus sinned in ignorance, the Lord Jesus Christ is full of mercy to sinners. The simplest show of penitence, moves with pitiful regards His gracious and compassionate heart. And the promise is, to penitents, that however dark their stains, however deep their guilt, there is a place for them at His mercy seat! “The bruised reed he will not break, the smoking flax he will not quench.” There can be no doubt that even the deadliness of this great sin will be washed out through His most precious blood; if the sinner will turn from his guilt, and do works meet for repentance. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, and He will abundantly pardon.”