In fine, the system of tithing was well enough adapted to the child age of human progress, when it was brought into use at first spontaneously by the nations, and afterwards incorporated into the Mosaic code; but as since then there has been great growth in all lines of religious thought, other revelations made, and a later and brighter economy introduced, it is rightly sup posed that we have outgrown the child age of tithing practiced by these earlier nations.

In the matter of giving, then, instead of copying after a system having its origin in the infantile age of the human race, and belonging to an economy which has been replaced by the Christian dispensation, Christians ought to follow the New Testament rule of giving, which is, as the Lord has prospered them, according to ability, statedly, voluntarily, liberally, cheerfully; and, in thus doing, fulfill the law of Christ, "Freely ye received, freely give."

VII.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

BY REV. CYRUS CORT, D.D.

Marriage is a divine institution. It had its origin before the fall of mankind. It is one of the few remains of the Lost Paradise. It was intended to promote the happiness, the safety and very existence of the human race. The family is the unit of society, the type of both Church and State, and marriage, or the life union of one man with one woman, is the basis of the family. Male and female created He them. One male and one female, united in marriage, is the fountain head of humanity. Polygamy, or anything else that disturbs or destroys the divine original of marriage, as that was ordained and established in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, is a perversion of the right ways of God and must bring harm and misery to human society. Not only by the creation of a single pair of human beings but by the laws of propagation, implanted in the human constitution as exemplified in the history of the race, did the Almighty ordain monogamy to be the normal order of the sexes.

Birth statistics show that about equal numbers of each sex are born from generation to generation. In the United States there are at present over a million and a quarter more males than females taking the whole country into account, although in some states the females outnumber the males. Advance emigration of males to new States or to mining regions accounts for the excess. Polygamy has been advocated and partially justified at times when a large proportion of the males had been slain in battle. But war itself is wrong and inhuman, and one wrong cannot justify another. The marriage of one man to one woman, until death dissolves the bond, is the divine appointment, the normal order and the one most conducive to the health and happiness of mankind. Individuals and nations that disregard this arrange

ment must suffer the penalty that always follows the violation of divine laws and institutions. Polygamy brought discord and contention, jealousy and strife, into the households even of the most prudent and pious of the Old Testament Patriachs, and every nation that has sanctioned polygamy has degenerated physically, morally and politically. The Turkish Empire would have perished long ago had not the ambitions and rivalries of Christian nations prevented them from agreeing upon the principle of division that shall prevail in the final dismemberment. And who doubts that polygamy is not the prolific source of the worst ills that afflict the sick man on the Bosphorus? In harmony with the original institution of marriage is the proclamation of the Mediator of the New Covenant from the Mount of Beatitudes, as recorded in the fifth chapter of Matthew (vs. 31 and 32), and as amplified in the nineteeth chapter, When the Pharisees came unto Jesus " tempting Him and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" "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. Therefore, they are no more twain but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together let not man put asunder.”

"And when the Pharisees objected that Moses commanded to give a writing of divorcement and to put away a wife for various causes Jesus replied that Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (did not command but allowed or permitted) you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so." The original ideal of marriage had been woefully perverted by fallen man and, like slavery, the evil of divorce was one of such vast proportions in the constitution of ancient society that it could not be abruptly brought to an end but could only be regulated, mitigated and gradually superceded by the original, normal state of things under the sanctifying influences of a higher order of spiritual life. But no matter what Moses allowed but did not command, as the Pharisees asserted, no matter what the mediator

of the Old Testament permitted in deference to the spirit of the age and the prevailing hardness of heart and depravity of mankind, "I say unto you," saith Jesus, in the same connection with all that has been already quoted, "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."

These passages give us the classic New Testament authority on the subject of marriage and divorce. They cover the ground in so complete a way as to prevent wrong inferences in either direction. The Roman Catholic Church is wrong when it seeks to strike out the exception and make the marriage bond indissolu ble under all circumstances. A large part of the Episcopalian Church seems disposed to hold the same position. That is going beyond what is written and authorized by the Heavenly Bridegroom, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and instead of promoting the sanctity of marriage in its ideal character, it opens the way for its profanation and abuse as the case stands in South American countries under Roman Catholic control.

An ironclad, inexorable law, without any possible exception, would place the innocent husband or wife at the mercy of wicked and immoral companions without relief or remedy except death itself. This would degrade the sanctity of marriage instead of exalting it into the holiest of human relations. For that one great crime which confounds the mystery of human life and destroys the identity of the family itself, and violates the law of inheritance, for the crime of fornication, or adultery, the Saviour allows the absolute dissolution of the marriage bond in behalf of the innocent party. And certainly this is a wise and merciful provision. It sets a premium upon, chastity and fidelity, upon that mutual affection and singleness of purpose which are the noblest characteristics of holy matrimony. Adultery involves. perjury of the worst kind, because it is a wilful and horrible violation of the marriage vow which binds to forsake all others and cleave to the wedded companion only so long as they both shall live. It profanes the temple of humanity in the holy of holies,

where the highest interests of society, in Church and State, demand that it should be kept pure and spotless. Hence it is a crime that justifies divorce in behalf of the injured husband or wife. But when this is said, about all is said that can be said from the Christian standpoint in behalf of absolute divorce. As Meyer and most other commentators say, the mention of one exceptional ground of divorce by our Saviour excludes every other ground or pretext. Some theologians belonging to State churches have striven to lower the divine standard, but Scriptural divorce can only be allowed because of adultery or fornication as set forth by our Saviour (Matt. 5 and 19).

The effort to weaken or modify this rule of our Saviour by quoting what St. Paul has said at I. Cor. 7: 15, etc., has frequently been made by advocates of lax divorce legislation. "If A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath called us unto peace." But the context shows that the separation here spoken of by the Apostle is one from bed and board and not an absolute dissolution of the marriage bond itself. When an unbeliever refuses to live in wedlock with a believer the latter is to suffer separation rather than renounce allegiance to the Lord and sacrifice religious convictions. But so long as the departing unbeliever does not renounce the marriage relation itself by marry. ing another or by committing adultery the believer must wait patiently and seek by reasonable Christian methods to be reconciled again to the estranged companion of former days. Believers of either sex are not under bondage to the marriage tie in such sense as to be at the mercy of cruel and infidel companions without protection or relief. Their spiritual and everlasting interests are paramount and rather than sacrifice these they may remain in a state of separation in hope of winning the departing one back not only to marriage obligations, but winning such to the cause of Christ and thus promoting their salvation. This is his own individual advice in the peculiar situation of mixed matrimonial unions existing between believers and unbelievers in the early days of Christianity, when one of the parties became converted

the unbelieving depart, let him depart.