In the United States, the divorce laws, in different states, run along fh>m the strictness of English law al- most to the looseness of that of Rome and revolutionary France. The tendency is towards increased looseness, as is shown by the revised laws of the older states, and the laws of some of the new states. Of looser legisla- tion, Connecticut and Indiana famish examples. We confine ourselves to the legblation of the former state. The colonial laws allowed the court to grant divorce for adultery, fraudulent contract, wilful desertion for three years, or seven years providential absence with- out being beard of after due inquiry made and certi- fied, and in all these cases the aggrieved party might marry again. This legislation remained almost un- changed for nearly two hundred years, yet not without strong remonstrances on the part of some of the clergy, who complained more especially of the loose adminis- tration of the law by the courts. In 1848 two new causes of divorce were added to the old, namely, '* ha- bitual intemperance" and ** intolerable cruelty ;" and five or six years afterwards the legislation on this sub- j^ reached its climax by the ftirther addition to the causes of divorce of 'imprisonment for life,*' "infa- mous crime," and any such "misconduct as perma- nently destroys the happiness of the petitioner, and
defsats the purposes of the marriage relat!(m.** Kon first a vague subjective indeterminate cause was adde(| to the determinate causes of former legislation, and the looseness in hearing and determining cases of di- vorce is so great that tiie worst legislation of the French Revolution could not be much more opposed to the true interests of society. The law knows no separation a menta et ihoro, allows immediate remar- riage, does not forbid an adulterer or adulteress to be united after divorce to a partner in guUt, nor divorced persons to be remarried to one another. Divorces have, as might be expected, greatly increased with the new legislation, especially since the ommbua clause, as it is called, was annexed to the law. In one year, according to a recent report, they bore to marriages the ratio of one to eleven. Now, as nearly one seventh of the population are Roman Catholics, who rarely apply for divorces, and as in a certain grade of society, em- bracing perhaps half the people, divorces are almost unknown, it may, we think, be safely said that one quarter or one fifth of the marriages of each year, in tiie lower stratum of Protestant society, if we may so call it, are dissolved by act of the courts. Without question, the family life and morals of a community once most religious, and even now retaining much of steady habit, must be gradually undermined and poi- soned by such a social evil (see H. Loomis, " Divorce Legislation in Connecticut," New Engkmder, July, 1866).
Our limits preclude us ftx>m adding more than a word or two in regard to the right legislation on this subject, and the duty of the Church when cases of di- vorce come before those to whom its discipline is in- trusted. 1. A.Christian legislator will strive to real- ize in law what he conceives to be the true conception of marriage, and the law of Christ in the Gos|irL Only on tiiis subject does Christ legislate; here he sets aside the law of Moses, and this he dpes in regard to an institution of life concerning which the law must speak. If the Christian le^slator does not carry out Christ^s principles in regard to divorce, it will be not because they are moral rather than jural, but because ' "the hardness of men's hearts" prevents the introduc- tion of a perfect rule. He will consent with a good conscience to a less perfect law, for the law of divorce permitSy and does not require, so that it need bring no Christian man into disobedience to the Gospel. 2. Among the outlines of good legislation in regard to divorce, we suggest the following : the recognition of the two kinds of divorce, mere separation and that a vmculOy with the reservation of the latter for graver crimes of one party against the other ; punishment of the offending party by imprisonment, or deprivation of alimony, or both; prohibition of speedy marriage when it is allowed, of all marriage between one of the parties and a partner in guilt, of all remarriage after full divorce on the ground of adulteiy ; a careful, de- liberate process, perhaps before a special court, leav- ing room for reconciliation, preventing collusion as far as possible, and making it no slight matter to dissolve the relation. 8. When the state law is not accordant with the law of Christ as commonly received in the churches, what is their duty? One thing is clear, that a clergyman ought not to be compelled to unite in marriage to a new wife or husband a person whom he considen to be unlawfully divorced. The Eng- lish law expressly i]elieves the ministers of the Estab- lished Church from tliis necessity ; the Prussian, if we are not misinformed, is harsh and intolerant in this respect; the French law requires a civil marriage, and leaves it to the consciences of parties and of cler- gymen to go through with the religious ceremonies or not, as they see fit. On the other hand, no clergynutn can with a good conscience join in marriage those whom Christ's law, according to his interpretation of it, keeps apart, as, for instance, a woman, separated from her husband for incompatibility of temper, and