divorces, or one divorce to 7.41 licenses. It is possible that the number of marriages may have been even less than the number of marriage licenses, as there may have been some licenses issued without marriage, but no marriages without a license. This condition of things, in or near the larger and more accessible cities, whither these disturbed elements of the population are likely to congregate to hide or cure their domestic grievances, shows as great eagerness in portions of California to escape the bonds. of marriage, as existed in Paris during the revolution. Accord ing to Burke, "in the first three months of 1793, there were 562 divorces in that city alone, being about one to every three marriages, and the same ratio continued for several months." Nor is the evil abating. According to the San Francisco Post, ten applications were made on one day this year-July 25thfor a legal termination of the marriage tie-a larger number than ever before made in one day in that city.

*

In Europe the proportion of divorces is very much lower, but a rising tendency is observable there. In Papal countries the divorce is not absolute, but in the form of a legal separ ation, for the most part, without the privilege of subsequent marriage. In Denmark, in 1871, there was one divorce to 27.51 marriages; in 1879, 1 to 24.4. In France, in 1871, the ratio was as 1 to 222.21; in 1879, as 1 to 109 4. In Holland, in 1871, as 1 to 192.5; in 1880, as 1 to 122.46. 1871, as 1 to 201.61; in 1880, as 1 to 134.66. 1871, as 1 to 350.87; in 1880, as 1 to 135.12. In England and Wales, in 1871, as 1 to 1020.4; in 1879, as 1 to 460.83. In Russia, in 1871, as 1 to 751.87; in 1877, as 1 to 487.8. In Norway, in 1875, as 1 to 2857.14; in 1880, as 1 to 1428.57. And in Scotland, in 1871, as 1 to 9090.9, and in 1880, as 1 to 3448.27.+

In Sweden, in In Belgium, in

From these facts, then, reported both from the New World and the Old, it is apparent that there is a rising tide of divorce among the progressive nations, though the main swell and - crest of this dark tidal wave is in America, and this is nowhere higher than where it breaks into the Pacific.

It is a singular phenomenon. Do the facts indicate easy

* Quoted by Judge Jameson, North American Review, Ap. 1883, p. 320. + These ratios I have calculated from facts collected by Rev. S. W. Dike, and published in the New York Evening Post.

divorce, or necessary divorce? We cannot suppose that society has suddenly become so much more corrupt in all the elements of moral character, and that the marriage tie rots off in all these cases. Certainly this is not the explanation of the greater frequency of divorce in America than in Europe. It is well known that in many European countries-e. g. in Francewhere divorce is infrequent, the marriage estate is often a very corrupt one, and there is much less virtue generally, than in portions of this country, as in New England for instance, where divorce is much more common. The facts clearly indicate easy divorce rather than necessary divorce, which implies an absolute dissolution of the moral tie between the parties before the law seals the separation.

II. THE CAUSES.

When we meet such a social tendency, we naturally inquire what are the underlying causes of it, the influences at work in society to make such a condition of things possible.

1. A fundamental reason is a loss of the popular discernment of the divine elements of marriage. Marriage, as God intended it, is a divinely constituted estate, altogether unique in kind and quality-two in one and one in two-each of the parties retaining his or her individuality, but raising it to a higher plane, while freely giving heart, will, self, to the other-the estate not made up of the sum of the two individualities, but a higher unity, differing from the two in kind. This high estate may not exist at the moment of marriage. It may be slowly brought about afterwards. God has so constituted our social natures-man's and woman's--that the natural experience of wedlock, where there is no natural barrier or wrong in the marriage itself, no false conceptions of its nature, and where the parties are faithful to each other and try to do their duty, gradually leads the married pair, if they have not reached it before marriage, up from the position of mere social addition, or marital neighborhood, in which the marriage ceremony placed them, to the high estate of mutual love and devotion and self-sacrifice for which God designed them. In many cases, beyond doubt, the true union only takes place after the

illusions and glamour of pre-marital love have been dissipated, and the parties have reached the sober realities of real acquaintance; yet it takes place.

Now this idea of marriage as a divine constitution, sacred and inviolable, seems somehow to have escaped the thought of the people; and they think only of the human elements put in front and substituted for it. These human elements are conspicuous and make themselves felt. They are such as these: the motives for marriage, the acquaintance made in quite a human way, the mutual liking springing up on a basis of nature, the offer and the acceptance altogether on the social level, the arrangements and the wedding as if only men and women were involved in the affair. This human and earthly cast thrown over the transaction hides from view the deeper, divine process by which two hearts, two wills, two lives, are silently and mysteriously to blend into one-a social crystallization more wonderful than the process by which carbon becomes changed to diamond, or particles of earth and air are taken up into the substance, the bloom and fruit of a tree. But in proportion as this is the prevailing popular sentiment, and the divine idea of marriage is slurred, and the human element put in front, the bonds of marriage become weak, and subject to easy rupture by human caprice, for not only, in that case, is there the natural fragility of a mere human compact, but persons united in wedlock under such a conception of the relation are not in a favorable condition to have their hearts unconsciously won to the true higher estate.

2. Of the same nature and tendency to easy divorce is the influence of the popular prominence given to marriage as a civil institution. In addition to the fact that marriage is a divine union, actual or possible, taking place before or after the initial rite, it is also a creature of the State. The State has an interest in it, and steps in to defend its interest. The laws take it up and regulate it, prescribing certain steps for its perform ance, and giving the whole proceeding quite a civil aspect. Now, whenever a divine institution is also a civil institution, and the civil institution has flexible forms, that often receive modification and bend this way and that, the divine side, after awhile, is likely to be overlooked, and the human side only be

thought of. Thus marriage after generations following generations have been legislating upon it, seems to many people to have no stronger bonds than those the State imposes. The whole relationship drifts down to the civil plane, and the public slowly become ripe for any modification of the law regulating marriage that may be demanded. And while in the order of nature and providence civil marriage is designed merely to be a human casket to hold the divine jewel, the casket is so made, in many cases, as easily to drop out the jewel, or not readily receive it, and to be itself thrown away with little trouble. As in Pharaoh's dream "the ill-favored and lean-fleshed kine ate up the well-favored and fat kine;" so the civil institution. of marriage devours the divine institution, and prepares the way for easy divorce.

3. Another influence adverse to the permanence of marriage. is the undue exaltation of individual liberty. No close observer can fail to perceive that there is a lessening of respect for authority, and growing restlessness under civil restraint, a larger demand for individuality among the people. Law has stretched the net-work of its complications and applications over the community to meet the various circumstances of society, but has weakened the power of its grasp on the individual will. There is more law about a man, but it is farther off, as when one passes from the enclosure of prison-walls to the enclosure of a race-track. Individuality now claims large ranges morally, and chafes under restrictions of liberty in that direction. The tendency in law is to throw off such civil shackles. Accordingly, what may be called moral legislation has slowly been falling into the back-ground for years, except in cases where society out of sheer necessity makes from time to time a violent and spasmodic movement against some one insupportable social evil, which is at once a moral and a civil wrong, as intemperance. It is quite in the line of this general tendency, of letting every one have things in his own way morally till the result becomes intolerable to society, that there should have sprung up a demand for freer divorce, and that the demand should be granted. The spirit of the age in this under-swell of liberty has been: Let those who do not wish to live longer together part, and let them go into full liberty with the blessing of the law.

4. Again, it can not be denied that there is not a little Free Love doctrine at work in society. It is not often acknowledged. It does not reach the dignity of an open system or a philosophy. It is not general enough to be called a social influence; but it lurks in society and influences many. It takes the form of a feeling among coarse and lustful natures that mutual passion somehow has on it the divine imprimatur; and that if it happens to run across the barriers of society, the worse for the barriers. Society in such cases must be held to be in the wrong, not those who have been set upon by this electing love, and drawn together. Of course, it is the doctrine of devils; but there is much of the doctrine of devils in the world. There is more of this apotheosis of lust working in depraved hearts, leading them not merely to apologize, but to glory in their shame, than is supposed. The doctrine in this form does little harm; it is too repulsive, too putrid. But when it takes the form of pity for those who find themselves unhappily mated, and shift off their companions by due process of law to assort themselves anew with parties already selected; and when this pity passes over into approval and justification, the doctrine becomes dangerous. It is this spirit, in its attenuated and disguised form, which among other influences has assisted in modifying divorce laws, and made them easy for those who desire other marriages. In some instances bills have been introduced in legislatures in this country-as in one case in France-general in form, but designed to open the door out of wedlock to individual parties, and facilitate the way for a new marital assortment. The Free Love influence thus acts, far in advance of its own acknowledgment, as an unperceived solvent of the intrinsic sacredness and inviolability of marriage, and causes many to regard the laws guarding it to be mere forms without adhesive substance.

5. Again, there is in our day a perceptible weakening of the old social ties binding the different groups of individuals together in the community. Family ties are not so compact and unbroken as they once were, in consequence of the removal of some of the members to distant places, or the breaking up of the early home and the migration of the family. Circles of friendship do not remain so close and warm. Societies are