CHANIL.E. OF TREATMENT. The growth of social science, especially in the form of sociology taken in relation to the social sciences. much as biology is related to its kindred sciences. is gradually hut surely changing the discussion of divorce. For from this point of approaeh it is soon perceived that the family is the real object of study. and that marriage and divorce, as well as other of incident., are acts formative or destructive of the family. This puts the subject on a new ground. sociology reveals the place of the family. and with it that of property. I subject always wrapped up with that of the family in early society. and in the development of civilization in all its more important phases. The scientific analysis of the present social order shows how the monogamous family P1111ldied in the h01111' has become to the social structure what the cell is to the human body. For the question of divorec compels us to ask: "What is marriage? is family? flow doe. in its structure and principles, enter into the na tional constitution of a people? Can we hold to theories of the family which we have repudiated in our treatment of the State? Are t he family and Church and State of the same nature? Can denim. racy he allowed to go to the extreme of indi vidualism. and end in thedissolution of the State and the family by mutual consent ?" 110st of the ill-en—ions of former years in circles in this country. and even now. have not got much beyond the old method of the treatment of di vorce as the chief convent of two individuals. through the application of the precepts of 'indi vidual morality. The different religious bodies have busied themselves with their respeetive ten ets regarding the number of justifiable grounds for divorce and the practice allowable under them. many assuming that the Founder of Ch•is tianity legislated on the subject for Church, or perhaps for both Choreic and State. These things are being reiterated with much vehemence in many quarter. They strengthen many in the old faith. and probably convert sonic others to it.
But the scientific study of society which has mule about and rapidly spread in our higher educational institutions within the last twenty live years, and the modern methods of biblical interpretation. have combined to force elinsider• able change already. In some quarters at least the method of threshing over the old ground with grammar and lexicon. witI the addition of mere a rchmological information. is !riving way. and at tent ion is turning• to the underlying social factor: in the pr dm. The chapters on in Prof. Shailer 1lattliew,'s Social 7'eaching of drills. and in Prof. Francis G. Pcabody's Jesus Christ (11111 flee SoeuuI Quesfion, with some recent books on social ethics, may be cited in evidence of a change that is going on in the method of treatment by which the family has come to the front, both in st.•ientilic and circle, and
marriage and divorce made its incidents rather than treated as separate subjects. It is too early to predict definite results, though the movement is one of mit•ll promise.
The chief recent periods of discussion are as follow,: In England, curer the Divorce Law, by 11r. Gladstone and others in 1537: in Connecticut, in It-460-69, when President Woolsey. of Yale, and Professor Hovey. of Newton Theological Semi nary, published small volumes on the subject ; in in 1875, when a Federal law was enaeted ; in France, over the law of 1884, by 11. Bertillon, I. Naquet. and in New South Wales, over the law of by Sir Alfred Ste phen; in -Japan, about the same time. when divorce first came under the control of the State: and in Germany, when an imperial law went into effect. .faimary. I, 1900. The discussion in the 'United States was renewed in 1878, and has gone on since. The society IlOW known as the National Longue for the Protection of the Family Wet.. Samuel 1Y. Dike. LL.D.. Auburndale, Alass., sec retary) has had an important part in the dis cussion of this period. Its reports give much information regarding the movement.
Butt.tot.nAritv. Foote. Diror•c: a n•rio• of llic Sul)Pi'l from a SeiraIific (Ye• York. 188-1) : Lee. Historical Jurisprudence (lb., S•houler, Treatise on the Lam of 110 mestie I:elation (5th ed., Boston. 1895) ; Lehr, Le mariage, le divorce el la separation de Corps dans les principaux peoples eirilisf's (Park, 1899) ; Stephen. Commentaries on the Lams of England (1301 ed.. London. 1899) : Bryce, Essays in History and Jurisprudence (Oxford. 1110I) ; Bert il Ion. Etude df'atographique du dienree (Paris, 1:0;31; Fulton, Varriage and Divorce (Phila delphia. I SIN 1 : Bolo, Du nun•lain- au diroree (Paris. 1896) : Conyers, Marriage and Dirorre in the States (Philadelphia. 1889); Ilogoet, his effef.c(Ili Ili ( Paris. 19011; Westbrook, Marriage and /)irorce (Philadelphia. 1883) : Willeox. The Divorce l'roblem (New York, 1897) : Dixon. Lair, Practice. and Procedure in Diror•e and Other Ilatrimonial Causes (3(1 ed.. Loudon. 19001: Ilinghani, Christian (New York, 1900) : Evans, 7'rentiRe on the Chris tian hortrine of Marriage (New York. 1870) ; Snyder, Geography of 1111r•iage (New York. 1899) : 'flowing, 7'he Pamily (Boston. ; \Vright. Kcyrorf 011 Marriage and 1)i corer in the l'nited States (Washington. 1889) : the report of *he Committee of the Sat halal Council of Con gregational Churches (1S08), Soo minutes of the Council; also Proceedings of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal (Imre!' (1901). See also 11•SIIAND nxu