New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-12-16

osy and generation and has come down 10 be
ADJUSTED In Our own time. Christendom in assuming
his name has assumed His quarrel with the natural Pa
ganism OF the human heart and il cannot dodge th,
responsibility any longer under the plea of danger To
Its own institutions. Ii s institutions are ENDANGERED
By the doctrine Of the Christ fairly Interpreted i,
must renounce either the institutions or the doctrine
The doctrine says very plainly that there is no insti,
ton worthy mans reverence which is not animated by
brotheIly love, whose clear tendency in other
II not to promote the harmony Of human n,erests The
will Of God, according to Jesu. Is, that all mankind
should live in unity, in relations Of mutual love and
advantage and institutions agreeable or hostile TO
Gods viii accordingly, as they either promote or i'm
pede these relations In this country have efecusy
desecrsted the two main props Of Psgsnis by disown
ing the monarch and the priest rather by boldly re.
solving their sovereignty into the superior sovereignty
OF the people. This was done purely on the ground
that the regal and priesy institution as Heretofore de.
lined did not promote the social harmony or webeng
to which the will Of God binds Us. Had they been
profitable institutions in social point of view we
should have continued to give God thanks for
them But as they had long confessed themselves a5or
tive and improbable, determined to exclude them
from political recognition and become our own exclu
sve proxies henceforth in Gods sight.
Such and 90 significant Ia the latest political out.
birth Of Christendoml Our territorial remo,eness
from Christendom is not wider than that which sepa-
rates the spin, Of poy from the spirit which has
always animated thcrs. Their politics have been es-
tabshed upon the principle Of the absoluteness of In
stutions. Ours s established upon the principle OF
the sbsoueness Of Man. Our public national atti-
tude has precisely this meaning neither more nor les
namely that purely religious institution has right
at this day 10 command the ale yance of the human
mind This is what we affirm by our primitive incor.
poraton, and by the entire sweep Of our subsequent
legislation. We broadly affirm that no institution has
right to mans homage, whose primary distinct
elm is not to promote his own social welbeng, and
that we accordingly for our parts shall acknowledge
none, however dignifed by tradition and usage which
does not conform to this requisiiion
Now, it purely by way Of bringing this peculiar
temper Of economy into public appreciation that
avaied myself Of the popular interest in the subject
Of divorce 10 introduce TO the readers OF The Tribune
II seemed 10 me that since our polity had very
original and peculiar character spirit ii was worth
the while Of our people to make Themselves acquainted
with it, since might thus be quit Of those foolish
squsbbes political and ecclesiastical which distinguish
the Old World, and pursue unhndered mani
fest and majestic destiny. Marriage, the legal union
Of man with woman, for life, we all admit TO
have been an institution growing out of the absolute
needs of society Nature tsef insurcs the union OF
the sexes Society having eye to the necessities of
its development, DEGREES that this union shall be
for it and refuses to sanction any brefer term. So
far all is clear But suppose that society has got
its development, or has become established be-
yond all danger of dissolution, then it is easy to
see that il may begin to feel new wants, wants
which quite subordinate in its infancy, bu,
.f IL.
tnce its aim or the bare ability to keep itself in
life and all questions of order and harmony must be
postponed to this imperious need But that it has
oyerleaped that period of infantle fragty and feels
the motions of ripe and sinewy manhood the questions
Of order and harmony be no longer postponed.
II bound by feeling Of selfrcspect to become de-
and orderly and to put away consequently all
those arbitrary methods Of action which dictated
by mere expedency, the instinct of sepreservaon.
The law in regard TO marriage may be among others
requiring modification The present interests of so
ciety may demand enlargement Of the grounds jus
tifying divorce. Society may say whereas, have
hitherto limited the legal obligation of marriage part
ners only by their mutual conjugal fidelity viii now
still further limit ii by their mutual good behavior in the
sight of the public II husband habtuay treat wife
Unexpectedly in the eyes Of the public-if either
party be in the habit of avang himself of their legal
claim upon each other to subject that other to his own
wanton caprice or other ungoyernabe ust-then will
release the aggrieved party from further obligation to
the aggressor In other words will limit the legal OBJ
legation Of married partners to each other, no longer
by the fact of their literal physical loyalty merely
but by that of their spiritual loyalty by that OF their &C.
NAL and perfect humanity"
saw only suppose this state of things only sup
pose society to have reached the state Of growth have
have no attitude have above
described in regard Marriage Is there any man so
bold as to deny socety right that atttude there
any man so unwise a; TO challenge the right Of society
TO modify its own action and disuse its own in
stituons at pleasure Society does not pretend TO
create tho intercourse of the Nature itself is
the all sufficient fountain and authority for this Soce
~ protends only regulate that intercourse a. that
her own benefcent necessities may be promoted Ma
ure prescrbes limit to this intercourse and hence
dsbases man below the brute whose instinct guards
him from excess Society fixes the limit which nature
necects and subjects the intercourse Of the sexes
among mankind 10 the necessities Of human fellowship.
II saws Man is above all things with his fellow
man. society the expression Of this unity hence the
commerce of man with man and MAN with woman,
shall first Of all obey the needs OF society and as these
needs are now all concentrated in the family institution,
and as there can be no family without fixed paternity
nor sny fixed paternity without the exclusive union oil
one man with one woman for life therefore impose
that term upon the natural intercourse Of the sexes
and refuse for the present dignity any lesser term
with the name of Marriage Clearly then If the ne
cessities Of society necessities derived from mans own
highest desny originally justify society in limiting
Marriage by one ohense, those same necessities will
subsequently justify it in limiting Marriage by many
ofenses
And who is there so foolish TO maintain that SO
eiety in thus straiienng the conditions Of marriage
would dishonor marriage itself' Who so blind as not
to zee that society would thus be putting the highest
possible honor upon marriagei What married man or
woman nor feel themselves honored by the tie Of legal
marriage, Is it not shared by every dsrePutabe wretch
in the community and msdethe screen and apology Tor