New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-12-16
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
MIR. James to The Observer.
the Editor Of The Neio- York Obterrey;


To the Editor Of The Netc- York Obserrey:
Our discussion ought to be near its close.
When one party to controversy deliberately repeats,
almost in SO many words, what the other party arms
and then affects to assai that other party for holding
opposite opinions, the reader that the
troversy is really all side This is precisely what
you DO in your paper Of this week Under On affected
appearance Of gansaying my opinions you coolly re-
produce large portion Of article Of mine in tn.
Tribune Of Sept L. on the subject Of Marriage, and
then mixing it up with little of your characters
tic seasoning endeavor to pass it off upon the public
as your own view TO which am hostile
In the article alluded TO / define marriage thus
Marriage is a divine institution That is to say the
marriage Institution embOdes the humane and there
fore the highest divine idea Of the relation II
expresses precisely that aspect OF the relation between the
sexes which is peculiar man. aud which accordingly il
honorable for hun to conform TO- and dshonorabe Tor him
Whist is the exact definition of marriage According to
every dictionary, marriage nothing and moth
Ing less than the legal union Of with
for life. This union may have been influenced by mutual
love purely by notvesof ambition the law pronOunces
alike valid IN either case and admits its issues 10 ua
social advantage.
THUS marriage is purely social phenomenon 1t does
not mean the spiritual or invisible union OF two persons
but only their actual visible union. II does mean
the voluntary union of the parties er mutual consent
to live together durdne pceito but simply legal
cislly imposed, obligation live together GyaRte ri
man may live all his days IN perfect fidelity 20
man nay, more the parties may always exhibit relations
OF the most intimate amerty and yet would be
plete perversioD of the word call their
marriage For 1t essential TO marriage that have the
ratification Of society the civil magistrate that
merely voluntary however superior the parties
may be in point Of culture, has the slightest claim call IL
sell conJugal"
And then proceed to show its ground in the neces
sites Of society. show that the existence of society
il dependent upon the marriage institution because
the germ Of society is the family and the sole buwark
pf no tamil ia I sbot,
the fixed union Of one man with one woman for life,
there could be fixed or unitary paternity without
which, Of course, family unity.or existence would be
inconceivable. And then proceed to show that 40.
ciety derives its right to make the necessities Of it's
own existence obligatory upon its members from the
circumstance that a perfect society or fellowship
among men is the indispensable means to the evolu
tcn of human destiny prove in short, that society
derives its right to control the action of its members
from the very spendors Of their own destiny.
Now you simply convert this clear statement into
confused and customary Observer imbroglo, and then
about out, what naughty man is Mr.. James for deny
ing all this However one great step gained. You
now clearly admit that Marriage IL a social institution
deriving all its worth from the capital uses promotes
And admitting this it will be very difficult for you any
longer, without extreme wIlulness to misrepresent
my position with regard to the question of divorce
Let me fully define that position
have no personal interest in the question of d-
vorce. 1t is quite Indifferent to far my per-
sona relations involved what action society may
ever take in the promises | am not in the habit of
consulting any authority for my own conscience and
conduct, beyond the ideal of infinite goodness and
beauty enshrned in my soul and the souls Of all men
who freed from the bondage Of sensuality and
pefstition Thus obey the law which society itself
oheva md II ia for
into collision may be forced and then doubt
less, to resent the impertinence OF pretenous
clique political or ecclesiastical, which arrogatcs TO
itself the voice Of society, in order TO mack its
vicious dognatism But with the great brotherhood
and fellowship Of man which truly society,
have quarrel even for a moment. The law OF
that great brotherhood the law Of human unity, has
my deepest and tendercst reverence, and | think !
could willingly lavish my existence in its service.
the law of my daily life inviting and receiving purely
spontaneous obedience and therefore no more
violate any its precepts than violate the attrac
ton of grayation
What then is my interest in the question Of divorce
II is purely philosophic interest have ayailed my
self of the question of divorce as one of the current
political topics of the day. in order to test certain the
cries of government. in the course Of very consc
entous, and so far as my faculties allowed, very pro-
found study of the doctrine of Christ became per
suaded that many judgments and practices of my own
which sedulousy claimed the sanction Of his name
had never been truly begotten Of his spirit And when
came TO look up the ground Of these judgments and
practices and ask the reason of their being baptized
with the name of Christ while they maniiestly
destitute OF his spirit found myself referred to the
whole body Of political and ecclesiastical doctrine re-
ceyed in Chrstendom and the entire strain OF public
sentiment thence derived That is to say the only jus
tfcation could find for my nominally Christian yer
really anti Christian notions and practices was the ex-
ample and authority of Chrstendom, as that example
and authority arc exhibited nits institutions OF Church
and State Hence felt bound critically 10 canvass
these institutions and ascertain precisely wherein lay
the true discrepancy between the spirit which animated
them and that which animated the life and death OF
Jesus Christ
A search SO single and sincere could not long be I'M
fruitful accordingly soon discovered that the spirit
ual discrepancy in question arose out of quite dis
crepant ideas of the divine jurisdiction and character
The Pagan idea Of the divine jurisdction-the idea
which Jesus found operative in his own nation and
which be accordingly laid down his life to dispace-
imported that God was a finite power or will existing
outside humanity and therefore not merely conzant OF
its superficial divisions into nations tribes and families,
but sctually a party TO such divisions and interested
in giving one family or one nation supremacy over all
! others This conception had consequently begoten
in every nation vast body Of purely religious or cere-
mo,iia institutions addressed to the pscsting OF this
deity and the keeping his sympahies enlisted on their
side in every quarrel And these institutions pro,
posed so national aim, il was always dictate oil
goodcitizenshp to conform TO them. He who d'so-
beyed them he who refused to observe the feast and
the fass the sacrifices and cleansngs which the dread
of the gods had established protested himself indher
ent alike to the honor of Sod and man. and became
therefore unpstriouc and irreligious at the same
moment
Jesus manfully disavowed this Pagan conception
and steadfastly denied the spurious but naughty mo-
rnli,y which was based upon it. He denied tina, God