New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-05-04

II you really thlnk what yoa propose better than
Marriage, you ought 10 use distinct term to ex
press it, so as to 6ee it .be honor to which it is
fairly entitled. We. VINO stand for Marriage as
ChristeDdorI has fI.d the meaning of the word
protest r-ssinst your use of that honorcd term Ia
deslg' ssc totally different and by US detested
tb'@ Have we not clear right to do this do
ceja not equivOcate in saying you believe IN Mar
rage when you manifestly do not believe in what
the word Marriage has hitherto indicated--"hat
Christendom coined it and has always used II To
signify / see nothing in your letter herewith
given that even pretends to Justify your Palterins
with this important term.
ii. You entirely mistake in representing me as
asserting that your views are urged In the
interest, not of Marriage, but of lust never
assumed to judge your purposes unfavorably. The
language of my last was explicit on this point i
said:
that do not ateHd hat your nSuie1tion; should
is that unciyil, Have not a right to point out
what seem to me the evil tendencies OF novel and
sweeping theory And may not do so without
imputing evil purposes to lite author'
iii. You cite Stuart Mill and Humboldt as CIV
ing partial and qualified assent to your Easy
Divorce theory. Ny answer to this citation is that
for every two respectable authorities who have
Maned to your side of the question on which we
are at issue, can cite you two hundred-yes, two
| thousand-on the other side, as you very we'll
know. If there be any point on which the moral
lists, divines, phianthropists, philosophers and
statesmen of the civilized or Christian world are
agreed it is that Of the proprety and necessity of
treating Marriage as relation indissoluble but by
death, or in some cases) by the criminal violation
of the compact by either husband or wife, to the
prejudice of the other. | will make, however, but
one citation and that from an authority which, in
view of the parade you make of your devotion to
Christianity, as cOntrasted with my "feeble and
frigid Deism," ought to have some weight with
you. cite the fullest and cearest statement can
find of the teachings of Jesus Christ on this SUBJ
ject:
And the Pharsees came him and asked him. Is It lawful
for put away his wife, tempting him;
And he answered and said unto them What did Moses com
Aid they said Moses suffered write bill Of enforcement,
And Jesus answered said hem For the hardness of
your heart he wrote you this precep~
But from the beginning OF the creation God made them male
and female .,.u ,.v.hi. ,,bor ~, ,,o.hs, and
And they shall be flesh: so then they
What therefore God hath joined together let put
And in the house his disciples asked him again of The
matter . -, IT,.
and marry another, commi,teth adultery against her
to another, che coniplitteth adultery" lhafk L 2-l%
of course, you can twist this so as to make it
say just the opposite Of what it has always been
and still is understood to mean by all Christendom
but yourself-what every Church within my
knowledge to-day regards as it smeaning-fOr after
the outrage you have committed on the word Mar
rage, no language is safe from perverson in your
hands-but rest in the plain, literal sense of the
passage, and maintain if Christ did not mean to
condemn even the Mosaic facility of Divorce--aud
with that all Divorce whatever, except for the
crime of adutery-he can have meant nothing
whatever.
~ think might safely rest on the authority
of Jesus Christ alone against that of Humboldt,
Stuart Mill and Henry James together. But, as
there are some who do not accept any authority gu
such questions, add for their sake that theories
and hypothesis are out of place or out Of date in
the premises since this matter has been subjected
to the test of actual experiment and the verdict of
History is recorded. Gibbon, bachelor, an Inf
del, and no Puritan, tells us that Freedom of Di-
vorce Slapped and ate out the life of Imperial Rome
when at the summit of her power and glory. The
Oriental and the Barbarian world, with limited and
temporary exceptions, has always been cursed with
Freedom of Divorce ChrstendOm and Civiliza-
ton alone oppose steady front to the roaring tide
of animal appetite which always did and always
will call for liberty to PIT away an old wife with
whom that appetite is stated in order to take
young and fresh one Recur to any age wherein
Barbarism and Corruption have gained upon their
natural antagonists, and investigation will prove
that Liberty of Divorce was then prevalent; point
to any part of the earths surface of which moral
and social darkness now holds possession, or on
which it is now gaining and you will find Freedom
of Divorce there paramount. If the spirit of evil
has one agency more effective than any or all
others. it is just this Liberty of Divorce.
V. You say that the logic of Social Reforn-its
" animating sprit'-requires or involves Freedom
of Divorce To which i reply that the cause of
Social Reform has been blighted by the Internal
mildew of Free Love" When the public mind
had, through patient efforts and heavy sacrifices,
been slowly prepared for experiments which should
test fairly and fully the practcabiGty of Industrial
and Household Association, this unclean spirit of
Free Love was evoked by the enemies Of the
cause; and in spite of the disclaimers and protests
of the Associstonists, it had power TO scatter and
destroy them. Since then, it has gone up and
doxxn the earth seeking NhOm III mi ght deyOur