New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-03-12

Iied people living throughout the Usied ates
The state Of thugs prevails in AL Protestant
countries. Only in those whh ach DoweSge tbs Pope
as their religious head marriage an ndissolu5e sscra
merit la it your opinion that Catholics only really
married
But tbis 10 mere ipetem Of the difficulties which
inhere in your proposition. Moses Of whom we are
told deuteronomy W. 81 that God said to him: Stand
thou here by me, and viii speak unto thse all the
commandments, and the statutes and tina judgments
which thou sbslt teach my people promulgated 70 the
Jsws law of divorce. Our divorce Law in Indiana
must be, in your eyes, moral statute, COMPARED
to that of the Jewish lswgiver FOR the latter provided
When a man hath taken wife and married her, and
it come to pas that she find favor in his eyes, then
LET him write her bill of enforcement and give it in
Der hand, and send her out of his house. And when
she is departed out of his house. che may go and be an
other mans wife" deuteronomy XIV, H. This,
unless you deny the record you must admit TO be Gods
own law. II first declared according 70 the usual
chronology about $50 years before the Christian era
It remained unchanged till Cbrsts day. Joseph and
Msry were married under 1t; and the former when he
doubted Marys fidelity was minded to put her away
privily." For fourteen centuries and half, then,
Gods chosen people, living under Hislaw, had accord
tnctve name the "banting deserves leave to yeur
Judgment We have been accustomed to regard it "a
"old fashioned marriage" 1t is certain, however
that the contract under sueh law, was; 81 viii be
your husband ust as long you find favor in NY eyes;
and az as you cease to do so, you shall have
bin of enforcement and be out of my house. Then
you may marry whom You please"
Jesus tells us that this law was given "because Of
express it, became of the low grade of morality then
exiting in Judea. Nevertheless if it really be Gods
own law how can you allege that it is wrong in sef?
But if be not wrong, then divorce even OF the east
est attainment must in certain state Of sOcety, be
right. And hence results another important prncplei
namely that there is absolute right wrong about
this of divorce but that it may properly vary
in its details at different stages of civilization 1t is
certain that under the Divine Economy our modern
sense of propiety and morality has been developed
that we should tolerate the Jewish statute giving
uncontrolled license to the husband but right Of
lief whatever to the wife.
jesus, dscarding the old law, is stated 70 have pro-
posed as you remind us the people of his day sub
stitute where there was but single for DIVORCE
the same recognized by the New-York statute. But
his idea of coDjUgal inhdety not that entertained
morality be heart. In his pure eyes, the thought
and the actvwers OF equal erimnality. His words
were, "Whosoever looketo on a woman to lust after
cher hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart" Matthew, ", %. The fair inference seems
to be- that the proper for divorce is not the
physical act Of ipdety but that adultery of the heart
which Quencbes coniuga love- thus destroying that
which, far more Justly than your cohsbtadon till
death, may be regarded as "the very essence Of
marriage"
do moi allege that JesussO ,nneced his two teach
iDg-tba regarding divorce and that defining adultery
that the jews Of his day, grossmiuded they were
might detect the connection aud perceive its inference.
If the Hebrews, in Moses's time, 50 STEPPED in
barbarisn that nothing better than the b-ofdvorce-
ment privilege was suitable for them, may readily
imagine that even af or fourteen centuries had elapsed
euough of the hardness of heart would remain 30 Justify
a law in advance Of the other indeed, but still only
adapted 70 o hard, material race race who had not
learned that the letter kileh but the spirit gveth fe
race Who cannot be supposed 10 have been capable of
approaching, hardly Of comprehsndiDg, morality OF
standard exalted, that the thought is brought TO
Judgment though the deed disclose it not.
] viii 90 further and admit, that if the words o
Jesus, in the text quoted by yOu have down to
the men Of r day pu. upon them beet adapted to
their social status the literally material Interpretation
which seems TO have suggested itself to the trainers OF
the New York Divorce law. Jesus was not one who
urged reform, az some modern innovators do, rashy
or pIematurely. Prudence OF his distinguish
ing characteristics He said not all that in itself
true and proper to be said at tine, but only all
the tuhs which the people to whom he addressed him
self were prepared TO receive. That he kept back
part we have hiI own words to prove: 81 have yet
many things say unto you, butye cannot bear them
now: howbet, when He, the Spirit of Truth is
come, he will guide you into all truth"-John,
xvi, Il, 10.
Yet even If your lawmakers but received the same
impression that produced on the jews by Jesuss
words it By no means follows that s the adapted
to our wants and progress IL by no means follows,
that arc should not look beyond the dead letter TO the
living spirit. If the divorce law promulgated from
Mount Sinai was no longer adapted TO q world grown
fifteen hundred Year, older, we TO suppose that
eighteen hundred years more, passed away, have
brought with thea need for another advance and
more enlightened Interpretation
Thus think have shown you:
First That it will not do to warn us who think
divorce moraElng engine, poachars of your sef-
eDfeoed premises; or TO bid US seek name other
than marriage wherewh TO designate our legal unions
Tie Bible tells us that the ancestors of Christ were
really married and heard tins dsnied, TIL your
doctrine denied it.
Second Thai, according 10 the Old Testament, easy
divorce expressly permitted three thousand years
ago, by the Deity himself
2H,rd That divorce lava may properly vary, III