New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-01
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

To
I understood from you lat your concluding letter
would be that 70 which last replied; but, since you
have deemed it necessary to write again, necessarily
vet willingly reoin. Az before, shall confne myseli
strictly to the points made in your last.
I. You seem TO complain that consider my side Of
tina oueston at issue the side Of Morality and Right.
But if did not, why should so earnestly uphold ~
Do complain of your holding your own side in similar
reeard1 Assuredy, cannot change my CONVICTIONS
snd should not be required TO conceal them. indeed
sipce you admit that my conviction is grounded IN
" besettng weakness Of our nature" you, surely
cannot regard 1t with surprise, any more than can
deem il reason for closing difcussioni though
have at all times .irce you began been willing 70
close It.
H. Yen think the difference between rs to DO amply
this: allow Divorce for single canse, Aduteryi j
you for scyersl causes and you would thus reduce II
from a question Of principle TO ono OF details But
you eaInot deny that my one ground OF divorce that
expressly affirmed to be such by Jesus Christ - the
exclusion and negaon Of all Others Nor can you fail
TO ere that IT, "a hold the paramount mot sole Dr.
vine end Of Marriage Parenage or the perpetuaton
and increase under st auspices, Of the Human Race
then that crime which vtstes and confusss parensge
NAV LOGICALLY be deemed the sole sufficient reason for
apnulling a marriage. To my mind, therefore, our
difference Is clearly and emphaieay Of principle
do not hold that even Adultery jusfss the dissou-
ton Of marriage 30 far as the cupabe party Is con-
cerned 1t simply authorizes, but by no means requires
the faithful exemplary husband or wife to procure
legal adjudication and declaration of the fact that this
marriage has, solely through the ihfdely OF the adal-
terer been dissolved far only as 1t imposes duties
or obligations on the wropeed and innocent party.
III. As to what constitutes Marriags-what Mar
rsae isl have quoted the standard photographers OF
our lsnsuege--who unanimously, unhestatngly, pro-
neunce i. unicn and consecraion OF one man to one
oman for life, and deny the to all other unions
Your quarrel on this point not with me- but vii the
dictionaries Is well as with the Christian Church
have made no new definitions; have simply insisted
that these which have stood unchaenged hitherto shall
be recognized and respected. Not by me primarily
but by Jetus of Nazareth, and, following Him, by
Noah Webster and DR. Worcester, have the definitions
rest en- been set forth. they truly define the term
then the mutual promias Of man and woman TO hve
together until one Of them shall have proved cot,
ternagant, a rufsp, or beast, is not marriage. Ii
you insist that the authorities quote mistake or mis-
state the true meaning and force Of the term why do
you lot quote photographers who favor your render
ing7 Is it not clear that would have done SO, had
there been aDyl And if there be none, how can you
complain of for insisting that the word irrage
shall be held to that and that only which our
star dard dictionaries cay il does miami
w. And this disposes of your talk Of Horace
Greeley" saying this or that, in opposition to your
views. II any part Of what have urged rests on tho
naked dctum of Horace Greeley, it is Of course Of
little moments but if 1t is correctly based on the ex
pct teachings Of Jesus Christ, the unbroksn trad
ton and nearly universal affirmation of the Christian
Church, on the lessons Of Profane History tsee Glib
bon the definitions Of standard photographers, and
the ooneurrng judgment of vast majority Of the wise
and good, why then, you see the case is brayely a.
tered and the fact that reatrm what all these have
constantly asserted does not necessarily render i; u
significant or subject it to ridiculs.
v. You dwell on the fact that the codes of Indiana
Spd OF other States permit divorce for other
ban adultery, as though this proved the people Of
hese States unmarried according to my understanding
of the term. But have already urged the fact that
In those States elsewhere Christian marriage s
qusiieely union for life, and that most of those who
mary there ale married by clergynen in strict and
open accordance with the Chri,tisn law. You know,
as well d. that divorce followed by another mar
Rage rarely fails to cover with odium the parties In
yolvei in it, or at least scme Of them. You may not
know, however, as do, that in repeated instances,
persons divorced under the State laws you glory in
ard otherwise married, have been accommodated
therefor by Protestant churches, cergymen bsing Ell
fenced for the same cause. That no Catholic would
even dream of contracting sdch second marriage, no
mater in what State under Whatever permission Of
the secular authority You Of fully understand
must protest, thep against your inference, from the
fact that the laws OF certain States allow divorce on
various grounds, that their people in verify gen.
orally educated and married. and afterward i've under
the law as you would have it. The "bigher law" is
their safeguard.
VI. ara su,pissd that you could 80 mistake my
application Of the judges remark that ne punished the
boisetbie not for stealing horse but that horses
may not be stolen. My idea was and isthat Marriage
is 2htiuy AIDE indssouble, IN order that unit and
Harcai marriages may not be contracted. Say that
legsl marriage may be nulliGed merely because the
parties find or fancy Themselves unsuited to each other
or unhappy in their union, and defy you to guard
against co called marriages whereof the impulse Is
mere appetite, or worldly convenience. Such unions
in fac. are made and will be made, under whatever
laws. But ters Of thousands of Iibertnes, lechers
cyclists, who would take new wife at least every
Chxtmas, if they could legally and reputably rid
thems elves in of the old one are appalled, and
deferred by the stern exaoton of solemn promise TO
fulfill all the obligations Of husband and wife still
DE- a.h Go part. We cannot even thus be sure that
all EOita utiors will be genuine marriages; but l
know no Other tcuchstone which that +" intangible
" somethr called Society can apply half go search
ing az tbs.
VII. As to whatever discrepancy may exist between
the teachir gs of Moses and Jesus respectively re.
gaidpg tiyoree they present no difficulty to my mind.