Litchfield enquirer., 1870-05-05
DIVORCE

ence renews the attack on our Divorce
law, which the clergy of all, or nearly all.
our religious denominations in the State,
united in making before our last legisla-
ture. Inaamueh as the denial of remar-
riage. in all cases except for adultery, is
made prominent feature of this move
ment. and was engrafted into the bill
which was presented to the last Legislature
and continued to the present one, we
think it important to, give the opinion of
MIR. Bishop, in his work on Marriage and
Divorce, regarding the proposed restris-
ton. In the first place, Mr.. Bishop says,
regarding the Interpretation usually put
Scripture, in this respect, by the best
Protestant authorities:-
| Indeed, it is not generally, though some
times, questioned among Professionals, that
dissolntions Of marriage for absolute and
total desertion, are expressly sanctioned in
the New Testament. Il Cor. VII, Is. The
Scotch statute, authorizing divorce for de-
sertion, protested in its preamble to be
declaratory of the law as it always had
been held since the Reformation; and,
though there is doubt whether this view of
the previous law is correct, still, beyond
Iligious opinion always prevalent in Prot
estant Scotland. Vol l., Sec. 26.
Regarding the divorce from bed and
board Ia naensa a hsoro) Mr.. Bishop says:
This proceeding, having. at least, no di-
rect authority in Scripture; characterized
by Lord Stowell as casting out the parties:
sin the underlined and dangerous chatac.
tiers of wife without husband, and o
husband witho ut wife," by Judge Swift,
as. placing them in" asituation where there
is an irresistible temptation to the commits
sion Of adultery, unless they possess more
frigidity or more virtue than usually falls
to the share OF human beings" by Mr..
Bancroft, as "punishing the innocent
more than the guilty." by late English
writer, as "a sort of insult, rather than
satisfaction to any man of ordinary feel
ings and understanding;"-may be deemed
the most co1rupting deuice eper imposed By Sc
rioas natures on blind and plant consmuni-
tv. 1t could never have been tolerated for
moment, but for the idea having entered
men q minds as part Of their religion,
that marriage could not be dissolved with.
out committing an offence against God:
from which point the slope was easy to-
ward any compromise with good sense:
and as the fruit OF compromise, zoe haze
this III bego!en monster Of divorce mensa ct
moro, MADE up of pious doctrine and acorldly
stuptdny The Protestant Bishop Cozens
long ago remarked to Protestant English
misunderstanding here the point against
lCatholics to meet fully al Protestant pre-
Ejudlces: "The distinction between bed
and board, and the bond Eallowing remar.
rlageI Is new, never mentioned in Scrip.
ture, and unknown to the ancient church;
devised only by the canonists and school
men in the Latin church (for the Greek
church knows it not), to serve the Pope's
turn the better, till he got it established in
the Council of Trent; at which time, and
never before. he laid his anathema upon
all them that were Of another mind; for
bidding all men to marry, and not to make
any use OF Christ's concession" Yet in
the face, not only of this testimony, but
also OF every other man who is not swayed
in his opinion, by some matter of pure re-
llgious belief. Protestant England, and
more than half the States of this country
where the tenets of no particular religious
sect pervade our legislation, this divorce
from bed and board, this nuisance in the law,
is suffered to stand unquestioned. Sec. 20.
| O&' 40 SsA4 6U0 0t8b3S uGH arc al l1OGClY
to worship God in the way indicated by
burden placed upon any people of support
ing form of religion not approved by
their own minds. Therefore the tenets OF
sect, whether it be the Roman Catholic,
the English church, or any church of dis
senters, cannot properly be put forward to
govern this legislative upon divorce in any of
our States. II the voice of Christendom
were distinct and united on this subject,
as it is on the subject of whether man
may have more wives than one at the same
time, tuat voice would undoubtedly be lis
tened to, and followed by every legislative
assembly. Yet We have seen, that differ
cut religious men and bodies of men have
their different views of the Scripture teach
ing; therefore, the legislatures Of this
country must act upon this subject 10 re-
spect solely to the political and social
bearings of it, not at all in respect to its
religious bearings. And if they establish
laws permitting divorce. they do not there
by injure, even ia the Utmost conscience
those who deem marriage a religious and
indissoluble tie. Such persons are under
no compulsion to use the divorce laws, by
appearing as plaintiffs in divorce suits;
and ii they are made defendants, having
s4Olnvou t4c4L MaJTlmOQlH1 Qut1eS CLVl4Iy,
they cannot complain of being cut off from
their matrimonial rights civiliy; while still
permitted to retain the seal Of the sacra-
me1t pure aud undefed in their con-
ciences, and not be compelled to marry
again.
s33. Looking. then, at this legislative
question, we are led into the following
course Of observations: Matrimony is u
natural right. and. being such, it eau only
be forfeited by some wrongful act. There
fore, the government is under obligation
to permit every person of mature years to
be the husband or wife of another, who
viii substantially perform the duties re.
quired in the matrimonial relation; and,
when the relation is in good faith entered
into. and one of the parties, without the
others fault, so far fails in those duties as
practically to Illustrate its ends, the gov
eminent should provide some means
whereby, the failure beng judicially estab-
lished and shown to be permanent, the
innocent party may be free from the mat
rimonial tie, and left at liberty to form an
other alliance. The guilty party, in such
case, would have no claim to be protected
in second marriage; aud whether he
should be permitted to marry or not, is not
a matter of right with him, but of public
fexDediencv upOn which there il conSide-