Litchfield enquirer., 1870-05-05

on an imperfect examination of Scripture. Tn Christi time. the husband might put iapay one wife and marry another. on the . saost frisolous, grounds. He rebuked such lazisy and snch iajussice in fitting terms. At that time. too-when the sggrieyed par; 3ty 5gas the judge in his own case he men tious adnltsry1as the single cause which would justify divorce. That this. excep- tion was intended to apply only to the pe- euliar legislation of Judea, and that it was, indeed, a sole instance rather than 2 sole exception, is proved by the fact that St. Paul, as construed by the best Protest, ant authorities, allows remarriage in cer- tain cases of desertion q Cor. VII, 15); and from the fact that it occurs in St. Matthew only, although the general rule without the exception is given in Mark k, 2-12). Luke (xv1, 16-10 and Romans lvH, ?. In endesvoring to meet this latter difficulty, President Woolsey, in his articles on di- .vorce, makes the following remarkable ad-. mission: h5a (s.s--a 84Z q
 ss sThe two Evangelists and the Apostle regard in silence. This they might well do, if the ex- ception related to so great crime as adultery. which of itself actually caused the married paIr to be no longer one flesh, which violated the idea of marriage.n ssraS t4 st.-rt
 We doubt whether ".these exceptions as matter of course" can be better or more fairly expressed than in the much abused general clause of our divorce law" such misconduct as permanently destroys the happiness of the petitioner, and perma- nently defeats the purposes of the mar riage relation" While it would evident. ly be unsafe to allow the husband to put away the wife, except for some such gross crime as adultery, it is equally evident that that is by no means the only misconduct ''that actually causes the married pair to be no longer one fesh." And now that we have christian courts to decide fairly between the parties, it would be absurd to say that a restriction which was eminently proper under the Jewish law, should prevent the completer justice offered by better system of jurisprudence.
 To say the least, the strict construction which would allow full divorce but for 8 single cause, is based on doubtful inter pretation of Scripture. When %e come to that evasion of what the strict construc- tionists deem the divine law, called di- vorce c nsensa, we are at loss to see how it accOrds either with common sense or their own interpretation of that law. It cer- tainly "puts asdnder" those whom God hath joined together" as completely as even the divorce vinculo. It is simply an unworthy "dodge," invented by the Romish church and copied by minimizing Protestants, who forgot that in repudia- ting the Romish claim that marriage is @ sacrament, they had rejected the sole ex- cuse for system of partial divorces. Of the evil practical workings of such a sys- tenn, there would seem to be no reasonable doubt. If other examples were needed in addition to those given by MT. Bishop, they are unfortunately ready to hand. A writer in late Galary sets down George Sand and George Elliott as the greatest fe- male writers of all time; that the mar riage laws of their respective countries have been too rigid for their observance, is also very we'll known. Without excus. ing their conduct, it certainly indicates a state of morals far more objectionable than the much lamented laxity of Connecticut. The statistics of illegitimate births in Flu ropean countries, averaging over seven per cent. of the whole number, and reaching over twenty per cent. in Catholic Bavaria, also compare very unfavorably with the ore per cent. of our "land of steady hab- its."
 What we chiefly object to is the attempt of the strict constructionists to force their doubtful interpretations of Scripture on oth. CTS; making their consciences rule for those of a different opinion. without necessity
 For. as MT. Bishop well says, no one is obliged to use law he deems unscriptu- ,ral Even should the christian of stricter views who has beaten his wife, or become an habitual drukard, or in some other way rendered her married life intolerable, find himself divorced, he is not obliged to re- marry. Probably he would not feel at lib- erty to do so, unless he had also been sr,,;lfv of odu1tarv
 Another provision which the gentlemen
 who propose to reform the morals of Con- necticut, have copied from the State of
 Sickles, of Cole, and of Mcfarland, is
 that which forbids the remarriage of the
 party in fault, where full divorce is grant. cd. That adultery is crime is an obvious fact, half-recognized in Connecticut by punishing the guilty wife, but ignored in
 New York, e9cept in this provision deny ing remarfiage. Granting the necessity
 and propriety of punishment in some
 form, is this latter style of penalty judi
 dicious one? It does not seem so to us
 Where passion, implanted in all for
 good purpose, proves too strong for con
 trol in given case, is not the prohibition
 of remarriage most unwisely calculated tt