Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1870-02-22
President Fairchild on Divorce.

Oar read ers will be interested TO
see the terse and luminous conclus-
ions of such a careful thinker as
President Fairchild alongside the
misty and mischieyous teaching of
the sentimentalists who would make
divorce easy and marriage a conven-
fence. We quote from his moral
Philosophy"
That the marriage union must be
for life, is clear from the work which
comes upon the family-the training
of children, and the care of depend
ent parents The contemplation of
dissolution of the union, would de-
stroy the confidence necessary for
the undertaking; while the actual
dissolution would Illustrate the work,
and throw great burdens upon the
community. Thus the community
becomes party in the interest, and
has the right to prescribe the per-
manency OF marriage, and hold the
parties TO union. This relation to
society renders marriage, in the ma
ture Of the case, an institution, as
distinguished from a simple con-
tract. But permanency is, if posi-
BILE, more essential to the immediate
interests of the family, than as
protection TO the community. The
idea of dissolution of the family,
sets aside all that is most sacred in
the family relations, and most pre-
cious in its benefits and blessings
The very thought of such dissolu-
ton, is to be excluded by every pos
sible influence and arrangement
The settled fact that tho dissolution
is impossible, will have much TO do
in ruling out what might otherwise
become occasions for it. There is
true philosophy, as well as simplici-
ty, in the remark of a husband to
his wife: my dear, it is Of no use
for US to quarrel, because we shall
have to make up again" 1t is some
times accounted an offensive thing,
that the permanency of marriage
should be made to depend upon any
outside constraint. But the con-
straint operates to secure the intern
al conditions out of which the per-
manency grows as natural result.
The necessity is not consciously felt,
in most of the cases in which it may
still have operated as q wholesome
and potent force.
A fair Interpretation Of the Saw
or's teaching on this subject, seems
to convey the doctrine that release
from the obligations of marriage
can be morally justified only on the
ground of adultery crime which,
in its very nature. involves rupture
of the marriage tic, and disorgan-
iZes the family. For this cause
sionc, can either party, properly,
put away the other. Against this
Scripture view, human reason can
bring no satisfactory argument
Perhaps this absolute principal would
never have been reached in the con-
victions OF men without such rev.
citation, but the wisdom of it is iusti-
fed in the light of the revelation.
1t is often maintained that willful
and continued desertion is moral
ground Of release from the Obligations
Of marriage, and many Protestant
ecclesiastical courts so decide. But
who can decide how long the way
should be left opeL for repentance
and return, and at what point the
marriage obligation morally termi-
mates? 1t is not an uncommon oc-
currence that assertions, supposed to
be permanent at the outset, and so
intended, come to a speedy end; and
the general recognition of the fact,
that the marriage obligation still sur
wives, and is acknowledged, even by
the party that has suffered the wrong
will strongly tend to recall the de-
serter.
The still looser view, maintained
by Milton and others, end gaining
greater currency in our day, that uH-
fortunate marriages, involving in
compatibility of the tempter, should
be Dissolved, is demoralizing and dan
gerous. The contemplation of sep
GRAFTON as possible, will tend to fos-
ter the very lncompatibilities which
the separation proposes to remedy.
1t could only be disastrous to have
marriage regarded as an experiment,
the pormanency of it to be decided
in each case by the experience of the
parties. Under such view, mar
riages would be arranged with little
consideration. and "a easily dissolved.
We cannot afford to lose the moral
power which comes from the perma-
Money of the marriage obligation, to
relieve the few who find themselves
unfortunately allied. Facility of di-
vorce cannot fail to multiply the oc-
casions for divorce.
There are cases in which a formal
separation may be provided for, not
releasing the parties from all obliga-
ton to each other, or giving them
| liberty TO form new marriages. 1t
cannot be that a woman is required
to live with husband maddened by
intoxication, or malice, or jealousy,
to the peril of her life. But it does
not follow that she may put him
away irrevocably, and close the door
forever against repentance and res
tOration. An unfortunate marriage
is dire calamity, but facility of di-
vorce is not the remedy for such mis-
foI tunes.
aGs.rlhn .nrcSa.at NH, 4o.. Lac honrn