Year: 1871

n
I or impossible for the parties TO liv,
together, as in case of intolerable il


temper or adultery in either of tn
parties.


l For the canon law, which tho com


mon law follows in this case, deem
SO highly and with such mysteriou
reverence of the nuptial tie that
will not allow it to be unlooscd 70
any cause whateverlthat arises aftc
) the union is made.


And this is said to be built Oh tn
, divine revealed law, though that cx
pressly assigns incontinence as
cause, and indeed the only cause
why a man may put away his wifi
and marry another.


With us in England, adultery


only cause Of separation from he,
and board, for which the best casol
that can be given is, that if divorce


were allowed to depend upon mat
ter within the power of either of tn
parties, they would probably be ex


tremely frequent.


! Roman philosophers, poets and sa


tirists held up to public scorn ant
indignation the wanton and extrem,


abuse of the liberty Of divorce"
| Chancellor Kent, who has jus


passed from our immediate midst


gays: 1--WE meet with great variet,


of practice and opinion on this sub
ject in this country and in Europe


and among the ancient and moderr


nations, but the stronger authority
and the better policy are in favor ol
the stability of the marriage union.


Every lawyer in the land has been
taught not only that the Bible is law
but that it is the source Of law; it i:
found in every complete law library
as part thereof and the standard
work therein.


Upon the table of every official in
the States authorized or required to
administer oaths it is found, by the
law the most honorable and honored
is not permitted to testify for or
against the most humble or unworthy,
except he appeal to God as witness to
the truth of his testimony, this appeal
being made to the rewarder of truth
and avenger of falsehoOd, as he is
known through the recognized truth
and authorship of the Bible.


The officers of all the courts, the
members of the bar, in short, every
officer in the land from lowest to
highest, is required to take an oath,
upon the faith of his belief in the
truth of the Scriptures, to faithfully
discharge the duty of his office.


The law discredits the infidcl. All
these things are so because the Bible
is the supreme law, locking to the re-
ward or punishment of its observers
or violators beyond the capacity and
ingenuity of man to cOntrive or estab-
lish. Thus we acknowledge it as the
foundation of all law, which must be
consistent with aud conform to it,
otherwise it is not law.


Unless this is so, the swearing of
witnesses and others on the Bible or
upon the faith of their belief in its
truth, is solemn mockery, and it
would be far more consistent to
swear them on the Code or some
standard criminal law book defining
the offence and punishment of per-,
jury.


In this authority, from which every
well defined right of person and
property is derived, we, find Mat
thew, ch. 10, verses ; to 10 inclusive,
the law of divorce stated in these
words, by our Savior:


"The Pharisees also came unto
him, tempting him and saying unto
him, Is it lawful for man to put
away his wife for every cause?


And he answered and said unto
them, Have yc not read that he which
made them at the beginning, made
them male and female?


And said, for this cause shall man
leave father and mother and cleave
to his wife /; and they twain shall be
one flesh.


Wherefore, they are no more twain,
but one flesh. What, therefore, God
hath joined together, let no man put
asunder.


They say unto him, Why did Moses
then command to give a writing of
divorcemept, and to put her away?


He saith unto them, Moses because
of the hardness of your hearts, suf-
fered you to put away your wives,
but from the beginning it was not
SO.


And l say unto you whOsOever
shall put away his wife, except it be
for fornication, and shall marry an
other, committeth adultery and who
so marrieth her which is put
away doth commit adultery"


Now l must elect between a statu-
tory regulation demoralizing in its
every influence and tendency, en-
couraging system of kin to free
lovism, and an express divine law.
l do not hesitate to disregard the
one and observe the other, adopting
the language of Blackstone, booF L,
p. AZ, as expressive of my conviction
of the obligation of the law.
Upon these two foundations, the
law of nature and the law of revela-
ton, depend all human laws. that is
| to say, no human laws should be suf-
fered to contradict these. There are,
it is true, a great number of indifler-
ent points in which both the Divine
law and the natural law leave a man
at his own liberty, but which are
found necessary for the benefit of So
cicty, to be restrained within certain
| limits.


And herein it is that human laws
have their greatest force and eflicien-
cy, for with regard to such points as
arc not Indifferent human laws are
only declaratory of, and act in subor-
dination to the former.


To instance, in the case of murder
this is expl cssly forbidden by the Di-
vine, and demonstrably by the natu-
raj law, and from these prohibitions
arises the true unlawfulness of this
crime. Those human laws that annex
a punishment to it do not at all in.


crease its moral guilt or superadd
any fresh obligation in foro cOnscien


tia to abstain from its perpetratiOn
Nav, if the human law should allow


or cnioin us to commit it, Ue arr


bound to transgrcss that human la,c


or else zoe must offend both the natu


raj and Divine.


But with regard to matters that are
Indifferent in themselves and arc no
/ commanded or forbidden by these su
perior laws-such, for instrnce, as eX


porting wool into foreign countries
Here the inferior legislature has scope
and opportunity to interpOse and Il
make that action unlawful which be
fore was not.


Entertaining these views, l thinl