Page images
PDF
EPUB

condescension, and against which there is tary emotion of jealousy, envy, and avers

In all these opposite relations, whethe ventional, or pecuniary, the innate sensati of the heart, with all men, however refined rified by religion, is not for affinity but tion but distraction, not for union but concord but for discord, not to come to but to keep asunder and fall from each ot This great law of inherent uncongen pulsion, and selfish individuality, is palpak deniable.

It is demonstrated by all the works of c cause of all things down to the humblest the towering oak and the stunted bush, th row, the wolf and the lamb, the prince judge and the culprit, the master and the ledge and ignorance, strength and weaknes of intellect, and the crushing infirmity of

The legal philosophy of marriage is ve Judge Lewis, in 10 Penn. State Reports, as follows: "Marriage is a wise regulati nature and religion, and is the only effici centiousness; the happiness of the parties society require that it should be free fro restraint.

"Marriage is the appropriate regulation of nature which was designed by the Cre earth.

"It is upon this authorized union that depend for their prosperity in peace and "The principle of reproduction stands its elder correlative self-preservation, and mental law of existence.

"It is the blessing which tempered wi of expulsion from Paradise.

"It was impressed upon the human cre

dom are under an imperious necessity to obey its manda "From the lord of the forest to the monster of the deep the subtilty of the serpent to the innocence of the dove the celestial embrace of the mountain kalmia to the desc fructifications of the lily of the plain; all nature bows sively to this primeval law.

"Even the flowers which perfume the air with their fra and decorate the forest and field with their hues, are bu tains to the nuptial bed.'

"The principles of morality, the policy of nations, t trines of the common law, the law of nature, and the God, unite in condemning as void all obstructions to consummation."

AFTER MARRIAGE.

He who fails in one thing fails in all-Magnitude act do not change this rule-All sin alike, ex tract of marriage-No law of GOD or man can is dislike-Its security depends on the homogen -Pride, and fear of public opinion sometimes woman superior to man, his self-pride is affec Don't know each other till after married-The -Respect-And not contradict-Great change mestic life, care, &c.-Should be no exercise concession--If disaffinities are irreconcilable, to hold the other by force is brutal-No advanta either-Infidelity in love.

HE who faileth in one commandment, i as he who violates the whole law.

However this rule may not comport wit tributions, it is clear that the moral or t ficance or magnitude of contracts does not the strength of the reason for or against th

Strong inducements are offered, and sev posed for the inviolability of important du punishment for certain crimes, and the inc of marriage with the ordinances of the chu

But it is difficult to define how one brea inexcusable than another, except by its quences.

A man in his own heart, at the bar of h he has one, can find no better excuse for t berate failure to pay a debt of one dollar dollars-to forge a check for ten dollars tha lars to desert his master before his app his child while helpless, than to break the tion for allegiance with which he took li marriage.

respect are they differently placed.

There is no religious sanction, no terror from public op or legal punishment that has any real secret influence; if are dissatisfied, they may be influenced by pride, cupidi cowardice; their vanity, self-interest, and fear may induce to bend their necks; but if, in their hearts, there is secre like, they will detest the yoke.

Perhaps there are instances in which concurring wants mutual apathies allow neutrality of sentiment between ther all such cases, if temper is controlled and true interest is sulted, harmony must follow.

This must be seldom; for rational beings are govern some measure, by sentiment, not wholly by instinct; so t is a question of will, not duty-of fact, not right.

They do, or they do not love; they do, or they do not each other; or one loves, and the other hates.

Mere indifference is so rare as to almost make it an e tion to the rule, that in marriage there is love or hatred; is, that there is no medium between these two extremes tie is too close, the conjunctions of mental and physical ties too exact and distinct to rest in harmony without co rent sensibilities, and against discordant preferences, ho unintelligible or inexplicable this fact may be.

There is, therefore, no sense of duty, or dread of punish that can create love or mutual assimilation; these are im of the heart, governed exclusively by the natural taste o choice; and in this we are not answerable; for they are luntary, however capricious they may appear to others.

So that, if it was not for the mysterious homogeneal ch ter of the sexes, there would be but limited marital faith; to this axiom, in physical and mental physiology, must signed the marvelous simulations of married life; for rel law, and duty give them no secret help, when there is a s dislike or natural aversion from any cause.

Pride, and the fear of public opinion, keep thousands ther. The repugnance, whether mutual, or with one, is discovered; they cannot disguise aversion: if it is with self-interest avoids and prevents violence from either; if

by the wife and the bushend loves her his agony is unu

parties will submit to severe discomforts ra horrors of an open rupture.

It is a perplexing question, which suffer discover that their marriage has been had or gain, or their nuptial intimacy discloses delinquencies, the result to both is terrib follow; delicacy may revolt at literal expla rebuked and charged with fraud or infide secret persecutions and threats of prosecuti

Few men have sufficient courage to bra unjust and ungenerous world, who take m selves in a gossip gratis for injured wive bands.

To the wife the calamity is not so sever severities of popular odium, which always band's head, even though she is wholly in

When, from any cause, these lamentable parties owe to each other a solemn duty fo divorce.

The refusal by either of this obvious act malignant treachery.

By this means they may have a chance f time and new relations in life, as if one E past recollections; but, without release, the secret sorrow and public disgrace.

If there is reciprocal confidence with m other's constancy, still there may not be a their respective discretion and judgment although there is mutual love.

The old and the young, the ignorant and and the weak intellect, may hold most warn attachments; but these mental differences above the other.

If the superiority is with the woman, the man for “rule” is nettled, even if the soum wife most carefully eschews every possible

ment.

« PreviousContinue »