                        33 page printout

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

                          ****     ****

          This file, its printout, or copies of either
          are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.

          Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201

                The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

                          ****    ****

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

                              1889

        By Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter, and
                  Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll.
                            ________

     The attention of the public has been particularly directed of
late to the abuses of divorce, and to the facilities afforded by
the complexities of American law, and by the looseness of its
administration, for the disruption of family ties, Therefore the
North American Review has opened its pages for the thorough
discussion of the subject in its moral, social, and religious
aspects, and some of the moat eminent leaders of modern thought
have contributed their opinions. The Rev. S. W. Dike, LL.B., who is
a specialist on the subject of divorce, has prepared some
statistics touching the matter, and, with the assistance of Bishop
Potter, the four following questions have been formulated as a
basis for the discussion:

     1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any
circumstances?

     2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any
circumstances?

     3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the
family?

     4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where it exists
contribute to the moral purity of society?

                               Editor North American Review.

           INTRODUCTION by the Rev. S.W. Dike, LL.D.

     I am to introduce this discussion with some facts and make a
few suggestions upon them. In the dozen years of my work at this
problem I have steadily insisted upon a broad basis of fact as the
only foundation of sound opinion. We now have a great statistical
advance in the report of the Department of labor, A few of these
statistics will serve the present purpose.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                1

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     There were in the United States 9,937 divorces reported for
the year 1867 and 25,535 for 1886 or a total 328,716 in the twenty 
years. This increase is more than twice as great as the population,
and has been remarkably uniform throughout the period. With the
exception of New York, perhaps Delaware, and the three or four
States where special legislative reforms have been secured, the
increase covers the country and has been more than twice the gain
in population. The South apparently left the movement later than
the North and West, but its greater rapidity there will apparently
soon obliterate most existing differences. The movement is well-
nigh as universal in Europe as here. Thirteen European countries,
including Canada, had 6,540 divorces in 1876 and 10,909 in 1886 --
an increase of 67 per cent. In the same period the increase with us
was 72.5 per cent. But the ratios of divorce to population are here
generally three or four times greater than in Europe. The ratios to
marriage in the United States are sometimes as high as 1 to 10, 1
to 9, or even a little more for single years. In heathen Japan for
three years they were more than 1 to 3. But divorce there is almost
wholly left to the regulation of the family, and practically
optional with the parties. It is a retransferrence of the wife by
a simple writing to her own family.

     1. The increase of divorce is one of several evils affecting
the family. Among these are hasty or ill-considered marriages, the
decline of marriage and the decrease of children, -- too generally
among classes pecuniarily best able to maintain domestic life, --
the probable increase in some directions of marital infidelity and
sexual vice, and last, but not least, a tendency to reduce the
family to a minimum of force in the life of society. All these
evils should be studied and treated in their relations to each
other. Carefully-conducted investigations alone can establish these
latter statements beyond dispute, although there can be little
doubt of their general correctness as here carefully made. And the
conclusion is forced upon us that the toleration of the increase of
divorce, touching as it does the vital bond of the family, is so
far forth a confession of our western civilization that it despairs
of all remedies for ills of the family, and is becoming willing, in
great degree, to look away from all true remedies to a dissolution
of the family by the courts in all serious cases. If this were our
settled purpose, it would look like giving up the idea of producing
and protecting a family increasingly capable of enduring to the end
of its natural existence. If the drift of things on this subject
during the present century may be taken as prophetic, our
civilization moves in an opposite direction in its treatment of the
family from its course with the individual.

     2. Divorce, including these other evils related to the family,
is preeminently a social problem. It should therefore be reached by
all the forces of our great social institutions -- religious,
educational, industrial, and political. Each of these should be
brought to bear on it proportionately and in cooperation with the
others. But I can here take up only one or two lines for further
suggestion.

     3. The causes of divorces, like those of most social evils,
are often many and intricate. The statistics for this country, when
the forty-three various statutory causes are reduced to a few 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                2

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

classes, show that 20 per cent. of the divorces were based on
adultery, 16 on cruelty, 38 were granted for desertion, 4 for
drunkenness, less than 3 for neglect to provide, and so on. But
these tell very little, except that it is easier or more congenial
to use one or another of the statutory causes, just as the old
"omnibus clause," which gave general discretion to the courts in
Connecticut, and still more in some other States, was made to cover
many cases. A special study of forty-five counties in twelve
States, however, shows that drunkenness was a direct or indirect
cause in 20.1 per cent. of 29,665 cases. That is, it could be found
either alone or in conjunction with others, directly or indirectly,
in one-fifth of the cases.

     4. Laws and their administration affect divorce. New York
grants absolute divorce for only one cause, and New Jersey for two.
Yet New York has many more divorces in proportion to population,
due largely to a looser system of administration. In seventy
counties of twelve States 68 per cent. of the applications are
granted. The enactment of a more stringent law is immediately
followed by a decrease of divorces, from which there is a tendency
to recover. Personally, I think stricter methods of administration,
restrictions upon remarriage, proper delays in hearing suits, and
some penal inflictions for cruelty, desertion, neglect of support,
as well as for adultery, would greatly reduce divorces, even
without removing a single statutory cause. There would be fewer
unhappy families, not more. For people would then look to real
remedies instead of confessing the hopelessness of remedy by
appeals to the courts. A multitude of petty ills and many utterly
wicked frauds and other abuses would disappear. "Your present
methods," said a Nova Scotian to a man from Maine a few years ago,
"are simply ways of multiplying and magnifying domestic ills."
There is much force in this. But let us put reform of marriage laws
along with these measures.

     5, The evils of conflicting and diverse marriage and divorce
laws are doing immense harm. The mischief through which innocent
patties are defrauded, children rendered illegitimate, inheritance
made uncertain, and actual imprisonments for bigamy grow out of
divorce and remarriage, are well known to most. Uniformity through
a national law or by conventions of the States has been strongly
urged for many years. Uniformity is needed. But for one, I have
long discouraged too early action, because the problem is too
difficult, the consequences too serious, and the elements of it
still too far out of our reach for any really wise action at
present, The government report grew immediately out of this
conviction. It will, I think, abundantly justify the caution. For
it shows that uniformity could affect at the utmost only a small
percentage of the total divorces in the United States. Only 19.9
per cent. of all the divorced who married in this country obtained
their divorces in a different State from the one in which their
marriage had taken place, in all these twenty years, 80.1 per cent.
having been divorced in the State where married. Now, marriage on
the average lasts 9.17 years before divorce occurs, which probably
is nearly two-fifths the length of a married life before its
dissolution by death, From this 19.9 per cent. there must,
therefore, be subtracted the large migration of married couples for
legitimate purposes, in order to get any fair figure to express the


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                3

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

migration for divorce. But the movement of the native population
away from the State of birth is 22 or 23 per cent. This, however,
includes all ages. For all who believe that divorce itself is
generally a great evil, the conclusion is apparently inevitable
that the question of uniformity, serious as it is, is a very small
part of the great legal problem demanding solution at our hands.
This general problem, aside from its graver features in the more
immediate sphere of sociology and religion, must evidently tax our
publicist:s and statesmen severely. The old temptation to meet
special evils by general legislation besets us on this subject. I
think comparative and historical study of the law of the family,
(the Familienrecht of the Germans), especially if the movement of
European law be seen, points toward the need of a pretty
comprehensive and thorough examination of our specific legal
problem of divorce and marriage law in this fuller light, before
much legislation is undertaken.

                                           SAMUEL W. DIKE.

                          ****    ****

                            Reply of
                        Cardinal Gibbons.

     However much men may differ in their views of the nature and
attributes of the matrimonial contract, and in their concept of the
rights and obligations of the marriage state, no one will deny that
these are grave questions; since upon marriage rests the family,
and upon the family rest society, civilization, and the highest
interests of religion and the state. Yet, strange to say, divorce,
the deadly enemy of marriage, stalks abroad to-day bold and
unblushing, a monster licensed by the laws of Christian states to
break hearts, wreck homes and ruin souls. And passing strange is
it, too, that so many, wise and far-seeing in less weighty
concerns, do not appear to see in the ever-growing power of divorce
a menace not only to the sacredness of the marriage institution,
but even to the fair social fabric reared upon matrimony as its
corner-stone.

     God instituted in Paradise the marriage state and sanctified
it. He established its law of unity and declared its
indissolubility. By divine authority Adam spoke when of his wife he
said: "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore
a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:
and they shall be two in one flesh." (Gen., ii.,23) But like other
things on earth, marriage suffered in the fall; and little by
little polygamy and divorce began to assert themselves against the
law of matrimonial unity and indissolubility. Yet the ideal of the
marriage institution never faded away. It survived, not only among
the chosen people, but even among the nations of heathendom,
disfigured much, 'tis true, but with its ancient beauty never
wholly destroyed.

     When, in the fullness of time, Christ came to restore the
things that were perishing, he reasserted in clear and unequivocal
terms the sanctity, unity, and indissolubility of marriage. Nay, 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                4

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

more. He gave to this state added holiness and a dignity higher far
than it had "from the beginning." He made marriage a sacrament,
made it the type of his own never-ending union with his one
spotless spouse, the church. St. Paul, writing to the Ephesians,
says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church,
and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it,
cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life, that he
might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or
wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without
blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.
. . . For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh."
(Ephes., v., 25-31)

     In defence of Christian marriage, the church was compelled
from the earliest days of her existence to do frequent and stern
battle. But cultured pagan, and rough barbarian, and haughty
Christian lord were met and conquered. Men were taught to master
passion, and Christian marriage, with all its rights secured and
reverenced, became a ruling power in the world.

     The Council of Trent, called, in the throes of the mighty
moral upheaval of the sixteenth century, to deal with the new state
of things, again proclaimed to a believing and an unbelieving world
the Catholic doctrine of the holiness, unity, and indissolubility
of marriage, and the unlawfulness of divorce. The council declared
no new dogmas: it simply reaffirmed the common teaching of the
church for centuries. But some of the most hallowed attributes of
marriage seemed to be objects of peculiar detestation to the new
teachers, and their abolition was soon demanded. "The leaders in
the changes of matrimonial law," writes Professor Woolsey, "were
the Protestant reformers themselves, and that almost from the
beginning of the movement. . . . The reformers, when they discarded
the sacramental view of marriage and the celibacy of the clergy,
had to make out a new doctrine of marriage and of divorce."
(Divorce and Divorce Legislation," by Theodore D. Woolsey, 2d Ed.,
p. 126.) The "new doctrine of marriage and of divorce," pleasing as
it was to the sensual man, was speedily learned and as speedily put
in practice. The sacredness with which Christian marriage had been
hedged around began to be more and more openly trespassed upon, and
restive shoulders wearied more and more quickly of the marriage
yoke when divorce promised freedom for newer joys.

     To our own time the logical consequences of the "new doctrine"
have come. To-day "abyss calls upon abyss," change calls for
change, laxity calls for license. Divorce is now a recognized
presence in high life and low; and polygamy, the first-born of
divorce, sits shameless in palace and in hovel. Yet the teacher
that learned not to speak the words of truth in bygone ages is not
silent now. In no uncertain tones, the church proclaims to the
world to-day the unchangeable law of the strict unity and absolute
indissolubility of valid and consummated Christian marriage.

     To the question then, "Can divorce from the bond of marriage
ever be allowed? " the Catholic can only answer NO. And for this
No, his first and last and best reason can be but this: "Thus saith
the Lord."


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                5

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     As time goes on the wisdom of the church in absolutely
forbidding divorce from the marriage bond grows more and more plain
even to the many who deny to this prohibition a divine and
authoritative sanction. And nowhere is this more true than in our
own country, Yet our experience of the evils of divorce is but the
expedience of every people that has cherished this monster.

     Let us take but a hasty view of the consequences of divorce in
ancient times. Turn only to pagan Greece and Rome, two peoples that
practiced divorce most extensively. In both we find divorce
weakening their primitive virtue and making their latter corruption
more corrupt. Among the Greeks morality declined as material
civilization advanced, Divorce grew easy and common, and purity and
peace were banished from the family circle. Among the Romans
divorce was not common until the latter days of the Republic. Then
the flood-gates of immorality were opened, and, with divorce made
easy, came rushing in corruption of morals among both sexes and in
every walk of life. "Passion, interest, or caprice," Gibbon, the
historian, tells us, "suggested daily motives for the dissolution
of marriage; a word, a sign, a message, a letter, the mandate of a
freedman, declared the separation; the most tender of human
connections was degraded to a transient society of profit or
pleasure. " ("Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Milman's Ed.
Vol. III., p. 236.) Each succeeding generation witnessed moral
corruption more general, moral degradation more profound; men and
women were no longer ashamed of licentiousness; until at length the
nation that became mighty because built on a pure family fell when
its corner-stone crumbled away in rottenness.

     Heedless of the lessons taught by history, modern nations,
too, have made trial of divorce. In Europe, wherever the new gospel
of marriage and divorce has had notable influence, divorce has been
legalized; and in due proportion to the extent of that influence
reasons for divorce have been multiplied, the bond of marriage more
and more recklessly broken, and the obligations of that sacred
state more and more shamelessly disregarded. In our own country the
divorce evil has grown more rapidly than our growth and
strengthened more rapidly than our strength. Mr. Carroll B. Wright,
in a special report on the statistics of marriage and divorce made
to Congress in February, 1889, places the number of divorces in the
United States in 1867 at 9,937, and the number in 1886 at 25,535.
These figures show an increase of the divorce evil much out of
proportion to our increase in population. The knowledge that
divorces can easily be procured encourages hasty marriages and
equally hasty preparations. Legislators and judges in some States
are encouraging inventive genius in the art of finding new causes
for divorce. Frequently the most trivial and even ridiculous
pretexts are recognized as sufficient for the rupture of the
marriage bond; and in some States divorce can be obtained "without
publicity," and even without the knowledge of the defendant -- in
such cases generally an innocent wife. Crime has sometimes been
committed for the very purpose of bringing about a divorce, and
cases are not rare in which plots have been laid to blacken the
reputation of a virtuous spouse in order to obtain legal freedom
for new nuptials. Sometimes, too, there is a collusion between the
married parties to obtain divorce. One of them trumps up charges;
the other does not oppose the suit; and judgment is entered for the


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                6

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

plaintiff. Every daily newspaper tells us of divorces applied for
or granted, and the public sense of decency is constantly being
shocked by the disgusting recital of divorce-court scandals.

     We are filled with righteous indignation at Mormonism; we
brand it as a national disgrace, and justly demand its suppression.
Why? Because, forsooth, the Mormons are polygamists. Do we forget
that there are two species of polygamy -- simultaneous and
successive? Mormons practice without legal recognition the first
species; while among us the second species is indulged in, and with
the sanction of law, by thousands in whose nostrils Mormonism is a
stench and an abomination. The Christian press and pulpit of the
land denounce the Mormons as "an adulterous generation," but too
often deal very tenderly with Christian polygamists. Why? Is
Christian polygamy less odious in the eyes of God than Mormon
polygamy? Among us, 'tis true, the one is looked upon as more
respectable than the other. Yet we know that the Mormons as a
class, care for their wives and children; while Christian
polygamists but too often leave wretched wives to starve, slave, or
sin, and leave miserable children a public charge. "O divorced and
much-married Christian," says the polygamous dweller by Salt Lake,
"pluck first the beam from thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to
pluck the mote from the eye of thy much-married, but undivorced,
Mormon brother."

     It follows logically from the Catholic doctrine of the unity
and indissolubility of marriage, and the consequent prohibition of
divorce from the marital bond, that no one, even though divorced a
vinculo by the civil power, can be allowed by the church to take
another consort during the lifetime of the true wife or husband,
and such connection the church can but hold as sinful. It is
written: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another
committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her
husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
(Mark, x., II, 12.) Of course, I am well aware that upon the words
of our Savior as found in St. Matthew, Chap. xix., 9, many base the
right of divorce from the marriage bond for adultery, with
permission to remarry. But, as is well known, the Catholic Church,
upon the concurrent testimony of the Evangelists Mark (Mark, x.,
11, 12.) and Luke,(Luke, xvi., 18.) and upon the teaching of St.
Paul, (I. Cor., vii., 10, 11.) interprets our Lord's words quoted
by St. Matthew as simply permitting, on account of adultery,
divorce from bed and board, with no right to either party to marry
another.

     But even if divorce a vinculo were not forbidden by divine
law, how inadequate a remedy would it be for the evils for which so
many deem it a panacea. "Divorce a vinculo" as Dr. Brownson truly
says, "logically involves divorce ad libitum." (Essay on "The
Family -- Christian and Pagan.") Now, what reason is there to
suppose that parties divorced and remated will be happier in the
new connection than in the old? As a matter of fact, many persons
have been divorced a number of times. Sometimes, too, it happens
that, after a period of separation, divorced parties repent of
their folly, reunite, and are again divorced. Indeed, experience
clearly proves that unhappiness among married people frequently
does not arise so much from "mutual incompatibility as from causes 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                7

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

inherent in one or both of the parties -- causes that would be
likely to make a new union as wretched as the old one. There is
wisdom in the pithy saying of a recent writer: "Much ill comes, not
because men and women are married, but because they are fools."
(Prof. David Swing in Chicago Journal.)

     There are some who think that the absolute prohibition of
divorce does not contribute to the purity of society, and are
therefore of opinion that divorce with liberty to remarry does good
in this regard. He who believes the matrimonial bond indissoluble,
divorce a vinculo evil, and the connection resulting from it
criminal, can only say: "Evil should not be done that good may
come." But, after all, would even passing good come from this
greater freedom? In a few exceptional cases -- Yes, in the vast
majority of cases -- No. The trying of divorce as a safeguard of
purity is an old experiment, and an unsuccessful one. In Rome
adulteries increased as divorces were multiplied. After speaking of
the facility and frequency of divorce among the Romans, Gibbon
adds:

     "A specious theory is confuted by this free and perfect
experiment, which demonstrates that the liberty of divorce does not
contribute to happiness and virtue. The facility of separation
would destroy all mutual confidence, and inflame every trifling
dispute. The minute difference between a husband and a stranger,
which might so easily be removed, might still more easily be
forgotten." ("Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Milman's Ed.,
Vol. III., p. 236.)

     How apropos in this connection are the words of Professor
Woolsey:

     "Nothing is more startling than to pass from the first part or
the eighteenth to the latter part of the nineteenth century, and to
observe how law has changed and opinion has altered in regard to
marriage, the great foundation of society. and to divorce; and how,
almost pari passu various offenses against chastity, such as
concubinage, prostitution, illegitimate births, abortion,
disinclination to family life, have increased also -- not, indeed,
at the same pace everywhere, or all of them equally in all
countries, yet have decidedly increased on the whole." ("Divorce
and Divorce Legislation," 2d Ed., p. 274.) Surely in few parts of
the wide world is the truth of these strong words more evident than
in those parts of our own country where loose divorce laws have
long prevailed.

     It should be noted that, while never allowing the dissolution
of the marriage bond, the Catholic Church has always permitted, for
grave causes and under certain conditions, a temporary or permanent
"separation from bed and board." The causes which, positis
ponendis, such separation may be briefly given thus: mutual
consent, adultery, and grave peril of soul or body.

     It may be said that there are persons so unhappily mated and
so constituted that for them no relief can come save from divorce
a vinculo, with permission to remarry. I shall not linger here to
point out to such the need of seeking from a higher than earthly 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                8

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

power the grace to suffer and be strong. But for those whose
reasoning on this subject is of the earth, earthy, I shall add some
words of practical worldly wisdom from eminent jurists. In a note
to his edition of Blackstone's "Commentaries," Mr. John Taylor
Coleridge says:

     "It is no less truly than beautifully said by Sir W. Scott, in
the case of Evans v. Evans, that 'though in particular cases the
repugnance or the law to dissolve the obligation of matrimonial
cohabitation may operate with great severity upon individuals, yet
it must be carefully remembered that the general happiness of the
married life is secured by its indissolubility.' When people
understand that they must live together, except for a few reasons
known to the law, they learn to soften by mutual accommodation that
yoke which they know they cannot shake off: they become good
husbands and good wives from the necessity of remaining husbands
and wives: for necessity is a powerful master in teaching the
duties which it imposes. If it were once understood that upon
mutual disgust married persons might be legally separated, many
couples who now pass through the world with mutual comfort, with
attention to their common offspring, and to the moral order of
civil society, might have been at this moment living in a state of
mutual unkindness, in a state of estrangement from their common
offspring, and in a state of the most licentious and unrestrained
immorality. In this case, as in many other cases, the happiness of
some individuals must be sacrificed to the greater and more general
good."

     The facility and frequency of divorce, and its lamentable
consequences, are nowadays calling much attention to measures of
"divorce reform." "How can divorce reform be best secured?" it may
be asked. Believing, as I do, that divorce is evil, I also believe
that its "reformation" and its death must be simultaneous. It
should cease to be. Divorce as we know it began when marriage was
removed from the domain of the church: divorce shall cease when the
old order shall be restored. Will this ever come to pass? Perhaps
so -- after many days. Meanwhile, something might be done,
something should be done, to lessen the evils of divorce. Our
present divorce legislation must be presumed to be such as the
majority of the people wish it. A first step, therefore, in the way
of "divorce reform" should be the creation of a more healthy public
sentiment on this question. Then will follow measures that will do
good in proportion to their stringency. A few practical suggestions
as to the salient features of remedial divorce legislation may not
be out of place. Persons seeking at the hands of the civil law
relief in matrimonial troubles should have the right to ask for
divorce a vinculo, or simple separation a mensa et thoro, as they
may elect. The number of legally-recognized grounds for divorce
should be lessened, and "noiseless" divorces forbidden. "Rapid-
transit" facilities for passing through divorce courts should be
cut off, and divorce "agencies" should be suppressed. The plaintiff
in a divorce case should be a bona fide resident of the judicial
district in which his petition is filed, and in every divorce case
the legal representatives of the State should appear for the
defendant, and, by all means, the right of remarriage after divorce
should be restricted. If divorce cannot be legislated out of
existence, let, at least, its power for evil be diminished.

                                  James Cardinal Gibbons.

                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                9

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

                            Reply of 
                     Bishop Henry C. Potter.

     I am asked certain questions with regard to the attitude of
the Episcopal Church towards the matter of divorce. In undertaking
to answer them, it is to be remembered that there is a considerable
variety of opinion which is held in more or less precise conformity
with doctrinal or canonical declarations of the church. With these
variations this paper, except in so far as it may briefly indicate
them, is not concerned. Nor is it an expression of individual
opinion. That is not what has been asked for or attempted.

     The doctrine and law of the Protestant Episcopal Church on the
subject of divorce is contained in canon 13, title II., of the
"Digest of the Canons," 1887. That canon has been to a certain
extent interpreted by Episcopal judgments under section IV. The
"public opinion" of the clergy or laity can only be ascertained in
the usual way; especially by examining their published treatises,
letters, etc., and perhaps most satisfactorily by the reports of
discussion in the diocesan and general conventions on the subject
of divorce. Among members of the Protestant Episcopal Church
divorce is excessively rare, cases of uncertainty in the
application of the canon are much more rare, and the practice of
the clergy is almost perfectly uniform. There is, however, by no
means the same uniformity in their opinions either as to divorce or
marriage.

     As divorce is necessarily a mere accident of marriage, and as
divorce is impossible without a precedent marriage, much practical
difficulty might arise, and much difference of opinion does arise,
from the fact that the Protestant Episcopal Church has nowhere
defined marriage. Negatively, it is explicitly affirmed (Article
XXV.) that "matrimony is not to be counted for a sacrament of the
Gospel." This might seem to reduce matrimony to a civil contract.
And accordingly the first rubric in the Form of Solemnization of
Matrimony directs, on the ground of differences of laws in the
various States, that "the minister is left to the direction of
those laws in everything that regards the civil contract between
the parties." Laws determining what persons shall be capable of
contracting would seem to be included in "everything that regards
the civil contract; "and unquestionably the laws of most of the
States render all persons legally divorced capable of at once
contracting a new marriage. Both the first section of canon 13 and
the Form of Solemnization, that, "if any persons be joined together
otherwise than as God's word doth allow, their marriage is not
lawful." But it is nowhere excepting as to divorce, declared what
the impediments are. The Protestant Episcopal Church has never, by
canon or express legislation, published, for instance, a table of
prohibited degrees.

     On the matter of divorce, however, canon 13, title II.,
supersedes, for the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church,
both a part of the civil law relating to the persons capable of
contracting marriage, and also all private judgment as to the
teaching of "the Word of God" on that subject. No minister is
allowed, as a rule, to solemnize the marriage of any man or woman
who has a divorced husband or wife still living. But if the person
seeking to be married is the innocent patty in the divorce for 

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               10

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

adultery, that person, whether man or woman, may be married by a
minister of the church. With the above exception, the clergy are
forbidden to administer the sacraments to any divorced and
remarried person without the express permission of the bishop,
unless that person be "penitent" and "in imminent danger of death."
Any doubts "as to the facts of any case under section II. of this
canon" must be referred to the bishop. Of course, where there is no
reasonable doubt the minister may proceed. It may be added that the
sacraments are to be refused also to persons who may be reasonably
supposed to have contracted marriage "otherwise," in any respect.
"than as the Word of God and the discipline of this Church doth
allow." These impediments are nowhere defined; and accordingly it
has happened that a man who had married a deceased wife's sister
and the woman he had married were, by the private judgment of a
priest, refused the holy communion, The civil courts do not seem
inclined to protect the clergy from consequences of interference
with the civil law. In Southbridge, Mass., a few weeks ago, a man
who had been denounced from the altar for marrying again after a
divorce obtained a judgment for $1,720.00 damages. The law of the
church would seem to be that, even though a legal divorce may have
been obtained, remarriage is absolutely forbidden, excepting to the
innocent party, whether man or woman, in a divorce for adultery.
The penalty for breach of this law might involve, for the
officiating clergyman, deposition from the ministry; for the
offending man or woman, exclusion from the sacraments, which, in
the judgment of a very large number of the clergy, involves
everlasting damnation.

     It is obvious, then, that the Protestant Episcopal Church
allows the complete validity of a divorce a vinculo in the case of
adultery, and the right of remarriage to the innocent party. But
that church has not determined in what manner either the grounds of
the divorce or the "innocence" of either party is to be
ascertained. The canon does not require a clergyman to demand, nor
can the church enable him to secure, the production of a copy of
the record or decree of the court of law by which a divorce is
granted, nor would such decree indicate the "innocence" of one
party, though it might prove the guilt of the other.

     The effect of divorce upon the integrity of the family is too
obvious to require stating. As the father and mother are the heads
of the family, their separation must inevitably destroy the common
family life. On the other hand, it is often contended that the
destruction has been already completed, and that a divorce is only
the legal recognition of what has already taken place; "the
integrity of the family can scarcely remain when either a father or
mother, or both are living in violation of the law on which that
integrity rests. The question may be asked whether the absolute
prohibition of divorce would contribute to the moral purity of
society. It is difficult to answer such a question, because
anything on the subject must be comparatively worthless until
verified by experience. It is quite certain that the prohibition of
divorce never prevents illicit sexual connections, as was
abundantly proved when divorce in England was put within the reach
of persons who were not able to afford the expense of a special act
of Parliament. It is, indeed, so palpable a fact that any amount of
evidence or argument is wholly superfluous.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               11

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     The law of the Protestant Episcopal Church is by no means
identical with the opinion of either the clergy or the laity. In
the judgment of many, the existing law is far too lax, or, at
least, the whole doctrine of marriage is far too inadequately dealt
with in the authoritative teaching of the church. The opinion of
this school finds, perhaps, its most adequate expression in the
report of a committee of the last General Convention forming
Appendix XIII. of the "Journal" of that convention. It is,
substantially, that the Mosaic law of marriage is still binding
upon the church, unless directly abrogated by Christ himself; that
it was abrogated by him only so far that all divorce was forbidden
by him, excepting for the cause of fornication; that a woman might
not claim divorce for any reason whatever; that the marriage of a
divorced person until the death of the other party is wholly
forbidden; that marriage is not merely a civil contract, but a
spiritual and supernatural union, requiring for its mutual
obligation a supernatural, divine grace; that such grace is only
imparted in the sacrament of matrimony, which is a true sacrament
and does actually confer grace; that marriage is wholly within the
jurisdiction of the church, though the State may determine such
rules and guarantees as may secure publicity and sufficient
evidence of a marriage, etc.; that severe penalties should be
inflicted by the State, on the demand of the church, for the
suppression of all offenses against the seventh commandment and
sundry other parts of the Mosaic legislation, especially in
relation to "prohibited degrees."

     There is another school, equally earnest and sincere in its
zeal for the integrity of the family and sexual purity, which would
nevertheless repudiate much the greater part of the above
assumption. This school, if one may so venture to combine scattered
opinions, argues substantially as follows: The type of all Mosaic
legislation was circumcision; that rite was of universal obligation
and divine authority. St. Paul so regarded it. The abrogation of
the law requiring circumcision was, therefore, the abrogation of
the whole of the Mosaic legislation. The "burden of proof,"
therefore, rests upon those who affirm the present obligation of
what formed a part of the Mosaic law; and they must show that it
has been reenacted by Christ and his Apostles or forms some part of
some other and independent system of law or morals still in force.
Christ's words about divorce are not to be construed as a positive
law, but as expressing the ideal of marriage, and corresponding to
his words about eunuchs, which not everybody "can receive." So far
as Christ's words seem to indicate an inequality as to divorce
between man and woman, they are explained by the authoritative and
inspired assertion of St. Paul: "In Christ Jesus there is neither
male nor female." A divine law is equally authoritative by
whomsoever declared. whether by the Son Incarnate or by the Holy
Ghost speaking through inspired Apostles. If, then, a divine law
was ever capable of suspension or modification, it may still be
capable of such suspension or modification in corresponding
circumstances. The circumstances which justified a modification of
the original divine law of marriage do still exist in many
conditions of society and even of individual life. The Protestant
Episcopal Church cannot, alone, speak with such authority on
disputed passages of Scripture as to justify her ministers in
direct disobedience to the civil authority, which is also "ordained


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               12

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

of God." The exegesis of the early church was closely connected
with theories about matter, and about the inferiority of women and
of married life, which are no longer believed.

     Of course this is a very brief statement. As a matter of fact
the actual effect of the doctrine and discipline of the Protestant
Episcopal Church on marriage and divorce is that divorce among her
members is excessively rare; that it is regarded with extreme
aversion; and that the public opinion of the church maintains the
law as it now is, but could not be trusted to execute laws more
stringent. A member of the committee of the General Convention
whose report has been already referred to closes that report with
the following protest:

     "The undersigned finds himself unable to concur in so much of
the [proposed] canon as forbids the holy communion to a truly pious
and godly woman who has been compelled by long years of suffering
from a drunken and brutal husband to obtain a divorce, and has
regularly married some suitable person according to the established
laws of the land. And also from so much of the [proposed] cannon as
may seem to forbid marriage with a deceased wife's sister."

     The final action on these points, which has already been
stated, indicates that the proposed report thus referred to was, in
one particular at least, in advance of the sentiment of the church
as expressed in her General Convention.

                                           Henry C. Potter

                          ****    ****

                            Reply of
                  Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll.

     Question (1). Do you believe in the principle of divorce under
any circumstances?

     The world for the most part is ruled by the tomb, and the
living are tyrannized over by the dead. Old ideas, long after the
conditions under which they were produced have passed away, often
persist in surviving. Many are disposed to worship the ancient --
to follow the old paths, without inquiring where they lead, and
without knowing exactly where they wish to go themselves.

     Opinions on the subject of divorce have been, for the most
part, inherited from the early Christians. They have come to us
through theological and priestly channels. The early Christians
believed that the world was about to be destroyed, or that it was
to be purified by fire; that all the wicked were to perish, and
that the good were to be caught up in the air to meet their Lord --
to remain there, in all probability, until the earth was prepared
as a habitation for the blessed. With this thought or belief in
their minds, the things of this world were of comparatively no
importance, The man who built larger barns in which to store his
grain was regarded as a foolish farmer, who had forgotten, in his
greed for gain, the value of his own soul. They regarded prosperous
people as the children of Mammon, and the unfortunate, the wretched
and diseased, as the favorites of God. They discouraged all worldly

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               13

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

pursuits, except the soliciting of alms. There was no time to marry
or to be given in marriage; no time to build homes and have
families. All their thoughts were centered upon the heaven they
expected to inherit. Business, love, all secular things, fell into
disrepute.

     Nothing is said in the Testament about the families of the
apostles; nothing of family life, of the sacredness of home;
nothing about the necessity of education, the improvement and
development of the mind. These things were forgotten, for the
reason that nothing, in the presence of the expected event, was
considered of any importance, except to be ready when the Son of
Man should come. Such was the feeling, that rewards were offered by
Christ himself to those who would desert their wives and children.
Human love was spoken of with contempt. "Let the dead bury their 
dead. What is that to thee? Follow thou me." They not only believed
these things, but acted in accordance with them; and, as a
consequence, all the relations of life were denied or avoided, and
their obligations disregarded. Marriage was discouraged. It was
regarded as only one degree above open and unbridled vice, and was
allowed only in consideration of human weakness. It was thought far
better not to marry -- that it was something grander for a man to
love God than to love woman. The exceedingly godly, the really
spiritual, believed in celibacy, and held the opposite sex in a
kind of pious abhorrence. And yet, with that inconsistency so
characteristic of theologians, marriage was held to be a sacrament.
The priest said to the man who married: "Remember that you are
caught for life. This door opens but once. Before this den of
matrimony the tracks are all one way." This was in the nature of a
punishment for having married. The theologian felt that the
contract of marriage, if not contrary to God's command, was at
least contrary to his advice, and that the married ought to suffer
in some way, as a matter of justice. The fact that there could be
no divorce, that a mistake could not be corrected, was held up as
a warning. At every wedding feast this skeleton stretched its
fleshless finger towards bride and groom.

     Nearly all intelligent people have given up the idea that the
world is about to come to an end. They do not now believe that
prosperity is a certain sign of wickedness, or that poverty and
wretchedness are sure certificates of virtue. They are hardly
convinced that Dives should have been sent to hell simply for being
rich, or that Lazarus was entitled to eternal joy on account of his
poverty. We now know that prosperous people may be good, and that
unfortunate people may be bad, We have reached the conclusion that
the practice of virtue tends in the direction of prosperity, and
that a violation of the conditions of well-being brings, with
absolute certainty, wretchedness and misfortune.

     There was a time when it was believed that the sin of an
individual was visited upon the tribe, the community, or the nation
to which he belonged. It was then thought that if a man or woman
had made a vow to God, and had failed to keep the vow, God might
punish the entire community; therefore it was the business of the
community to see to it that the vow was kept. That idea has been
abandoned. As we progress, the rights of the individual are
perceived, and we are now beginning dimly to discern that there are


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               14

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

no rights higher than the rights of the individual. There was a
time when nearly all believed in the reforming power of punishment
-- in the beneficence of brute force. But the world is changing. It
was at one time thought that the Inquisition was the savior of
society; that the persecution of the philosopher was requisite to
the preservation of the state, and that, no matter what happened,
the state should be preserved. We have now more light. And standing
upon this luminous point that we call the present, let me answer
your questions.

     Marriage is the most important, the most sacred, contract that
human beings can make. No matter whether we call it a contract, or
a sacrament, or both, it remains precisely the same. And no matter
whether this contract is entered into in the presence of magistrate
or priest, it is exactly the same. A true marriage is a natural
concord and agreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not
even imagined; it is a mingling so perfect that only one seems to
exist; all other considerations are lost; the present seems to be
eternal. In this supreme moment there is no shadow -- or the shadow
is as luminous as light. And when two beings thus love, thus unite,
this is the true marriage of soul and soul. That which is said
before the altar, or minister, or magistrate, or in the presence of
witnesses, is only the outward evidence of that which has already
happened within; it simply testifies to a union that has already
taken place -- to the uniting of two mornings of hope to reach the
night together. Each has found the ideal; the man has found the one
woman of all the world -- the impersonation of affection, purity,
passion, love, beauty, and grace; and the woman has found the one
man of all the world, her ideal, and all that she knows of romance,
of art, courage, heroism, honesty, is realized in him. The idea of
contract is lost. Duty and obligation are instantly changed into
desire and joy, and two lives, like uniting streams, flow on as
one. Nothing can add to the sacredness of this marriage, to the
obligation and duty of each to each. There is nothing in the
ceremony except the desire on the part of the man and woman that
the whole world should know that they are really married and that
their souls have been united.

     Every marriage, for a thousand reasons, should be public,
should be recorded, should be known; but, above all, to the end
that the purity of the union should appear. These ceremonies are
not only for the good and for the protection of the married, but
also for the protection of their children, and of society as well.
But, after all, the marriage remains a contract of the highest
possible character -- a contract in which each gives and receives
a heart.

     The question then arises, Should this marriage, under any
circumstances, be dissolved? lt is easy to understand the position
taken by the various churches; but back of theological opinions is
the question of contract.

     In this contract of marriage, the man agrees to protect and
cherish his wife. Suppose that he refuses to protect; that he
abuses, assaults, and tramples upon the woman he wed. What is her
redress? Is she under any obligation to him? He has violated the
contract. He has failed to protect, and, in addition, he has
assaulted her like a wild beast. Is she under any obligation to 

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               15

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

him? Is she bound by the contract he has broken? If so, what is the
consideration for this obligation? Must she live with him for his
sake? or, if she leaves him to preserve her life, must she remain
his wife for his sake? No intelligent man will answer these
questions in the affirmative.

     If, then, she is not bound to remain his wife for the
husband's sake, is she bound to remain his wife because the
marriage was a sacrament? Is there any obligation on the part of
the wife to remain with the brutal husband for the sake of God? Can
her conduct affect in any way the happiness of an infinite being?
Is it possible for a human being to increase or diminish the well-
being of the Infinite?

     The next question is as to the right of society in this
matter. It must be admitted that the peace of society will be
promoted by the separation of such people. Certainly society cannot
insist upon a wife remaining with a husband who bruises and mangles
her flesh. Even married women have a right to personal security.
They do not lose, either by contract or sacrament, the right of
self-preservation; this they share in common, to say the least of
it, with the lowest living creatures.

     This will probably be admitted by most of the enemies of
divorce; but they will insist that while the wife has the right to
flee from her husband's roof and seek protection of kindred or
friends, the marriage -- the sacrament -- must remain unbroken. Is
it to the interest of society that those who despise each other
should live together? Ought the world to be peopled by the children
of hatred or disgust, the children of lust and loathing, or by the
welcome babes of mutual love? Is it possible that an infinitely
wise and compassionate God insists that a helpless woman shall
remain the wife of a cruel wretch? Can this add to the joy of
Paradise, or tend to keep one harp in tune? Can anything be more
infamous than for a government to compel a woman to remain the wife
of a man she hates -- of one whom she justly holds in abhorrence?
Does any decent man wish the assistance of a constable, a sheriff,
a judge, or a church, to keep his wife in his house? Is it possible
to conceive of a more contemptible human being than a man who would
appeal to force in such a case? It may be said that the woman is
free to go, and that the courts will protect her from the brutality
of the man who promised to be her protector; but where shall the
woman go? She may have no friends; or they may be poor; her kindred
may be dead. Has she no right to build another home? Must this
woman, full of kindness, affection, health, be tied and chained to
this living corpse? Is there no future for her? Must she be an
outcast forever -- deceived and betrayed for her whole life? Can
she never sit by her own hearth, with the arms of her children
about her neck, and with a husband who loves and protects her? Is
she to become a social pariah, and is this for the benefit of
society? -- or is it for the sake of the wretch who destroyed her
life?

     The ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if
marriage could be annulled. Is it necessary to lose your liberty in
order to retain your moral character -- in order to be pure and
womanly? Must a woman, in order to retain her virtue, become a 
slave, a serf, with a beast for a master, or with society for a
master, or with a phantom for a master?

                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               16

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     If an infinite being is one of the parties to the contract, is
it not the duty of this being to see to it that the contract is
carried out? What consideration does the infinite being give? What
consideration does he receive? If a wife owes no duty to her
husband because the husband has violated the contract, and has even
assaulted her life, is it possible for her to feel toward him any
real thrill of affection? If she does not, what is there left of
marriage? What part of this contract or sacrament remains in living
force? She can not sustain the relation of wife, because she abhors
him; she cannot remain under the same roof, for fear that she may
be killed. They sustain, then, only the relations of hunter and
hunted -- of tyrant and victim. Is it desirable that this relation
should last through life, and that it should be rendered sacred by
the ceremony of a church?

     Again I ask, Is it desirable to have families raised under
such circumstances? Are we in need of children born of such
parents? Can the virtue of others be preserved only by this
destruction of happiness, by this perpetual imprisonment?

     A marriage without love is bad enough, and a marriage for
wealth or position is low enough; but what shall we say of a
marriage where the parties actually abhor each other? Is there any
morality in this? any virtue in this? Is there virtue in retaining
the name of wife, or husband, without the real and true relation?
Will any good man say, will any good woman declare, that a true,
loving woman should be compelled to be the mother of children whose
father she detests? Is there a good woman in the world who would
not shrink from this herself; and is there a woman so heartless and
so immoral that she would force another to bear that from which she
would shudderingly and shriekingly shrink?

     Marriages are made by men and women; not by society; not by
the state; not by the church; not by supernatural beings. By this
time we should know that nothing is moral that does not tend to the
well-being of sentient beings; that nothing is virtuous the result
of which is not good. We know now, if we know anything, that all
the reasons for doing right, and all the reasons against doing
wrong, are here in this world. We should have imagination enough to
put ourselves in the place of another. Let a man suppose himself a
helpless woman beaten by a brutal husband -- would he advocate
divorces then?

     Few people have an adequate idea of the sufferings of women
and children, of the number of wives who tremble when they hear the
footsteps of a returning husband, of the number of children who
hide when they hear the voice of a father. Few people know the
number of blows that fall on the flesh of the helpless every day,
and few know the nights of terror passed by mothers who hold babes
to their breasts. Compared with these, all the hardships of poverty
borne by those who love each other are as nothing. Men and women
truly married bear the sufferings and misfortunes of poverty
together. They console each other. In the darkest night they see
the radiance of a star, and their affection gives to the heart of 
each perpetual sunshine.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               17

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     The good home is the unit of the good government. The
hearthstone is the corner-stone of civilization. Society is not
interested in the preservation of hateful homes, of homes where
husbands and wives are selfish, cold, and cruel. It is not to the
interest of society that good women should be enslaved. that they
should live in fear, or that they should become mothers by husbands
whom they hate. Homes should be filled with kind and generous
fathers, with true and loving mothers; and when they are so filled,
the world will be civilized. Intelligence will rock the cradle;
justice will sit in the courts; wisdom in the legislative halls;
and above all and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be the
spirit of liberty.

     Although marriage is the most important and the most sacred
contract that human beings can make, still when that contract has
been violated, courts should have the power to declare it null and
void upon such conditions as may be just.

     As a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her youth. her
beauty, her love -- with all she has; and from this contract
certainly the husband should never be released, unless the wife has
broken the conditions of that contract. Divorces should be granted
publicly, precisely as the marriage should be solemnized. Every
marriage should be known, and there should be witnesses, to the end
that the character of the contract entered into should be
understood; the record should be open and public. And the same is
true of divorces. The conditions should be determined, the property
should be divided by a court of equity, and the custody of the
children given under regulations prescribed.

     Men and women are not virtuous by law. Law does not of itself
create virtue, nor is it the foundation or fountain of love. Law
should protect virtue, and law should protect the wife, if she has
kept her contract, and the husband, if he has fulfilled his. But
the death of love is the end of marriage. Love is natural. Back of
all ceremony burns and will forever burn the sacred flame. There
has been no time in the world's history when that torch was
extinguished. In all ages, in all climes, among all people, there
has been true, pure, and unselfish love. Long before a ceremony was
thought of, long before a priest existed, then were true and
perfect marriages. Back of public opinion is natural modesty, the
affections of the heart; and in spite of all law, there is and
forever will be the realm of choice. Wherever love is, it is pure;
and everywhere, and at all times, the ceremony of marriage
testifies to that which has happened within the temple of the human
heart.

     Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry
under any circumstances?

     This depends upon whether marriage is a crime, If it is not a
crime, why should any penalty be attached? Can any one conceive of
any reason why a woman obtaining a divorce, without fault on her
part, should be compelled as a punishment to remain forever single?
Why should she be punished for the dishonesty or brutality of
another? Why should a man who faithfully kept his contract of
marriage, and who was deserted by an unfaithful wife, be punished 
for the benefit of society? Why should he be doomed to live without
a home?

                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               18

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     There is still another view. We must remember that human
passions are the same after as before, divorce. To prevent
remarriage is to give excuse for vice.

     Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the integrity
of the family?

     The real marriage is back of the ceremony, and the real
divorce is back of the decree. When love is dead, when husband and
wife abhor each other, they are divorced. The decree records in a
judicial way what has really taken place, just as the ceremony of
marriage attests a contract already made.

     The true family is the result of the true marriage, and the
institution of the family should above all things be preserved What
becomes of the sacredness of the home, if the law compels those who
abhor each other to sit at the same hearth? This lowers the
standard, and changes the happy haven of home into the prison-cell.
If we wish to preserve the integrity of the family, we must
preserve the democracy of the fireside, the republicanism of the
home, the absolute and perfect equality of husband and wife. There
must be no exhibition of force, no specter of fear. The mother must
not remain through an order of court, or the command of a priest,
or by virtue of the tyranny of society; she must sit in absolute
freedom, the queen of herself, the sovereign of her own soul and of
her own body. Real homes can never be preserved through force,
through slavery, or superstition. Nothing can be more sacred than
a home, no altar purer than the hearth.

     Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where
it exists contribute to the moral purity of society?

     We must define our terms. What is moral purity? The
intelligent of this world seek the well-being of themselves and
others. They know that happiness is the only good; and this they
strive to attain. To live in accordance with the conditions of
well-being is moral in the highest sense. To use the best
instrumentalities to attain the highest ends is our highest
conception of the moral. In other words, morality is the melody of
the perfection of conduct. A man is not moral because he is
obedient through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm of
perceived obligation, and where a being acts in accordance with
perceived obligation, that being is moral. Morality is not the
child of slavery. Ignorance is not the corner-stone of virtue.

     The first duty of a human being is to himself. He must see to
it that he does not become a burden upon others, To be self-
respecting, he must endeavor to be self-sustaining. If by his
industry and intelligence he accumulates a margin, then he is under
obligation to do with that margin all the good he can. He who lives
to the ideal does the best he can. In true marriage men and women
give not only their bodies, but their souls. This is the ideal
marriage; this is moral. They who give their bodies, but not their
souls, are not married, whatever the ceremony may be; this is 
immoral.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               19

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     If this be true, upon what principle can a woman continue to
sustain the relation of wife after love is dead? Is there some
other consideration that can take the place of genuine affection?
Can she be bribed with money, or a home, or position, or by public
opinion, and still remain a virtuous woman? Is it for the good of
society that virtue should be thus crucified between church and
state? Can it be said that this contributes to the moral purity of
the human race?

     Is there a higher standard of virtue in countries where
divorce is prohibited than in those where it is granted? Where
husbands and wives who have ceased to love cannot be divorced,
there are mistresses and lovers.

     The sacramental view of marriage is the shield of vice. The
world looks at the wife who has been abused, who has been driven
from the home of her husband, and the world pities; and when this
wife is loved by some other man, the world excuses. So, too, the
husband who cannot live in peace, who leaves his home, is pitied
and excused.

     Is it possible to conceive of anything more immoral than for
a husband to insist on living with a wife who has no love for him?
Is not this a perpetual crime? Is the wife to lose her personality?
Has she no right of choice? Is her modesty the property of another?
Is the man she hates the lord of her desire? Has she no right to
guard the jewels of her soul? Is there a depth below this? And is
this the foundation of morality? this the corner-stone of society?
this the arch that supports the dome of civilization? Is this
pathetic sacrifice on the one hand, this sacrilege on the other,
pleasing in the sight of heaven?

     To me, the tenderest word in our language, the most pathetic
fact within our knowledge, is maternity. Around this sacred word
cluster the joys and sorrows, the agonies and ecstasies, of the
human race. The mother walks in the shadow of death that she may
give another life. Upon the altar of love she puts her own life in
pawn. When the world is civilized, no wife will become a mother
against her will. Man will then know that to enslave another is to
imprison himself.

                                     Robert G. Ingersoll.

                            DIVORCE.

                              1890

     A little while ago the North American Review propounded the
following questions:

     1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any
circumstances?

     2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry, under any
circumstances?

     3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the 
family?

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               20

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where it exists,
contribute to the moral purity of society?

     These questions were answered in the November number of the
Review, 1889, by Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter and
myself. In the December number, the same questions were again
answered by W.B. Gladstone, Justice Bradley and Senator Dolph. In
the following month Mary A. Livermore, Amelia E. Barr, Rose Terry
Cooke, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps and Jennie June gave their opinions
upon the subject of divorce; and in the February number of this
year, Margaret Lee and the Rev. Phillip S. Moxom contributed
articles upon this subject.

     I propose to review these articles, and, first, let me say a
few words in answer to Cardinal Gibbons.

                   REPLY TO CARDINAL GIBBONS.

     The indissolubility of marriage was a reaction from polygamy.
Man naturally rushes from one extreme to the other. The Cardinal
informs us that "God instituted in Paradise the marriage state, and
sanctified it;" that "he established its law of unity and declared
its indissolubility." The Cardinal, however, accounts for polygamy
and divorce by saying that, "marriage suffered in the fall."

     If it be true that God instituted marriage in the Garden of
Eden, and declared its unity and indissolubility, how do you
account for the fact that this same God afterwards upheld polygamy?
How is it that he forgot to say anything on the subject when he
gave the Ten Commandments to Moses? How does it happen that in
these commandments he puts women on an equality with other property
-- "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or thy neighbor's ox,
or anything that is thy neighbor's"? How did it happen that Jacob,
who was in direct communication with God, married, not his deceased
wife's sister, but both sisters, while both were living? Is there
any way of accounting for the fact that God upheld concubinage?

     Neither is it true that "Christ reasserted in clear and
unequivocal terms, the sanctity, unity, and indissolubility of
marriage." Neither is it true that "Christ gave to this state an
added holiness and a dignity higher far than it had 'from the
beginning.'" If God declared the unity and indissolubility of
marriage in the Garden of Eden, how was it possible for Christ to
have "added a holiness and dignity to marriage higher far than it
had from the beginning"? How did Christ make marriage a sacrament?
There is nothing on that subject in the new Testament; besides,
Christ did apparently allow divorce, for one cause at least. He is
reported to have said: " Whosoever putteth away his wife, save for
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery."

     The Cardinal answers the question, "Can divorce from the bonds
of marriage ever be allowed?" with an emphatic theological "NO,"
and as a reason for this "no," says, "Thus saith the Lord."

     It is true that we regard Mormonism as a national disgrace,
and that we so regard it because the Mormons are polygamists. At
the same time, intelligent people admit that polygamy is no worse 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               21

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

in Utah, than it was in Palestine -- no worse under Joseph Smith,
than under Jehovah -- that it has been and must be forever the
same, in all countries and in all times, The Cardinal takes the
ground that "there are two species of polygamy -- simultaneous and
successive," and yet he seems to regard both species with equal
horror. If a wife dies and the husband marries another woman, is
not that successive polygamy?

     The Cardinal takes the ground that while no dissolution of the
marriage bond should be allowed, yet for grave causes a temporary
or permanent separation from bed and board may be obtained, and
these causes he enumerates as mutual consent, adultery, and grave
peril of soul or body." To those, however, not satisfied with this
doctrine, and who are "so unhappily mated and so constituted that
for them no relief can come save from absolute divorce," the
Cardinal says, in a very sympathetic way, that he "Will not linger
here to point out to such the need of seeking from a higher than
earthly power, the grace to suffer and be strong."

     At the foundation and upon the very threshold of this inquiry,
one thing ought to be settled, and that is this: Are we to answer
these questions in the light of human experience; are we to answer
them from the standpoint of what is better here, in this world, for
men and women -- what is better for society here and now -- or are
we to ask: What is the will of God? And in order to find out what
is this will of God, are we to ask the church, or are we to read
what are called "the sacred writings" for ourselves? In other
words, are these questions to be settled by theological and
ecclesiastical authority, or by the common sense of mankind? No
one, in my judgment, should marry for the sake of God, and no one
should he divorced for the sake of God, and no man and woman should
live together as husband and wife, for the sake of God. God being
an infinite being, cannot be rendered unhappy by any action of man,
neither can his well-being be increased; consequently, the will of
God has nothing whatever to do with this matter. The real question
then must be: What is best for man?

     Only the other day, a husband sought out his wife and with his
own hand covered her face with sulfuric acid, and in a moment
afterward she was blind. A Cardinal of the Catholic Church tells
this woman, sitting in darkness, that it is her duty to "suffer and
be strong"; that she must still remain the wife of this wretch;
that to break the bond that binds them together, would be an act of
sacrilege. So, too, two years ago, a husband deserted his wife in
Germany. He came to this country. She was poor. She had two
children -- one a babe. Holding one in her arm, and leading the
other by the hand, she walked hundreds of miles to the shore of the
sea. Overcome by fatigue, she was taken sick, and for months
remained in a hospital. Having recovered, she went to work, and
finally got enough money to pay her passage to New York. She came
to this city, bringing her children with her. Upon her arrival, she
commenced a search for her husband. One day overcome by exertion,
she fainted in the street. Persons took pity upon her and carried
her upstairs into a room. By a strange coincidence, a few moments
afterward her husband entered. She recognized him. He fell upon her
like a wild beast, and threw her down the stairs. She was taken up
from the pavement bleeding, and carried to a hospital.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               22

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     The Cardinal says to this woman: Remain the wife of this man;
it will be very pleasing to God; "suffer and be strong." But I say
to this woman: Apply to some Court; get a decree of absolute
divorce; cling to your children, and if at any time hereafter some
good and honest man offers you his hand and heart, and you can love
him, accept him and build another home, to the end that you may sit
by your own fireside, in your old age, with your children about
you.

     It is not true that the indissolubility of marriage preserves
the virtue of mankind. The fact is exactly the opposite. If the
Cardinal wishes to know why there are more divorces now than there
were fifty or a hundred years ago, let me tell him: Women are far
more intelligent -- some of them are no longer the slaves either of
husbands, or priests. They are beginning to think for themselves.
They can see no good reason why they should sacrifice their lives
to please Popes or Gods. They are no longer deceived by theological
prophecies. They are not willing to suffer here, with the hope of
being happy beyond the clouds -- they want their happiness now.

                     REPLY TO BISHOP POTTER.

     Bishop Potter does not agree with the Cardinal, yet they both
study substantially the same bible -- both have been set apart for
the purpose of revealing the revelation. They are the persons whose
duty it is to enlighten the common people. Cardinal Gibbons knows
that he represents the only true church, and Bishop Potter is just
as sure that he occupies that position. What is the ordinary man to
do?

     The Cardinal states, without the slightest hesitation, that
"Christ made marriage a sacrament -- made it the type of his own
never-ending union with his one sinless spouse, the church." The
Bishop does not agree with the Cardinal. He says: "Christ's words
about divorce are not to he construed as a positive law, but as
expressing the ideal of marriage, and corresponding to his words
about eunuchs, which not everybody can receive." Ought not the 
augurs to agree among themselves? What is a man who has only been
born once, to do?

     The Cardinal says explicitly that marriage is a sacrament, and
the Bishop cites Article xxv., that "matrimony is not to be
accounted for a sacrament of the gospel," and then admits that
"this might seem to reduce matrimony to a civil contract." For the
purpose of bolstering up that view, he says, "The first rubric in
the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony declares that 'the minister
is left to the direction of those laws in every thing that regards
a civil contract between the parties.'" He admits that "no minister
is allowed, as a rule, to solemnize the marriage of any man or
woman who has a divorced husband or wife still living." As a matter
of fact, we know that hundreds of Episcopalians do marry where a
wife or a husband is still living, and they are not turned out of
the Episcopal Church for this offence. The Bishop admits that the
church can do very little on the subject, but seems to gather a
little consolation from the fact, that "the penalty for breach of
this law might involve, for the officiating clergyman, deposition
from the ministry -- for the offending man or woman exclusion from 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               23

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

the sacraments, which, in the judgment of a very large number of
the clergy, involves everlasting damnation."

     The Cardinal is perfectly satisfied that the prohibition of
divorce is the foundation of morality, and the Bishop equally
certain that "the prohibition of divorce never prevents illicit
sexual connections."

     The Bishop also gives us the report of a committee of the last
General Convention, forming Appendix xiii of the journal. This
report, according to the Bishop, is to the effect "that the Mosaic
law of marriage is still binding upon the church unless directly
abrogated by Christ himself, that it was abrogated by him only so
far that all divorce was forbidden by him excepting for the cause
of fornication; that a woman might not claim divorce for any reason
whatever; that the marriage of a divorced person until the death of
the other party, is wholly forbidden; that marriage is not merely
a civil contract but a spiritual and supernatural union, requiring
for its mutual obligations a supernatural divine grace, and that
such grace is only imparted in the sacrament of matrimony."

     The most beautiful thing about this report is, that a woman
might not claim divorce for any reason whatever. I must admit that
the report is in exact accordance with the words of Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, the Bishop, not to leave us entirely without
hope, says that "there is in his church another school, equally
earnest and sincere in its zeal for the integrity of the family,
which would nevertheless repudiate the greater part of the above
report."

     There is one thing, however, that I was exceedingly glad to
see, and that is, that according to the Bishop the ideas of the
early church are closely connected with theories about matter, and
about the inferiority of woman, and about married life, which are
no longer believed. The Bishop has, with great clearness, stated 
several sides of this question; but I must say, that after reading
the Cardinal and the Bishop, the earnest theological seeker after
truth would find himself, to say the least of it, in some doubt.

     As a matter of fact, who cares what the Old Testament says
upon this subject? Are we to be bound forever by the ancient
barbarians?

                     REPLY TO MR. GLADSTONE.

     Mr. Gladstone takes the ground, first, "that marriage is
essentially a contract for life, and only expires when life itself
expires"; second, "that Christian marriage involves a vow before
God"; third, "that no authority has been given to the Christian
Church to cancel such a vow"; fourth, "that it lies beyond the
province of the civil legislature, which, from the necessity of
things, has a veto within the limits of reason, upon the making of
it, but has no competency to annul it when once made"; fifth, "that
according to the laws of just interpretation, remarriage is
forbidden by the text of Holy Scripture"; and sixth, "that while
divorce of any kind impairs the integrity of the family, divorce
with remarriage destroys it root and branch; that the parental and 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               24

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

the conjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the
Almighty no less than the persons united by the marriage tie, to
one another."

     First. Undoubtedly, a real marriage was never entered into
unless the parties expected to live together as long as they lived.
It does not enter into the imagination of the real lover that the
time is coming when he is to desert the being he adores, neither
does it enter into the imagination of his wife, or of the girl
about to become a wife. But how, and in what way, does a Christian
marriage involve a vow before God? Is God a party to the contract?
If yes, he ought to see to it that the contract is carried out. If
there are three parties -- the man, the woman, and God -- each one
should be bound to do something, and what is God bound to do? Is he
to hold the man to his contract, when the woman has violated hers?
Is it his business to hold the woman to the contract, when the man
has violated his? And what right has he to have anything to say on
the subject, unless he has agreed to do something by reason of this
vow? Otherwise, it would be simply a nudum pactum -- a vow without
consideration.

     Mr. Gladstone informs us that no authority has been given to
the Christian Church to cancel such a vow. If he means by that,
that God has not given any such authority to the Christian Church,
I most cheerfully admit it.

     (Note. -- This abrupt termination, together with the
unfinished replies to Justice Bradley and Senator Dolph, which
follow, shows that the author must have been interrupted in his
work, and on taking it up concluded that the colloquial and
concrete form would serve his turn the more formal and didactic
style employed. He thereupon dictated his reply to the Gibbon and
Gladstone arguments in the following form which will be regarded as
a most interesting instance of the author's wonderful versatility
of style.

     This unfinished matter was found among Col. Ingersoll's
manuscripts, and is given as transcribed from the stenographic
notes of Mr. I.N. Baker, his secretary, without revision by the
author.)

                        JUSTICE BRADLEY.

     Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Potter, and Mr. Gladstone represent
the theological side -- that is to say, the impracticable, the
supernatural, the unnatural. After reading their opinions, it is
refreshing to read those of Justice Bradley. It is like coming out
of the tomb into the fresh air.

     Speaking of the law, whether regarded as divine or human or
both, Justice Bradley says: "I know no other law on the subject but
the moral law, which does not consist of arbitrary enactments and
decrees, but is adapted to our condition as human beings. This is
so, whether it is conceived of as the will of some all-wise
creator. or as the voice of humanity speaking from its experience,
its necessities and its higher instincts. And that law surely does
not demand that the injured party to the marriage bond should be 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               25

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

forever tied to one who disregards and violates every obligation
that it imposes -- to one with whom it is impossible to cohabit --
to one whose touch is contamination. Nor does it demand that such
injured patty, if legally free, should be forever debarred from
forming other ties through which the lost hopes of happiness for
life may be restored. It is not reason, and it can not be law --
divine, or moral -- that unfaithfulness, or willful and obstinate
desertion, or persistent cruelty of the stronger party, should
afford no ground for relief. . . . . . . If no redress be
legalized, the law itself will be set at defiance, and greater
injury to soul and body will result from clandestine methods of
relief."

     Surely, this is good, wholesome, practical common sense.

                         SENATOR DOLPH.

     Senator Dolph strikes a strong blow, and takes the foundation
from under the idiotic idea of legal separation without divorce. He
says: "As there should be no partial divorce, which leaves the
parties in the condition aptly described by an eminent jurist as 'a
wife without a husband and a husband without a wife,' so, as a
matter of public expediency, and in the interest of public morals,
whenever and however the marriage is dissolved, both parties should
be left free to remarry." Again: "Prohibition of remarriage is
likely to injure society more than the remarriage of the guilty
party; "and the Senator says, with great force: "Divorce for proper
causes, free from fraud and collusion, conserves the moral
integrity of the family."

     In answering the question as to whether absolute prohibition
of divorce tends to morality or immorality, the Senator cites the
case of South Carolina. In that State, divorces were prohibited,
and in consequence of this prohibition, the proportion of his
property which a married man might give to his concubine was
regulated by law.

           THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED, IN COLLOQUIAL FORM.

     Those who have written on the subject of divorce seem to be
divided into two classes -- the supernaturalists and the
naturalists. The first class rely on tradition, inspired books, the
opinions of theologians as expressed in creeds, and the decisions
of ecclesiastical tribunals. The second class take into account the
nature of human beings, their own experience, and the facts of
life, as they know them. The first class live for another world;
the second, for this -- the one in which we live.

     The theological theorists regard men and women as depraved, in
consequence of what they are pleased to call "the fall of man,"
while the men and women of common sense know that the race has
slowly and painfully progressed through countless years of
suffering and toil. The priests insist that marriage is a
sacrament; the philosopher, that it is a contract.

     The question as to the propriety of granting divorces cannot
now be settled by quoting passages of Scripture, or by appealing to
creeds, or by citing the acts of legislatures or the decisions of

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               26

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

courts. With intelligent millions, the Scriptures are no longer
considered as of the slightest authority. They pay no more regard
to the Bible than to the Koran, the Zend-Avestas, or the Popol Vuh
-- neither do they care for the various creeds that were formulated
by barbarian ancestors, nor for the laws and decisions based upon
the savagery of the past.

     In the olden times when religions were manufactured -- when
priest-craft and lunacy governed the world -- the women were not
consulted. They were regarded and treated as serfs and menials --
looked upon as a species of property to be bought and sold like the
other domestic animals. This view or estimation of woman was
undoubtedly in the mind of the author of the Ten Commandments when
he said: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, -- nor his ox."

     Such, however, has been the advance of woman in all
departments of knowledge -- such advance having been made in spite
of the efforts of the church to keep her the slave of faith -- that
the obligations, rights and remedies growing out of the contract of
marriage and its violation, cannot be finally determined without
her consent and approbation. Legislators and priests must consult
with wives and mothers. They must become acquainted with their
wants and desire -- with their profound aversions their pure
hatreds, their loving self-denials, and, above all, with the
religion of the body that molds and dominates their lives.

     We have learned to suspect the truth of the old, because it is
old, and for that reason was born in the days of slavery and
darkness -- because the probability is that the parents of the old
were ignorance and superstition. We are beginning to be wise enough
to take into consideration the circumstances of our own time -- the
theories and aspirations of the present -- the changed conditions
of the world -- the discoveries and inventions that have modified
or completely changed the standards of the greatest of the human
race. We are on the eve of discovering that nothing should be done
for the sake of gods, but all for the good of man -- nothing for
another world -- everything for this.

     All the theories must be tested by experience, by facts. The
moment a supernatural theory comes in contact with a natural fact,
it falls to chaos. Let us test all these theories about marriage
and divorce -- all this sacramental, indissoluble imbecility, with
a real case -- with a fact in life.

     A few years ago a man and woman fell in love and were married
in a German village. The woman had a little money and this was
squandered by the husband. When the money was gone, the husband
deserted his wife and two little children, leaving them to live as
best they might. She had honestly given her hand and heart, and
believed that if she could only see him once more -- if he could
again look into her eyes -- he would come back to her. The husband
had fled to America. The wife lived four hundred miles from the
sea. Taking her two little children with her, she traveled on foot
the entire distance. For eight weeks she journeyed, and when she
reached the sea -- tired, hungry, worn out, she fell unconscious in
the street. She was taken to the hospital, and for many weeks  



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               27

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

fought for life upon the shore of death. At last she recovered, and
sailed for New York. She was enabled to get just enough money to
buy a steerage ticket.

     A few days ago, while wandering in the streets of New York in
search of her husband, she sank unconscious to the sidewalk. She
was taken into the home of another. In a little while her husband
entered. He caught sight of his wife. She ran toward him, threw her
arms about his neck, and cried: "At last I have found you!" "With
an oath, he threw her to the floor; he bruised her flesh with his
feet and fists; he dragged her into the hall, and threw her into
the street."

     Let us suppose that this poor wife sought out Cardinal Gibbons
and the Right Honorable William B. Gladstone, for the purpose of
asking their advice. Let us imagine the conversation:

     The Wife. My dear Cardinal, I was married four years ago. I
loved my husband and I was sure that he loved me. Two babes were
born. He deserted me without cause. He left me in poverty and want.
Feeling that he had been overcome by some delusion -- tempted by
something more than he could bear, and dreaming that if I could
look upon his face again he would return, I followed him on foot.
I walked, with my children in my arms, four hundred miles. I
crossed the sea. I found him at last -- and instead of giving me 
again his love, he fell upon me like a wild beast, He bruised and
blackened my flesh. He threw me from him, and for my proffered love
I received curses and blows. Another man, touched by the evidence
of my devotion, made my acquaintance -- came to my relief --
supplied my wants -- gave me and my children comfort, and then
offered me his hand and heart, in marriage. My dear Cardinal, I
told him that I was a married woman, and he told me that I should
obtain a divorce, and so I have come to ask your counsel.

     The Cardinal. My dear woman, God instituted in Paradise the
marriage state and sanctified it, and he established its law of
unity and declared its indissolubility.

     The Wife. But, Mr. Cardinal, if it be true that "God
instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, and declared its unity
and indissolubility," how do you account for the fact that this
same God afterward upheld polygamy? How is it that he forgot to say
anything on the subject when he gave the Ten Commandments to Moses?

     The Cardinal. You must remember that the institution of
marriage suffered in the fall of man.

     The Wife. How does that throw any light upon my case? That was
long ago. Surely, I was not represented at that time, and is it
right that I should be punished for what was done by others in the
very beginning of the world?

     The Cardinal. Christ reasserted in clear and unequivocal
terms, the sanctity, unity and indissolubility of marriage, and
Christ gave to this state an added holiness, and a dignity higher
far than it had from the beginning.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               28

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     The Wife. How did it happen that Jacob, while in direct
communication with God, married, not his deceased wife's sister,
but both sisters while both were living? And how, my dear Cardinal,
do you account for the fact that God upheld concubinage?

     The Cardinal. Marriage is a sacrament. You seem to ask me
whether divorce from the bond of marriage can ever be allowed? I
answer with an emphatic theological No; and as a reason for this
No, I say, Thus saith the Lord. To allow a divorce and to permit
the divorced parties, or either of them, to remarry, is one species
of polygamy. There are two kinds -- the simultaneous and the
successive.

     The Wife. But why did God allow simultaneous polygamy in
Palestine? Was it any better in Palestine then than it is in Utah
now? If a wife dies, and the husband marries another wife, is not
that successive polygamy?

     The Cardinal. Curiosity leads to the commission of deadly
sins. We should be satisfied with a Thus saith the Lord, and you
should be satisfied with a Thus saith the Cardinal. If you have the
right to inquire -- to ask questions -- then you take upon yourself
the right of deciding after the questions have been answered. This
is the end of authority. This undermines the cathedral. You must
remember the words of our Lord: "What God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder."

     The Wife. Do you really think that God joined us together? Did
he at the time know what kind of man he was joining to me? Did he
then know that he was a wretch, an ingrate, a kind of wild beast?
Did he then know that this husband would desert me -- leave me with
two babes in my arms, without raiment and without food? Did God put
his seal upon this bond of marriage, upon this sacrament, and it
was well-pleasing in his sight that my life should be sacrificed,
and does he leave me now to crawl toward death, in poverty and
tears?

     The Cardinal. My dear woman, I will not linger here to point
out to you the need of seeking from a higher than an earthly power
the grace to suffer and be strong.

     The Wife. Mr. Cardinal, am I under any obligation to God? Will
it increase the happiness of the infinite for me to remain homeless
and husbandless? Another offers to make me his wife and to give me
a home, -- to take care of my children and to fill my heart with
joy. If I accept, will the act lessen the felicity or ecstasy of
heaven? Will it add to the grief of God? Will it in any way affect
his well-being?

     The Cardinal. Nothing that we can do can effect the well-being
of God. He is infinitely above his children.

     The Wife. Then why should he insist upon the sacrifice of my
life? Mr. Cardinal, you do not seem to sympathize with me. you do
not understand the pangs I feel. You are too far away from my
heart, and your words of consolation do not heal the bruise; they
leave me as I now leave you -- without hope. I will ask the advice 
of the Right Honorable William E. Gladstone.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               29

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     The Wife. Mr. Gladstone, yon know my story, and so I ask that
you will give me the benefit of your knowledge, of your advice.

     Mr. Gladstone. My dear woman, marriage is essentially a
contract for life, and only expires when life itself expires. I say
this because Christian marriage involves a vow before God, and no
authority has been given to the Christian Church to cancel such a
vow.

     The Wife. Do you consider that God was one of the contracting
parties in my marriage? Must all vows made to God be kept? Suppose
the vow was made in ignorance in excitement -- must it be
absolutely fulfilled? Will it make any difference to God whether it
is kept or not? Does not an infinite God know the circumstances
under which every vow is made? Will he not take into consideration
the imperfections, the ignorance, the temptations and the passions
of his children? Will God hold a poor girl to the bitter dregs of
a mistaken bargain? Have I not suffered enough? Is it necessary
that my heart should break? Did not God know at the time the vow
was made that it ought not to have been made? If he feels toward me
as a father should, why did he give no warning? Why did he accept
the vow? Why did he allow a contract to be made giving only to
death the annulling power? Is death more merciful than God?

     Mr. Gladstone. All vows that are made to God must be kept. Do
you not remember that Jephthah agreed to sacrifice the first one
who came out of his house to meet him, and that he fulfilled the
vow, although in doing so, he murdered his own daughter. God makes
no allowance for ignorance, for temptation, for passion -- nothing.
Besides, my dear woman, to cancel the contract of marriage lies
beyond the province of the civil legislature; it has no competency
to annul the contract of marriage when once made.

     The Wife. The man who has rescued me from the tyranny of my
husband -- the man who wishes to build me a home and to make my
life worth living, wishes to make with me a contract of marriage.
This will give my babes a home.

     Mr. Gladstone. My dear madam, while divorce of any kind
impairs the integrity of the family, divorce with remarriage
destroys it root and branch.

     The Wife. The integrity of my family is already destroyed. My
husband deserted his home -- left us in the very depths of want. I
have in my arms two helpless babes. I love my children, and I love
the man who has offered to give them and myself another fireside.
Can you say that this is only destruction? The destruction has
already occurred. A remarriage gives a home to me and mine.

     Mr. Gladstone. But, my dear mistaken woman, the parental and
the conjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the
Almighty.

     The Wife. Do you believe that the Almighty was cruel enough,
in my case, to join the parental and the conjugal relations, to the
end that they should endure as long as I can bear the sorrow? If
there were three parties to my marriage, my husband, myself, and 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               30

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

God, should each be bound by the contract to do something? What did
God bind himself to do? If nothing, why should he interfere? If
nothing, my vow to him was without consideration. You are as cruel
and unsympathetic, Mr. Gladstone, as the Cardinal. You have not the
imagination to put yourself in my place.

     Mr. Gladstone. My dear madam, we must be governed by the law
of Christ, and there must be no remarriage. The husband and wife
must remain husband and wife until a separation is caused by death.

     The Wife. If Christ was such a believer in the sacredness of
the marriage relation, why did he offer rewards not only in this
world, but in the next, to husbands who would desert their wives
and follow him?

     Mr. Gladstone. It is not for us to inquire. God's ways are not
our ways.

     The Wife. Nature is better than you. A mother's love is higher
and deeper than your philosophy. I will follow the instincts of my
heart. I will provide a home for my babes, and for myself. I will
be freed from the infamous man who betrayed me. I will become the
wife of another -- of one who loves me -- and after having filled
his life with joy, I hope to die in his arms, surrounded by my
children.

     A few months ago, a priest made a confession -- he could carry
his secret no longer. He admitted that he was married -- that he
was the father of two children -- that he had violated his priestly
vows. He was unfrocked and cast out. After a time he came back and
asked to be restored into the bosom of the church, giving as his
reason that he had abandoned his wife and babes. This throws a
flood of light on the theological view of marriage.

     I know of nothing equal to this, except the story of the
Sandwich Island chief who was converted by the missionaries, and
wished to join the church. On cross-examination, it turned out that
he had twelve wives, and he was informed that a polygamist could
not be a Christian. The next year he presented himself again for
the purpose of joining the church, and stated that he was not a
polygamist -- that he had only one wife. When the missionaries
asked him what he had done with the other eleven he replied: "I ate
them."

     The indissoluble marriage was a reaction from polygamy. The
church has always pretended that it was governed by the will of
God, and that for all its dogmas it had a "thus saith the Lord."
Reason and experience were branded as false guides. The priests
insisted that they were in direct communication with the Infinite
-- that they spoke by the authority of God, and that the duty of
the people was to obey without question and to submit with at least
the appearance of gladness.

     We now know that no such communication exists -- that priests
spoke without authority, and that the duty of the people was and is
to examine for themselves. We now know that no one knows what the
will of God is, or whether or not such a being exists. We now know 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               31

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

that nature has furnished all the light there is, and that the
inspired books are like all books, and that their value depends on
the truth, the beauty, and the wisdom they contain. We also know
that it is now impossible to substantiate the supernatural. Judging
from experience -- reasoning from known facts -- we can safely say
that society has no right to demand the sacrifice of an innocent
individual. Society has no right, under the plea of self-
preservation. to compel women to remain the wives of men who have
violated the contract of marriage, and who have become objects of
contempt and loathing to their wives. It is not to the best
interest of society to maintain such firesides -- such homes.

     The time has not arrived, in my judgment, for the Congress of
the United States, under an amendment to the Constitution, to pass
a general law applicable to all the States, fixing the terms and
conditions of divorce. The States of the Union are not equally
enlightened. Some are far more conservative than others. Let us 
wait until a majority of the States have abandoned the theological
theories upon this subject.

     Upon this question light comes from the West, where men have
recently laid the foundations of States, and where the people are
not manacled and burdened with old constitutions and statutes and
decisions, and where with a large majority the tendency is to
correct the mistakes of their ancestors.

     Let the States in their own way solve this question, and the
time will come when the people will be ready to enact sensible and
reasonable laws touching this important subject, and then the
Constitution can be amended and the whole subject controlled by
Federal law.

     The law, as it now exists in many of the States, is to the
last degree absurd and cruel. In some States the husband can obtain
a divorce on the ground that the wife has been guilty of adultery,
but the wife cannot secure a divorce from the husband simply for
the reason that he has been guilty of the same offence. So, in most
of the States where divorce is granted on account of desertion for
a certain number of years, the husband can return on the last day
of the time fixed, and the poor wife who has been left In want is
obliged to receive the wretch with open arms, In some States
nothing is considered cruelty that does not endanger life or limb
or health. The whole question is in great confusion, but after all
there are some States where the law is reasonable, and the
consequence is, that hundreds and thousands of suffering wives are
released from a bondage worse than death.

     The idea that marriage is something more than a contract is at
the bottom of all the legal and judicial absurdities that surround
this subject. The moment that it is regarded from a purely secular
standpoint the infamous laws will disappear. We shall then take
into consideration the real rights and obligations of the parties
to the contract of marriage. We shall have some respect for the
sacred feelings of mothers -- for the purity of woman -- the
freedom of the fireside -- the real democracy of the hearthstone
and, above all, for love, the purest, the profoundest and the
holiest of all passions.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               32

                        IS DIVORCE WRONG?

     We shall no longer listen to priests who regard celibacy as a
higher state than marriage, nor to those statesmen who look upon a
barbarous code as the foundation of all law.

     As long as men imagine that they have property in wives; that
women can be owned, body and mind; that it is the duty of wives to
obey; that the husband is the master, the source of authority --
that his will is law, and that he can call on legislators and
courts to protect his superior rights, that to enforce obedience
the power of the State is pledged -- just so long will millions of
husbands be arrogant, tyrannical and cruel.

     No gentleman will be content to have a slave for the mother of
his children. Force has no place in the world of love. It is
impossible to control likes and dislikes by law. No one ever did
and no one ever can love on compulsion. Courts can not obtain
jurisdiction of the heart.

     The tides and currents of the soul care nothing for the
creeds. People who make rules for the conduct of others generally
break them themselves. It is so easy to bear with fortitude the
misfortunes of others.

     Every child should be well-born -- well fathered and mothered.
Society has as great an interest in children as in parents, The
innocent should not be compelled by law to suffer for the crimes of
the guilty. Wretched and weeping wives are not essential to the
welfare of States and Nations.

     The church cries now "whom God hath joined together let not
man put asunder"; but when the people are really civilized the
State will say: "whom Nature hath put asunder let not man bind and
manacle together."

                                    Robert G. Ingersoll.


                          ****     ****

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

   The Bank of Wisdom Inc. is a collection of the most thoughtful,
scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of
suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the
Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our
nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and
religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to
the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --

                 The Free Market-Place of Ideas.

   The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books please contact
us, we need to give them back to America.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               33
