The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of ConnecticutBolles, John R. (John Rogers)
History
The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of Connecticut
Bolles, John R. (John Rogers)
Rogerenes -- History
To this latter and chief argument, the father replies that he shall
not put Mary in his first wife’s place, since that marriage has
never been annulled, by any law of God or of man. Did not God, in
the olden times, allow two kinds of wives, both truly wives, yet one
higher than the other? Under the singular circumstances of this
case, being still bound to Elizabeth by the law of God, yet
separated from her by the will of men, he will marry Mary, yet not
as he married Elizabeth Griswold. He will openly and honorably marry
her, yet put no woman in the place of his first wife. To this Mary
agrees.
It is but another outcome of this man’s character. He fears God and
God alone. He takes very little thought as to what man may think or
do concerning him. Yet not by a hair’s breadth will he, if he knows
it, transgress any scriptural law. (In his after treatise “On
Divorce,” how well can be read between the lines the meditations and
conclusions of this period, and chiefly the fact that, in deciding
upon a second marriage, he in no wise admitted that Elizabeth
Griswold was not still his wife, although so held from him that he
might lawfully take another, although under the circumstances a
lesser, wife.[89])
Footnote 89:
In this treatise “On Divorce,” he shows that the New Testament
admits but one cause for divorce, and does not admit adultery as a
cause. Therefore (by inference), although, by her after marriages,
his first wife leads an adulterous life (see statement of his son,
Part I., Chapter IV.), he does not consider that this fact
releases him from his marriage bond. But since, by the law of God
(“Mosaic” and still prevailing in the time of Christ), a man was
allowed another than his first and chiefest wife, in taking Mary
Ransford for his wife under the forced separation from his first
wife, he breaks no law of God. Not that he so much as mentions
himself, Elizabeth or Mary in this treatise; but the above is
plainly inferable to those acquainted with his history at this
period. Since, in granting the divorce to Elizabeth, the court
left him free to marry again, he broke no civil law in taking
another wife.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account