.MTgz.NDIyNTk

under the circumstances, if both were never in perfect good faith. All that can be asked for the second, is an explanation, & if damages occur, or reparations of the same. This is the moral aspect of the subject. The "of course" belongs to the first engagement The whole error lies in entering upon the second engagement while the first was yet pending. That Sarah understood it was yet pending is clear from the fact that she now calls upon me now to describe it "one way or the other" You say you had engaged a lady to go & ? arrangement with the trustees accordingly. Of course you break off that engagement. Now of course you can renew it. I have stated? this matter in this logical form, so that you may see that Sarah is not only under no moral obligation to go to Marietta, but is absolutely under the highest moral obligation not to go. To go would be to offend the moral law, the law of God. Now I have stated the subject in this & other letters in the various forms & with so much earnestness, because I know Sarah's strong sense of right. Moral obligations are the supreme law with her. I don't believe a more honest person ever lived than she. I feel sure that if she felt that it was right to go to Marietta, she would go though it should rob her of a husband. Thence I am anxious that she should see it in its true light. You will of course see by this my idea of when the moral obligation is placed. If she fulfils it the first engagment the