Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1870-03-01

solved as no longer neeQed, ana new anu
,louo and most sacred relation is entered
INTO, not natura! but spiritual and free,
uniting soul and body and all personal in
erersts to another, which is designed to be
and indissoluble during life
Of the parent and child latter BIRTH it
cannot be said that they are one flesh, but
only of husband and wife. Wherefore"
says Christ, adding his own divine sanction
"they are no more twain, but one flesh"
Inspiration discerns in this union high
er and more sacred mystery, and makes it
the type of that mystic union between
Christ and the church whose contamination /
is called the marriage of the Lamb" As
the husband and wife are one flesh, so che |
that is joined to the Lord is one SPIRIT
"For we are members of this body, of his
flesh and of his bones And the relation
of the twain, which IL that of subordina-
ton in unity, is declared in that divine
word which infdel refOrmers may sneer at
or cavil over, but cannot refute or explain
away: "The husband is the head of the
wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church." And again, "The head of every
man is Christ, and the head of the woman
is man, and the head of Christ is God" So
profound and sacred, so divinely instituted
and related is that sacrament of marriage
we so profanely tamper with.
BY zone flesh" is doubtless to be under
stood one man, or one person, including
the highest and most perfect unity. Weare
so much in bondage to the senses, and to
the modern notions of an extreme individ
ualism, that few persons can conceive of a
unity that is not outward and visible. Per-
haps analogy may help us here. The body
is one, yet hath many members, and all
| the members though distinct and diverse
| in form, constitute but one body. So there
are two eyes, but one sight; and both are
necessary to a perfect vision. So husband
aud wife, though two outwardly, constitute
but one person In the divine idea, and even
in the eye of human law, so far as this is
not yet divorced from the law of Cod
Hence the name of the wife is merged in
that of the husband, indicating that her
distinct personality is lost, or supposed to
be lost, or mergedin his. We wonder that
the right of the wife to retain her own name
after marriage, as well as property, has not
been advocated in the late woman suffrage
conventions, but We suppose it is deferred
only till after her other rights" have beer
secured
Individualism, and the asserting of sep
arate rights and interests between husband
and wife, is an idea utterly foreign from
: the true IDEA of marriage, and indicates
that the unity is less perfect in fact than i
is in theory. To legislate, as many ar,
clamoring for legislation, between husband
and wife, as if they were twain, when the!
r are no more twain, but one flesh, is utterl,
inconsistent with the divine idea an(
, christian law of marriage, and so far is
: dissolution of the tie.
We grant that in the present imperfec
] and depraved condition of society, certain
D laws may be necessary to protect the weak
, ness of the wife against the violence or tyr
t amy of the husband, and to guard som
personal interests which conjugal low
y should protect and secure without legisla
5 ton. The hardness of mems hearts ma
II require Il is commandment now, as it di
n in old time the promissory law of divorc
l. but this should be deemed exceptiona
h and no part of but alien to the true idea
It marriage; and to be done away Just so fl
e as this idea is realized.
r But it is not the weakening simply
d legislative interference, but the causele
J. and fearful dissolution ofthe marriage bon
l. that is the chief evil, and calls for tt
$ cearest and most emphatic assertion
r the christian law Of marriage.
lie What therefore God hath joined togeth
OF let not man put asunder. This is the {
I'd vine and authoritative conclusion al
r. command of Christ; and it deserves to
On carefully and reverently pondered.
lis what God hath Joined together" III
it implies that marriage is no mere hum
n: compact or partnership, which can be c
e tered into lightly, and aslightly and cas-
lie dissolved; but divine ordinance, and c
he be rightly and truly consummated only
ess God appoints and sanctions it. 1t d.
ale not imply, however, that an unhappy
nd ill-sorted marriage is not of Gods JONI
en- as is sometimes asserted, and may the
fore be dissolved Such an interpretati
lge is an affront TO the wisdom and auth
IAN ity of Christ, who utters this prohibit
liz directly against the license of those "
ian would dissolve the marriage bond for &
ne, cause but one and Christ surely would
BILE sanction, even by implication, in one ella
yo- what he forbids in the other.
on, The divine sanction of marriage and
I'm. obligations growing out of it pertain to
etc cry de .tdcto marriage, whatever its form
etc the disposition of the parties; just as
TIL sanction and obligations of civil COVE
inc ment, which is also a divine institute
nsy pertain to every de facto government,
rom are not dependent on the will orconser
! to the subject-our democratic theories to
th ! contrary notwithstanding
lent And here let us. listen again to the.
la emn and emphatic words Of Christ
the Pharisees had asked him, us it lawful
the aman oput away his wife for every caus
9TH implying that there is one. cause al
tout which there can be no question; and
and ing the legislation of Moses which per-
n of ted divorce for great variety of cause
nan. Jesus replies, asfwe haveseen, by refer
to the original institution of marriage al
rood creation of man, and shows its indissol,
lake nature from the unity and the moral
lper ness of the twain, who are hencefortl
art more twain but one flesh; and adds
ID to authoritative declaration: 'Whoso
took shall put away his wife, except it be
! in 70 nication, and shall marry another,
the lmiusth adultery, and ~hoso uarrieth