The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-03-27

cleaVe to his wife; and the twain shall
be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no
mere twain, but one flesh. What there
fore God hath Joined together let no
mar put asunder."
The Pharisaes let it be remembered,
were his enemies and were on this occa.
sion trying, as usual, to entrap Him in
His words, that they might accuse him
beIore the authorities. They quoted
Moses, under the guise of a shrewd quee-
ton, thinking to induce him tN speak
against Moses. But he wisely carried
them back of Moses to the creation, and
held up the standard there set up, OF
one wife and one husband. In so doing
he at the same time explained the fun
meaning OF one pair by saying, "The
Nv ain shall lie one flesh 'Wherefore
they are no more twain but one flesh"
That is to say, God created one woman
for one man, and one man for one Wo-
ran, and said these two shall be one
flesh. There is no room for a plurality
OF companions here. OF this same con
cessation, it is further written: ''They
say unto him, why did Moses then com
nand TO give her writing of divorce
mcnt, and to put her away? He saith
uEto them, Moses because of the hardness
OF your hearts suffered you to put away
your wives: but from the beginning it
was not so.' This answer shows con.
clusively that the standard Moses had
erected was one of permission, because of
the terrible corruption into which the
marriage institution had fallen, and was
hence not by divine authority or sanction.
1t Is equally certain, from this incident,
that the Mosaic law in reference to mar
lagos was to end under the new Dispen-
,a;ion, which He now came to inaugur-
axe.
For having quoted the Edenic standard
If marital purity, and explained the
Mosaic law, he proceeds to abrogatc that
law by saying, Il say unto you, whose
ever shall put away his wife, except it
DC for fornication, and shall marry an.
other, committeth adultery, and whose
rarrieth her which is put away doth
.ommit adultery
This is unequiVocal and advantageous.
The certainty is that Jesus insisted, LIST.
Against the Plurality of wives or hus-
bands; End. Against the putting away of
companion, except for fornication; 3rd
against the remarriage of either wife or
husband to another, while either party
wed, except in the case of the innocent
3ariy 4th. That any marriage OF any
divorced party not based upon the one
scriptural cause of adultery IS unscrip-
mai and therefore, wrong.
There is therefore but one ground for
livorcement in the Scriptures, and it fol-
Cws that every bill OF enforcement is
sued by men, not based upon the UNI
aitEfulness of the marriage bed, by one
Of the parties to the marriage, has been
direct violation of Holy Writ, and
dot on our civilization That which
God hath joined together let no man put
lsLnder' Death of one of the parties
a marriage contract. alone can re
ease either, except in the one case of
orEication. which only releases the in
locent party. So much for the Scrip
.uIes. But what of abandonment. cruel
Ieatment, non support, etc? 1t ought
20 be sufficient to advert to the foregoing
Scriptures to answer any further -
Quires OH this subject. Ii Is c.-ough that
God has made no provision for divorces
Tor any of these causes. He recognizes
put enc cause OF sufficient gravity to dis
miss the marriage vows. He holds man
and wife as one flesh, and demands
that no man put them asunder." Thus
lar we may go and no further. The line
must be drawn somewhere, and where
Better, than where it begins; in vows OF
taithfulness TO the marriage bed. The
man or woman, that has broken this
vow, has broken the golden link that
binds them indisolubly to their com
panicn, and deserves the consequences
OF an outraged law.
Ii. the beautiful marriage ceremony of
the Methodist church, this question is
asked, wilt thou love her, comfort her,
hcHor, and keep her, in sickness and III
health; and forsaking all others, keep
thee only unto her. so long as We both
shall hve?" This VOW, so beautifully
constructed, and so comprehensive in its
scope, it but the embodiment of all that
have said. 1t recognizes the sacredncss
of the marriage vows, and the indissolu-
lie nature of the marriage contract And
o it is with all churches :.
Now why there should be such lax
avs and such wholesale slaughtering of
his sacred institution, in our fair State?
$ the question before US, in view OF the
plain teachings of the Scriptures. Let
is ccme back ito the ancient landmarks
yEich our fathers have set, or in other
words, to the Bible Rule. Better to let
some innocent parties suffer, yea,
many of them, than to let down the gap
o all sorts of excuses for the dissolu
tiCn of the marriage vows. The one safe
3lound is where Jesus puts it. Otherwise
VIC let down the gap, and become parties
to adultery, and all its evil consequences.
For the simple reason, that every such
marriage makes the parties thereto adul-
terous and we by enacting lax laws,
and marrying them, ARE made partakers
OF their evil deeds"
II the young and the unmarried know,
that once married forever married"
there would be very much more consid-
grafton given before taking this all-im-
portant step, and there would be far less
insists
Let us see what the churches say about
this subject, and what the most eminent
authorities in il likewise say:
Adam Clarke, says' 1T does not APP
peat that there i, any other case III
winch Jesus Christ admits of divorce.
ihcse who form matrimonial connec-
uon, in the fear and love of Cod, and
unqer his direction, will never need a