Chapter 11. — Our Duty to Our Neighbor — Application of the Law to Special Cases And Conditions — Husbands and Wives.

CHAPTER 11. — OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR —

APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO SPECIAL CASES AND

CONDITIONS — HUSBANDS AND WIVES.

WE now proceed to consider the principles of righteousness embraced in the law of love to our neighbor in their application to some of the most important relations in life.

I. The first of these RELATIONS to which we call attention is that subsisting between HUSBAND AND WIFE.

1. Its propriety.

(1) This relation dates its origin from the commencement of our race. Amid the peaceful bowers of paradise, when sin as yet had not disturbed the harmony or tarnished the beauty of the fair creation, when all was innocence, purity, and love, even then; “The Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Genesis 2:18.

Here, we behold the origin of this endearing relation, around which cluster the most sacred obligations and hallowed enjoyments of life. It is founded on the will and appointment of God, and is as much adapted to the nature of man as the rays of light to the eye. As this beautiful organ of the human body would be useless and unmeaning but for the light that falls upon it, so there are important faculties of our complex nature which can only be developed and exercised in connection with the conjugal relation. When Eve was formed from the rib of Adam, it was said: “She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.” It is added: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” Here, the fact that the material substance of which woman was formed was extracted from man indicates an imperfection of his nature resulting from that extraction, which could only be remedied by a restoration of the abstracted substance; not, however, in the shape of a literal rib, as when taken from him, but as a “help meet for him,” a more highly-refined organism of human nature, which, after having received the polish of passing the second time through the creative hands, was to be restored to him as “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.” So that, in return for a small portion of his material composition, he receives as part of his nature a “help meet for him” — a woman, a wife — super-abundantly restoring what he had lost, and enhancing the perfection of his nature and the extent of his enjoyment.

(2) The propriety and general obligation of this conjugal relation not only appear from the history of its origin, as just referred to, but are evident from the native instincts of humanity. The natural attraction of love between the sexes, independent of any direct precept to that effect, as a general rule, will secure the adoption of the marriage state. And as it does not appear that this obligation was intended to be universal, but only a duty of general bearing, admitting of exceptions, the instincts of nature alone are sufficient to secure its general observance.

(3) Again, the exceptions to the obligation to enter upon the marriage state may arise from two different considerations:

First. The bond of this obligation can only legitimately spring from the emotion of love, or the preference of the affections; hence it follows that in the absence of this state of affection between the parties, the entrance upon the marriage state, so far from being a duty, would rather be a profanation of the institution.

Secondly. Poverty, affliction, or any insurmountable barrier in the way of attending to the duties connected with the married relation, may render the entrance upon it improper. In times of great persecution or calamity, it may be injudicious for some persons to assume the increased responsibilities which this relation involves; or individuals, as was the case with St. Paul, may feel it their duty to engage in some special service for the Church, which could scarcely be properly performed by one encumbered by the duties and cares of the married relation. But, under all ordinary circumstances, it is clear, as well from reason as Scripture, that marriage is a duty, and those cases in which it is not are exceptions to the general rule; and such exceptions are only valid when it is clear that this important relation would necessarily conflict with other obligations more important in their nature, or imperiously binding in their character.

2. The advantages resulting from the marriage institution are so obvious and great that they need not be dwelt upon. Without the family relation necessarily connected with this institution, all the cherished endearments clustering around the home circle, uniting parents and children, and brothers and sisters, in fondest affection, would be lost. Destroy this sacred institution, and the foundation of parental care for children is removed, and all that tender attention and nurture so essential to the proper training of the young is also destroyed, and children are left to grow up, like “the wild ass’s colt,” in utter neglect and ignorance, unfitted for the enjoyment of happiness, or for any station of usefulness in society.

3. The duties pertaining to the conjugal state are important and obvious.

(1) Mutual fidelity and affection are required. This grows out of the very nature of the institution. Indeed, if husband and wife are not under mutual obligations of fidelity and affection toward each other, in what does the import or propriety of marriage consist? The very nature of marriage implies a pledge to this effect, and every dereliction from the faithful performance of this vow is a profanation of the institution. Not only the nature and design of the institution require mutual fidelity and love on the part of husband and wife, binding each to the other alone, and prohibiting the practice of polygamy, but such is also the plain teaching of the Bible. Hence we read, in the second chapter of Genesis, at the very birth of the institution: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” It does not read wives, but wife — in the singular; hence, polygamy is here explicitly interdicted.

And it is evident, from the teaching of Christ, that the occasional toleration, or rather sufferance, of polygamy, in the patriarchal age, was no repeal of the laws of the institution as given in the commencement. Our Saviour says, when interrogated by his disciples on the subject of divorce: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matthew 19:4-9.

The general tenor of Scripture in both Testaments is against polygamy. The marriage relation is constantly referred to by the terms husband and wife, each in the singular. One passage, in confirmation of this position, we present from the Old Testament: “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou has dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant, And did not he make one (one woman)? Yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one?” The answer is, “That he might seek a godly seed.” Here the practice of polygamy is shown to be in explicit contravention of the original institution. And the reason on which the law is founded is referred to as relating to the character of the offspring, thus affirming the fact that polygamy tends to the deterioration of children.

Again, nature herself is against polygamy. The generally admitted fact, that the number of male births in all countries is only to a small extent in excess of the number of female births (as if to balance against the greater exposure of the male sex to death by war and other casualties), is a forcible indication that nature has designed but one woman for one male, while both are living.

Once more, the fact that marriage is properly founded on mutual love between the parties — which, in its true character, can only subsist in the heart of woman or man toward one person at the same time — renders polygamy utterly irreconcilable with the nature of the requisite conjugal affection.

Marriage being originally an appointment of God, and the duties pertaining to that relation being prescribed in Scripture, it is properly a divine institution. But since civil law may enact regulations concerning the performance of these duties, so far as these regulations are consistent with the divine law, and relate to external duties properly cognizable by civil enactments, it may therefore be admitted that marriage is also, in one sense, and to a limited extent, a civil regulation.

In connection with the mutual fidelity and affection required by the law of God between husband and wife may be considered the crime of adultery, which is so expressly prohibited by this law, whether as set forth in the Decalogue or other parts of the Scripture; and also all manner of inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, fornication, sinful lust, and every violation of that purity and chastity of heart and life which Christianity enjoins. All such deviations from the principles of holiness, whether in the overt act or only in the purpose or desire of the heart, are expressly condemned by the moral law of God.

(2) But between husband and wife there are other obligations of kindred nature specified in Scripture. Thus it is the duty of the husband to be the guardian, protector, and comforter of his wife; and of the wife to reverence, honor; and obey her husband.

These reciprocal duties are beautifully portrayed by St. Paul. He illustrates the endearing relation between husband and wife by the union between Christ and his Church. His language is: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it… So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church… For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh… Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife, even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” Ephesians 5:22-33.

Here the husband is taught to love, nourish, and cherish his wife as his own flesh, “even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it.” How intimate the relation, and how great the affection it enjoins! But the wife is taught to reverence and be submissive to her husband; yea, “to be subject to her own husband in every thing, as the Church is subject unto Christ.” How deep must be the reverence, and how unbounded the confidence, where such implicit submission is required! But where the union is founded upon that mutual love which should hallow the conjugal bond, there is no disquieting restraint, nothing displeasing or servile in connection with these duties, but all becomes a sweet and living pleasure — a perennial source of enjoyment and bliss.