Newspaper Page Text
VOL. x.
Cmitiramkations.
#
?ci-~rr-: - -
December Ist, 1869.
Are divorced persons who have married again dur
ing the life time of their first companions proper
subjects for church membership ?
All that the church of Christ cm know correctly
*
upon this subject as an. infallible rule of govern
ment must be obtained from the plain teachings of
the Scriptures. Let us therefore, appeal to them
at once as a standard for our faith and practice.
Christ Jesus in his noted sermon to his disciples
on the Mount, declares, that “ Whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery ; and whosoever
shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adul
tery.” Matt v. 32. From this text it appears that
there is one, and only one , justifiable cause for
which a man can put away Iris wife, and if from
any other cause she is put away and divorced, be
is nol at liberty to marry again. This view is sus
tained by Christ’s own words in Matt. xix. 9, where
he gives a farther explanation of the subject than
what is presented in Matt. v. 32. He explains it
thus, “Whosoever shall put away his wife except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another com
mitted! adultery, and whosoeve. shall ma ,y her
that is put away committeth adultery.” Matthew
xix. 9.
The plain meaning of this text seems to me to
be this, that if a man shall put away his wife for
fornication he is at liberty to marry another, but if
he shall put her aw r ay for any other cause, he must
remain unmarried, for if be should marry another,
he committeth adultery, and therefore is not a prop
er subject for a member of the visible church of
Christ.
There is also another very important decision
Contained in the text in Matt. xix. 9. It is this,
“ Whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery.” It seems to me that there is
no chance to evade the force of this language.—
Whosoever shall marry a woman that is divorced or
put awav from her husband, “committeth adulte
ry,” no matter for what cause she is put away.- —
If he who marries a woman that is divorced com
mits adultery, of course, the woman whom he thus
marries commits adultery also.
In the account given by Mark and Luke there is
no case of exception as justifying divorce. Mark
lays, “ Whosoever shall put away his wife and
marry another committeth adultery against her.—
And if a woman shall put away her husband and
he married to another she committeth adultery.' 5
Mark x. 12. Luke says about the same in chapter
*vr. 18,
DEVOTED TO THE SERVICE OF THE OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS.
“OK& &GBB f oa ass oaa &*vxsn.”
COVINGTON, NEWTON CO., GA., NOV- 15, 1860.
I do not undeistand by these or any other Scrip
tures that a man or a woman is bound under all
circumstances to live together or else be deprived
of the privileges of Church membership, but i do
understand, that if such shall marry again during
the natural life of the first wife or first, husband, that
it is adultery, except where the wife is put away
for fornification, then the innocent husband may
marry again without sin, and consequently still be
retained or received as a member of the church. —
But whosoever shall marry the woman that is put
away for fornication, or for any other cause, com’
mitteth adultery. “For the woman which hath
an husband is bound by the law so long as her hus
band livcth ; but if her husband be dead she is
loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, j
while her husband liveth, she be married to anoth- j
er man, she shall be called an adult ress” Rom.
vii. 3,4, and 1 Cor. vii. 39. From this Lxt it is
clearly seen that the Apostle presents the same
view as that presented by Jesus Christ, showing
that if a woman be married to another man while
her first husband liveth, she is an adultress, and of
course the man whom she marries is in a scriptu
ral sense an adulterer, and both of them are there
,by debarred from the privileges of the visible
church of Christ. The purity of the gospel church
in her militant state must be preserved, and this
can only be dune by ohsetving the rules which
Christ has given.
Neither fornicators nor adulterers, while living
as such, can be considered as proper subjects for j
membership in a gospel church. The inspired
writers give f eculiar force to this point. In speak
ing of the sin of fornication, Paul says,” Let it not
be once named among you as become th saints —
Eph; v. 3. This form of expression, “ Let it not be
once named” shows that he looked upon it with
the utmost contempt and abhorrence; and in the
sth verse he declares that such person hath no “in
heritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God,”
referring doubtless to the gospel church here in this
world. See also 1 Cor. vi. 9. Again, he tells the
saints at Corinth plainly, “I wrote unto you in an
epistfe not to company with fornicators,” that is,
not to company with them in church fellowship,
nor to eat with them at the Lord’s table. So the
Apostle himself qualifies his own language, and
shows that he confines his instructions alone to
church relationship, and notin our intercourse and
relationship with the world. For if we are not in
any sense as citizens to be in company with forni
cators, extortioners or idolaters, then, we must
“ needs go out of the world” to get clear of our re
lationship to them as citizens, for such characters
are in the world, and such are also more or less in
all worldly churches and institutions who are not
governed by the laws of Christ. It is therefore in
the church of Christ alone that we are not to com
pany with them in church fellowship. 1 Cor. v.
9, 10.
It appears that in the providence of God or in
his “ loner suffering” that the church at Corinth
was suffered to be sorely tried wish cases of this
kind, and also respecting the separation and sec
ond marriage of the husband and wife. Hence,
they had written to the Apostle for instructions
and his answer served as a guide or rule, not only
for them, but for all gospel churches till the end of
lime, no matter what the decrees of Popes, Kings,
Parliaments or Legislatures may be. “Them that
are without 1 ’ (the pales of the church.) “God judg
ed),” and the church has nothing to do with their
i sages or customs as forming a rule for her gov
ernment.
I will here give one text. “And unto the
it arried I command, yet not I, but the Lord,” (that
is the Lord commands,) “ Let not the wife depart
from her husband.” “But if she depart, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband,
and let not the husband put away his wife. ’ 1 Cor.
vii. 10, 11. The truth is the “ Lord hates putting
away.” Mai. ii. IG. Now there is but one condi
tion in the above text, that is, if circumstances are
such that a woman cannot live w'Uh her husband
and runs, d-pa*A, she -mi'4 rerr‘\in unmarried, or
be reconciled to her husband and go back to him.
Now if she departs and marries another, she violates
a positive command of the Lord, and therefore can
not be received or retained as a member of iho
church on true gospel principles.
I know that many good and well meaning breth
ren and some well meaning churches, have receiv
ed members who have two living husbands or two
living wives. They have done it rather on th®
ground of usage or expediency, or because the laws
of our country sanction it, or perhaps they have
not investigated the matter to see what the Scrip
tures do gay upon it. From the many slight and
frivolous causes for which Jivoices may be obtain
ed and second marriages legalized by the laws of
our country, investigation is in somo degree stifled.
Owing too, to the frequent occurence of such case*,
it is perhaps taken (Lr granted by many brethren
that the Scriptures sanction it.
It does not relieve my conscience to know* that
a church in which I have confi lence practices this
or that, I want to know that the Scriptures sustain
every point of doctrine or practice.
I have never seen this subject presented by any
writer, and I hope that brother Purington will give
his views of it. If my conclusions are wrong J
would gladly be corrected by any brother.
Affectionately yours, LEYT,
NO. 22