Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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