Newspaper Page Text
H. C. HORNADY,
JESSE M. WOOD,
VOLUME 1(1.
fanner anfa baptist.
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION.
Weekly, (fifty Nos.,} per annum, invariably
in Advance. - - - - - - - $2 00
Money due the Office, may be sent by mail a
our risk—always mail it in presence of a friend
(other than the P. M.,) or procure a friend to
mail it foryou—never register.
Contributors should write only on one side
of each leaf) and number the pages, 1,2, 3, Ac.
The Editor will be responsible only for his
own articles.
— —i'
ADVERTISING SCHEDULE.
jm&rjs Mo. 3 Mo. 6 Mo. j 9 Mo \2Mo.
L 9QOAKK sTs>li“s 00 $ 7 00 $ 8 00 SI2~OO sl4 00
■1 sq’rs 5 OOi 750100012 00 18 00; 22 00
if sq’rs 700 10 00 12 00 16 00 24 00; 30 00
4 ss’RS 900 12 00 15 00 20 00 30 00| 36 00
5 sq’rs 11 00 14 00 17 00 24 00 34 00; 42 (K)
6 SQ’RS 13 50 16 00 19 00 28 00 38 00! 46 00
7 sq’rs 14 00 17 50 21 00 32 00 42 00; 50 00
S sq’rs 15 00 19 00 22 00 35 00 45 00 54 00
9 sq’rs 16 00; 20 00 23 00 38 00 48 00 57 00
10 sq’rs 17 00! 21 00 24 00 40 00 50 00 60 00
A Square, is the space occupied by ten lines
of Minion type.
One Square, one insertion, $1.50; and SI.OO
for each subsequent insertion.
Professional and Business Cards, not ex
ceeding five lines, $5 per annum; each addi
tional line $1 00.
Special Notices, fifteen cents per line, for
the first insertion; ten cents per line for each
subsequent insertion.
School Advertisements. —Our charges for
School advertisements will be the same as for
others, when not paid in advance. When paid
In advance we will deduct Twenty-five cents
in the Dollar from our regular charges.
Cash for Advertisements considered due, and
collectable, at one half the time contracted for
insertion, except yearly advertisements, due and
payable quarterly.
H. C. HOBMAPY, Proprietor.
ORIGINAL.
Orange Hill, Florida, )
April 7, 1862. J
Dear Banner: During my ministry J
have met with some difficult cases of disci
pline in regard to the subject treated below,
and for some time have desired the views
of well-informed and judicious brethren. —
Nly own opinion has been, without a thor
ough investigation of the subject, that
Divorces are only Scripturally authorized
for the one cause stated, but remarriage
never, during the life-time of either party.!
The writer below is greatly superior autho*
lily to my opinion; and though this little
essay was written in the midst of pressing
secular engagements and in a social way,
I regard it as possessing such merit that I
offer it for publication with the accompany
ing note, having this privilege granted by
the writer who is known ever to be ready
to encourage investigation of Bible truth
and to Christian enlightenment.
•Yours in the search and practice of the
truth, D. P. Evkrktt.
Columbus, Gh., dan. 28, 1862.
Dear Brother : At your solicitation and
according to promise in my last, 1 submit
to you my views on the Divorce and Re
marriage question in a very brief shape.—
The requirements of business so interfere
with an investigation like this, that 1 find
it. difficult to embody my thoughts in a
good shape, and difficult also to investigate
a point as I could desire. I would have
been glad to enlarge on some points had
time and circumstances allowed."
Please examine the manuscript carefully
and let me know what you think of the
positions taken. Respectfully,
J. M. Watt.
IMveree and Remarriage.
Do the Scriptures authorize a divorce;
between a man and his wife for any cause ?j
And iu the event of a divorce, do they 1
authorize the marriage of one or both the I
parties to other persons, while they both live? |
If yea, under what circumstances is such j
authority given ?
in giving an answer to these questions, it:
may be proper to state:
1. That the original law of marriage i
bound one man to one woman for the term'
of their natural lives, without any provision j
being made for their separation previous to j
death. This law was intended to apply to
every age of the world ; and it continued in
force, without any modify ing clause, through
a period of twenty-five centuries or more. l
The law is to be found in Genesis 2: 21,2-4.
This law was obeyed by both branches
of Adam’s family for several successive;
generations. The first violation of it that
appears in sacred history, was committed
by wicked Lantech, the fifth in-the line of
descent from Cain, who took two wives,
(Gasesia 4: 12.)
Editors.
Whether a plurality of wives was com
mon in the old world after that or not, we
have no means of knowing. But during the
time of the Flood, each man had his own
wife and each woman had her own husband;
and for several generations after the Hood
the Scriptures contain no clear traces of
either divorces or of a plurality of wives.
Among the patriarchs, however, the latter;
was practiced to some extent, and the prac- ;
tice seemed to receive toleration at the
hands of God. Among all the laws of
Moses, however, there is not, that I recol
lect, an undoubted allusion to the practice
that clearly shows it to have been in ac
cordance with the will of God. Certain it
is, that down to the time of Moses, the
original law of marriage continued in force ;
and previous to that time, no law of divorce
and remarriage had ever been promulgated
among men. Besides this, we find scatter
ed through the sacred pages frequent allu
sions to the original law of marriage which
show very clearly that it, alone, met with
God’s approval.
2. After the experience of twenty-five cen*
turies or more under the original law <3f
marriage, God, in the days of Moses, gave
to Israel a lavr of divorce and remarriage,
found in Deuteronomy 24 : 1-4. This law
was given for the purpose of throwing
around wives a protection against the cru
elties of wicked husbands, and doubtless,
also, to protect husbands against the sad
consequences arising from their connection
with unfaithful wives. (See Matt. 19:7,8)
It continued in force throughout the Law
dispensation, and was in use during the per
sonal ministry of our Saviour.
3. In setting up the'Messiah’s new king
dom in the wqHd, the original >aw of mar
riage was reasserted and restored. The
false glosses of Jthe Jewish Scribes and
Pharisees were ?et at naught; and the great
principle of divorce and remarriage, implied
in the iaw 'of Moses, was fully explained
“'and its limitations were clearly defined.—
In the nineteenth chapter of Matthew, to
which allusion has already been made, the
whole ground is covered—and the whole
law is set forth in plain and unmistakeable
terms. Let us consider the force and mean
ing of the great law of.our Saviour as it is
there exhibited.
1. The law of Marriage dsjpt was origi
nally given :
“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. W hat t herefore God-fin th
joined together, let not man put asunder.”—
(Matthew xix: 4,5, 6.
This Divine law was first published in
the garden of Eden under circumstances
deeply interesting. Adatn was created as
one person, and was alone ; and God said,
“ It is not good that the man should be
alone—l will make a help-meet for him.”
(Genesis 2: 18) Thus, in his original con
stitution he stiN j in need of a companion;
and God, who created him, fully knowing
all the necessities of nature, made him
a companion, and only one, and then united
the happy pair in the holy bonds of matri
mony. Thus united they stqod forth, in
the economy of God, as the representatives
and exemplars of their posterity to the end
of time. And in connection with that
event, the great and universal law' of mar
riage was given. (See Genesis 2 : 24.)
By a double sanction, therefore, the great
principle of one husband|united to one wife,
during their natural lives, was fully sus
tained. There various allusions made
to this great law which show very clearly
that in all ages of the world it was intended
to continue in force, and was uotto be
violated with impunity. (See Rom. 7: 13.
I Cor. 6: 16.; 7; 10, U; 7:39; 11:7-
12. Ephesians 5:31.) It is evident also,
from the terms of this law, that husbands
and wives are to cleave together, and to
allow e human power or authority to dis
solve their marriage connection.
Again : So closely are husbands and j
wives united together, so binding are their
vows to each other, so indissoluble is their;
union, that their relation is used in various
passages of Scripture to illustrate and en
force the heavenly relationship that exists
between the Redeemer, who is the great
and glorious Bridegroom. &nd true believ
ers in Him, who are represented as His
bride. (See Psalms 45: 10, 11 . Romans j
7:4, 1 Cor, 6 : 15. Ephe. 5 : 25-28
"hii bahmb orar-ta is “im:
ATLANTA, GA„ MAY 10, 1862.
Rev. 21: 9, 10.) Who can comprehend
the fullness of that glorious union that ex
ists between the Redeemer and the redeem
ed? Who can separate them from His
love? Who can pluck them out of His
hands? Who can induce Him to leave
them or forsake them ?
There are other passages, o|, a different
character, which also clearly iply the un
broken continuance of the milage union
until death. For example, consider—
1. Those passages which show the duties
of husbands to their wives: s Ephe. 5: 25,
33. Col. 3 : 19. 1 Cor. 7:11.1 Pet. 3:7.
2. Those which show the duties of wives
to their husbands : Gen. 3:16. 1 Cor. 7:
10,11. 1 Cor. 14: 34,35. E ? he. 5: 22,
33. Col. 3: 18. Titus 2: 4,5. 1 Pet. 3: 1-6.
3. Those which show the duties of parents
to their children : Ephe. 6: 4. Col. 3: 21.
4. Those -whi6h show the duties of chil
dren to their parents: Exodtur2o: 12.
Prov. 23: 22. Ephe. 6: 1-3. Jpol. 3: 20.
By a careful inspection of these passages
it will be seen, that it is impossible for per
sons to fulfil these varied duties if the fam
ily relationship be broken up. Ijow, then,
can a separation between a imp and his
wife take place without involving a great
wrong, and without greatly injuring those
who depend upon them ?
After all this array of Scripture evidence
it must be Gear to the reader, that in the
original law of marriage no separation be
tween a rnan and his wife, previous to death,
was ever contemplated. No provision
whatever was made for a divorce, and none
for remarriage. Hence divorce, remarriage,
and polygamy were alike unknown for a
long time after the creation. Marriage,
then, between one man and one woman, to
continue through life, is sustained by Rev
elation, by ancient practice, aniSrvby the
clear and decisive judgment/>f at*#E>-w-r** if
virtue in every age.
W e pass on' to consider
11. The Law of Divorce and Remarriage.
After setting forth before the Jews, who
were tempting Him with questions, the
original law' of marriage, they asked Him
again, “ Why did Moses then command to
give a writing ef divorcement and to put
her away ?” "The following is Tlis answer:
“ Moses, because of the hardness of your
hearts, suffered you to put away your wives,
but from the beginning it was not so. And
l say unto you, whosoever shall put away
his wife, except it he for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adulte
ry ; and whoso marrieth her which is put
away doth commit adultery .” [ M*t. 19: 7,8.
The law of divorce given by Moses, to
w'hieh the Saviour made allusion, is found
in Deuteronomy xxiv: 1-4, and it contains
the following particulars :
1. The ground of divorce. The wife finds
no favor in the eyes ofher husband because
he has found some uncleanness in her.—
(Ist verse.) What the nature of that un
cleanness might be is not stated. -It seems
to me it was not necessarily criminal.
2. The method of effecting the divorce un
der the law. The husband gives the wife a
writing of divorcement in her hand and
sends her out of his ii >use. This completes
the separation —she is no longer bis wife.
(Ist verse.)
3. Her marriage to another twin permitted.
“ And when she is departed out of his house,
she may go and be another man’s wife.”—
(2d verse.)
4. Her subsequent course. After her mar
riage tc another man, if he finds similar
fault he may also put her away in the same
manner that her first husband put her away.
Her second marriage is as fully dissolved
as was her first, and the natural inference is
that she may go and be married to a third
husband. But being put away by the sec
ond husband, she is forbidden to go back
and become the wife of her first husband
again, seeing she has been defiled so far as
he is concerned. (4th verse.)
The natural inference from this law is,
also, that the marriage relationship being
thus dissolved by th<- woman’s divorcement,
;eaeh of the husbands putting her away is
left as free to marry again as the woman is.
Hence their marriage to other persons, un
der these circumstances, does not constitute
adulterous connections any more than her
marriage to another would be such a con
nection. I would remark here, however,
that 1 think it is dearly implied through*
out that there must be a sufficiently justify-
ing cause to warrant the divorce and mar
riage in either case.
This law of divorce and remarriage wa s
greatly perverted and abused by the Jews
in the days of our Saviour. Hence He
spoke of their abuses, and plainly set forth
the law of His kingdom on earth by rees
tablishing the original law of marriage, and
with it a lav/ of divorce with
a clause, showing that
where the husband or the wife had been
guilty of fornication the other was fully
justified in putting such offender away, and,
for aught that appears to the contrary, was
at full liberty to marry again.
I remark again, that when a proviso or
exception is thrown into a law as a limiting
or qualifying clause, it undoubtedly changes
the features of the law in respect to the
cases to which such proviso.or exception
applies. For example: if the law says
“ Whosoever shall put away his wife and
shall marry another, committeth adultery,”
the obvious interpretation is, that no cause
whatever can justify the separation and re
marriage, but that the parties are still held
bound as husband and wife. On the other
hand, when the law says “ Whosoever shall
put away his wife, except it be for format
tion, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery,’the meaning is materially changed.
In the latter case the evident interpretation
is, that where fornication has been commit
ted by the wife, the act of putting her away
and marrying another is not adultery. This
proceeds upon the ground that the original
law of marriage is not, and can not, be an
nulled by any other act or cause than by
that greatest of sins against the marriage
bed. Where the sin of fornication has been
committed without provocation against a
true and faithful husband, the Saviour being
Judge, that injured husband has a perfect
right t,, jsat. fore. v&r,.. Jby
her a bill of divorcement and sending her
away. And so far as I can perceive, the
natural and reasonable conclusion is, that
the same virtuous hushvnd, being thus sep
arated from oge so unworthy of his affec
tions, may, without sin, marry another wife
with whom he may live, with the approba
tion of his God.
In the absence of the crime of fornication,
however —no matter what other grievance
may exist, and no matter what other diffi
culty may arise, or what else may be done
—nothing can justify a divorce and remar
riage to other persons. Hence, if a sepa
ration takes place between a husband atid
a wife upon any other ground than that of
fornication, and either or both the parties
be married to other persons, then those
second marriages are altogether illegal, and
are pronounced by the Great Head of the
Church as adulterous. How very
then, ought persons to be in entering into
marriage contracts! And how' careful,
also, should they be in obtaining divorces
and marrying again !
The consequences of fornication, commit
ted by a husband or a wife, cannot be esti
mated, since it is deemed sufficient by the
Redeemer to dissolve the marriage contract
which is limited only by death. How ter
rible must be the penalty for its commission
—what a fearful account must the guilty
oue render in the day of judgment!
From all that appears, the right of di
vorce and remarriage, wheie fornication has
been committed, belongs to the wife as well
as the husband ; and hence the Divine law
in the case may be regarded as applying
fully to both the parties to a marriage con
tract. How far the guilty party may be
considered absolved from his marriage ob
ligation by his own act, and justifiable in
marrying again, is a point I do not attempt
to decide. But it seems reasonable to sup
pose that while the Almighty will hold him
accountable for the crime itself, still, it one j
party is released from the marriage vow. |
the other is necessarily released also. In:
any light, however, in which we may view
the subject, the guilty party has a fearful
crime to answer for at the judgment-seat
of Christ,
Having considered what the Saviour said
in Matthew xix : 8, 9, it may be'proper to
add here thatthe same view is expressed in
His sermon on the mount. (Matt. 5: 32.)
But Mark and Luke, while recording the
same conversation, do not include the ex'
ception at all. (See Mark 10:11, 12.
Luke 16: 18.) 1 conclude however that
Matthew, being an apostle of Jesus Christ,
TERMS: Two Dollars per annum,
STRICTLY m ADVANCE.
j and being with- Him on both occasions and
hearing these words as they fell from Ilis
lips, and also writing out His history so
soon after the words were spoken, and giv
ing a;fuller and more complete version of
His words, must be regarded as the best
exponent of His meaning. Mark and Luke
were not apostles, and were not likely to
have been present on either occasion, their
history is not so lull and complete, and they
wrote several years after Matthew’s gospel
had been written out. They all agree in
the main, but Matthew includes more than
the others do—the qualifying clause being
an addition set forth in his.
Now, if the view taken here is according
to God’s word, it is plain that many divorces
granted in our own country, and many
marriages of divorced persons, are contrary
to the law of Christ—since the causes of
separation in many instances cannot be
traced back to the crime of fornication.—
According to my understanding of God’s
word, no individual can expect the Divine
approval for any divoreeand any remarriage
that has not that crime as the basis of the
separation. And then again I would re
mark, that to justify a divorce and re
marriage, the crime must have been actually
committed, and the proof must be evident
and clear; mere suspicion or partial testi
mony are not sufficient to justify an individ
ual in taking steps fraught with such terri
ble consequenoes or surrounded with such
holy requirements.
I remark, in conclusion, that in preparing
the foregoing outline of my views upon the
questions under consideration, I have had
.io well-written essays to aid me, but have
depended upon the Word of God and my
own best judgment in its interpretation.
A Good Work among the Soldier**.
Brother Ilornady : The Colportage Board
located in Tti viSrjrita* *V4t wnoourajrcu
by the success which has been bestowed by
the Lord of the vineyard upon its labors.
Hundreds on the tented field have thus been
made to rejoice in the love of Christ shed
abroad in their hearts, while hundreds of
thousands are now receiving at our hands
the bread of life. Having distributed sev
eral millions of pages of religious truth
among the soldiers within the limits of our
own commonwealth, we have of late been
endeavoring to reach those on the seacoast,
and now rejoice to be able to state that we
have depositories at Wilmington, N. C., at
Savannah, Ga., and at Mobile and Mont-
gomery. Ala;, where, “ without money and
without price,” our brave men are being
supplied with “leaves from the tree oflife.”
A few Testaments sent into a camp near
Savannah were instrumental in establishing
a prayer-meeting and a Sabbath-school, and
now a protracted meeting and a religious
revival are in progress at that camp.
Rev. S. Landrum, pastor of the Baptist
church in Savannah, has recently baptized
a captain, who is brother to a brigadier
general in the Confederate service. This
officer in giving his experience said that
though he had long been deeply anxious
about his soul, the light of the truth had
never broken in upon his mind until on the
field of strife he set himself to prepare to
meet God.
I have just spent four weeks at the South,
visiting Wilmington, Greenville, Columbia,
Charleston, Savannah and Augusta, at which
places the friends of the cause handed me
three thousand and eight hundred dollars.
Much remains to be done. Five hun
dred thousand men sundered from home
and friends, enduring the sufferings of camp
life, ready to fight and to die for the rights
and honor of the sunny South, are begging
for the Word of God. Can it be that our
own loved ones who shelter us from disgrace
and death, shall be swept to destruction by
the vices and temptations of the camp, and
we not bestir ourselves in their behalf?—
“ Men of Israel, help ! ”
Richmond, Va. A. E. D.
Banner for ibe Soldier*.
The religious paper furnishes a cheap
and available means of reaching them; and
our brethren and sisters should come to
the rescue before it is too late. What say
our readers ? Shall the sick and wounded
soldiers have The Banner f
| 'jjgr Our terms of Subscription, *2 OO
per Annum, always in advance.
For our terms for advertising, see Ist
column of Ist page.
NUMBER 25.