Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.