Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1839-08-14

biOblOl w. aPlNoA 50
obliging as to answer and discuss the nG-
merous queries relative TO gospel order.
which your correspondents from time 10
time propose to you, |, as a constant read
er of your paper have concluded TO ad-
dress one, in the answer and discussion of
which l feel deeply interested.
Is it consistent with gospel order for a
church to allow black member, male or
female, TO take a wife or husband. that
has had wife or husband in former
years, but was sold from them and carri-
ed away where they are not seen nor
heard ot2 Yours truly,
A SUBSCRIBERS.
In reply TO the above we would state
the following:
|. So far as is known to US the gospel
contemplates no such case Although
the relation Of master and slave is ex-
pressly recognized by the inspired writ
ers, yet we find no alluslon to case in
which the relation of husband and wife
had been violated by the sale and trans
portation of either party.
| g As we find nc allusion in the scrip
lures to an arbitrary separation of hus-
band and wife by sale or otherwise, as
above stated, we must therefore infer that
no sucn practice was allowed or known
among primitive christians. From this
fact the conclusion seems inevitable thai
no such practice should be allowed in the
church at this day; and especially as it is
a direct violation of the precept-' wha
God hath thus joined together, let not man
put asunder.'
8. The obligations of marriage are mu
tually binding on the parties until death
1.-The wife is bound by the law as Ions
as her husband livelh, but if her husband
be dead, she is at liberty to be married L
whom she will.'' As the rule in iustic,
ought to work both ways, the same is M
doubt true of the husband-he is bounc
| by the law as long as his wife lives; anC
then he is at liberty to marry again.
4. To this, like most other rules. how
ever, there are exceptions. Should on,
of the parties violate the marriage com
pact, by an act of adultery or of fornica
ton. the other party is absolved. Sc
Matt. V. 80 Again, should one of tn
parties repudiate the other, on account o
the latter's becoming disciple of Christ
; the party so put away is not under bond
age IN such case, and, as it would seem, i
at liberty to marry again. See Cor. vii
: Is.
5. From The foregoing rule and exceE
tons taken together, it would appear, thai
on gospel principles, the obligations c
marriage are mutually binding on bot
: parties, so long as their fulilment is prac
/, ticable, and no longer. Should the in
$ practicability of such fulfilment be tn
result of misbehavior. on the part of on
ofthe parties, as in the case of fornicatior
the unoffending party is at liberty to mai
~ again. Should the fault rest with bot
5 parties, neither can be at liberty to MARI
: again. And should the fault rest wit
neither party, as ia case of involuntar
t separation. it would seem that both pal
ties should be at liberty to marry again.
o. If the foregoing query contemplate
= such separations as are strictly involunts
4 r., and such too as are clearly made 70
; llfe-we should say, upon the foregoing
1 principles, the parties should be at libert
4 to marry again. Biblical Recorder.
; The readers of the Telegraph will observe tbs
the aquestion of gospel order, here put to The Ed
! itor ofthe Biblical Recorder and Southern Watch
man." by one of his correspondents, is the sam
! which was, two or three years since, discussed
1 and decided afirmativeIy, by the Savanna Rive
d (Geo.) Association. / suppose the Editor of tn
= Recorder aud Waichman will allow me to consid