Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-01-06
DIVORCES IN CHURCHES.

Distinction Between Civil and EccIe
siastIcaI Neutrality-suspicious. of TIT
Churches in Regard 10 Marrying
Divorced Persons.
From the Toledo Commercial.
Recent events having made the remar
riage of divorced people so prominent anC
excited so much discussion of the duties
of ministers of the gospel in that connec
tiUn, it may be proper TO refer to the mat
ter again, and inquire both as TO the practice
and the authority of the clergy in tn.
premises. We deem it entirely safe tc
say, that Mr.. Beecher stands by no means
alone in the matter of remarrying di-
vorced parties On the contrary, we are
satisfied from observation and other in
formation, that great and extended loose
ness exists among the clergy of more
than one denomination. We are assured
that many of these treat the marriage
ceremony purely as a civil contract, and
hence consider themselves al liberty to
perform i for anybody entitled to be
married under the statute. Indeed, min
listers have told US this was the fact It
is not probable that intelligent persons
could arrive at such a conclusion by any
course of reasoning, but must assume it,
without reflection. A moments thought
would show, that while the magistrate
acts only as a civi! officer, aiding in the
cOnsummation by a civil contract, the
clergyman acts in the two-fold capacity Of
civil and spiritual agent-attesting the
agreement Of the parties under the law,
and sanCtiOnng and scaling it in the name
of the Almighty. The one is ansWerable
for the manner in which he discharges his
trust to the State alone, while the other is
responsible both TO the State and TO the
Church. From this it VIII be seen that
while the magistrate is bound to look only
10 the law for direction, the clergy
man must look 10 the statute
and also 10 the requirements of
his commission as a minister of the Cos
pei. The one is required to act when
ever called upon by parties authorized by
law TO marry; the other is allowed to eX-
ercise his own discretion in each case
presented. A clergyman may marry
whom he pieases or no one; but the mag
istrate has no such option. The reason
for this distinction is found in the differ
ence in the authority of the two. The
civil officer merely declares the union to
have been effected according to the laws
of mantle clergyman according to the
laws of God and man. The one looks TO
the statute TO decide any question that
may arise, while the other looks to that,
10 tho Bffh5 and the regulations of
his church With this understanding of
the matter, it VIII be profitable to inquire
into the rules of the different religious
denominations in this respect After
some inquiry, we have ascertained the
regulations of the denominations named
below TO be substantially as follows;
Protestant Episcopal-NO minister is
allowed 10 sOlcmnize matrimOny in any
case where there is divorced husband OF
wife of either party still living; but this
is not TO apply TO the innocent party in a
divorce for adultery, or TO parties once dl-
vorced seeking to be united again.
Catholic ChuTCh-DivOrCe, except as TO
bed and board, not recognized in any case I;
and no divorced party 10 be remarked
while the other is living
Presbyterian-Divorcc recognized for
adultery only, the innocent party to be al
lowed 20 rcmaTrY. We understand this to
be the position of the reunited church, as
it was Of the recent branches. We think
most, if no; all other, Presbyterian
churches adhere to the same rule.
Methodist-Substantia the same as
the Prcsbyterians.
Congregational - This denomination
having no common authority, except the
bible, each separate church determines
such matters for itself under the advice
and counsel of associations; but we think
there is little difference in practice in it,
the rule of Presbyterian and Methodist
churches being the one followed
Baptist-Like the COngregatiOnallsts,
Baptists have no ecclesiastical authority,
each church determining all questions for
itself The practice, however, is sub
stantially the same as that of the three
preceding denomination, the bible ruiz
being the guide.
While such are The theory and rules OF
the leading religious denominations, il il
without doubt true that many clergy art
loose in their practice; so much so, in
deed, as scarcely to stop TO 60 behind thu
license presented by the parties It's no
for us TO call such action in question, any
farther than their violations OF church oh
legations justly subject them to the charg
of inconsistency. SO long as they keel
within The statute they are only answers
ble TO the ecclesiastical authority for wha
they do outside that The ground of cen
sure 10y Mr. BecChcr was not so much tina
he married a woman divorced for a non
sCriptu7al reason, as that he married on
not divorced at all, according TO the lay
under which he acted. Had the sO-Calle
divorce of Mrs Mcfarland been a real an
legal fact, Mr.. BceCher's church alon
would have been authorized to call him {
account for his actions, although all pei
sons would have been at liberty to judg
of his consistency as a clergyman. Bu
when he employed both his civil and et
Clesiastical functions in promoting what
believed to be M unlawful and demOrali;
ing act, he subjected himself to the censul
of all good citizens fact of which
seems to be about as conscious as mo
gfl,.r v,g,,,la