The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-01-24

but whether voluntary separation was Justiabe
between married couple where one was II Christian
and the other IL heather. ''lf any brother hath
wife that believeth not and she is willing to dwell
with him, let him not put her away. And the wo-
which hath husband that believeth not, and
he be pleased dwell with her, let her not leave
him. For what knowest thou wife, whether then
thou shalt thy husband and what knowest thou,
o man, whether thou shalt thy wife?" But
the unbelievng depart if nothing will satisfy the
heather party, but to desert his or her family, let
him depart. A brother sister is not under bond
age in such cases. but God hath called to peace.
Calvin Mcknight, DR.. Thomas Scott and Pool sup
pose that the apostle meant that when the heather
husband or wife entirely abandons the Christian
husband wife, the Christian brother sister is
no longer under the bond OF the marriage covenant
and is free to marry again But Mathew Henry
Dwight, Barnes and others say this would be con-
trary to the strain of the apostles argument. 1t
makes him contradict the rule of Christ upon which
he had planted himself What then does he mean
when he says a Christian is not under bondage in
such cases? He evidently means, that the Christian
is bound to follow the deserter in his unbelie
to give up his religion. He is at liberty to live
separate and enjoy the immunities and blessings OF
Christianity. This is to be chosen rather than to
attempt to live together in strife and contention But
the apostle would still say to the deserted wife, et
her remain unmarried" The rule applies to
the deserted husband Therefore l conclude:
l. That nothing can dissolve the marriage vow but
death, the guilty violation of the marriage
ant by one of the parties, WHICH gives the innocent
party the right to divorce and to marry again.
,. That divorce under the Christian economy is
not to be in the power of either the husband wife
3. That if voluntary separation should take place
the remarrage of the innocent party is absolute
ly forbidden by the law of God
Another inquiry arises-How far can a minister
refuse to marry divorced person under the existing
laws of the State? We forbidden to put Il
stumbling block in the way of our brother" BE
not partaker of other mems sins Many such
precepts meet us when called upon to discharge offices
for others when believe they doing wrong. |
consulted leading lawyer who has sat the judges
bench and decided different questions arising out OF
the marriage relation. He said:
I'm the solemnzation of marriage you are not
only minister of the gospel, but officer of
State bound to olicate in marriage according to
the laws of the state"
asked, ''Have | no liberty to refuse to marry a
divorced person if l believe that am forbidden by
the law of Christi" He answered, ''You have no
responsibility in the matter. The court furnishes
you with the authority, and you simply the agent
in carrying out the law"
But | answered, 81 must obey God rather than
man. cannot be party to those who violating
the law of God"
He replied: "If you say to those seeking your
vices i cannot marry you consistently with the rules
of my church religious belief, they will generally
be satisfied and seek another minister"
Then said, "If they demand that /, officer
OF the State perform the ceremony, / only
fuse at the risk of the consequences" 70 this he
scented.
consulted another leading lawyer, who gave it
his opinion that the minister is not an officer of
state, but minister of religion he is appointed to
solemnze marriage with religious ceremony, and is
required to give his bond for the faithful discharge OF
ms duty. Nor did ne believe there any law that
would interfere with his Christian liberty in refusing
to marry certain persons conscientious grounds.
presume that no true minister Of the gospel
would be satisfied with throwing off his responsible
ty, and leave the court to answer to God for his
lie will refuse to be party to the crime which black