Christian herald., October 20, 1882, Page 2, Image 2

crrntsTTÆX irrnAtn
2
here to .be in »»¡»position to the law, maintenance of a Christian charac- 1 complete and sharp the contrast, in I
fur we are tol»'l in the 19th* chapter ter mid life, with the single ex­ all these respects, -between this
h Ye Are Noi Üncter . Law<
But that
they came to <*Jesus tryini [TIT, ception of Bro. Adams. I shall language and that of the articles
¿4
> •
*, •
•
t —-J
Under Grade.”
hinl, diti ask6<r lfim about this quote some, and 1 feel confident under review.
Bro. J. S. Lamar, in his coin-
BE»iLY TO KLDfcH S. C. ADAMS BY B. U. MOSS.
matter. Our jSavior states, tlie that Bro. Adams will not deny
dicine latv of marriage from the th a 1.111 t'y voice the general senti­ mentary oil Luke (belonging to the
*
ment of (ii l ist tails. Bro. J W. same m ries') on Ì6 : 18, says7
I chilli ill this iiuiiiber call atten­ T»eginning ; tells them it was m»»4r-
McGarvey, in his commentary, (a “and its (the old law) very essence
tion to what Bfd. Adàiitâ has? said tied in the law of Moses because of
the liarJiic'SS »>£
hearts; ami work endorsed by our best minds, and spirit were to l>e lifted up out
about marriage and divorce. My
of the letter and incorporated in
convictions of truth compel me to then with all the sanctions »if Ills ailT publishe<l as part of a.series. by
an<l for the Use'df oto-brotherhood), the kingdom of God as its organic
deny, almost item by item, what he authority, ami to his disciples alone
'»JO), he re- says on Matt. 5 : 32, “ It is perfect law * * will continue in the
has Written- We are• I.... that d,^'1 tlll!'"‘"sv
prohibits- king» loin..u£^GuiL.XQ-u:cuxaiu-X£Uur__
AliAtc-s- tlm- law of..his „kingdom.. mi; ly.
that whosoever puttetli away his
a modification of the law pt’ Moses church. It was not then to re divorce except for the single cause
wife and marrieth another commit­
This I deny, Hot a Word of proof strain the loose and wicked prac- of fornication, * * In no part,.
ted» adultery.” This with the
Is offered. Jt is mere insertion, tices of the JeWs, but to state an of the New Testament is there any
qualification
understood “saving
and wouhi be fully nitit by itsimple Unchangeable moral principle, that relaxation of this law. * * It is
for the cause of fornication.”
denial. I shall“‘howevgr- do more. Tiit Srttîot Used this latigUage. It clearly implied, however, that the
Bro, T. Errett, hi answering
Matt. 5 : 31, 32, “ It was said' also was not spoken to the Jews, but in marriage bond is broken, (l»v forni­
all
three
of
its
occurrences
to
his
cation)
;
ami
it
is
almost
universally
queries in the »Standard of Sept. 9,
whoever shall put away his wife,
conceded
by
commentators
and
disciples.
Reducing
to
an
absuv
1882, says, “ It (fornication) is the
let him give her a writing of «li
moralists
that
the
innocent
party
dity
is
fatal
to
an
argumei^,
if
one exception to the rule forbid­
vorcement; but 1 say unto you,
f
|
to
such
a
"divorce,
may
marry
properly
done;
but
it
is
equally
ding
married persons to enter into
that every one that puttetli away
his wife, saving for the cause of fatal to the argument, in favor of again * * It is much to lie re- a new marriage contract, (Matt. 5:
fornication, makethher an adul­ which it is improperly used. Bro. greted that in many Protestant" 32), and the only Scriptural ground
Again, in the issue of
teress ; and whosoever shall marry Adams make two such disastrous countries the civil authorities have for divorce.” 7*
-
practically
set
aside
this
law
of
attempts
in
this
’
connection.
Sept. 23, Scriptural marriage is
her-when she is put away commit-
1. He says, “ To say that Chris­ Christ, by allowing divorce ami re- the union of two hearts ami Jives
teth adultery.” Jesus first states
the law of Moses and »then gives tians are under the law of Christ,” “marriage foiTt‘ variety of ca11ses.’ in a covenant, tvhicb only death, or
his own law. To teach that this is which he improperly calls a modi­ No man who respects the authority the crime of adultery can break ’’
a modification of Moses law, is to. fication of the law of Moses, is “ to of Christ can take advantage of * * But we cannot meet the de­
open the way for the conelusioHr jsay, .that Christianity is but a •such legislation.” On the 19th pf mands of the Gospel without meet­
tliat the entire New Testament is modification of Judaism.” Admit Matt, lie says, * * Now the re­ ing the demands of the State, un­
only a modification of his law, and ting his position for the moment, 1 lation.of father and mother can be less, as already r emarked , the laws
as we are free from that law, that then say that his conclusion . by no dissolved only by death, yet the of the State.contravene the laws of
we are left entirely without hlw. means follows. If this part of marriage relation is more intimate God A mere legal ceremony will
So far, is this from, being a modi­ Christ’s law was’ such modification than that, and its obligations are not hold good in the kingdom of
fication of the law of M jses, that it would it follow that the whole more binding. * * Of course heaven, otherwise the marriage of
is in direct opposition to it. As grand structure must be so ? Most God who joined them together may parties divorced for unscriptural
clearly as he has given any other certainly not. I will not now name put them asunder by prescribing reasons, would have the divine I
of his laws, he says, “ but I say this kind of argument, but 1 will the conditions of lawful divorce, sanction. But as-we understand it,
unto you.” By a purity of the say what it is not. It is not but man has nothiug to do in the where the demands of the Scrip­
case except to obey God’s law. Any ture arc met by the parties enter­
reasoning used to escape the obli­ logical.
2. “It is to teach and practice nct f,f ‘Hvorce, therefore, or any ing into this relation, there must
gation here imposed, 1 could set
aside any and all, of the require­ that for * the cause of adultery,’ legislation by State or Church on lx; obedience to the laws of the
ments of the New Testament, or you can write her a bill of divorce­ the subject, inconsistent with the State, to make the marriage ¡»leas­
the law of Christ and the apostles, | ment, give it into her hand and divine law, is open rebellion ing in the sight of God.”
tbr
of Christ
1 might multiply these qnota­
If I can make use of assumed and send her out of your house ami
*
*
He
now,
by
his
own
authori
­
tions from the writings of our
unproven modifications of the law then go and marry another.” This
ty,
reaffirms
the
law
which
had
ex
brethren, but I forbear lest 1 weary
of
Moses, , weak
and beggarly
laws,
----------
------ ----
OCT
’ I , is no more a necessary coiKlusion
y
ie
isted
in
the
beginning,
and
which
the read er._
___ ________ _
dead laws, statutory and command- J from even his premises, than t,„
Tie
Tiad
already
reenacted
hi
his
How does the following »¡nota­
ed laws, ami place in opposition to I other. It is a very serious charge
sermon
on
the
Mount
(5:
32).
*
*
tion from Bro. Adams appear, in
them, conditions and emotions of | for one man to make against the
Jt
is
a
hard
^
ven
’
n
the
Savior
’
s
day,
then
the
I contrast with the true and safe
men’s minds, I could release from I entire religious world. 1_ . -------
hardness
of
heart
among
the
Jews,
•
teaching of these < ¡notations ? “The
every obligation imposed in the saying
V CT against his own entire
was
sti
1
1
an
obst
acle
in
the
way
o
f
»
‘ -IwuJu r ’.. (g) w h o t h i nks to-diml a. I
,:lL.v i ug '
New Testament- ami—op n - tlw
the
original
law,
but
motives
to
law regulating civil marriage, in
floodgates for every pleasure ami feature al»out it is, that it shows
ol
km 1 ience,f greater than any that
the* true tabernacle or ci'iurch of
vice that men might love or find it clearly the desperate weakness of
had
tan
khown
under
the
Jewish
■ God, does greatly err not knowing
in their minds to practice. By his his position. I know that not a
law,
were
about
to
be
presented
in
the Scriptures nor the power of
own argument, it was wrong in the single writer or commentator can
the
completed
Gospel,
and
this
God. For in the kingdom of God
time of our Savior’s ministry, for a be cited, who has taught such a
made
it
wise
to
withdraw
the
they neither marry (Jesus never
man to put away his wife, except thing, or advocated such a practice;
temporary
concession.
”
and
I
know
also,
that
all
writers
said it, for he spake only truth),
for the one cause, and if put away
and
commentators
of
nob*,
who
Ilow
clear,
logical
anti
strong
nor arc given in marriage. This
for any other, the sin of adultery
was committed. How has what have written on this subject, are this is- How perfectly consistent institution pertains to this world,
was then adultery ceased to l»e so ? unanimously agreed, that Christ with the language of Jesus. How ami is left to the powers that be to
Moral truth and obligation never gave this as a law to Christians; strong and clear -the grasp of the regulate.” I deny this position. I
changes. The 1’1 »arisees evidently ami that its observance is an abso­ difference between the law of am compelled by a conviction of
understood our Savior’s language lute necessity, in order to the Moses ami the law of Christ. • How the importance of the issue, to de- /
Original Contributions.
■
i
CJ
«7^
%
AS