Divorce and Marriage by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 10, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 35.

Divorce and Marriage.

By Editor

THIS subject is continually coming up among our churches, and we are glad of it. We wish that it might be agitated until the public mind should become enlightened upon it, and the public conscience aroused in regard to abuses which are prevalent. But, while the great majority are lax in their views, willing to leave the whole subject where civil Government places it, a few are unnecessarily rigid or ultra, going entirely beyond the teachings of our Saviour. Several times we have answered questions on this subject, and the request to notice it again comes from a church where it is now being agitated. The following question was asked:—

"Is divorce allowed under the present dispensation for any cause?"

It certainly is. We do not see how anything could be more plain than the words of the Saviour on this subject. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." This exception is so explicitly made as to render it certain beyond all doubt that one, and only one, cause can justify a divorce.

It is not surprising that queries on the subject are continually rising, considering how easily divorces may be obtained under our State laws for almost every reason imaginable. We think these lax laws are largely responsible for the demoralization of the public mind on this subject. It is a lamentable fact that the marriage tie has a very slight hold upon the hearts and consciences of the mass of the people. Statistics have been given which show that the number of divorces is on the increase throughout the country. The New England States are becoming sadly at fault in this matter.

Reason teaches and observation proves that where divorces may be obtained for so many and such slight reasons, the marriage tie will be little respected, and marriage will be contracted without much consideration of the sacred nature of the obligation. That obligation which may be so easily thrown off will be thoughtlessly taken up. We do not believe that the Catholics are right in making marriage a sacrament of the church, and the bond indissoluble from any cause. Marriage is an original ordinance, the same as the Sabbath, instituted in Eden while man was yet innocent. Neither of them is peculiar to Christianity; neither belongs to the church. It is a sacred institution, and by all it should be regarded and respected as such. While we think the position or theory of the Catholics is faulty, we can but regret that Protestants are setting a bad example by sanctioning the practice of putting away "for every cause."

Another question grows out of this: If a man puts away his wife for the cause specified by the Saviour, is he permitted to marry again? The Saviour's words touch this point also. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." We do not see how any one can deny the conclusion that, for that one cause, a man may put away his wife and marry another.

But other questions have arisen, and have greatly troubled some. The following statement sent to us shows the nature of a difficulty which is often presented to our brethren:—

"It sometimes occurs that a person accepts present truth, who has been separated from one married companion and married again, or perhaps is married to one who has been divorced. I wish to know what is duty in such cases."

Our answer to this, given some time since, we will repeat, as it will show the position we have occupied on the subject, and we have no other light to give. We believe the following will stand the test of the closest criticism:—

"They who have been divorced for any cause allowable in the State in which they live, and marry again, are legally married; and if such second marriage took place before they came to the knowledge of the present truth, we are to suppose that they acted according to the best light they had, and we receive them without further question. To decide otherwise would most often result in rejecting those who had acted both legally and conscientiously, or cause them to break up legal relations, to the injury of individuals and society. We have never advised, nor shall we ever advise, any to take such a course. Where the action is legal, we cannot go back of the time of their receiving the light of present truth.

"After people come to the knowledge of the truth, they may justly be held to conform to the precepts of Christianity in all matters. Our State laws are similar to those rules which were allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, but which the Saviour disallowed. He said: 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.' This language is too plain to admit of any difference of opinion, and we could not conscientiously do less than to expect all Christians to regard this as the rule of their action. If fornication or adultery is the ground of the divorce, we believe, on the Saviour's authority, that the innocent party is left as free as if separated by death, and of course may marry again. But this privilege should be denied to the guilty party; otherwise a premium is placed upon crime, as a means of throwing off moral and legal obligations and forming new alliances.

"Another question has been asked: If one party knows, or has sufficient reason to believe, that the other has committed adultery, and obtains a divorce on some other ground, not wishing to name that cause in the application, has the party who obtained such divorce a right to marry? We must confine our answer to that question to our own action. We could not conscientiously solemnize marriage under such circumstances because the crime is not in proof. The parties stand before the world on the evidence given in court, and if adultery is not given as the ground for obtaining the divorce, we dare not act on any supposition that such ground exists. This is the course we have marked out for ourselves, and to go beyond this would be to open the door for any number of evasions of the Saviour's rule of conduct.

"We feel a strong assurance that our position is correct on every point here noticed. We have answered questions on this subject before, but perhaps not so definitely in some respects as in this case. We must also express our deep regret that we have not a well-considered United States law on the subject of divorce. State laws are no better than a farce, for if one State provides some just limitation, it is neutralized by the law of a neighboring State, and taken together, they are as loose as the veriest libertine could ask. Christians should not be satisfied to stand legally justified by such laws; they must see to it that they are morally justified on Scripture ground."