WE live in a day of laxity in Church and State because we do not pay that regard to the Word of God that it demands, and we need it to guide us in the ways of truth, righteousness and morality. From a religious point of view, we have departed from the Word of God for the last one hundred years in a most deplorable manner; and Parliaments, Senators, Sheriffs and people ignorantly force themselves to believe that they can manage civil, and indeed all human affairs, without any, or if any, very little, regard to the Law of God and the precepts of the gospel! That is folly, and must bear bitter fruit in the end; and is bearing that now in thousands of cases in this land to-day. The Bible is the only rule to guide us in the way that is of moral and spiritual value and benefit in this present life, and of infinite importance for eternity. If that guide, light and only rule be neglected, ignored and rejected, we have none to lead us, or that can direct our path in the way of truth and Scriptural morality. It is pharisaical to be smearing ourselves with the name Christian if we are not willing and at all times prepared to accept God’s Word as our only rule as to how we should conduct our lives, as parents, civil authorities and legislators. It is to be feared that if the legal authorities of the nation had due regard to the Word of God, the divorce courts would not be so over-crowded as they are in our day! If mere human sentiment, and questionable expediency has taken the place of the Word of God: the judgment, and the decisions of the judge must be indeed dangerous and ruinous to many thousands of the lieges! We have been highly favoured as a nation for a long time now with men who were scrupulously fair and honest judges, whatever the future may have in store for the people of Britain.
We cannot predict the future, or what changes may take place in our national institutions, laws and customs; but what men may do, or try to do in the name of rights and privileges, is a matter of the most serious nature, and according to present-day tendency the outlook is not pleasant to contemplate. It is not only the Lord’s Day that is called in question by millions in this nation, but all the Commandments of God. Murder is common; theft, adultery, bearing false witness, and the spirit of covetousness is as heinous in the sight of God as desecrating the Sabbath Day. Every sin deserves His wrath and curse; and, surely adultery is one of these heinous sins. Is it not from disregard to the Seventh Commandment that adultery and divorce is so common in Britain? Continental influence, no doubt, and the Hollywood carnival has a bad effect on the morals of the people. According to the Word of God, the only remedy is a witness against it at all times by those who love the Lord and the gospel. That was all that Jeremiah, or John the Baptist could do in their own day. We shall quote now from the Confession of Faith, which is as Scriptural a document as was ever written by the pen of man on the question of marriage. We have no space to write down the proofs adduced from the Word of God by the Westminster divines; these can be consulted from the Book by anyone who may seek to examine the references for his own personal satisfaction.
Confession of Faith of the Reformed Church of Scotland: Chapter XXIV.
(i) Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any one man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.
(ii) Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind for a legitimate issue, and the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.
(iii) It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent: yet it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord. And as such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry infidels, Papists and other idolaters; neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life or maintain damnable heresies.
(iv) Marriage should not be within the degree of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.
(v) Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
(vi) Although the corruption be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed, and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.
In conjunction with the above statement on marriage, let us refer our readers to the Seventh Commandment, as explained by the Westminster Divines, as follows:—“What are the duties required in the Seventh Commandment? The duties required in the Seventh Commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, word and behaviour; the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel, marriage by those who have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation, diligent labour in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptation thereunto.” It is quite clear that the Westminster Divines were of the opinion that Protestants should not marry infidels, Papists and idolaters. Papists are in the category of non-Christians, like Turks or Jews. The Jews are infidels, as they do not believe in the Christian religion, so are the Turks. A Papist is an adherent of the Pope; so is the Turk an adherent of the false prophet Mohamet. The Westminster Divines placed them all together—Papists and infidels. A Protestant should not marry a Mohammedan, neither should a Protestant marry a Papist. Is there not a vast difference between a Papist and a Mohammedan? No, the Mussulman and the Roman Catholic, as well as the Jew, are idolaters. A Protestant should not marry a Papist under any pretence. Is it not written that “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. xiii. 4). Yes, but marriage is not expedient under all circumstances. It is not proper for a Christian to marry a Turk. “Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which He loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god” (Mal. ii. 4). Is the Roman Catholic, the Turk, Jew, and the infidel worshipping strange gods? If so (and no Protestant should deny it), it is therefore an abomination for a Protestant to marry the son or daughter of Papists, atheists, Mohammedans, or infidels of any nation. Many Protestants marry Papists from all denominations in this country, Canada and United States, etc. That does not justify it, that many marry Papists and infidels. What about the directions given by the Holy Spirit in I Cor. vii. 10-15? The Westminster Divines were well aware of that divine direction when they wrote the 24th Chapter in the Confession of Faith. Our only rule is the Word of God.
Fisher’s Assembly Catechism.
Page 317, Q. II.—What is the ordinary means of Divine appointment for the preservation of chastity?
A.—Lawful wedlock or marriage. (I Cor. vii. 2), “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
Q.—When was marriage first instituted?
A.—Before the fall, in paradise (Gen. ii. 24).
Q.—For what end was it instituted?
A.—For the mutual help of husband and wife (Gen. ii. 18); for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with a holy seed (Mal. ii. 15); and for preventing uncleanness (I Cor. vii. 2).
Q.—What is necessary to constitute marriage?
A.—The voluntary and mutual consent of both parties (Gen. xxiv. 58, 67).
Q.—Who may lawfully marry?
A.—”All sorts of people who are able with judgment to give their consent.” (Heb. xiii. 4), “Marriage is honourable in all.”
Q.—What is the duty of Christians with reference to marriage?
A.—”It is to marry only in the Lord” (I Cor. vii. 39).
Q.—What is the native import of marrying in the Lord?
A.—It plainly imports that “such as profess the true reform religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters; neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies” (Confession of Faith, chap. xxiv).
Q.—What is an incestuous marriage?
A.—It is that which is within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word (Lev. xviii. 6-18).
Q.—What is the meaning of the word consanguinity or affinity?
A.—Consanguinity is relation by blood, being betwixt persons descended from the same family; affinity is an alliance by marriage between persons who were not by blood before.
Q.—What is the general rule for preventing incestuous marriages?
A.—”The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own” (Confession of Faith).
Q.—Is it proper to call marriage a holy state?
A.—No; because they who are without the visible church, such as heathen Turks and Jews, may marry as well as the professed members thereof (Heb. xiii. 4).
Q.—Was marriage instituted to “signify the mystical union that is between Christ and His Church” as the Book of Common Prayer affirms?
A.—No: because this borders too near of making marriage a sacrament, as the Papists do; inasmuch as an outward visible sign of Divine institution, and a spiritual benefit signified thereby, would make it take of the nature of a sacrament.
Q.—Doth not apostle make it a significant sign when he say: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church”? (Eph. v. 25).
A.—He exhorts husbands to have such a love to their wives as may bear a faint resemblance in some respects to the love of Christ; but does not make the one a sign significant of the other.
Q.—Is not marriage called a great mystery? (Ver. 32).
A.—It is not marriage that is called a great mystery, but the union that is between Christ and the members of His mystical body, as will appear by reading the whole verse, “This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ, and the CHURCH.”
From the Converted Catholic Magazine, June issue, 1951, we read: “According to Roman Catholic teaching, a marriage performed by a Protestant minister is comparable to one performed by a civil authority. This type of marriage was called by Pope Pius IX in his allocution of 27th September, 1852, “Nothing else than a shameful and abominable concubinage.” The same Pope in his letter to King Victor Emmanuel, dated 9th September, 1852, declared that marriage “without the sacrament is pure concubinage.” For the instruction of both Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, we remind them that the Roman Catholic priest cannot officiate in the case of a mixed marriage unless the following demands and pledges are received in writing from both parties: (a) That they will be married only by a Roman Catholic priest; (b) that all children born of their marriage shall be baptised and educated solely in the Roman Catholic religion; (c) that the Protestant party shall never interfere in any way with the faith of the Roman Catholic party nor with the Roman Catholic education of the children, nor with the free exercise of the duties of the Roman Catholic party and children; (d) that even in the case of death of the Catholic party, the Protestant party will educate the children in the Roman Catholic religion; (e) that in the event of the death of both parents, the guardians are bound to carry out this pledge; (f) that the Roman Catholic party promises to do missionary work on the Protestant party, but the Protestant may not do likewise.”
How then can a Protestant marry a Roman Catholic under such binding obligations imposed upon them by the Pope? Never! It would be moral suicide! If the Protestant should marry a Roman Catholic, he or she is in conscience bound to repent of their action, and seek the grace of God to enable them to cast off the cursed yoke of the Pope at once. It is a very questionable proposition if the priest can marry at all, and most certainly not according to the Word of God. In any case, in a Protestant country like ours, Roman Catholic priests should not be allowed to marry. In the days of Knox they were not allowed to function or officiate in any capacity whatsoever as priests of the pagan Church of Rome. That was in perfect harmony with the Word of God, and right reason for the good and peace of the nation. Mixed marriages in the country and in all Protestant nations are a curse, and no blessing to the parents and to the children. Paul Banshard in his last book makes terrible revelations of the curse of mixed marriages in the United States of America. The same is true in Canada and Australia. Where the vile priest of Rome is in power, such as Spain and in South America, the Protestant pastor is not allowed to marry Protestant couples. If they had the power in this country, no one should be allowed to marry but the priest! The bachelor priest is well trained in the marriage laws of the Council of Trent and the Vatican, and (most extraordinary to relate), in matrimony!
If any doubts remain on this point, see Paul Blanshard on this delicate subject! The book can be obtained from the public library. The Converted Catholic Magazine quoted above gives us this information in the same issue: In the U.S.A., some Protestant congregation passed the following resolution:—“If a Protestant believer is married by a Roman Catholic priest, such a person, before being received back into its fellowship, must sign the following declaration: (1) I recognise that it was wrong for me to receive instruction regarding religious matters from a Roman Catholic priest; (2) I recognise that it was wrong to be married by a Roman Catholic priest instead of my own pastor; (3) I recognise that it was wrong and a very great sin to promise that my children be baptised and reared in the Roman Catholic Church instead of in my own (Protestant) Church; (4) I declare that this promise is null and void (made to a priest) and that I do not consider myself bound by it in any way; (5) I declare that instead of keeping this promise, I now break it and shall have my children baptised and reared in the Protestant Church; (6) I declare that my husband (or wife) has read this entire declaration and knows that I am signing it and giving it to my pastor.” This is a step in the right direction to counteract the machinations of the priests. The children should be instructed in the Protestant schools and in the Sabbath schools, of the danger and curse of mixed marriages. We know that the most of Protestant parents are so ignorant of the menace of Romanism that they cannot teach their poor children, and the priest is quite aware of this and takes full advantage of it. The ignorant Roman Catholic is in the hands of his priest, and being obedient to his father confessor (in case he will send him at death deeper than his purgatory), from birth to death the priest is the boss; but not so the Protestant child, conscious of his freedom from childhood to manhood and to his old age, he never thinks of the danger of youth if not properly instructed and educated, that through neglect the poor boy or girl may fall a victim to the craftiness of the “Whore of Rome.” There is no doubt whatever Protestant children are neglected, and that is the cause of so many mixed marriages in Scotland to-day. Although the priest of Rome is making steady advances in many ways in this land, the press, pulpit and virtually all religious magazines, are silent or semi-silent, on the most menacing question that confronts us. We are fairly free of the curse of Communism, but can we say that about the greatest curse that ever polluted the minds, lives, nations and generations of men—the Roman Catholic menace? No, we can not. The public press is virtually at their bidding. The Roman Catholic authorities (like vultures) are concentrating all their efforts on Scotland, much more so than on England or Wales. It is a sad day for Scotland!
What effect has mixed marriages on the fifty thousand divorce cases per annum in this nation? We cannot quote figures, but there is no doubt the broken-up marriages through mixed marriage must be quite formidable. In the United States, the number of broken-up marriages between Roman Catholics, Jews, and Protestants run into scores of thousands every year.
The Church of Rome officially does not admit any cause whatever for separation or divorce. The husband or wife, or both, may be guilty of adultery, but the “Church” does not accept adultery to be cause or reason for divorce. The Council of Trent and the Vatican Council is opposed to divorce among “Catholics” and bolts the door against the innocent party to seek redress and separation from the guilty party in any Court, ecclesiastical or civil. The Bishop and the Pope are the supreme arbitrators nolens-volens! Is it not a fact that the priest in some cases interferes between husband and wife, where one party is Catholic and the other non-Catholic? Yes, in hundreds of cases of these mixed marriages. Here is a case in point (from among hundreds of cases). We quote from the same magazine:—“A well-known pastor in Southern California and a young army officer just back from the war, were directed to us for some advice. As the pastor introduced the officer to us, our hearts were deeply moved when the officer suddenly broke out in tears and explained in a voice of one who had suffered much: ‘I love my wife; I love my children; I will do anything to have them back.’ What was the story behind this tragic situation? The officer was a Protestant who had married a Roman Catholic girl. Because of their love for each other, she consented to be married to him in a Protestant church by a Protestant minister. After the marriage, the officer was called into his country’s service, and was sent overseas. While he was away fighting for his country, the local priest began visiting his wife and children. From the lips of the priest she discovered the awful fact, according to the Roman Catholic Church, that she was not legally married. When she went to the altar and answered, “I do” to the minister’s question regarding her love for the young man at her side, the priest explained to her she only entered into a life of sin. He continued, according to the Roman Catholic Church, in her present marital state she was excluded from the blessing of God and the communion of the Roman Catholic Church, and her status was that of a mother of illegitimate children. While fighting for his country, and unaware of his wife’s repeated visitor, the young army officer was wounded and sent back to America. He arrived with hope and visions, the deepest love for his wife, and tender sentiments for his children. He was ecstatic with happiness when the ship’s whistle announced port was near. Shortly after they landed, a letter was given him. As he started reading the first paragraph, his heart began pounding: ‘Don’t come home,’ it read, ‘I will not receive you. I do not want the children to see you.'” That happened quite recently in California, U.S.A., the home of the free! That is the “Catholic Church” in all her diabolical nakedness, cruelty, and barefaced hypocrisy. She does not believe in “divorce,” but she believes in separating man and wife, children and all, when it suits her own satanic ends! The wife “living in sin” and the children born in sin, because the Vatican Council says it! How many wives and husbands in Scotland and England have the Roman priests separated in the same way—”when the husband was away from home.” Our Confession of Faith says, “In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.” Proof: Matt. v. 31, 32; Matt. xix. 9. The only ground given in the New Testament for divorce is adultery or desertion of either party. The innocent party is free to marry as “if the offending party were dead,” but the guilty party is not free to marry again—”for whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” This land is polluted with men and women guilty of adultery, divorced from their husbands or wives, marrying again, and some several times guilty, and several times divorced, and marrying “again”! God’s Word is against these guilty marriages. For the adulterer or adulteress must not marry the second time; if they do they sin against God, and “God will judge.” It is absolutely necessary for parents and the pastors of congregations to instruct the young under their care and charge (however disagreeable in some cases) of the sin of adultery, and how they should avoid all appearance of evil and loose talk as if marriage was a mere pastime to make sport of it. That is God-provoking, dishonourable and often has disastrous results among young folk. The morality of the nation is very low. The influence of Hollywood, Paris, Rome and other countries had on this country for the last forty years is ruinous to the religious and moral conduct of the nation. If we are to recover from the effects of our relation to such nations and places, the parents, pulpits, school-room, doctors, nurses, civil magistrates, sheriffs, and all in authority must not be silent, but witness against fornication, adultery, as well as against theft and murder. The Government, through the Board of Health, should appoint men and women qualified to conduct classes in centres like Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh, and to the utmost corners of the land, to educate the youth of the nation of the curse of immorality. From a purely moral point of view, the remedy is in the hands of the parents, school teachers, ministers of religion, and all classes of the people who have the welfare of the young at heart! Doctors in the course of their daily duties can do a lot of good by advising and warning the people with whom they are in contact, and know better than the ordinary person the disastrous effects of living immoral lives. It can be done, and should be done, by all decent citizens in the Commonwealth.
There is a deceitful (which is extremely carnal), crafty modesty among some people, and instead of explaining to their sons and daughters how to behave themselves and avoid evil company, as they would shun some deadly plague, they pretend that they cannot do it as it is too delicate for them to warn their poor ignorant children of the sin of immorality! The most delicate Book in the world is the Word of God, but the plainest in its divine addresses to mothers, fathers, sons and daughters! Dare men think that they can be more modest than God’s Word? What plain speaking in the book of Proverbs, Ezekiel, Romans, etc. Christ invites us to learn of Him, that is of Him in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. It is His Book, given for our instruction in righteousness and holiness. We know full well that the political governments of the world (our own among the rest), care precious little about these solemn and awful questions that face us as never before, at least not from the blessed days of the glorious Reformation. The law courts make divorce so easy, as if it were common, general, and of no consequence to the well-being of the State and rising generation. What God forbids cannot be made legal by all the Parliaments of the world. No human law can supersede, or cancel God’s law! Men may try it, but their folly and madness shall be made clear, plain, at the Tribunal of God at the Great Day of Judgment! Murder is murder; adultery is adultery; sin is sin; and man cannot alter the Law of God! “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy Word” (Ps. exix. 9). “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them” (Prov. xii. 1). “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience” (Col. iii. 5, 6). “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence even as the Gentiles which know not God” (I Thess. iv. 3, 4, 5).