At all periods of the history of Christian teach- ing, differences of opinion have existed within the Church as to the practical application of Jesus' words concerning adultery, divorce, and remar- riage. These ditt'erences have been stereotyped in the Eastern and Western branches of the Catlmlir Church. The former takes the more lenient view, and permits the remarriage of the innocent div(n-ci(c), while the latter has always maintained the more stringent and (shall we say?) the more strictly literal conclusion from Jesus' words, that inequality of treatment is not to be tolerated, in- terpreting the conclusion by refusing the right of remarriage to either during the life of the other.
On the other hand, the general consensus of theological opinion amongst English - sjieaking divines since the Reformation has leaned towards the view held by the Eastern Church, and the resolutions of the bishops in the Pan-Anglican Conference of 1888 on this subject were but the
formal expressions of a traditional mode of inter- pretation. When we turn from the words of Jesus to see what were the ideas of those who taught in His name during the ages immediately subsequent, we have St. Paul's teaching on, and references to, the question of divorce. In one place he treats marriage as indissoluble, and he has no hesitation in saying that the woman who marries another man durmg the lifetime of her husband is guilty of adultery (Ro 7'"'). On the other hand, we must not forget that the Apostle in this place is dealing with the Jewish law and with Jews who did not admit the absolute indissolubility of the marriage tie. The fact that he has made no reference to this Jewish law of divorce forbids us drawing any certain conclusion as to the length St. Paul was willing to go in stating a universal principle which would guide the legislative activity of the Chris- tian Church. In another place he sjieaks of separa- tion as the possible outcome of an unhappy or unequal marriage, and gives permission, if not encouragement, to that contingent result (x^pi- f^crSw). In this he goes farther than Jesus, so far as we have His teaching recorded for us, went. According to Jesus, adultery is the only crime of sufficient enormity to warrant divorce ; according to St. Paul, the law of marriage does not govern the deserted wife or husband (oi- Ofooi'/Xurai 6 d.5e\<p6s
rj 1} dSeXipij fV this l-onJl'TrJi';, 1 ( 'd 7'' [cf. NeWmaU
Smyth, Chi-isfin,, Ethi,K\ p. 4lL'f. and note]).
The ShcphrnI ..I lien, us [M.rml. iv. 1. 6) lays down the rule Ih.ii aihihery deniaiuls separation or divorce (dTroXiwarw aiir-qv), because by continuing to live with his wife after she has been convicted of guilt, the husband becomes 'an accomplice in her adultery.' On the other hand, he is equally insistent that tlie man thus wronged must not marry another, lest he cut his guilty partner off from the hope of repentance, and lest he involve himself likewise in the sin of adultery (iav 5^ airoKvaa^ Trjv yvvaiKa (Tipav yafiriffri, Kai ailrJi IMOixarat).
Amongst the number of those who are debarred from inheriting the kingdom of God, St. Paul men- tions fornicators and adulterers {irSpvoi Kai m<"Xo') 1 Co 6» ; cf. Eph 55, 1 Ti l'», He ISS Rev •21,8 22'=).
The universal conclusion is that this sin creates a breach of the marriage relation so grave and far- reachin" that it makes divorce the only legitimate sequel — divorce a mcnsd et thoro. The question, however, remains whether the Christian Church has the right to go farther and say that, as the result of an adulterous act, the aggrieved party has a just claim to divorce a vinculo ; has a right, that is to say, to be placed in a position as if the marriage had never taken place. This will, no doubt, be answered ditterently by dift'erent minds, and the difficulty is not decreased by merely appealing to the authority of Jesus. Different answers are given to the more fundamental ques- tions. Did Jesus intend to occupy the position of legislator when He spoke of adultery and divorce ? (ir wns He siniply enunciating a general principle, Ir,i\iim fnliire ueiierations to deal with social con- (liliiiii, .IS (liry ;iiiise'? The present writer has no liesii.u 1(111 111 saying that his own opinion leans strongly to the side of those who believe that Jesus affirmed solemnly the indissolubility of the marriage tie, and that He meant His followers to understand that the remarriage of either party during the life of the other constitutes adultery. At the same time he is not unaware of the fact that there is a strong body of sober modern thought which tends towards a relaxation of this view' in fa\..ui ol tlie innocent (see Gore, T/ic
If .le^iis 111 Ml .1 - 1- making a categoric;il statement of univeisal application, then the
32
ADVENT
ADVf:NT
opinion, given by the present -writer as liis own, can scarcely be disputed ; bnt if He is interpreted as dealing with the foundations rather than making structural alterations in the ethical beliefs of His countrymen, we must conclude that He leaves His followers to deal with the question as it arises. In the latter case it is, of course, com- petent for the Church in each age to treat the question dc novo. The conditions of society alter, and what constitutes danger to the social welfare at one time, may have comparatively little peril for the people of another period. At the same time it nmst not be forgotten that the tendency of human legislation has been and is likely to be, for some time to come at least, towards the loosening of the marriage bond, and the minimizing of the seriousness of that guilt by which men uproot the foundations of their social and domestic life.