this is evidently the meaning of Can. of Hippotytus, xvi. [ed. Achelis, § SO], which says that a Christian who has lived with a single (speciali) concubine, who has borne him a son, must not cast her off, i.e. he must marry her. The clause common to these books apparently comes from their lost orioinal, which may not improbably be assif^ned to Hippolylus, and be dated soon after A.D. 200. But some of these Orders say that under some circumstances a concubine of a heathen may herself be re- ceived.
* The Church Orders, if they deal with the matter at all, in- terpret the injunction of digamy, and some of them extend the prohibition to the minor orders (Maclean, 47i(;itfn(C/n;rcA07-d(,'j-j,\ Cambridge, 1910, p. 92). The Orthodox Eastern Church (see aijove, z) does not allow her parish priests to marry again after the death of their wives. In that case they must leave their parishes, and they usually enter a monastery. Marriage after ordination is not treated of in the NT.
JVIARRIAGE
MARRIAGE
15
unreason;il)le tlie prejudice mit;lit be, it was well nut to yive unnecessaiy otl'eiice to public opinion. This piejuilice may be seen, for example, in Joseplius, Ant. XVII. xiii. 4, where Glapliyra is reprimanded for re-marriajce, in a vision, by her first husband ; this was also a case of forbidden degrees, for her lirst and third husbands were brothers. Perseverance in widowhood was com- mended not only in the NT (Lk 2^', 1 Co T"), but by the heathen Komans (Joseplius, Ant. xvill. vi. 6 : Antonia, widow of Drusus). In the 2nd cent. Hennas says {Mand. iv. 4) that digamy is not a sin, but that a widow [or widower] who remains single is commended. So Clement of .Mexandria {Strom, iii. 12), commenting on St. Paul, says that one who re-marries does not sin, but that he does not follow the most perfect course.
Digamy in a man was much less disliked than in a woman. The ' Epiphanian ' view of the Brethren of our Lord, that they were Joseph's children by a former marriage, would hardly have been possible in the 4th cent, if there had been a very strong prejudice against a widower marrying again. Third and fourth marriages were strongly reprobated in the early Church (see EBE iii. 493).
6. Prohibited marriages. — We may in this section discuss certain prohibitions against marriage, leaving aside for the moment the question of marriage after divorce (see 7).
ifl) Forbidden degrees. — Whatever were the for- bidden degrees in the OT, they appear to have remained unaltered in NT times. There are a few passages which deal with the subject. In 1 Co 5'"°- " St. Paul deals with the case of a Cor- inthian who took his father's wife, evidently his stepmother, not his own mother. It is not quite clear if the father was alive ; if 2 Co 7'^ refers to the same incident, as appears to the present writer the more probable supposition, he was alive ; but if so, it is not clear whether he had divorced his wife and the son had married her. In any case, the inference is that even if it were only a case of marriage between a son and a stepmother it would be repugnant to the Apostle, as it would be even to the better heathen. Otherwise a heathen would have got over the difficulty by the father divorcing his wife and the son then marrying her ; but the marriage or adultery of persons so closely related by aiiinity had shocked both Christians and heathens alike. Another case is that of Herod Antipas and Herodias his brother Philip's wife (Mk 6'"'-). Here again it is immaterial whether Philip was alive or dead, or whether Herodias had been divorced ; the connexion would be prohibited in any event (Lv 18'") : 'it is not lawful for thee to ha^'e thy brother's wife ' (she was also niece of both her husbands). Ramsay thinks (St. Paul the Traveller, 1895, p. 43) that the prohibited degrees are probably referred to in the Apostolic Letter (Ac 15-"- -'21-*), and he understands 'fornication' there to mean marriage within these degrees. Others deny this, and say that Gentile Christians had to be reminded that fidelity to the marriage bond was not a matter of inditt'erence, and that fornication and idolatry went hand in hand. But it is not quite easy to see why this sin alone of all others is mentioned in the Letter, coupled as it is with such ceremonial injunctions as not eating things strangled or with the blood ; and Ramsay's view appears to deserve greater support than it has generally received. The Letter, which is somewhat of the nature of a compromise, indicates what part of the Mosaic Law the Gentile Chris- tians, to avoid scandal, ought to keep. The exist- ence of prohibited degrees may be partly due in their origin to the general feeling that those of the same household, where several families (in the Western sense) lived in one house (see Kamilv),
should not intermarry ; and it is n striking fact that the Kast Syrian Christians, who have pre- served the custom of several families livinj/ under one roof, have considerably extended the 'I able of Forbiilden Degrees (Cat/wlicoso/the l'Ja.it, ]). 14G f.).
The custom of the levirate does not atl'ect this question. It was a special provision of the OT to prevent the dying (Uit of a family (.see Auoi'TION). It was perhaps still practised in Is'T times, as it is referred to by the Saddncees, almost as if still existing, in Mt2->^'<'-, Mk 12-""-, I-k •2U-''"r- (note rap' ruiif, Mt.). But at least it was obsolescent.