cides in favour of the first wife. The Roman Catechism 1 says : " Atque ob earn rem fieri intelligimus, ut, si infidelis quispiam, gentis suae more et consuetudine, plures uxores duxisset, cum ad veram religionem conversus fuerit, jubeat eum Ecclesia ceteras omnes relinquere, ac priorem tantum justaa et legitimaB uxoris loco habere."
Divorce. The questions which call for, at least a brief consideration, under this head are, (1.) What is divorce, and what are its legit- imate effects ? (2.) What are the Scriptural grounds of divorce ? (3.) What are the Romish doctrine, and practice on this subject ? (4.) What are the doctrine and practice of Protestant Churches and countries ? (5.) What is the duty of the Church and of its officers in cases where the laws of the state on this subject are in conflict with the law of God ? Works on civil and canon law, when treating of divorce, take a much wider range than this, but the points above indicated seem to include those of most interest and importance to the theologian.
Divorce ; its Nature and Effects. Divorce is not a mere separation, whether temporary or perma- nent, " a mensa et thoro." It is not such a separation as leaves the parties in the relation of husband and wife, and simply re- lieves them from the obligation of their relative duties. Divorce annuls the " vinculum matrimonii," so that the parties are no longer man and wife. They stand henceforth to each other in the same relation as they were before marriage. That this is the true idea of divorce is plain from the fact that under the old dispensation if a man put away his wife, she was at liberty to marry again. (Deut. xxiv. 1, 2.) This of course supposes that the marriage relation to her former husband was effectually dis- solved. Our Lord teaches the same doctrine. The passages in the Gospels, referring to this subject, are Matthew v. 31, 32 ; xix. 3-9; Mark x. 2-12; and Luke xvi. 18. The simple meaning of these passages seems to be, that marriage is a permanent com- pact, which cannot be dissolved at the will of either of the par- ties. If, therefore, a man arbitrarily puts away his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. If he repudiates her on just grounds and marries another, he commits no offenee. Our Lord makes the guilt of manrymg after separation to depend on the ground of the separation. Saying, * that if a man puts
i n. viii. 17 (19„ wcvi.)i Stoeitwolf, Libri S*n»haUci% Gottingen, 1846, vol. i. p. 458.
892 PART in. Ch. XIX. — THE LAW.
away his wife for any cause save fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery ' ; is saying that 4 the offence is not commit- ted if the specified ground of divorce exists.' And this is saying that divorce, when justifiable, dissolves the marriage tie.
Although this seems so plainly to be the doctrine of the Scrip- tures, the opposite doctrine prevailed early in the Church, and soon gained the ascendancy. Augustine himself taught in his work " De Conjugiis Adulterinis," * and elsewhere, that neither of the parties after divorce could contract a new marriage. In his " Retractions," however, he expresses doubt on the subject. It passed, however, into the canon law, and received the author- itative sanction of the Council of Trent, which says,2 " Si quis dixe- rit, ecclesiam errare, cum docuit et docet, juxta evangelicam et apostolicam doctrinam, propter adulterium alterius conjugum matrimonii vinculum non posse dissolvi ; et utrumque, vel etiam innocentem, qui causam adulterio non dedit, non posse, altero conjuge vivente, aliud matrimonium contrahere ; moecharique eum, qui, dimissa adultera, aliam duxerit, et earn, quae, dimisso adultero, alii nupserit ; anathema sit." This is the necessary consequence of the doctrine, that the marriage relation can be dissolved only by death. The indisposition of the mediaeval and Romish Church to admit of remarriages after divorce, is no doubt to be attributed in part to the low idea of the marriage state pre- vailing in the Latin Church. It had its ground, however, in the interpretation given to certain passages of Scripture. In Mark x. 11, 12, and in Luke xvi. 18, our Lord says without any qual- ification : " Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth an- other, committeth adultery ; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery." This wa3 taken as the law on the subject, without regard to what is said in Matthew v. 31, 32, and xix. 3-9. As, however, there is no doubt of the genuineness of the passages in Matthew, they cannot be overlooked. One expression of the will of Christ is as authori- tative and as satisfactory as a thousand repetitions could make it. The exception stated in Matthew, therefore, must stand. The reason for the omission in Mark and Luke may be accounted for in different ways. It is said by some that the exception was of necessity understood from its very nature, whether mentioned or not. Or having been stated twice, its repetition was unneces- sary. Or what perhaps is most probable, as our Lord was speak-
i Works, edit. Benedictines, Paris, 1837, vol. vi. p. 658.
2 Sess. xxiv. Canon 7 ; "Streitwolf , Libri Symbolic*, Gottingen, 1846, vol. i. pp. 90, 9L