proceeds to give directions to those who were already married. Of these there were two classes : first, those where both husband and wife were Christians ; and secondly, those where one of the parties was a believer and the other an unbeliever, i. e., a Jew or a heathen. With regard to the former he says, that as according to the law of Christ the marriage is indissoluble, neither party had the right to repudiate the other. But if, in violation of the law of Christ, a wife had deserted her husband, she was bound either to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband. The Apostle thus impliedly recognizes the principle that there may be causes which justify a woman's leaving her husband, which do not justify a dissolution of the marriage bond.
With regard to those cases in which one of the parties was a Christian and the other an unbeliever, he teaches, first, that such marriages are lawful, and, therefore, ought not to be dissolved. But, secondly, that if the unbelieving partner depart, i. e., repu- diates the marriage, the believing partner is not bound ; i. e., is no longer bound by the marriage compact. This seems to be the plain meaning. If the unbelieving partner is willing to continue in the marriage relation, the believing party is bound ; bound, that is, to be faithful to the marriage compact. If the unbeliever is not willing to remain, the believer in that case is not bound ; i. e., bound by the marriage compact. In other words, the mar- riage is thereby dissolved. This passage is parallel to Romans vii. 2. The Apostle there says, a wife " is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth ; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." So here he says, 4 A wife is bound to her husband if he is willing to remain with her ; but if he deserts her, she is free from him.' That is, wilful deser- tion annuls the marriage bond. This desertion, however, must be deliberate and final. This is implied in the whole context. The case contemplated is where the unbelieving husband refuses any longer to regard his believing partner as his wife.
This interpretation of the passage is given not only by the older Protestant interpreters, but also by the leading modern com- mentators, as De Wette, Meyer, Alford, and Wordsworth, and in the Confessions of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. Even the Romanists take the same view. They hold, indeed, that among Christians marriage is absolutely indissoluble except by the death of one of the parties. But if one of the partners be an unbeliever, then they hold that desertion annuls the marriage con- tract. On this point Cornelius a Lapide, of Louvain and Rome,