Bays, "Nota, Apostolum permittere hoc casu non tan turn thori divortium sed etiam matrimonii ; ita ut possit conjux fidelis aliud matrimonium inire." Lapide refers to Augustine, Thomas Aqui- nas, and Ambrose in support of this opinion.1 The Canon Law, under the title " Divortiis " teaches the same doctrine. Words- worth's comment on the passage is, " Although a Christian may not put away his wife, being an unbeliever, yet if the wife desert her husband (x<*>pi£«"<h) he may contract a second marriage."
The Romanists indeed rest their sanction to remarriage in the case supposed, on the ground that there is an essential difference between marriage where one or both the parties are heathen, and marriage where both parties are Christians. This, however, makes no difference. Paul had just said that such unequal mar- riages were lawful and valid. Neither party could legitimately repudiate or leave the other. The ground of divorce indicated is not difference of religion, but desertion.
There is a middle ground taken by many, both ancients and moderns, in the interpretation of this passage. They admit that desertion justifies divorce, but not the remarriage of the party deserted. To this it may be objected, —
1. That this is inconsistent with the nature of divorce. We have already seen that divorce among the Jews, as explained by Christ, and as understood in the apostolic Church, was such a sep- aration of man and wife as dissolved the marriage bond. This idea was expressed in the use of the words a.Tro\.va.v, d<£ievcu, x<opl£cw, and these are the words here used.
2. This interpretation is inconsistent with the context and with the design of the Apostle. Among the questions submitted to his decision, was this, • Is it lawful for a Christian to remain in the marriage relation with an unbeliever ? ■ Paul answers, 4 Yes ; such marriages are lawful and valid. Therefore if the un- believer is willing to continue the marriage relation, the believer remains bound ; but if the unbeliever refuses to continue the marriage, the believer is no longer bound by it.' To say that the believer is no longer bound to give up his or her religion, which seems to be Neander's idea, or is not bound to force himself or herself upon an unwilling partner, would be nothing to the point. No Christian could think himself bound to give up his religion, and no one could think it possible that married life could be con- tinued without the consent of the parties. The question, in this sense, was not worth either asking or answering.
1 Comment. 1 Cor. vii. 15: edit. Venice, 1717