Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
THE HISTORY OF DIVORCE AND 
RE-MARRIAGE
ANTIQUARIAN ESSAYS. 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
THE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEAN AND CHAPTER 
OF WESTBURY AND THE VICAR OF HENB...
THE HISTORY 
DIVORCE AND. .. R:. E-MARRIAGE .a.a.. . . . '.. :. 
FOR ENGLIS~::E$~~&C~HMEN ::. .:::: ..:: :: . ' . . ..' .....
PREFACE. 
THESE pages are the outcome of a study, 
reluctantly undertaken, but forced upon me by 
the conditions of wok in...
vi PREFACE 
the teaching and discipline of the Church of 
England, as given in her Prayer Book and 
Canons ? " 
In the com...
CONTENTS. 
CHAPTER PLGE 
I. Divorce and Re-Marriage among the Greeks, 
Romans, and Jews at the time of Christ and 
His Dis...
CHAPTER I. 
DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE AMONG THE GREEKS. 
ROMANS, AND JEWS AT THE TIME OF CHRIST AND 
HIS DISCIPLES. 
OUR Lor...
2 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
to the husband, since to begin proceedings for a 
divorce the wife was required to present in p...
GREEKS, ROMANS, AND JEWS S 
from such conditions of marriage and divorce which 
degraded Roman society, and which so many ...
4 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
be regarded as a fixed legal principle, but rather as 
an opinion and good counsel for conduct....
GREEKS, ROMANS, AND 3EWS 5 
ing ten years) were also regarded as valid grounds of 
divorce." 
Such then were the condition...
CHAPTER I1 
THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 
WHATw as the attitude of Christ towards the depraved 
conditions of life mentioned in ...
THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 7 
his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh 
her an adulteress: and whosoever shall ma...
8 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth 
her which is put away doth commit adultery. 
...
TBE TEACHING OX CHRIST 9 
5. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For 
the hardness of your heart he wrote you this prec...
10 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
rieth her that is put away from her husband com-mitteth 
adultery. 
Bevised Versio?~. 
18. Eve...
THE TEACHING OF CJXRIST 11 
emphasis they might take six hours-hardly perhaps 
so much." 
But nevertheless the Gospels giv...
12 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
But with the non-fulfilment of that hope and the 
extension of the area of teaching, the neces...
THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 13 
(A.D. 365-370) we meet for the first time with a list 
of New Testament books identically the s...
14 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
" (g) The grace of Christ be with all. Amen. 
" (h) The grace of Christ be with all men. Amen....
THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 16 
It will not be necessary to pursue this further, as 
cases can easily be multiplied : enough ha...
CHAPTER 111. 
THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE. 
BEBORE examining the disagreement in the words at-tributed 
to Christ...
THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE 17 
The form of the story, in which that truth is en-shrined, 
does not concern our p...
18 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery 
against her : and if she herself shall put a...
THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE 19 
in the same way, to the common conclusion that 
Mark is the most primitive of the...
20 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
common to them, the 'agreement' of the other two 
is mediated through Mark. 
"3. In those sect...
Bauer, the founder of the Tiibingen School. I am 
not going to give t,he history of the ebb and flow of 
modern criticism;...
22 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
against her: and if she herself shall put away her 
husband andmarry another, she committethad...
THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE 23 
may be called narrative and discourse material. 
This "implies a common written s...
24 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
dissoluble, and that a second marriage, during the 
lifetime of either of the separated partne...
CHAPTEFi IV. 
THE PROBLEM IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
WE now pass to the teaching of Christ as given in 
the Gospel accordi...
26 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
feature which was dropped out or altered where its 
historical meaning had been forgotten. It ...
THE PROBLEM IN THE GOSPEL OB MATTHEW 27 
taught that divorce (which with the Jews carried the 
right of re-marriage), was ...
28 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
There is the further difticulty in attributing the 
" exception " to Christ, because of the in...
ception " does form part of Christ's teaching, cannot 
be said to be unscriptural if looked at from this 
standpoint. 
If ...
CHAPTER V. 
CRITICISM 08 TEE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
To answer the question raised at the close of the 
last chapter, a consid...
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 31 
or Aramaic ; (2) it is improbable that tho ' Logia ' or 
' Oracles ' of the Lord, g...
32 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
how whole speeches have been placed in the mouths 
of orators by writers (cf. Thucydides) when...
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 33 
everywhere in the Old Testament and their fulfil-ment 
in Christ. To secure this, t...
34 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
When the Jews became Christians they still re-mained 
Jews. " Salvation was of the Jews," of t...
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 35 
dissoluble. Matthew, by adding words, ' except for 
fornication,' brings our Lord's...
36 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
the divorce was ideally wrong, and the first marriage 
was ideally still valid-a$ El&, cf. Mou...
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 37 
inappropriately here, but we may doubt whether it 
was part of the original Sermon....
38 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
that the re-marriage of either partner, while the other 
is living, is adultery.' But it is a ...
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 39 
divorce a wife for grave misconduct was conceded by 
Moses because of the low condi...
40 DIVORCE AND 1 RE-MARRIAGE 
stated : " Certainly our best guide to the true inter-pretation 
of the sayings of our Lord ...
CRITICISM OF TH'E GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 41 
for Mark's omission of them, if they had been in his 
original " (pp. 130-1). 
Lat...
42 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
"The Rev. William Pattison Paterson, D.D., a 
minister of the Church of Scotland, and Professo...
CRITICISM OB' THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 43 
passages Matthew had modified the original tradi-tion." 
' 
The Lord Bishop of Bir...
44 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
Jewish traditions still at work in the Christian com-munity.' 
The Christian Church apparently...
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 45 
The late Dean Lefroy wrote : 1 "And accordingly 
the Christian Church has ever held...
46 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
"No one can deny, then, that the text is extremely 
uncertain, and it seems most unsafe to bas...
CHAPTER VI. 
THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL 
ST. PAULin his Epistle to the Romans' wrote in 
ch. VII. 1-4 (R.V.): "Or are ye ign...
48 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
question of contract, depending only on the will of the 
parties. 
It does not seem fair criti...
THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL 49 
free to be married to whom she will; only in the 
Lord." 
It will be noticed that in the R.V....
50 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
that Gospel or even of a later date than that. So then 
it cannot be used to modify the teachi...
CHAPTER VII. 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314. 
WE must now consider the evidence, outside Holy 
Scripture, as to what w...
52 DIVORCE, AND RE-MARRIAGE 
as " Scripture " in these words : " Truly, then, the 
scriptures declared, which say," and he...
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314 63 
he said, is it adnltery if anyone defile his flesh but 
he also commits adultery who...
54 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGK 
teach these matters truly. Brief and concise words 
were spolien by Him, for He was not a soph...
HISTORICAL EVSDENOE TILL A.D. 514 55 
husband eventually departed to Alexandria and there 
conducted himself worse than fo...
56 DIVORCE AND RE-I'IARRIAGE 
-for the earliest references to the Gospels do not 
give the name-but it will be noticed tha...
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314 57 
c. A.D. 192. ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
Clement was the famous head of the Catechet...
58 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
away the opportunity of so great a benefit, but not 
even in marrying again chose to remember ...
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314 59 
to remain tcninarried or to be reconciled to her husband, 
both permitted divorce wh...
60 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
But Dr. Pusey in his celebrated "Note 0 " 1 on 
"The Second Book to His Wife," wrote : " Tertu...
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314 61. 
admits." It ought to be added most reluctantly and 
regretfully admits. 
c. A.D. 18...
62 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE 
At any rate to Origen the Mosaic concession was a 
condescension to hardness of heart and huma...
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins

281 views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The History of Divorce and Re-marriage (1910) - Wilkins

  1. 1. THE HISTORY OF DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE
  2. 2. ANTIQUARIAN ESSAYS. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. THE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OF WESTBURY AND THE VICAR OF HENBURY, WITH TERMS OF SETTLEMENT, IN A.D. 14.6.1 . B.y the Right Reverend JOHNC ARPENTERD, .D., Lord Bishop of Worcester and Westbury. ALSO NOTES ON THE EARLIEST EFFORTS TO FOUND A BISHOPRIC FOR BRI~TOL. MENTS, TO SIR RALPH SADLEIR. COPY OF THE DEED OF THE SALE OF THE NEXT PRE. SENTATION BUT ONE TO HENBURY VICARAGE, IN A.D. r678. SOME CHAPTERS IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF WESTBURY-ON-TRYM-I. DESECRATIOONB BISHOPC ARPENTERT'SO MB. 2. DECAY OF TBE COLLEGE BUILDLNGS. 3. D~SPERSIOONX. CHURCHL ANDS. 4. ALIENATIONO F TITHES. 5. SALE OF LIVING. TO WHlCH IS APPENDED A LIST OF ABBOTS, DEANS. AND VICARS SINCE A.D. 725. THE "POOR BOOK" FROM A.D. 1656-1698 OF THE TITHINGS OF WESTBURY, STOKE BISHOP, AND SHIREHAMPTON, WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES. ALSO FAITH HEALING. A PLEA FOR GREATER RECOGNITION IN THE CHURCH AND BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.
  3. 3. THE HISTORY DIVORCE AND. .. R:. E-MARRIAGE .a.a.. . . . '.. :. FOR ENGLIS~::E$~~&C~HMEN ::. .:::: ..:: :: . ' . . ..' .. ::-::: ' COMPILED FROM H0.L.Y: SC..F +.If .~ .~. B B. JC H.. .U p~fi.COUNCZLS . . . . . . AND AU%~&ITAZYV~. w&IY& :.' BY H. J. WILKINS, D.D. YICAN UP WESl'BURY-ON-TIIYM, AND RBADER Or BIDLAND CBAPLL, n11sTOL C/ LONGMANS, G R E E N AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK, BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA
  4. 4. PREFACE. THESE pages are the outcome of a study, reluctantly undertaken, but forced upon me by the conditions of wok in which I am engaged. They are printed in the hope that they may be of some help to Churchmen and others, when much that is contrary to the teaching of Christ atld His Church is being circulated. The question for members of the Church of England (and for other Christians) is not "What do well-known novelists,lawyers, highly-placed Churchmen, and others consider ought to be the terms of marriage and divorce?" but "What is the teaching of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who, we believe, well knew what was best for the highest and eternal welfare of mankind amidst all "the changing scenes of life ?"I and so, "What is 'In some quarters it sought to push the kenosis (emptying) of Christ to such a. poaition that His knowledge would be vary little above that of the average Jew of His time, a. position very far diiier-ant to the conception of the Christian Church. Y
  5. 5. vi PREFACE the teaching and discipline of the Church of England, as given in her Prayer Book and Canons ? " In the compilation of these pages I have endeavoured to acknowledge gratefully the many and various authorities and works used ; but if from inadvertence any have been cited without such acknowledgment, sincere thanks is here offered. H. J. WILKINS.
  6. 6. CONTENTS. CHAPTER PLGE I. Divorce and Re-Marriage among the Greeks, Romans, and Jews at the time of Christ and His Disciples . . . . . . . 1 11. The Tcaohing of Christ . . . . . . 6 111. The Gospels of St. Mnrk and St. Luke . . . 16 IV. The Prohlem in the Gospel of Matthew . . . 28 V. Criticism of the Gospel of Metthew . . . 30 VI. The Teaching of St. Paul . . . . . 47 VII. Historical Evidence till A.D. 314 . . . . 51 VIII. A.D. 314-527. Prom Constantino to Justinian . 08 IX. The Eastern Church after Justinian, A.D. 692. The Council in Trullo . . . . . 97 X. The Anglican Church . . . . . . 112 XI. From the Norman Oouquest . . . . 127 XII. After the Reformation . . . . . . 146 XIII. The Divorce Act, 1857 . . . . . . 157 XIV. The Lambeth Couferenoe of 1908 . . . 164 XV. Conclusions . . , . . . . . 171 Index . . . . . ,181 vii
  7. 7. CHAPTER I. DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE AMONG THE GREEKS. ROMANS, AND JEWS AT THE TIME OF CHRIST AND HIS DISCIPLES. OUR Lord Jesus Christ and His earliest disciples would, for the most part, have to encounter the mar-riage laws and customs of three nations-the Greek, Roman, and Jewish. The Roman Empire was at this time supreme over the whole world-as then known-and communica-tion had been made easy by the magnificent roads and caravan routes ; while the Greek language was the general medium for interchange of thought and commerce. The policy of the Roman Empire was (unless im-perial interests demanded otherwise) one of tolera-tion and non-interference with the marriage as well as other laws and customs of the nations who had been conyuered.' "By the Athenian Law," writes Dr. Howard,= "which probably was not entirely supplanted by the Roman until A.D. 212,3 divorce was freely granted to either spouse. The benefit inured, however, mainly ' Cf. p. 550 of Oohu's " Gospsls and Modern Researoh". '(History of Ni~atrimonial Institutions," 701. 11, p. 12. Geffeken, op, cit. p. 15. 1
  8. 8. 2 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE to the husband, since to begin proceedings for a divorce the wife was required to present in person to the archon a written statement of her desire; and this, in a society where popular sentiment relegated woman to a seclusion truly Oriental, it was in practice exceedingly hard to d0.l Among the Romans, and some time before Christ commenced His earthly ministry, the stricter forms of marriage; with their right of divorce to the husband alone, had passed away, and free contract both for husband and wife had taken their place, the marriage form-excepting for the fiamimes-being "a simple private agreement," and divorce "a formless private transaction" open equally to both parties. About 18 B.G., according to the Lax Julia de add-teriis, the declaration of divorce must be made before seven witnesses-Roman citizens of full age : but this enactment was only in order to secure publicity of what was hitherto a simple private transaction, and not to restrain divorce. It will not be necessary, for the purposes of these pages, to consider the resulting depravity and vice 1 Thus Aloibiades collected a. bsnd of men and dragged his wife Hipparets from the arohon, when she attempted to get a divaroe on socount of his 1iosntiousness.-Wolsey, "Divorce and Legislation.'' p. 31. aCf. notein Howard's lLMe*trimoniailn stitutions," Vol. 11, p. 14, whioh states: ',By eo?%fa?reatio and coemptio the man acquired the mams et the nuptials; but the usus, ar the form through whioh transition was made from the striot to the free merrisge, he seems to have gained it only bg a. year's prescripiion, when the women neglected her privilege of trinoctium. In the meantime, before the manus wan aoquired, it is 8 question whether the woman was lagallg usor or merely vroris loco". Here fallow eight authorities.
  9. 9. GREEKS, ROMANS, AND JEWS S from such conditions of marriage and divorce which degraded Roman society, and which so many writers of those times satirized. Seneca (c. 3 ~.c.-65A .D.) denounced this evil with special vehemence, declaring that divorce in Rome no longer brought with it any shame, and that there were women who reckoned their years rather by their husbands than by the consul^.^ Among the Jews, at the time of Christ, divorce was the privilege of the msn alone.2 The position among the Jews at this time is very clearly given by Edersl~eim.~" To begin with, divorce (in the legal sense) was regarded as a privilege ac-corded only to Israel, not to the Gentiles. On the question what constituted lawful grounds of divorce, the schools were divided. Taking their departure from the sole ground of divorce mentioned in Deuter-onomy xx~v1. , ' a matter of shame' (literally naked-ness), the School of Shammai applied the expression to moral transgressions only, and, indeed, exclusively to unchastity. It was declared that if a woman were as mischievous as the wife of Abab, or (according to tradition) the wife of Korah, it were well that .her husband should not divorce her, except it be on the ground of adultery. At the same time, this must not ' Cf. Lecky, "History of European Marsls," Vof. 11, p. 307; "Ssn." Ds Bsnof. 111. 16. At most there was only a faint trsce of thewoman's later right, ssnotioncd by the Talmud, of demanding a separation; of. Exod. xxr. 7-11, as interpreted by Amram, "The Jowish Law of Divorce," p. 55 ff.; Howard, Yo1.11, p. 13, and note. a "Life and Times of Jesus the Mesuiah," Vol. 11, pp. 532, 333.
  10. 10. 4 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE be regarded as a fixed legal principle, but rather as an opinion and good counsel for conduct. The very passages from which the above quotations are made also afford only too painful evidence of the laxity of views and practices current. And the Jewish Law unquestionably allowed divorce on almost any ground, the difference being, not as to what was lawful, but on what grounds a man should set the law in motion, and make use of the absolute liberty which it accorded him. "But the School of Hillel proceeded on different principles. It took the words 'matter of shame ' in the widest possible sense, and declared it sufficient ground for divorce if a woman spoiled her husband's dinner. Rabbi Akiba thought that the words 'if she find no favour in his eyes' implied that it was sufficient if a man found another woman more attrac-tive than his wife. All agreed moral blame made divorce a duty, and that in such cases a woman should not be taken back. According to the Mishnah, women could not only be divorced, but with the loss of their dowry, if they transgressed against the Law of Moses and of Israel. The former is explained as implying a breach of the law of tithing, of setting apart the first of the dough, and of purification. The latter is explained as referring to such offences as that of going in public with uncovered head, of spinning in the public streets, or entering into tall< with men; to which others add that of brawling, or of disrespect-fully speaking of her husband's parents in his presence. A troublesome or quarrelsome wife might certainly be sent away; and ill-repute or childlessness (dur-
  11. 11. GREEKS, ROMANS, AND 3EWS 5 ing ten years) were also regarded as valid grounds of divorce." Such then were the conditions of divorce obtain-ing among the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, and carrying with it the right of re-marriage.
  12. 12. CHAPTER I1 THE TEACHING OF CHRIST WHATw as the attitude of Christ towards the depraved conditions of life mentioned in the preceding pages ? What were His commands? Turning to the New Testament we find the follow-ing statements attributed to Christ: (but the phrase "except for fornication," as given in the Gospel according to Matthew, is disputed, modern Biblical criticism proving that these words did not form part of the teaching of Christ. The subject will be ex-amined in the course of these pages). Autlwrized Version. Verse 31.-It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce-ment : 32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery : and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Revised Version. 31. It was said also, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement : 32. But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away 6
  13. 13. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 7 his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament. 32. 'EYh 62 heyw hPiv ~TTL& F 6 b~ohdwuT T)U yuvaka bv~o6T ~PEICT~XF ~~OrrUop vela~T OL& ahqv po~xeu0ljua~[ ml $7 f'dv ~~oheh~~71~apv4cqn uPO L-x~ T~L]. MATTHEW XIX. Authorized Version. 3. The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4. And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5. And said, For this cause shall aman leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7. They say unto Him, Why did Moses then com-mand to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8. He saith unto them, Moses because of the hard-ness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives : but from the beginning it was not so. 9. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
  14. 14. 8 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10. His disciples say unto Him, if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11. But He said unto them, All 171.07~ cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Revised Vevsion. 9. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication,' and shall marry an-other, committeth adultery: "nd he that merrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery. Westoott avid Hart's Greek Testament. 9. [Xhyw Bi Cpiu ZTL 8~ 11u C;aohhuq T+U ywuai~a ah06 p+ Qai aopueiq ~ayia pdun IIXXTV ~OLXZTUL.] Alternative reading given hiyo SB +lv, 87 Bv ci~ohl;ug r+v yuuail~aa h~oirr apercrh~X 6you vopuela~r,o cei a$- T+V po~~~~B+~jua6a ir~l v,o Xehvpf'v~u~ apljuaq~ OLX~TUL. Authorized Version. 2. And the Pharisees came to Him, and asked Him, Is it lawful for a, man to put away his wife ? tempting Him. 3. And He answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you ? 4. And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 1 Some ancient authorities read saving fo? the cause of fornication lnaksth her an adultpress: ss in oh. v. 32. %The following words, to the end of the verse, are omitted by some anoient authorities. hlarginsl notes.
  15. 15. TBE TEACHING OX CHRIST 9 5. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10. And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter. 11. And He said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Revised Version. 11. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her : 12. And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament. 11. ~aXl& ~ELa i~oiv'0&~u &~oh6agT ~Uyu uat~a a6~oCn ai yap~ugdX hqu ~OLX~TZUT L'a i~ljux,a i <Au ci.rioXuuaua T~Uil ~6~a3a71 jr yapjug li'hXou po~xi?~a~. LUKE XVI. Authorized Vemion. 18. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever mar-
  16. 16. 10 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE rieth her that is put away from her husband com-mitteth adultery. Bevised Versio?~. 18. Everyone that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, comlnitteth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband com-rnitteth adultery. Westcott and Hort's Greek Testantent. 18. Il& 6 rl~oh6ouT ~Uyu uaina ahoG nal yaPGu Edpau p~X~hen~a,i 6 a'~oXeXu~f'ur~l~v 6a' v8pb yapGu ~OLXE~E'. The earliest Greek manuscript extant is probably the Codex Vaticanus (B) and is generally assigned to the fourth century. I t is possibly a few years older than the Codex Sinaiticus (N), which is assigned to the middle of the fourth century. Before entering upon the study of the actual words, attributed to Christ, a few preliminary considerations will be neces-sary in order to enter into the points to be raised in the course of these pages in reference to the trust-worthiness of the Gospel narratives. Admittedly the Gospels are not an exhaustive ac-count of the life of Christ, for "on the very shortest estimate the length of the ministry must have ex-tended to about 400 days, and I doubt if our Gospels contain stories from forty separate days. So that nine-tenths at least of the public life of Jesus remains to us a blank, even if we were to take every recorded incident as historical and accurately reported. And all the recorded sayings of Christ, how long would they take to pronounce? With due gravity and
  17. 17. THE TEACHING OF CJXRIST 11 emphasis they might take six hours-hardly perhaps so much." But nevertheless the Gospels give us the character of Jesus and the fundamentals of His teaching? The Gospels, in the form in which we have them, were not written till probably from twenty to sixty years after Christ's work on earth was finished. Yet doubtless there were sayings committed to writing and notes made by persons interested in the teaching of Christ, for " the common use of writing among the lower classes in Roman times, and also the presence of a professional scribe among the Apostles, make it probable that early notes end docu~nentso f Christian teaching were in use ".3 Still it must be remembered that the usual Jewish methods of teeohing were oral and that they plaoed the highest value on oral tradition. Christ Rimself committed nothing to writing, and doubtless the Apostles-thorough Jews-followed for the most part His method of teaching: nor would they feel any necessity to commit His teaching to writing, since they looked for the speedy return of Christ. 1 " Gospel History and its Trausmission," p. 20, by I?. C. Burkitt, D.D., Norrisisn Protossor of Divinity in the Universityof Cambridge. a c'Curiously enough Dr. Salmon uses almost the same expres-sion as Sir Wm. Ramsay :- "'The moreIstudy the Gospels the more convinced I am that we have in them oontemporsueous history; that is to say, thst we havs in them the stories told of Jesus immediately after His death, and which hed been oiroulated, and ss I am disposed to believe, put in writing while He was yet alive' '' (LL The Human Element in the Gospels," p. 274).-Prof. Sanday, c%ife of Christ in Recent Re-so~ roh," p. 172. Dr. Blinders Petrie'su Growth of the Gospels," p. 52.
  18. 18. 12 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE But with the non-fulfilment of that hope and the extension of the area of teaching, the necessity for written documents arose: partly on the ground that the new catechists, who would teach for the Apostles, would need an authoritative statement both for their guidance and to avoid heretical teaching, and partly because the number of the Apostles and early disciples mas being rapidly diminished by death. Dr. Petrie writes : "The need of a written record for the Churches, which were springing up in distant regions before A.D. 50, would make some formal collection of docu-ments requisite by them. Some form of Gospels was thus both probable and necessary at an early date." So then from about A.D. 50 and onwards many Gospels were composed. Luke (I. 1) wrote : " For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in orde~ a declaration of those thi~zgsw hich aremost surely believed among us," etc.; but these written Gospels did not entirely supersede oral tradition till about A.D. 120. I t will be readily understood that in these records, based on oral tradition, many variations, interpola-tions, and interpretations, according to the point of view of the writer, would appear. The ground for surprise is not that they are so many, but that they are not very many more. The sources used by our Evangelists were " altered freely. They changed, added, omittied." 2 But the process of sifting these records was at work, and it went on from the middle of the second century till the fourth century. "In Athanasius' Canon 1 " Growth of the Gospels," pp. 52, 53. 2 Prof. Burltitt, p. 21.
  19. 19. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 13 (A.D. 365-370) we meet for the first time with a list of New Testament books identically the same as our own. This Athanasian Canon was confirmed by the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), though the Eastern Church still refused to accept it. In A.D. 692 East and West combined and confirmed the decision of the Council of Carthage."' How difficult the task of deciding the text of the New Testament must be will be gathered from the following passage : " The New Testament consists of 7959 verses. In 1892 there were said to be more than 150,000 various readings, or an average of twenty variations for each verse." This statement will prove alarming to many devout Christians, and especially to those who cling to the theory of verbal inspiration; but it need not be so, for most variations are unimportant as regards the teaching or meaning, although many as regards number. " The last verse of the Bible will illustrate this :- "(a) The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you all. Amen. " (b) The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you all. Amen. " (c) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. "(d) The grace of Christ be with you all. Amen. " (8) The grace of Christ be with you all. Amen Amen. "(f) The grace of Christ be with us all. Amen. ' Oohu's " Gospels in the Light of Modern Resewoh," p. 155. a Cohu, p. 157.
  20. 20. 14 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE " (g) The grace of Christ be with all. Amen. " (h) The grace of Christ be with all men. Amen. " (i) The grace of Christ be with the saints. Amen. "(j) The grace of Christ be with all t7ze saints. Amen." Further, there are some passages in the Authorized Version of theNew Testament which are now generally admitted to beinterpolations. This is borneout by the marginal notes in the Revised Version : compare :- 1. Against Matthew VI. 13, where "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever, Amen," is omitted, and a marginal note inserted : "Many authorities, some ancient, but with variations add, 'For thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.' " 2. Against Matthew XVI. 2-4 is placed the note : "The following words to the end of verse 3 are omitted by some of the most ancient authorities and other important authorities ". 3 . Matthew XVI. 21 is altogether omitted, and the note runs : " Many authorities, some ancient, insert verse 21. But this kind goeth not oat save by prayer and fasting." See Mark IX. 29. 4. Against Mark XVI. verses 9-20, the following marginal note is placed: "The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel." 5. Against John VIII. 1-11 appears : " Most ancient authorities omit John VIL 53-VIII. 11. Those which contain it vary very much from each other." ' Cohu, pp. 151,158.
  21. 21. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 16 It will not be necessary to pursue this further, as cases can easily be multiplied : enough has been pro-duced to show that variations and interpolations are frequently met with in the Gospels. But there are some variations the importance of which cannot be over-estimated or minimized, e.g. the " exception " in the Gospel according to Matthew in reference to the subject under discussion, and to-wards which modern Biblical criticism has more and more directed attention : and it must be remembered that true criticism, reverently and carefully pursued " hringeth men about to religion," while no good can possibly ensue to "true religion and sound learning " by refusing to "verify conclusions ". At the same time it will be helpful to remember that, "whatever doubt there may be as to the actual words of Christ in some oases, the existence of the Church is an impregnable witness to the historical Christ, whose living voice was the 'Gospel' of the etbrly Christians ".
  22. 22. CHAPTER 111. THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE. BEBORE examining the disagreement in the words at-tributed to Christ, it will be as well to dispose in the first place of the ground which is common in them. From the statement in Matthew and Mark we learn that the Pharisees came to Christ and sought to embroil Him in a dispute with either the stricter School of Shammai (p. 3) or the laxer School of Hillel (p. 4) by putting to Him the question, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife" (Mark X. 1) for every cause? (Matt. XIX. 3). The answer of Christ satisfied neither party, for He raised marriage to a plane vastly higher than that upon which either school placed it, and convicted them of going beyond the law of Moses, which they professed themselves to be zealous of guarding. That which Moses had sz~ffered (Matt. XIX. 8) -not commanded as the Pharisees said (ibid. XIX. 7) - because of the "hardness of their hearts " (Mark x. 5), the School of Shammai had converted into the normal standard: while the School of Hillel, by its lax interpretation had "made the law of none effect ". Christ recalls them to the record of the first mar-riage in the Bible, as given in the first chapter of Genesis. 16
  23. 23. THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE 17 The form of the story, in which that truth is en-shrined, does not concern our present purpose : that would be a separate study in itself.' What is im-portant to notice is that Christ takes the truth therein embodied and makes it His own. "But from the beginning of creation, male and female made He them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh: so that they are no mow twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder " (Mark x. 5-10). This union of man and woman, living in harmony with the Will of God and in Spiritual Communion with God, is pronounced by Christ to be indissoluble. The disciples of Christ were much perplexed at the teaching of their Master as to the indissolz~bilitg of marriage (for otherwise it would not have appeared to them so great a hardship if Christ had but en-dorsed the teaching of the School of Shammai in its strictest form), as based upon the teaching in con-nexion with the first marriage recorded in the Old Testament. Typical Palestinian Jews, with a pro-found reverence for the law of Moses, they were amazed that Christ had treated the Mosaic privilege as a concession to human weakness and had gone behind that privilege. So we are told by Mark (x. 10-12) that they returned to the question again when they were alone with Christ: "And in the house the disciples asked Him again of this matter. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away 'Of. Prof. Driver's " Genesis ". 2
  24. 24. 18 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her : and if she herself shall put away her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery ". The prohibition is absolute : there is no such concession as that, "except for fornication," given by Matthew: marriage, as described by Christ, is indissoluble : a husband and wife, if they separate, may not contract a second marriage, because the first remains. To consider Mark's Gospel in relation to Matthew and Luke more closely. In doing so, attention must be restricted to some only of the synoptic problems, and to those which bear upon our present subject. From a harmony of the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it will be seen that there is such an agreement in language and material, which renders the conclusion almost beyond a doubt that they are not three original and independent accounts, but that there is a "common gospel running through the three Gospels, and that it is almost identical with our Mark, which is now, it is generally agreed, the earliest Gospel ". " Opinion, however, has gone more and more in the other direction. The independence and priority of Mark have been accepted by some (e.g. Ritschl) who originally held the other view ; and scholars of different tendencies (Weisse, Wilke, Lach-mann, Reuso, Thiersch, Ewald, Volkmar, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Weizsacker, Weiss, Meyer, etc., and most English authorities) have been led, though not always 1 It will not be neoesssrg, for the purposes of these pages, to dis-cuss the question as to what use Mark made of documents, etc., usually designsted " Q ".
  25. 25. THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE 19 in the same way, to the common conclusion that Mark is the most primitive of the Gospels. I t is also very generally held that our second Gospel, or a source corresponding substantially to it, forms the basis of the 6rst and third Gospels." " Thus it has been shown that if Mark is divided into 106 sections or paragraphs, Matthew borrows 93 of these, Luke 81. There are only five which one or the other of these two Evangelists has not bodily incorporated in his narrative. Or if we take Mark 674 (R.V.) verses, only 50 remain when Matthew and Luke have made their loans. A glance at Rush-brooka's ' Synoptioon ' and Sir John Hawkins' 'Horze Synoptica?' will prove convincingly that this extra-ordinary coincidence between the three Gospels is not limited to their matter, it extends even to words and phrases and turns of expression." Note.-Schwitzer states : " Weiss made this discovery for himself in March, 1837, and his argu-ments for the priority of Mark rest mainly on the following propositions :- " 1. In the first and third Gospels traces of a common plan are found only in those parts which they have in common with Mark, not in those which are common to them but not to Mark also. " 2. In those parts which the three Gospels have in 'Cf. Hastings' "Diotionary of the Bible," Vol. 111, p. 259, where this qnestion is very ole~~alrygu ed. a Cohu, p. 204. "'The Queat of the Historicel Christ," pp. 122.4, English trans. 1910.
  26. 26. 20 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE common to them, the 'agreement' of the other two is mediated through Mark. "3. In those sections which the first and third Gospels have, but Mark has not, the agreement con-sists in the language and incidents, not in order. Their common source, therefore, the 'Logia' of Matthew "-which will be dealt with later on-" did not contain any type of tradition which gave an order of narrative different from that of Mark. " 4. The divergencies of wording between the two other synoptists is in general greater in part where both have drawn on the Logia document than where Mark 1s their source. " 5. The first Evangelist reproduces this Logia document more faithfully than Luke does: but this Gospel seems to have been of a later origin. " Wilke came to agree in his work of the same year, ' The Earliest Evangelist, a Critical and Exegetical Inquiry into the Relationships of the First and Third Gospels '. Reuso defended in 1842 the priority of Mark in his ' History of the Sacred Writings of the New Testament,' as did El-uald in 1850, Ritsohl ('Origin of the Ancient Catholic Church ') in 1850, Rdville in 1862. In 1863 the foundations of the Marcian hypothesis wgre relaid more firmly than be-fore by Holtzmann's work." Prof. Burkitt states : " Until Lachmann's time the prevailing opinion had been that Matthew's Gospel was the earliest, or at least that it offered the most primitive arrangement. The priority of Matthew was upheld by critics of such different opinions as St. Auguetine and Ferdinand Christian
  27. 27. Bauer, the founder of the Tiibingen School. I am not going to give t,he history of the ebb and flow of modern criticism; it will be enough to say that the relative priority of Mark is now accepted almost as an axiom by the great majority of scholars who occupy themselves with Gospel problems." So, then, it is accepted that Mark's Gospel is the earliest Gospel we have, and that it embodies the teaching of Peter and was written in Greek. Papias, A.D. 140, writes of Mark as the interpreter of Peter.% This is accepted by Irenmus, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. As to the date of colnposition of Mark's Gospel : "The period which seems to be most probable, both by historioal testimony and by internal considerations, is that between Irenzus' date "-after the death of Peter and Paul-" and the year A.D. 70. Weiss pro-poses the close of the seventh decade, or about A.D. 67. A date only a little before the destruction of Jeruselem, perhaps early in A.D. 70, is as near as we can get."$ Plummer gives A.D. 65-15 as the prob-able time. So, then, the earliest of the Gospels gives the teaching of Christ in reference to marriage and which was that it was indissoluble : "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery '"The Gospol History s*na its Transmission," p. 38. aMdprar ipwveu.i$r ni7poyve uopivor, aoa 6#vnpducurrv, bnp~Bwr Fypa+ru, ob +$Y 70' T~$GL~b Srb mi) X~LVTD3~ )X CXBIYT~Y ) =p=xB(~~a. -Euseb. 'I Hist. Eoo." 111. 39. 3Haatings' " Dictionary of the Bible," Val. 111, p. 261 sgg.
  28. 28. 22 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband andmarry another, she committethadultery". THE TEACHINGOF ST. LUKE. Luke's testimony is to the same effect and is given in ch. XVI. 18. As to the authorship of Luke's Gospel, "it is manifest that in all parts of the Christian world the third Gospel . . . was universally believed to be the work of Luke. No one speaks doubtfully on this point." As to the date, "we may accept, perhaps, some date about the year 80, that is, the beginning rather than the end of theperiod (A.D. 78-93), within which it is placed by Harnack" (" Chronologie," pp. 246 ff.).2 Plummer gives the probable dates as A.D. 79-89. As regards the sources of Luke's Gospel, the fol-lowing results are obtained from a critical analysis :- 1. Luke " follows, over a large part of his narrative, the Gospel of Mark, and that probably in the form in which we have it, and not merely some under-lying document," although there are omissions and additions. Haruack *states : "It is unnecessary to prove anew that Luke used Mark". Peine5 states : "The use of Mark as one of Luke's sources is a generally established fact of Gospel criticism ". 2. In Luke and in Matthew there is much material in common over and above Mark's Gospel and which 1 Plummor, "St. Luke," p. 16; snd for esrly authorities see Hast-ings' "Diot~on&ryof the Bible," Vol. 111, p. 162. 2 See Hastings' "Dictionsry of the Bible," Val. 111, pp. 162-4. SHastings' "Dictionary of the Bible," Vol. 111, p. 167. 4 (' Chronologie," p. 652. 5 " Eins voroanniachs Ueberlieferung."
  29. 29. THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE 23 may be called narrative and discourse material. This "implies a common written source, and that requirement is to be satisfied by the hypothesis, not of a direct use of Matthew by Luke, but by the supposition that both have used some one collection or more of our Lord's discourses." ' This common written source other than Mark and now completely lost, is for the most part considered to have been the " Logia " or sayings of Christ, col-lected by Matthew, the Apostle, about A.D. 50. Weiss states : "Luke's acquaintance with and the use of the Apostolic source of the first Gospel is just as certain as his want of acquaintance with the Gospel itself ". 3. "Besides these L~tke seems to have access to oral tradition, by which he corrects or supplements the narratives common to him and others." 4. Luke " used especially for chs. I. and 11. and the section beginning with rx. 51, some special written sources, which do not supply much information as to Galilee, and may have been connected in origin with Jerusalem ".4 Sources 2, 3, and 4 are often spoken of by Com-mentators under the title of " Q," from the German quellem, sources, springs, etc. Such then very briefly were the sources of lznow-ledge open to Luke, and with the knowledge of these he tells us, using what is obviously part of a longer discourse, that Christ taught that marriage was in- ' Hsstings' "Dictionary of the Bible," Vol. 111, pp. 167.8. s" Introduction to tho Nev Testament," Vol. 11, p. 249. 3 Cf. St. Luke 1. 1-3 ; Hastings' " Diotionaq of the Bible," Vol. 111, pp. 166.8, and Cohu, oh. xv11. 4Hostings' "Dictionary of the Bible," Vol. 111, p. 168.
  30. 30. 24 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE dissoluble, and that a second marriage, during the lifetime of either of the separated partners, could not be anything but adultery. "Every one tht putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from her husband committeth adult,ery " (Luke xv~. 18 (R.V.) ).
  31. 31. CHAPTEFi IV. THE PROBLEM IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. WE now pass to the teaching of Christ as given in the Gospel according to Matthew (see pp. 7-8). Before we deal with the "exception " therein con-tained, afew points must be considered. In Matthew's Gospel it will be noticed that the case of the man is alone considered: with the Jews it was intolerable that a woman should divorce her husband: it was the privilege of man alone. The same applies to Luke. Yet one very marked feature of Christ's undoubted teaching was equality of treatment for man and woman. I t will be noticed that the latter part of chs. v. 32 and XIX. 9 is not, according to Westcott and Hort, contained in some manuscripts. This in itself throws a clear light upon the way, in which early writers felt at liberty to deal with the manuscripts, which they used in the compilation of their own works. Prof. Burkitt thus comments: "This con-demnation of the womm is not found in Matthew and Luke, and it is pretty generally assumed to be a secondary addition, 'based on Roman Law,' says Dr. Schmiedel in 'Encyclopadia Biblica,' col. 1851. I venture to think such a view mistaken, and that so far from being a secondary addition it is one of the really primitive features of the Gospel of Mark, a 25
  32. 32. 26 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE feature which was dropped out or altered where its historical meaning had been forgotten. It was no doubt monstrous to imagine that a Jewess should desert her husband to marry another man, but it was not quite unheard of. We know the woman and her history. Herodias had left her husband-the man whom Mark calls 'Philip,' but Josephus only knew as ' Herod '-in order to live with Antipas. Antipas also was guilty: he had put away the daughter of the Arabian King Aretas to marry Herodias, his half-brother's wife, she herself being his half-niece. "We need scarcely pause to inquire whether Hero-dias merely deserted her first husband, or whether, like her great-aunt Salome,' she availed herself of the methods of Goman procedure and divorced him. Our Lord's previous words show that He did not re-gard an immoral act as being any the less immoral for being carried out according to law: in either case I ventnre to think the saying as reported in Mark clearly implies a reference to Herodias, a reference which is singularly appropriate in the time and place."" The " exception,'' contained in chs. v. and XIX. of the Gospel according to Matthew, demands the most careful consideration. We have seen that Mark and Luke state that Christ taught that marriage was absolutely indissoluble, and that another marriage could not be entered into dur-ing the lifetime of the partners of the first marriage. But the Gospel according to Matthew is opposed to that of Mark and Luke, for it tells us that Christ Josephus, "Ant." xv. 7, 10. Z'' The Gospel History and its Trmsmission." pp. 100-1.
  33. 33. THE PROBLEM IN THE GOSPEL OB MATTHEW 27 taught that divorce (which with the Jews carried the right of re-marriage), was allowable on the ground of fornication-practically the teaching of the School of Shammai at its best. It is, as already stated, impossible to over-estimate the importance of this exoeption with all the conse-quences that logically ensue. If that exception formed part of the teaching of Christ, then the Church of the iirst three centuries was in error in regard to its teaching, and also the Anglican Church from its earliest days till now, and the marriage service of the Church of England goes beyond the teaching of Christ, and binds burdens about the necks of its members, which for many men and women are beyond their u?zoided human strength to bear? If the "exception" formed part of the teaching of Christ, then it is logically possible to justify the claim for the extension of the grounds of divorce, and thus create a position in absolute contrast to the rest of the teaching of Christ. Granted the Church has (with some exceptions) considered ~opveia (fornication) to be the equivalcnt of /LOLX&~ (adultery), yet to a vast number of Chris-tians the all-important point is, not what the Church has taught or deduced from the words of Christ, but "Is it in the Bible ? " In other words, if the "exception " forms part of Christ's teaching, what is to be understood by these words? How would the Jews, to whom they were spoken, understand them? 1 We believe that God's grace is sufficient for whatever Ho de-mands of His servants.
  34. 34. 28 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE There is the further difticulty in attributing the " exception " to Christ, because of the inaccuracy of the language employed and the confusion of thought ensuing by making rropvela identical with po~x~ia. It does not appear that "fornication " would in the Jewish mind be limited to prznuptial unchastity, as Bengel and Liddon limited it. That would mean, it has been argued, that the woman would be liable to punishment for her actions before she entered into any agreement with her husband, while a breach of the actual agreement could not be punished if divorce could only be for rropuia : for, although the penalty for adultery was already laid down in the Jewish Law, the exaction of that penalty was not permitted by the Roman Government. So to the Jewish mind (and it was to this mind Christ spolie) it would seem that fornication would be equivalent to that which destroyed the spiritual unity with God. Cf. Lev. XVII. 7, XX. 5; 2 Chron. XXI. 11 and 13; Is. XXIII. 17; Ezek. XVI. 15 and 29, etc.l If so, then the "modern " developments (in reality a ~artiarle turn to non-Christian systems), if the " ex- 'But Dr. Plummer in his "Oommentary an Matthew," relying on Hosea, Ir. 5 and Amos vrr. 17, thinks it is olesr thst ~apvda would convey the meaning of Prof. Tyson in his "Indis- ~olubility of Msrrisgs" states: "In the time of Christ it was uni-versally held to inolude illicit sexual intercourse on the pmt of the ~ifew, hile the School of Shammai limited it to that sin. Had this fact been always remembered, many wearisome controversies as to the meaning of tiopvs:e in St. Matthew would have been avoided: for it is there used in its Shammsio sense of unlawful intercourse on the part of the wife." But there are early Ch~istian writers, down to St. Augustine, agsinst Prof. Tysan's oanolusions.
  35. 35. ception " does form part of Christ's teaching, cannot be said to be unscriptural if looked at from this standpoint. If this "exception " is Christ's, and so the way of forgiveness and restoration can be absolutely closed by re-marriage, what becomes of the injunction to forgive? Cf. Matt. XVIII. 21, 22, and Luke XVII. 4. The various suggestions of reading the " excep-tion" into Mark and Luke are too strained to be aucepted, and especially having regard to the very definite statement of the returning to the question by the disciples, and also because it stultifies the objection of the disciples, who could not have con-sidered it an intolerable hardship to be required to live on the same plane as the disciples of the School of Shammai. If, then, this "exoeption"-of which Mark and Luke know nothing-which is opposed to the general tenor of Christ's teaching, does not form part of the *ords and teaching of Christ, how is its presence in the Gospel according to Matthew to be accounted for?
  36. 36. CHAPTER V. CRITICISM 08 TEE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. To answer the question raised at the close of the last chapter, a consideration of the authorship and purpose of the Gospel according to Matthew will be necessary. In this Gospel according to Matthew, Mark's Gospel is largely drawn upon, as has been already shown. In addition the writer (who, it is held, was not Matthew the Apostle) had other sources of information,l and principally the " Logia " of the Apostle Matthew, which were in existence A.D. 50 and were written in Aramaic (Hebrew), the language spoken by Christ : but our Gospel is not a translation of those sayings into Greek, but was itself written origin-ally in Greek. For (1) " it may be taken as proved that our Matthew is not a translation from Hebrew 'Prof. Sanday, in his "Life of Christ in Recent Research," p. 172, dealing with Sir W. M. Ramsay's review af Earnaok's two books, writes: "There is one startling obiter dictum in the last article: viz. that 'the lost common source of Luke and Matthew (i.e. L'Q") . , . was writton while Christ was still living. It gives us the view whioh one of His disoiples entertained of Him and His te.ohing during His lifetime, and may be regarded as authoritative from the view of the disciples generally' (p. 424). I am afraid this is rather too optimistic. I do not doubt myself that 'Q' was sometime before L.D. 70. The more exsot date will de-pend upon the relabion in whioh it stands to Mark and Paul. Under both these heads there is much to be said on both sides." 30
  37. 37. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 31 or Aramaic ; (2) it is improbable that tho ' Logia ' or ' Oracles ' of the Lord, giving all due latitude to the term logion, included anythmg like so much nar-rative as does our Matthew."' Tradition from the second century named Matthew the Apostle as the author of our Gospel according to Matthew; but all scholars are now agreed that too much has been placed upon the words of Paphias, end that our Gospel was not written by the Apostle, although his teaching, as embodied in his " Logia " or sayings, is incorporated in it. "The Matthaan ' Logia ' have as their nucleus the common Apostolic didactic tradition, which took shape in the early Jerusalem days under the lead of Peter-a tradition which passed into Mark in its later Petrine form. At some stage which we cannot now trace they took on the special impress of the Apostle Matthew, prob-ably in a ministry of which Galilee, rather than Judaa, was the scene. In this form they passed, as Jewish unrest became more acute, to the neighboux-ing parts of Syria, in the person of our Evangelist among others, still receiving fresh elements in the course of oral teaching. Cf. Matt. XIII. 52, and XXIII. 34. And it was st this stage that they took written shape, as the main constituent in the mixed Gospel composed with the aid of the Marcan memoirs of Peter." Historical students will not need to be reminded 'Hsstings' "Dictionsry of the Bible," Vol. 111, p 296; see also Oohu, pp. 357 spy. a Of. Prof. Bartlett in Hastings' "Dictionary of the Bible," Vol. 111, pp. 296, 297, 298, Ib~dp. . 303.
  38. 38. 32 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE how whole speeches have been placed in the mouths of orators by writers (cf. Thucydides) when they were not spoken at all, and how respect for a person often led to the use of his name and the ascribing of opinions to him by admiring writers, and how easy it had been for "indirect authorship " to become " direct author-ship". In other words, the ideas and canons of writing and criticism of to-day must not be read into those of ancient times. From internal evidence the date of the Gospel according to Matthew is about A.D. 70. Hastings' " Dictionary of the Bible " gives 68-70, Plnmmer 67- 80, as probable dates. What was the purpose of our Gospel? and in answering this question we shall get much Iight upon the disagreement of Matthew with Mark and Luke, particularly in reference to the subject under dis-cussion. The writer of the Gospel according to Matthew is a Jew and writes for Jews-the Gospel is "at once apologetic and polemical. . . . Jesus is God's Mes-siah, in spite of all superficial appearances, and that by realizing the essence of Moses and the Prophets." ' To the Jew the Old Testament was "the repository of all wisdom? and therefore Matthew must show, if his fellow-countrymen are to accept the teaching of Christ, that He was a Jew, and that " He came not to destroy the law but to fulfil the law ". In doing this Matthew has that common character-istic of the early Christians of seeing type and prophecy 1 Prof. Bartlett in Hastings' "Diotionary of the Bible," p. 304. ZCohu, p. 360.
  39. 39. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 33 everywhere in the Old Testament and their fulfil-ment in Christ. To secure this, texts fro111 the Old Testament are quoted with different wording.' For instance, Zechariah (rx. 9) had said, "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass ". This, of course, is the poeti-cal Hebrew way of spealiing of one animal, and Luke and Mark so interpret it. Matthew, however, in his eagerness to keep close to the wording or prophecy, turns the one animal into two ! " They brought the ass, and the colt, and set Him on them." So, again, we read in Matthew 11. 23: "He dwelt in Nazareth, that it rnight be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene," a prophecy which cannot be traced in the Old Testament. In spite of several ingenious but unconvincing attempts to find some parallel for it in Scripture, it is merely a play on words based on the accidental resemblance of the word Nazareth and the Hebrew word for "branch ". Similarly, it is only by wrenching the original words from the true original setting and intention that the passage "when Israel was a child, I loved him and called My Son out of Egypt "can he construed into a prophecy referring to the return of the Child Jesus from Egypt : " Out of Egypt have I called My Son " (Matt. 11. 15). These strained and artificial interpretations of Scripture were universal among the Jews of that day, and therefore perfectly legitimate and convincing in their day. Df. Cohu, p. 361. 3
  40. 40. 34 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE When the Jews became Christians they still re-mained Jews. " Salvation was of the Jews," of that they were certain; and if the Gentiles are to be brought in, it must be as "proselytes of the Jewish Christian Church " ; ' and so it was only by Christ fulfilling the law and the prophets that in their eyes there could be any possibility of acceptance. This Matthew thoroughly realizes (cf. ch. v. 17) : "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." To Matthow, Christ fulfilled the law, and nothing can be allowed to stand which militates against that conception. " Indeed,z so eager is Matthew to remove .Jewish prejudice against Christ in this matter of the law, that he re-writes Mark's passage on divorce, clean and unclean meats, etc., and makes them assume a different complexion. " Thus, as regards divorce, Mark and Luke represent Christ as making the marriage tie absolutely in- 'Dontrsst Matthew s. 5, 6: " These twelve Jeszcs snzt forth, and ooncmanded them, sayimg, Go not isto the way of the Garrtiles, and irrto any city of tlw Samaritans enter ye not; But go rather to the lost sheep ofthe house of Israel" with Mark vr. 10: "A?zdHesaidunto then%I,r r whatplaca soaver ye e%ter into a+%h ouse, thsre abide," eto. where no limits of place %re given to the Apostles. aCohu, p. 366.
  41. 41. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 35 dissoluble. Matthew, by adding words, ' except for fornication,' brings our Lord's verdict on Deuter-onomy xx~v.i nto perfect harmony with the best Jewish views of His day." To consider the words "except for fornication," giving the opinions of certain authorities :- In " The International Critical Commentary' on the Gospel According to Matthew,"' ch. v. 32, it is stated: "It is, however, open to question whether this exception is not an addition of the editor, re-presenting no doubt two influences, viz. Jewish custom and tradition, and the exigencies of ethical necessity in the early Christian Church. A similar exception is made in XIX. 9, and it will there be seen that the clause is clearly an interpolation. There is, therefore, a presumption that it has also been inter-polated here. Moreover, the teaching of Christ as recorded by Mark (x, 11) seems to preclude any such exception. And Luke represents His teaching as a simple prohibition of divorce without reservation (XVI. 18). The same may be said of Paul's account of Christ's teaching, 1 Cor. VII. 10, 11-~orei &VT;)U po~~~~OijTuhai~s .c la~lsei mplies the circumstance that after divorce the woman will be likely to marry again. In that case the divorce will have been the means of leading her to marry again; and so from Christ's standpoint, though not legally, oom-mitting adultery, because according to His teaching 1 Editors 0. R. Driver, D.D., A. Plummer, D.D., 0. A. Briggs, D.D. aBy Willoughby 0. Allen, M.A., Chaplain, Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. 3,
  42. 42. 36 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE the divorce was ideally wrong, and the first marriage was ideally still valid-a$ El&, cf. Moulton, 42 ff. ~o~~ibercaaus~e ,sh e is ideally still the wife of the first husband. Christ's teaching here therefore seems to admit of no exceptions. If a man divorces his wife he causes her to commit adultery (it being pre-supposed that she will re-marry), because ideally her first marriage still holds good. If a man marries such a divorced woman, he not only causes her to commit adultery, but himself does so, since he marries one who ideally is still the wife of her first husband. The interpolated clause confuses the is-sues. If a man divorced his wife for ~opuela, he would not then cause her to commit adultery, because she would already be guilty of this crime." " Instead of explaining away the exception, Bleeli, Keim, and others have denied the genuineness of the clause specifying it, and this on the ground that the original unqualified statement of Jesus was felt to be a stumbling-block, and that the exception ('saving for the cause of fornication ') crept into the tradi-tional report as a concession to the realities of social life." Dr. Plummer comments %n Matthew v. thus : " The third illustration of the superiority of the Christian ideal to the Jewish is taken from the question of divorce (31, 32). As being a subject con-nected with the preceding illustration it comes not 1 Hastings' " Dictiansry of the Bible," Vol. 111, p. 215. aLs An Exegetical Commentary an the Gospol Aooording to St. Matthew," by Rev. Alfred Plummer, Dl.A., D.D., formerly Mastor of University College, Durhanl, and sometime Follow and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford.
  43. 43. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 37 inappropriately here, but we may doubt whether it was part of the original Sermon. The substance of it, partly in the same words, is found again XIX. 3-9 ; but inneither place does it, according to existing texts, show that Christ's teaching about divorce was superior to that of the stricter Jewish teachers. There is grave reason for doubting whether Christ, either in the Sermon or elsewhere, ever taught that divorce is allowable when the wife has coinmitted adultery. That rropucia here nnd XIX. 9 ineans adul-tery (Hos. 1.1. 5 ; Amos VII. 17) is clear from the context. According to the earliest evidence (Mark x. 1-12), which is confirmed by Luke XVI. 18, Christ declared that Moses allowed divorce as a concession to a low condition of society. But there was an earlier marriage law, of Divine authority, according to which the marriage tie was indissoluble. To this Divine law men oughtto return. Teaching such as this is entirely in harmony with the teaching about murder (21-24) and about adultery (27, 28), and is above the level of the best Jewish teaching. But what is given here (31, 32) and in xrx. 9 is lzot above that level. The stricter Rabbis taught that the 'unseemly thing ' (ilu~~po~vp iypai mpudicum ne-gotium, Tertullian) which justified divorce (Deut. XXIV. 1) was adultery: and, according to Matthew, Christ said the same thing. Nothing short of adultery justified divorce, but adultery did justify it. It is very improbable that Christ did teach this. If we want His true teaching we must go to Mark and Luke, according to whom He declared the indissolu-bility of the marriage bond. He told His disciples
  44. 44. 38 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE that the re-marriage of either partner, while the other is living, is adultery.' But it is a violent hypothesis to assume (in the face of all external evidence) that ' except on account of fornication ' is a later interpola-tion by early scribes (Wright, 'Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek,' p. 99). If the interpolation had not already been made in the Jewish Christian au-thority which Matthew used, then we must attribute the interpolation to the Evangelist himself. It is clear from other cases that he treated his authorities with freedom, and he may have felt confident that Christ, while forbidding divorce on any other ground, did not mean to forbid it in the case of adultery. Yet, even on the Evangelist's authority, we can hardly believe that our Lord, after setting aside the Mosaic enactment as an accommodation to low moral-ity, should Himself have sanctioned what it allowed. Mark would have no motive for omitting the excep-tion if Christ had made i t ; but there would be an obvious motive for a Jewish Christian to insert it, as meont, though not reported." Dr. Plummer, commenting on Matthew XIX. 3-12, writes : " . . . We must study Mark x. 2-12 if we wish for a clear and consistent account of Christ's teaching respecting divorce. . . . According to Mark and Luke Christ forbade divorce altogether. The permission to 'Augustine's view is this: "Solius fornicationis oaus& lioet uxorem adulteram dimittere, sed ill& vivente non licst alteram du-oere"; but he is not satisfied with sny solution o£ the difficult question. Yet he would uso Milrli and Luke to explain Matthew. "Quod subobscure apud Matthieurn positum est, ex~ositu~eno t spud alios, siout legitur apud Maroum et spud Lucum." Tertnllisn is very decided for this view (" Adv. Marc." 17. 34).
  45. 45. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 39 divorce a wife for grave misconduct was conceded by Moses because of the low condition of society in his time ; but now men ought to return to the primeval principle that marriage is indissoluble, According to Matthew, both here and in v. 31, 32, Christ agreed with the stricter Jews; an unchaste wife might be divorced, and the husband marry again. I t has been shown in the comments on v. 31, 32 that it is improb-able that Jesus taught this; and we may suspect that both 'for every cause ' (3) and 'except for fornication' (9) are insertions made either by the Evangelist or in the authority which he is using in addition to Mark. Whoever inserted the words would think that they must have been meant, and that therefore it was right to make the meaning perfectly clear. The remark of the disciples (10) confirms the view that Christ forbade divorce, even in the case of the wife'sunchastity. If that was His decision, their remark is intelligible. I t would then mean that marriage is a dangerous condition, if a man cannot free himself from an adulterous wife. But, if He taught that the divorce of an adulterous wife was allowable, then their remark would mean that mar-riage is a hard lot, if a man may not get rid of a wife whom he dislikes; and it is hardly likely that they can have meant this. After being Christ's disciples so long, they would not hold that what even Jews of the stricter School of Shammai maintained respecting the marriage tie was an intolerable obligation." In " The Human Element in the Gospels " 1 it is 'A oomlnentsry on the Synoptic Nmrativo by George Salmon, D.D., F.R.S., late Provost of Trinity College, Dublin; edited by
  46. 46. 40 DIVORCE AND 1 RE-MARRIAGE stated : " Certainly our best guide to the true inter-pretation of the sayings of our Lord is the manner in which they were understood by the disciples who heard them, and by the Church which He founded, and this is our best safeguard against the numerous heresies which have had their origin in the private interpretation of isolated texts " (p. 127). Commenting on Matthew v. 31, 32, Dr. Salmon wrote : "If notice be taken of another variation be-tween Matthew's version (in ch. XIX.) and Mark's, no fair-minded critic can doubt that the limitations in Matthew were made with the express purpose of re-moving any prohibition against divorcing an adulter-ous wife. The question with which the Pharisees tempted our Lord is according to Mark's version, Is it lazoful for a naan to put awag his toij~? but according to Matthew, Is it lawful for a malL to pt~t atuag his wij% jo~or every cause P In fact, the question touches on a dispute which then went on between rival schools of expounders of the Law. . . . The question then arises, If there be a discordance, which report are we to follow? Which is more likely to ropresent the record first made of our Lord's words? A question of criticism must be decided on critical grounds with-out regard to doctrinal consequences ; and it seems to me that Mark's version, which appears to disallow divorce without any exception, is rnore likely to re-present the common source than Matthew's, which excepts the adulterous wife. For it is innch easier to account for Matthew's insertion of the words than Newport J. D. White, D.D., Professor of Riblioal Greek in the University of Dublin.
  47. 47. CRITICISM OF TH'E GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 41 for Mark's omission of them, if they had been in his original " (pp. 130-1). Later on (pp. 390-1), commenting on Mark x. 2 and Matthew xrx. 3, Dr. Salmon states : " The dependence of Mattl~ewo n Mark in this passage is unmistakable. . . . Omitting the words rapenror Xdyou ~o~ueiainr Matthew v. 32 appears to forbid absolutely the putting away a wife, no matter how unfaithful; and this,in con-fessed opposition to the ordinance of Moses. . . . I am inclined to the belief that we ought to accept Mark's account here as the most literal report of what our Lord said, viz. that He uttered His precept against dissolution of marriage in the most general terms, and without allowance for possible exceptions. . . . I t seems (p. 394) now to me plain that the disciples understood our Lord to say, that it was not lawful to put away one's wife, even in the case of adultery. Surely it would be unreasonable for them to say that it was not good for a man to marry, unless he had the power of unlimited divorce." Prof. Tyson writes : 1 "Looking at the matter from every point of view, I cannot regard the twice-re-peated exception, both on account of its relation to its own context and because of its total divergence from the independent witness of the three Apostolic writers of the New Testament, to be a genuine saying of Christ, although, on the other hand, the witness of antiquity compels me to confess that it formed an integral portion of the First Gospel." '"The Teaching of Our Lard &s to the Indissolubility of Marriage," by S. L. Tyson, 1I.A. (Oaon.), Professor of New Testament Language and Interpretation in the University of the South, p. 51.
  48. 48. 42 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE "The Rev. William Pattison Paterson, D.D., a minister of the Church of Scotland, and Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh, entered at length into Biblical data bearing on divorce. He had come to the belief that our Lord did not allow any qualification of the indissolubility of marriage. The general tenor of our Lord's teaching was against divorce for adultery. He taught the duty of forgiving those who wronged us unto seventy times seven, and witness was therefore of opinion that He would not have said in a particular case that a man's relation to his wife ought to cease. Further, the method of Jesus, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount, was to lay down ethical principles in the most absolutc forin, and to ignore qualifying considerations. Accordingly, witness was inclined to thin11 that when Christ came to deal with the question of divorce, He said that marriage was indissoluble. . . . Again, researches into the sources and relations of the Gospels repre-sented Matthew as an inferior authority. They had three authorities for the absolute rule, as against one for the exception. But further, the general result of critical analysis was that the Gospel ac-cording to Matthew was based on two principal sources, viz. Mark, or an earlier forin of the canonical booli, and an older document usually described as the ' Logia,' which was also one of the sources of Luke. Since, now, the exception was not found in Mark, and since Luke XVI. 18, which was probably drawn from the same source as Matthew v., 31, 32, was also ignorant of it, it seemed probable that in both
  49. 49. CRITICISM OB' THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 43 passages Matthew had modified the original tradi-tion." ' The Lord Bishop of Birmingham (Dr. Gore) said,2 in reference to our subject and the interpolation of the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew: "The only evidence that he was able to offer was concerning the view which the Christian Church as a whole, and the English Church in particular, had taken of divorce. It had been commonly held in the Christian Church that Christ forbade divorce in such sense, as admitted of re-marriage, altogether. Modern Biblical criticism confirmed the view. The earliest texts, according to the modern view were :- " 'And in the house the disciples asked Him again of this matter. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, com-mitteth adultery against her, and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she com-mitteth adultery.' "'Any one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from s husband committeth adultery.' "A11 the evidence pointed to this prohibition of divorce, without exception, being the original teaching of Christ, and modern critical commentators tended to regard the exception in Matthew's Gospel as a later gloss upon the original teaching, due to the 'Royal Comlnissian on Divoroe, " Daily Telegraph," 29 June, lgin~ ZEvidenoe before the Royal Commission on Divorce and Moitri-monial Causes, ils reported in "The Times" of 22 June, 1910.
  50. 50. 44 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE Jewish traditions still at work in the Christian com-munity.' The Christian Church apparently took no notice of the exception and maintained the absolute indissolubility of Christian marriage." This evidence of Bishop Gore is all the more notable, because he had some time previously held and written opinions of quite an opposite character. The Lord Bishop of Ely (Dr. Chase, sometime Lady Margaret Professor and subsequently Norrisian Pro-fessor of Divinity at Cambridge)2 dealt with the Christian view of divorce, as derived from Christ's sayings. When they considered the mode in which Christ's sayings were transmitted through the memory of many men, through oral tradition, and when, further, they took into account the fact that His words, having been spoken in Aramaic, had reached them in a Greek dress, they were precluded from supposing that they had an exact or verbatim report of what Christ said. Witness entered at length into the evidence as to Christ's teaching on divorce, show-ing that according to Marli, our Lord asserted the absolute indissolubility of marriage. 'Cohu, p. 366: " WB do not always sufllciently grssp the fact that Jewish Christisns wore essentially Jaws as well as Christians. . . . In the constant feud between Judaieers and Pauliniuts; in the shoclr Peter received when he was told of God to go to the Gentile centurion (Acts x.): in the agenda of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.); in the rebuke adlninisterod by Paul to Potiir at Antiach (Gal. rl.), we oloady soe that Jewish Christians still continued to regard the obligations of the hlasaio Law as binding upon thomseives." Wee evidence before the Royal Commission as reported in 'c The Daily Telogrilph," 29 June, 1910.
  51. 51. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 45 The late Dean Lefroy wrote : 1 "And accordingly the Christian Church has ever held that the mind of Christ is that marriage is indissoluble. Life-long monogamy is the condition supposed and enjoined by Holy Scripture. . . . So far, then, we claim that the teaching of Holy Scripture is the indissolubility of the marriage bond: the union is essential, its dura-tion is permanent." Wats~n,a~fte r careful exaiuination of texts and manuscripts, comes to the following conclusion : " I t thus appears that a fairly strong case can be rnade out to show that the original reading from which all existing readings were derived was a reading which may not contemplate re-marriage after divorce ; it is certain that some manuscripts of high authority have readings which do not contemplate any such re-mar-riage ; and it is further certain that the text is so vari-ously read as to makeit in the highest degree inexpedi-ent to base any argument of important bearing upon any of its readings. The proper course appears to be to put aside Matthew XIX. 9 and to direct the inquiry to (1) other passages of Holy Scripture, (2) the testi-mony of the Church in history, and (3) the necessary conclusions of Reason." Luckock states: " The evidence of early patristic authority is distinctly against the Authorized Version. In the Revised Version the amended reading has been recognized as suficiently authoritative to find its place in the margin. 1 Pp. 42, 43 in "The Churoh and Life of To-day," 'I Divoroe," by the late Very Rev. W. Lofroy, D.D., Dsen of Norwioh. Holy Matrimony," p. 161. '' Ths H'i~lOry of Marri&ge," p. 70.
  52. 52. 46 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE "No one can deny, then, that the text is extremely uncertain, and it seems most unsafe to base any per-mission of such tremendous consequence upon such uncertainty " . . . "We submit, however, thai: the real question at issue is not so much whether or for what our Lord sanctioned divorce, but whether, if granted, it carried with it the right to re-marry or not. . . . The West-ern Church has held that the ground upon which such a right is said to rest, viz. a simple text of long-disputed integrity, is too precarious to be trusted; and to this course the Anglican branch of it has hitherto yielded a constant assent."
  53. 53. CHAPTER VI. THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL ST. PAULin his Epistle to the Romans' wrote in ch. VII. 1-4 (R.V.): "Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man so long time as he liveth ? For the woman that hath a husband is bound by the law to the husband while he liveth : but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to Him who was raised from the dead that we might bring forth fruit unto God." Some writers have held this passage to teach the indissolubility of marriage, because St. Paul does not recognize that under Jewish law divorce, which carried with it the right of marrying again, existed, and that he has in his mind the teaching of Christ. The Romans at this time considered marriage simply a 1 Date-Hsstings' "Dictionary of the Bible," A.D. 55-66 ; Dr. Plummer, A.D. 54-57. 47
  54. 54. 48 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE question of contract, depending only on the will of the parties. It does not seem fair criticism to make this passage apply to the indissolubility of marriage. St. Paul is not discussing that question at all : he is dealing with the Judaizing tendencies of some Christians mentioned above. They considered the Christian still bound by the law. So it seems this passage cannot reasonably be divorced from the subject St. Paul was discussing and made to apply in detail to the subject now under consideration. Upon the subject of marriage we get St. Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians ' ~II1.0 , 11 (B.V.) : " But unto the married I give charge, yeanot I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband (but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be recon-ciled to her husband) : and that the husband leave not his wife : " " Toir 62 ye"jalL~6uW~uC L~U~O~CKQ XX~, &AX& 6 K~~LyuOuaFin,a &v;lA u6phr pi ~opruO~va~-;&u 62 K~L~O~pL~uU&&ro& ~ya,p or 6 VI,& u6pln a~aXha"/rj~m, -gal tl~6~yauu aixa A+L~U~L."-Westcotta nd Hort. The Corinthian Christians would be well acquainted with the Roman Law and its terms of divorce. They are not to take advantage of it-~o~~uO?juaeif: a separation taltes place then the wife is to remain un-married or be reconciled. The man is charged not to leave his wife. Again in verse 30 (R.V.) : "A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, (margin fallepz asleep), she is 1 Date-Hsstings' "Dictionary of the Bible," A.D. 55 ; Dr. Plurnrnsr. A.D. 52-50.
  55. 55. THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL 49 free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." It will be noticed that in the R.V. and in Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament " by the law " (u&o) is omitted in verse 39, although it appears in the Authorized Version. It is not found in the best manuscripts. So then St. Paul's instructions to the converts-Jews as well as Gentiles-is that Christian marriage is soluble only by death. Also he advised if a second marriage, which in his personal judgment is a matter for deprecation, is to take place, it is to be olzlyin, the Lord and not with unbelievers. This would be a very real restriction, as there were in the early Church more female converts than male, and so the difficulty of securing husbands was felt. But St. Paul is concerned with the spiritual life of the converts and wishes to avoid danger to it by marriage with unbelievers.% This concludes the teaching concerning our subject to be found in the New Testament. It is clear that according to St,. Marlr, St. Luke, and St. Paul, Chris-tian marriage is indissoluble, while the " exception " in the Gospel according to Matthew cannot be regarded as the words of Christ, modern Biblical criticism con-sidering it to be an interpolation by the compiler of 1 ruvh8 i8r.ioi iQiro ov ~pdvov 6 &vhp bu~iir. i2iv 81 ~orpq85d bv<p ihrv8ipa ili~lv+3 8dh.i yaliv8iivaa. P~YDYb ~~~i~.-Westcaontdt Hart. The following verse (40) throws light upon the opinion Paul had of mmriage : "But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment : and I think thst I also have the Spirit, of Gad ". the doctrine concerning re-marriage of oonverts end mixed marriages, see Watson's " Boly Matrimony,"pp. 438-590. 4
  56. 56. 50 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE that Gospel or even of a later date than that. So then it cannot be used to modify the teaching of Christ as given by the three other writers in the New Testa-ment, who are in agreement as to the i~ldissolubility of the marriage bond.
  57. 57. CHAPTER VII. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314. WE must now consider the evidence, outside Holy Scripture, as to what was the belief of the early Christians and the teaching of the Church. I t will be convenient to consider first the period down to the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, A.D. 314, and the consequent union of Church and State, which union of necessity would mean then, as now, that the State assumed some control over the Church. c. A.D. 75. HERMAS. The first reference to our subject by any Christian writer is found in " The Pastor of Hermas," which was "one of the most popular books, if not the most popular, in the Christian Church during the second olld third centuries. . . . The most probable date assigned to its composition is the reign of Hadrian or of Antoninus Pius."' Hermas lived at Rome, but it is now agreed that he was not the Hennas men-tioned by St. Paul in Romans XVI. 14. This book was so popular that it was placed almost on a level with Holy Writ, and it was even read as such during the first centuries in the Churches. Irenaus speaks of it 'Cf. "The Apostolic Fathers,' p. 319, in T. & T. Clarlt's "Ante- Nioene Christian Library ". 51 4 *
  58. 58. 52 DIVORCE, AND RE-MARRIAGE as " Scripture " in these words : " Truly, then, the scriptures declared, which say," and here follows a quotation from the shepherd of Hermas.l Clement of Alexandria : " Divinely, therefore, the power which spake to Hermas by revelation said ".2 The opinion of Hermas IS clear from the statement on Commandment IV: "I say to him, sir, permit me to ask you a question. Say on, he said. Sir, I said, if anyone has a wife who believes in the Lord, and if the husband has found her in certain adultery, does he, living with her, commit sin ? As long as he remains in ignorance, he said, the husband does not sin. But if the husband knows the sin of his wife and if the wife does not repent, but remains in her fornication and the husband lives with her, he becomes partaker of her crime, and a participator in her adultery. What then, sir, I said, is the hus-band to do, if his wife abide in this state? Let the husband, he said, put ,her away and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery. What, sir, I said, if after the woman is put away she should re-pent, and wish to return to her husband, shall she not be taken back? Verily, he said, if the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not repeatedly. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. There-fore, because of the possible repentance, the husband ought not to marry another. The course of action is the same for the woman and the man. Not only, ' " Adv. Her." iv. 20, 2. ' " Stramate," Blr. I, oh. xxrx.
  59. 59. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314 63 he said, is it adnltery if anyone defile his flesh but he also commits adultery who does things similar to the heathen." ' It will be noticed that separation is enjoined for linown adultery, but the marriage bond still remains unbroken, so that on repentance conjugal intercourse can be resumed. Further, that whatsoever endangers the spiritual union with God is on the same level as adultery and is a cause of separation. A.D. 139. JUSTIMNA RTYR. In his First Apology for the Christians, addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, his sons, the Sen-ate, and the whole people of Rome, Justin Martyr states : "But that we should not seem to be reason-ing sophistically, we consider it right, before proceed-ing to proof, to call to mind a few precepts given by Christ Himself. And let it be your part, as powerful Icings, to seek whether we have been taught and do 'Adyo du7<. Kiipie, inI~peJiAufioi 6hiya isipw7ilaaa se. Ae'ye, $qciv, K~~LE$7,~ 1,e i yvvaiaa ZXV its aio~hviu rcupiw nai ~aii~cneupn iu porxci: TLY~, .?pa kpap~durt6 bvhp ouuCGv pr7' ah~ilr; "Axpr &yvoIar, +qoiv, o5k~pa prdvei. ihv 6i yv@6 bvhp ~jkpuiiap rIav ai~inajl~ p h peiavoilrg i) yu~il,& hA' iaafidu~7 $ woP~eIPa 67ils ~a<lY Y~$ 6 dubP pe? abiils, CVOXOY yivcvac ~il2rp ap~iara b.~ilrx u1 rcoauwvbr 7% pokxetdsa b~ijr. T I osv, mqpi, mipie, aoifivg 6 bvilp, ib hzlcrivg rq. ad8.i .iod~r+ i) yuuil; 'A~DAvc~~w, +n&, a5~hvmi d &vhp i?iau'+ ~CY~IW. ihv Fi brohdrar rhv yuva2ka ZT~~~V KGahbIr po~,yZra~.' Ebo sv, ?qrl xiip~e, rev& ~b 6aoAu. E?va ~hyvuv n.?~a pe~a~oilfri ~r,u vh xal BrAfiog hri 73" iavnjr &"*pa 5aac~piJis~0,5 rapa8r~Ofio~rax~a;l pdv, qqciv. i6v phapapcz*itq*j.ra~a bihv 6 &./np, &pap~dvez ~aplcy dhnv 2P.P~ia~ iw16 2*1rr&~a1, 6AAh Fri aapoarxBijuai vbv 7jiiapmxdra rral perauooGv~a. p5 id aohb 86. roir yap 8od~:norrr oG Bco; #c.rduoid imiv pia. A>&~ ilvp r~dvornu0 3s ah# dgcihrr yapriv 6 bvrjp. AS77 i) lipZCir iirl ~YV~a~dvl8Lp l !KtrivaIi. 05 ~~YOY, +qsiu, poix~iai lr~iv, idv .rir ~houdp aa aLmG pzdug, hh& =a1 Sr Bu 7 6 Spordprna ?TO,+ 7ois C~Y~LIIYf, io~~>a~.-F~nk",P atres Apostolici," 1867, p. 392.
  60. 60. 54 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGK teach these matters truly. Brief and concise words were spolien by Him, for He was not a sophist, but His word was the power of God." " Iva 62 ~4 uo+d @uBa~6p Ciy S~&U~EdVhl,y wu TLU&rUDj u rap' ah05 roc Xp~uroi8, ~8a~pLrwEul~ ~puvutJljnuaah~oi v ZX~LVr pb re7 &r08e~&w?j wukpefIa, nal 6p4repou h'urw, i~8~ uarDjv ,C?au~X~dEv'(,~ rkuac€ 1 LXqtlDj~ raFra 6~6~6L~periBala 8~8ku~opeu/. 3pa~8~2 in~ai UUUTO~OLr ap' ahoi, X~YOL y~y6uau~u0.6 y hp UO~LUT&~Tnj pxfu,&XhaG dvap~vB coc 6X6./oa~t roi, 3u."-" Apol." I . § 14. The challenge of inquiry shows that the statements were not a matter of Justin Martyr's private opinion, but of the known teaching of the Church. He continues : " Whosoever loolted on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery in his heart in the sight of God. . . . He who marries a woman put away from another man, commits adultery. . . . So then both those who commit bigamy under the sanction of the law of man, are sinners in the eye of our Master, and those who look on a woman to lust after her." "'OF tlu E'p,C?hg+j YUU~LKr~p6 9 76 f)r16up.iuaL adrljv, 487 f)poI~e~rv1je nap81? rapd T$ Be$ . . . 'OF yap& &roheXuph~~~ 24' f)~Qpo(iuv 8ph~~, OLX~T~L. . . . "Our~pria l oi v6p0 &uBpwrluy G~~apla~yo ~oLpeudoP~a,p rwXol rap& T$ Ijpmipy As8aunkhy ~1~n1ai, o E rpou/3k~rouryeu~u a~lcl rp6v ri) dr~Bvp7jua(~i~ rlj~."-Ibid. In his Second Apology Justin Martyr gives the case of a woman, who, leaving her former evil life, became a Christian, but her husband continued his evil course. Over persuaded by her friends she continued to live with him for a time in hope of amendment : but the
  61. 61. HISTORICAL EVSDENOE TILL A.D. 514 55 husband eventually departed to Alexandria and there conducted himself worse than formerly : therefore she " in order that by abiding in conjugal intercourse and by sharing his table and bed, may not become a participator of his wickedness and impiety wes separ-ated from him, having given whet is called among you, a bill of repudiation".' c. A.D. 177. ATHENAGORAS. Athenagoras was an Athenian philosopher, who became a convert to Christianity, and one of the ablest Christian apologists. In his Plea (.rrpeu,&la or Legatio), which is addressed "to the Emperors, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Com-modus, conquerors of Armenia and Sarmatia, and more than all philosophers," he wrote : "For our business consists not in the study of words, but in the practice and teaching of deeds-that a person remain as he was born or (contented) in one mar-riage, for a second is only specious adultery. For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery ''.Z Athenagoras is one of the three writers (Origen and Clement of Alexandria being the other two) of the first three centuries who refer to the disputed passage in the Gospel ac-cording to Matthew: the reference is not by name '#nor 'OLYWY~Y7 ;" CL~LII~K~T~Wn.Y1 b<r6qpdi~y~h q7at, E(&~~~c7a 6"' T< <mCuyie, aal d~o6iairorx ai ~~KOITYOLY~O ~~YVT,& A~Ydpe~e~, sap' tp?v prriod8iov GoCaa i~wpI~t?q.A-~p~ol . " 2, a. 2. $0; y=p pchirg hdywv, bhh' i~16ei(rr xal 8i8armahlq ipywv d +phrp~.ij oldr ~rir7 &~8qp,d vsv, 8 ?.P1 ivl ydp9. '0 ydp 6867ep09 clsprlrljr 81171 po~~ci=".0 s yhp 8" &~oh6qm,n d, .rhv yuva7~aa ka;, KG! Lthhqv, ~OLX~~LLI.L-"e g~itiop ro Ohristianis," 5 33,
  62. 62. 56 DIVORCE AND RE-I'IARRIAGE -for the earliest references to the Gospels do not give the name-but it will be noticed that Athena-goras does not employ the exception: on the con-trary he uses the passage against the repetition of marriage. To the indissolubility of Christian marriage the testimony of Athenagoras is absolute and is endorsed by the Church, but the teaching in reference to second marriages was repudiated. Saving the three books written to his friend Auto-lycus, who in conversation with Theophilus had probably disparaged Christianity, no other writings of Theophilus have come down to us : but Eusebius and Jerome speak of other works of Theophilus against the prevailing heresies. To Autolycus he wrote: "And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying, every-one, who looks upon a strange wornan to long after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And he who marries, it says, her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery: and who-soever puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, canseth her to commit adultery ".' Theophilus is true to Christian teaching as regards separation. 1'E 6i E8ayy~Aio.s movh irri~a~i~&~GtcFd~oonun w epi byvelar Aiyovoa. nb d isliv yvvai~ab hho~plavs pbs vb ist8upijsa~a hhv ~poi,y~~btu abrhv ivT $ ~apsaiL~ro i. mi d yagv, q701v, ~~OA~AU~~dvsVpo~r V pocXe6a~. nai 8s Baoh6rr yuvaixa sapcit~br Adyou ~opvciar, no'ci a$~hv palxcuRijva~.-'8 Ad Autolgoum," lib. iii. o. 13.
  63. 63. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314 57 c. A.D. 192. ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Clement was the famous head of the Catechetical school at Alexandria, and was a man of very great learning and extensive travel. He wrote: "But that the Scripture counsels marriage, nor at any time allows separation from that union, the law straightly enjoins, ' Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication,' and it considers as forni-cation the marriage of those separated while the other still lives ".' St. Clement is evidently quoting from memory, and it is ~lmoscte rtain that he refers to Matthew XIX. 9. He is the second of three writers during the first three centuries to do so. c. A.D. 193-220. TBRTULLIAN. The witness of Tertullian is not certain, so much so that it has been claimed to prove that marriage after divorce is permissible, and also that marriage is indissoluble. Tertullian is to be treated as a witness to historic facts, rather than an authority, and particu-larly after his secession to Montanism. In his treatise "Ad Uxorem," written between A.D. 197 and 199 and before he became a Montanist, he wrote : "Now let our attention be turned to the next best councils in respect to human infirmity, the exam-ples of certain women urging us thereto, who through divorce, or by thc death of the husband, when an opportunity of continence was offered, ilot only threw '"Ori Fi yapriv il rpc@~'lruPSouAa6er0 36s A@imarB~11T Y~CTB S ruCuY1as ir<.rpdsr2,K YIIKPYS OAR AroAl<eis ~uYG?T~A+~Y, t ip+ id adYy aapvsiar. yorxeiavFifyci~ai ~b 2myGp.i CGijy~o~Biiii~~~~i)v~(ex~p~rp&~v. -" Stromsta," lib. ii. osp. 29.
  64. 64. 58 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE away the opportunity of so great a benefit, but not even in marrying again chose to remember the rule that above all they should marry in the Lord,."' Also in the second chapter: "I will reply, if the Spirit give (me power), alleging that before all things the Lord considers it more approved for marriage not to be contracted than to be at all dissolved ; in fine, he prohibits divorce, except for the cause of fornication, but he commends continence ".' Again, Tertullian wrote in his work "against Marcion " : "For he is an adulterer who marries a woman unlawfully put away as much as if he married one who is undivorced. For the marriage, which is not rightly dissolved, stands. To marry while matri-mony exists, is adultery." Also, " and so divorce, when justly deserved, has even Christ as a defender ".4 Also, "But even Christ, when He commanded a wife not to depart from her husband, or she hasdeparted, ' "Nunc ad seounda. conailia. oonvertamur, respect" human= in-firmitotis, quarumdam enemplis admoventibus qua divortia "el mariti excess", ablbta continentia oocesiono, nan mado abjecerunt opportunitatem tnnti boni, sed ne in nubsndo quidem rursum dis-ciplinae meininisse voluerunt, ut in Donimo potissimum muberent." -<'Ad Uxorem," lib. ii. cap. I. a "Rsspondebo: si spiritus dsderit, ante omnia, allegans Domi-num magis riltum haberr matrimonium non oontrahi, quam omnino disjungi: denique divortium prohibet, nisi stupri oaussa, contin-entiam vsro commendat."-Bk. 11, c. 11. " Illioita snim dimisearn pro indimissa. duoens, adulter est. Manet enim metrimonium quod non rite diremptum est. Manente matrimonio nubere, adulterium est."-" Adversus Marcionem," lib. iv. cap. 34. * "Habot ilaque ct Christum assertorem justitia divortii."- Ibid.
  65. 65. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314 59 to remain tcninarried or to be reconciled to her husband, both permitted divorce which He did not entirely prohibit, and ratified marriage, because in the first place He forbade separation, and if by chance separa-tion had taken place, He wish it to be renewed.' It has been sought to discredit this later testimony on the ground that the work against Marcion, as we have it, was revised by Tertullian-and undoubtedly it bears distinct marks of revision-after he had adopted Mon-tanist opinions: and then holding that all second marriages were unlawful, he was of necessity obliged to revise his former opinions. But " whateverperverting effects Tertullian's seces-sion to the sect of Montanus may have had on his judgment in his latest writings, it did not vitiate the work against Marcion. With a few trivial exceptions, this treatise may be read by the strictest Catholic without any feelings of annoyance." a This discrediting can only be done at the expense of the consistency of Tertullian. Further as Xeble points out "hat, "if the orthodox enemies of Tertul-lian the unorthodox and heretical, had allowed mar-riage after divorce, it is almost inconceivable, that being the man he was, that he would not have held his opponents up to scorn and contempt ". '"A tquin ot Ohristus, cum preoipit ?,~ulierema vim nolzdiscede~.e cut si discessevit, mancre innuptam, aut reconcilimi l'iiro, et re-pudium permisit quo6 non in totum prohibuit, et matrirnoniurn oonfirmavit, quod primo vetuit dispingi, et si forte disjunotuln voluit reformeri."-Lib. v. o. 7. 8 Dr. Holmes' "TertulliadAgainst M&roion," in T. & T. Clarke's Librwy, etc., pp. 16 spq. Seqnel to the Argument," p. 13.
  66. 66. 60 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE But Dr. Pusey in his celebrated "Note 0 " 1 on "The Second Book to His Wife," wrote : " Tertullian here, no less explicitly because incidentally, allows of marriage after divorce. Only, here, from the context, it appears that it is marriage of a woman who has divorced her husband, not been divorced by him. The same is implied in the ' Adv. Marc.' IT. 34 : ' The marriage abideth which is not duly severed. To marry, while a marriage abideth, is adultery. Thus, if He conditionally prohibited to put away a wife, He did not wholly prohibit it ; and what He did not wholly prohibit, He permitted in other cases, in which the cause for which He prohibited it no longer exists,' i.e. marriage was not to bc severed by man, he was not to 'put away his wife, for the sake of marrying another' (ibid.) ; but if the marriage was severed by God, through death, or ips0 facto broken through adultery, so that they ceased to be one, in either case alike it ceased. A new marriage was adultery only while the former endured ; and it en-dured until it was duly severed; but since adultery of the divorced was such a severance, a new marriage, according to Tertullian's argument ceased to be adul-tery. It is remarkable that Pamelius and others ex-plain away this testimony of Tertullian, being opposed tothe Roman practice, by reference to the treatise 'De Monog.' c. 9, 10, written against the Church, and, because he there does not allow of the marriage of the divorcing party, infer that neither does he here; forgetting, that he there rejects stl~ouC7 u~arriages altogether, even of the widowed, which he here ' "Oxford Library of the Fathers," " Tertullian," Vol. I, p. 431.
  67. 67. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TILL A.D. 314 61. admits." It ought to be added most reluctantly and regretfully admits. c. A.D. 185-254. ORIREN. Origen was head of the Catechetical School at Alex-andria, having been appointed, while still a layman, by Bishop Demetrius. .Origen's teaching on our subject is to be found in his commentary on Matthew's Gospel, ch. XIX. Therein he deals with the questions raised by those who put the question to Christ, Who replied "what God hath joined together let not man put asunder". He deals allegorically-a mode of thought which had the greatest fascination for him-with Christ's connexion with the Law and the Church. He is not quite sure of himself, and so it would be more than unfair to press the details of this allegory to prove a, point: any more than it would be right to press every detail in the parables of Christ? Origen is troubled about the conduct of certain leaders of the Church, who have suffered a divorced woman to marry again. Nothing is known as to who she was : or whether she was the repudiator or repudiated: or whether the divorce was for the cause stated in Matthew's Gospel, or whether it was for one of the many reasons sanctioned by the Roman Law. Most commentators consider it was a lawful divorce.2 1 rl xal d8oEapcv 81B08ur&pwv~,xarGai apiu$@Rair ir~obr~6raurapoy pL~~v.-Cammentary on Matthew xrx. a Of. Posoy's" Note 0," supra; Bmghem, xxrr. ch. 11,s 12, p. 300 ; but Watkins in his " Holy hlstrimouy,"pp. 213,214, mskes the follow-ing suggestion: "Itis possible, however, and indeed, as regards
  68. 68. 62 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE At any rate to Origen the Mosaic concession was a condescension to hardness of heart and human weak-ness (6~b ~;lv &u8euerav), so the ,marriage of the woman in the lifetime of her husband was acting "contrary to Scripture and contrary to that com-manded and written from the beginning ".I Origen is the third of the three writers who during the first three centuries quotes Matthew XIX. 9 ; "and shall marry again " is not quoted by him, and he draws no help from the text concerning the ques-tion of re-marriage. c. 200-258. ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP OF CARTHAGE. St. Cyprian wrote to his son, Quirinns, three books, called " Testimones," against the Jews, containing " those Divine teachings wherewith the Lord has condescended to teach and instruct us by the Holy Scriptures". He states that "a wife ought not to depart from her husband, or if she should depart, to remain unmarried ". In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians : that age, exceeding probable, that the divorced wives spokan of were the whes of non-Christian husbands, who had put them away. If this was done bofaro or at the baptism of the wives, the divorce would be regarded by the Church tls sffarding no bar to re-marriage. . . . The marriage, so sovercd, oould never have been Ohristisn m&rri&ge at all." "H67j 6e 7zapb yrypczPp(va xu> liver .iiu ~youpdvwv icr 'EKKAVC~G~ ishpcjrdv .r,va, Dvvr <Gv,or 7.0; duXpbr, yape:raa, yuva:,ta, ,,ap& 7b YeYPawivovpiunoio6urer iv $ AiAcna~. "ruvil 6i iq' 8sov ~pdvov Cp d dvhp ah$r," nal 70. '("Apa 08" po'xahl~~ pnpa~icriir y ilvil ycvopiuq 6~6i~7i1pw (srjv70rT OG bv6pbr," 03 pilv dhdywr. cixbr ybp 71" cup nep2qnpbv ~od~qovuy rrpbri ~ci~dvwinvip racrerri rapb 18 dr' cip~jr vrvopoa.7Vfi:va ~aylry pawCva.-Commentary on Matthew xrx.

×