Primitive Protestantism, as disclosed in the various confessions of faith of the leading denominations, has little to say about ratified and consummated marriages. The consensus of judgment of those ministers and scholars from the days of Luther to 1800 was, that there is only one reason for divorce and remarriage of the innocent party, and that is adultery. The alleged "Pauline Privilege," as interpreted by the Roman Church, has never become an article of faith in the Protestant church.
To illustrate: The Church of Rome will not allow the innocent party to marry again when it is found that the guilty party has committed adultery. By so doing the innocent party is compelled to live in perpetual continence if conciliatory effort fails to bring them together again. In other words, the innocent party is penalized to the same degree as the guilty party, which might last virtually the lifetime of both parties.
This is contrary to the teaching of Protestants as they understand the Bible, for God has always vindicated and upheld innocency in His servants during all ages. He vindicated Daniel in the lions' den because innocency was found in him, and Daniel's accusers were cast into the den of lions. (See Dan. 6:22.) God vindicated Mordecai in the court of Ahasuerus in Persia because he was innocent, while Haman the accuser was hanged on the gallows erected for Mordecai. (See Esther 5 and 6.) God justified and vindicated Joseph in the prison of Egypt by liberating and placing him next to Pharaoh on the throne of Egypt, because he was innocent of the charge brought against him. (See Gen. 40:14, 15.) Finally, God justified and vindicated the innocency of Jesus Christ, who was crucified as a. malefactor, by resurrecting Him from the dead.
Again, the Roman Church teaches that a heathen marriage ratified and consummated is indissoluble in itself, until one of the parties embraces Christianity; then that party can by dispensation from the church dissolve the marriage and marry again on conditions stated in the former article. Now, suppose the unbelieving party should repent and become a Christian in after years, what chance has the one to come back to the other, if he has already remarried?
It should be borne in mind that the Roman Catholic interpretation of the "Pauline Privilege" in dissolving a marriage, is based on religious profession and not on adultery; and that the law of God is not broken in this instance of ecclesiastical annulling of the marriage.
This leads us logically to a brief scrutiny of the "Pauline Privilege." The sixth and seventh chapters of First Corinthians should be studied together in order to understand Paul's counsel concerning the marriage problem. The sixth chapter as a whole deals with the Christian church and the home. Paul tells the church plainly that no fornicators nor adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God. Verses 9, 10. Why? the question arises. Because, says he: "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh." Verses 15, 16.
God joined together in matrimony one man and one woman, and never one man and two women, or one woman and two men. How then can a man be one flesh with his wife when he has illicit relations with another? It is utterly impossible, for it is the transgression of the divine law that made one man and one woman, one flesh. The same principle is involved if the woman is the transgressor. Hence, the only act that dissolves the marriage vow is the act of adultery. These texts are in perfect harmony with Matthew 5:31, 32 and 19:4-9.
In the seventh chapter of First Corinthians Paul is still dealing with the Christian home, but here he introduces a divided home. He freely admits that if one of the parties to a marriage union becomes a Christian and the other not, then they should still live together if possible; but should the unbeliever choose to depart, then let him depart. (See verses 12-15.)
Paul grants a separation, but does he allow the Christian to remarry? Says he, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncornely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." Verses 27, 28, 36. Single persons could marry without sinning, but he restrains those who had separated on the basis of religious profession.
Our query is, What could be the reason for such a restraining decree by Paul in not allowing the believer to marry again? The answer to this question is found in verse 39, which reads, "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
In all candor the question can be asked, How could Paul grant permission to a Christian to remarry when he solemnly declares that death is the only act, apart from adultery, which dissolves the marriage vow? The answer is not hard to find when we recognize and understand that Paul is speaking to married persons who have separated because of difference in religious profession. The fact remains that religious differences between a married man and a married woman do not violate the seventh commandment, and so long as that commandment is not broken by either party, they are still one flesh in an indissoluble union, even though living apart. Should the heathen party commit adultery while in separation, this would leave the innocent party free to marry again.
The inevitable conclusion must be that the "Pauline Privilege" as interpreted by the Church of Rome does not exist; hence the Protestant exposition that the only act which dissolves the marriage vow is the act of breaking the seventh commandment, which leaves the innocent party free to marry again. This is in harmony with the eternal justice of God, who has never victimized or penalized the innocent with the guilty.
Washington. D. C.
