MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 3, 4 July 1922, Page 7

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

WHAT THE SCRIPTURES

TEACH

POSITION OF INNOCENT PARTY

IS-THERE A DISCREPANCY?

ADDRESS BY BISHOP SPROTT,

A considerable portion of Bishop Sprott's address to the Anglican Synod this afternoon dealt with the question of marriage and divorce and the teaching of the Scriptures in relation thereto.

Quoting the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, which were accepted by the General Synod, on the subject, Bishop Sprott proceeded to treat in, detail with the point as to whether there is a discrepancy in the Gospel accounts of Our Lord's teach&g 'oh the matter of divorce. The second of the Lambeth resolutions had the effect of sanctioning the solemnisation with the rites of ; the Church; of the re-marriage, of the innocent party in a divorce for conjugal infidelity, as seems to be permitted in St. Matthew's version of Our' Lord's teaching, and the General Synod, which'met at' Auckland recently, requested the Primate to set up a commission to consider the advisability of the: Church.of the. Province of New. Zealand availing itself of this liberty. \ A' SEEMING DISCREPANCY. It is ■ well-known, or should be .wellknown, if people read the Gospels with any .degree,'of that there is a ,seeming discrepancy the account of our Lord's teaching on,divorce as given' in St." Matthew's Gospel and; that. given in St.' Mark's and St. Luke's', said Dr. Sprott; In St. Mark', and.'St. Luke (St. Murk X, 2-12; St., Luke XVI,, 18)_ our Lord seems .to: forbid divorce with re-marriage for .any cause whatever, and to pronounce! such .remarriage a breach of the Seventh Commandment. In St. Matthew's Gospel an- exception to this absolute indissolubility of the. marriage bond is made twice over on'the ground "of conjugal1 infidelity, which seems" to imply that! in such, a case re-marriage is permissible. (St. Matthew V., J32..X1X., 3-9.) "I presume that it was,' in part at least, due to this seeming discrepancy that tljere has been for ages, and is still,. a. divergence in the practice of the church, the Eastern Church following- St. Matthew in sanctioning divorce for infidelity, and consequently re-mar-riage,. 'the Western Church (including1 our own) following St. Mark and St. Luke, in refusing, to sanction such divorce with re-marriage. I emphasise re-marriage, for the separation, without re-marriage, ■: of a'married pair for other causes than infidelity - the church has allowed and does allow.'' , *

In a sermon preached at Westminster Abbey two years ago,- Dr. ' Charles; •Archdeacon and Canon of Westminster, admitted 'that- probably St. ',Mark's account of. Our' Lord's words regarding divorce is verbally more correct than St. .Matthew's, that is, that Our Lord did. not expresal.y state in so many words the exception given by St. Matthew, but he maintained .that it was, not necessary to do so, inasmuch as Our Lord's immediate hearers would,' as a matter of course, supply the exceptive clause from their, own knowledge. . In fact, his position is that, the question of conjugal infidelity was not before Our Lord and His immediate hearers, but another question altogether, viz., the lawfulness of divorce with . re-marriage on other grounds than adultery, and. that it was to this question' Our Lord gave an emphatic and unqualified negative. Divorce with re-marriage was not permissible on any "other groundsj;, and was a breach of ithe Seventh Commandment. 'St. Matthew simply made this clear for readers who might not know the circuni-, stances,, by adding the exceptive clause. Editorial additions, the Archdeacon pointed out, may ,be of .two! kinds— those.which change the meaning of .the original text, and those which make the meaning of the original text more clear. St. Matthew's addition is of the latter, and a perfectly legitimate kind. The Archdeacon pointed out other instances of such legitimate editorial addition in St. Matthew's Gospel. ' THE MOSAIC LAWS. Dr. Charles held that our Lord recognised the validity of the Mosaic law, which: enacted that the adulterous wife and her paramour Bhould be put .'to death. But there was another Mosaic law which did deal with divorce, and which was full or ambiguity. This permitted a man to divorce his ,wife if he ." hath found some unseemly thing in her " (r.v.). Dr. - Charles said that in Christ's time, indeed, for a whole,, century, there raged in. the Jewish Church a controversy as to what, grounds oil divorce were covered by this very indefinite phrase. Anyone who carefully read St. Matthew's and St. Mark's ac-. counts of the' discussion would agree with Dr. Charles. Dr. Sprott thought that St.' Joatthew's account was, on,the whole, much the clearer. "And there came unto Him Pharisees testing Him and saying is it lawful for a man to put away, his wife for every cause?" They wanted to know which side He took in .the. controversy of the day. '" And He answered and; said, ' Have you not read that He which made them from the be-; ginning made them male and female, and- said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and motherland shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.' " VIEWS OF MARRIAGE. ■"This is not the time to attempt to' expand fully the view of marriage implied in these words," continued Dr. Sprott. "But I must turn aside for a moment to give a'hint as toJits meaning, for here, I think, is to be found the fundamental difference between our Lord's conception of marriage and some prevalent modern notions on the subject. I suppose to many readers the words Tiave seemed enigmatic. The reason, no doubt, is that that here, as elsewhere in the Gospels, we have not a full verbatim report of what was said, but shorthand notes as it were, giving at most the salient points. This whole passage can be read in exactly one minute. It is incredible that not: more was said on either side on one of the burning questions of the day. This is one reason why our Lord's teaching requires great concentration of thought, and .is not to be grasped by the .cursory reader. "At first glance our Lord's argument, seems wholly to rest upon the literal truth of the first and second chapters of Genesis. And, of course, even so it would have been convincing to His immediate hearers, who unrer»rvedly accepted their literal Iruth. But like our Lord's other references to the Old Testament, His argument will bo found to rest upon principles which- aro validquilc apart from (he Old Testament. .What in effect our Lord does it to go behind all human enactments—back to man's nature as that has been, through i&h.tsyj'.. jKgwffit...,f,anntitaW.Jtoteih*..

Creator. The creation of sex, and tH| structural unity which it produces bS tween man and woman—a, unity ew«jj"; closer than, that of parent; and 'child—i / will be seen, He suggests, when though^ ' out in all its implications,-to intistdi^: separation. God has not only created this structural unity. in the original creation of man, but He. has so written^ the law of / it on man's moral aruj : rational nature that, normally, thi holiest, feelings and most solemn , sano •, tions gather. arou-d;it. But the unit* . itself does not consist in these feelingi; and -sanctions but underlies them. 'Tlj^' act of joining together . iB : said toVtHli God's, because the constitution -whicST produces it is His. V Divorce, on !tlfl( other hand, is a matter of human legist ' lation; and the human is not to seft aside the Divine. ; Such;'seems ,tO"'b# t the meaning of,our Lord's wdrdsi.ran^-. it enables us to see >just* where modeng ; notions diverge from His thought. lot: the modern mind the conception of .mari; riage 'as a. unity grounded in the nature-r, of man's constitution is - being- more \anif ,s more forgotten; and marriage,is. become' ' ing more and more to be regarded as JtJ mere legal status, dependent for. its con. , tinuance on the sentiments',of Ithe.indiyw'-■. dual and the decisions,of Courts..';:_iu^;; sentiment, divorced from;/Nature, : . comes'sentiratntality, aid sehtimentalitj! v is forever shadinsr off into the profoundly v immoral. In'the; thought of .Christy Voitf? the other,hand. marriage.is _an ordinance 7 of Natiire.' It .is one of'"the; primal'I', facts of, Human life. '.-■ The- sexes complex! ment. one another as tne two .halves 68 -.'■ one whole. It-is thus.not the; creatur«r: of law. Law can simply recognise-/and'■ ■ protect'it." ; ;' 'V . "VVV^'V^v .Vi DIVORCE NOT PERMISSIBLE:-;- ?;!: ' " ' The„Pharisees say' unto. Him,'^Vliji. then did Moses ; command"' to -give,'her' al bill of divorcement and to put her. away ?.'■: This quotation shows that they ■' are;riot: referring to the law.' of; adultery, 'whidb '.- inflicted, death, -but to-the.law, of divorcei! for lesser causes—'some'unseemly thiiig.S'But they. misquote the enactment": ; Mdsas did -not command,1 he germitted.", 'Thtt(-'; misreading our ;Lord quietly /corrects;: 'ii*.'; His reply. 'He saitli unto them,: Mo'setffor the hardness of. your;.'hearts.'--'not, callousness,'but rudeness^pf;moral,hatiirw.. 4-' suffered you to put away.ybui' wives',', but from the beginning;it-liath not-beeff!' so. And I- say .unto" you, WliOsoe'verslialJ put iaway-his Wife, except - for adultery, :' and ; shall "marry './another;-;. committeth; _■ adulter; and' he; :that: taarrieth' anbthaj'":' when she is put aWay,-.committetli:''adiiti'1 tery.' St. Mark, as we have? seeii, omits* theexceptive clause, but,if■Ch'-rles's.rea/ soiling, as outlined .above;; is : correct;' ;hjjhas much, .warrant,for saying, the"cla___ i would, have been tacitly supplied by-.all , our Lord's immediate - hearersi ■: . Sucli,, ■then,:!is Christ's decision on the burning!: question of the day. ■_. ■'. .DiyofcefOr'aiiy ■; cause less than adultery \ is .'not.permisi. sible. He excepts adultery, •: Because", ja« the law. of adultery shows', adultery; h| :' itself,, breaks the I tie; which ,no Court .an!.' break.'• All that the' Court ;dqes;;inVthaif. case is formally and publicly -.to;.;record the breach.already made;,, arid" to..ifijibsi the appointed penalty. Wlien.tha't !offehcf;. had been- committed, freedom to remarra'. would seem. to follow." ;. ...' ;;' '; „"' "r;-

"You will observe," proceeded,.'.Dni Sprott,, "that inthis,discussion it is.thel remarriage of' the innocent' party ;'witj(: the rites of the Church that inconstantly spoken of. It:isV- of'course, true, that;lithe maTriage tie be broken at: all, it ii broken for both parties alike. But it is. one thing to solemnise, with'the rites of tha Church the maniage of an. innocent} and much injured person, and quite an-., other and different matter;to*solemnise) with'the rites of the Church the ; tew; marriage of the guilty party who bait' given no evidence of repentance, _nd!ii_<, deed, could give no evidence of repent* a!nce, 'save .by abstaining ■• from marriage •altogether." ' V W'"-- :•':/.'.- '..V- V The third resolution of the- LambetH conference virtually tool.. the , positioaiwhich they .themselves had taken,. viz.<.. that Governments cannot be called upoaj; to impose by-law the Christian.standard! of .marriage upon citizens, many of whom! - did not recognise the authority of th'af standard;:'but it claimed that.in the int., terests of moral progress; the Church ial; every;country should be'free to;\;beair witness to that standard. VI do ,npi : think that the Government of New.Zea*:; land; as.at present constituted,- seriouslj|! contemplates interfering . with! that; free* dom," said Bishop, Sprott in .conclusion.-.::