the conversion of the other party. But this does not exhaust the meaning of the expression: "let him depart." The simple use of that verb here, implies moreover, that the Apostle considers the Christian consort as not bound to remain unmarried after the departure of the non-believing partner. Had St. Paul thought differently of the case, he would naturally have added some clause to make his mind clear in that regard, as he had actually done in the preceding section (I Cor. vii, 10, 11), where he explicitly bade the wife to remain unmarried (μevéro ayaμos) after she was separated from her husband;" nay more, it would have behooved him to insert some such clause, since at the beginning of the present section he had expressly stated that the command of "the Lord" forbidding remarriage did not apply to such mixed unions: "But to the rest say I, not the Lord," and since in virtue of the universally-received notions of the day concerning divorce, the Christian's remarriage would naturally be regarded as lawful after he or she had been forsaken by the other partner. In pursuance of his object of setting forth the Christian's obligation with regard to the married state when the non-believing partner wants. to break the marriage tie, the Apostle completes and justifies in the remainder of the section, his brief decision: "let him depart." Literally rendered, this remainder runs as follows: I Cor. vii. 15c Not enslaved is the brother or the sister in such [cases], but in peace God has called us. 16. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save the husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save the wife? In writing these lines, St. Paul has plainly before his mind a Christian consort who is indeed aware of the refusal of the other partner to cohabit, but who has not yet been deserted.10 He conceives of him as inclined not to allow the departure of the non-believing partner, and he suggests the reasons for which the Christian consort should come to the resolve prescribed by the decision: "let him depart." He clearly sees that the contract which he has represented in the pre "Cf. Willibald Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, vol. ii, p. 220. Engl. Transl. Edinburgh, T. T. Clark, 1899. 10 In verse 16, for instance, St. Paul speaks of the Christian consort as entertaining some hope of the conversion of the non-believing partner, should he prevail upon him not to depart; again, the expression "in such cases" in verse 15c, refers back to 15a: "But if the non-believing departs" wherein the present tense xwpletai excludes the actual departure of the non-Christian. ceding case (verses 12b-14) as binding on the Christian partner because ratified by the non-believing party, should not be considered as binding ev ToÛS TOLOÚTOLs "in such cases" as the present, where this ratification is actually refused. No less clearly does he realize that should the Christian persevere in feeling bound to the non-believing partner who now denies marriage rights "the brother" or "the sister" would thereby be reduced to the condition of a slave with duties, without corresponding rights, in relation to a master. He therefore emphatically declares: "Not enslaved is the brother or sister in such [cases]," thereby assuring -the Christian that on the score of the past marriage contract, there is no reason why he should not abide by the apostolic decision: "let him depart." This done, St. Paul proceeds a step farther towards the object which he has in view. Over against the supposed, but unreal marriage obligation on the part of the believing partner, he distinctly sets the universal and ever-binding obligation of Christians to live in peace: "But in peace God has called us." According to his mind, this is an unquestionable and urgent duty which should cause "the brother" or "the sister" to set aside not only all vain fear with regard to the past: "Not enslaved is the brother or the sister in such [cases]," but also all illusory hope concerning the future: I Cor. vii. 16. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save the husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, Plainly, the Christian consort could not reasonably expect anything like peace from the non-believing party who had made up his mind to sever the marriage tie, still less could he or she reasonably anticipate to win him over to Christianity. In consequence, the only wise line of action to be followed is the one prescribed by the Apostle: "let him depart." The following are the principal conclusions borne out by our study of I Cor. vii, 12-16. First of all, it cannot be doubted that when the passage is carefully examined in the light of the circumstances of the day, and its every word is taken in a natural sense," the Pauline Privilege" is seen to allow the remarriage of a Christian, only if the non-believing partner does not wish to abide by the primitive marriage contract. In the second place, in allowing this, St. Paul is fully conscious that he does not go against the Lord's command, for he distinctly realizes and states that those for whom he so legislates, do not fall under that command of "the Lord." As well said by a leading: Protestant commentator: "The Apostle expressly asserts, verse 12, that Our Lord's words do not apply to such marriages as are herecontemplated. They were spoken to those within the covenant, and as such apply immediately to the wedlock of Christians (verse 10), but not to mixed marriages."" Again, in framing his decision, the Apostle utilizes indeed the existing Jewish legislation with regard to marriages similar to those which he has in view, but he also modifies it to the extent required by the introduction of Christianity into the world. According to him, when a non-believing consort becomes a Christian he has no self-profanation to fear from a continuance of marriage intercourse with the one who remains unconverted, and in consequence, St. Paul bids the now Christian partner to abide by the marriage contract, if the still non-believing party is willing to cohabit. Lastly, the apostolic decision contained in I Cor. vii, 12-16, once promulgated, has been most faithfully preserved by the Church down to the present day: like the Apostle of the Gentiles she still maintains that the marriage union entered upon by two Christians is indissoluble because subject to the command of "the Lord," and at the same time, she regards the union contracted by two non-Christians as not invested with the same indissolublity: should one of the non-believing consortsbecome a Christian, he or she may remarry if the other gives up the primitive contract. FRANCIS E. GIGOT. "Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, vol. ii, p. 525. 6th edit. Cambridge, 18711 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (III) Joseph Turmel. Repentance and Confession. Convinced that he is faithfully reproducing the teaching of Hermas, Clement proves by the authority of that venerable writer that sins committed after baptism are forgiven once to him who repents. After quoting from the Pastor, he says in the Stromata:' "God in his great mercy has vouchsafed in the caseof those who, though in faith (after baptism), fall into any transgression, a second repentance...a repentance not to be repented of.... But continual and successive repentings of sins differ in nothing from the case of those who have not believed except only in their consciousness of sin....The frequent asking for forgiveness for those things in which we often transgress is the semblance of repentance, not repentance itself." And in the Quis dives." "True repentance consists in no longer falling into the same sins...but to eradicate them completely from the soul. Drive out these sins, and God takes up His abode in thee." Clement therefore teaches Christians that they have in repentancea means of washing away their sins, but they must remember that they cannot count on this privilege for more than once. He moreover pointsout the practical means they must make use of in order that their repentance may be sincere and efficacious. His first requisite is the renunciation of sin: "Thief, dost thou wish to get forgiveness? Steal no more. Adulterer, burn no more. Fornicator, live for the future in chastity.... Then passing to the question of inveterate habits, he says: "It is probably impossible all at once to eradicate inbred passions; but by God's power and human intercession, and the help of the brethren, and sincere repentance, and constant care, they are corrected.""" Among the means of spiritual improvement just quoted there is one to which Clement attaches special importance and on which he insists, viz. the "help of the brethren." He says: "Thou who art. proud, powerful, rich, shouldst place over thyself some man of God as a 'Strom. ii, 13. director and guide. Reverence, though it be but one man; fear, though it be but one man. Accustom yourself to hear some one speaking freely to thee...when thou seest him angry, thou wilt fear, when he groans, thou wilt be pained. . . . He will pass many sleepless nights for thee, interceding for thee with God....And for you he will pray, and thou wilt honor him as an angel of God.... This is sincere repentance." Elsewhere he speaks of the true gnostic as one who "points out to men the way of improvement, being appointed to discipline men for this amendment.""" To increase the hopes of sincere penitents he narrates an instance of pardon for sin. It is the story of St. John and the brigand. The attention of the Apostle had been attracted to a certain young man whom he met in one of the cities of Asia, so that he got the bishop of the place to adopt him. The latter took the youth to his home, instructed him; and finally baptized him. Later on, however, the young man took to evil courses, and finally became chief of a band of brigands. St John, when informed of this, does not cease until he has found his lost sheep. Clement represents him as addressing the young man in these touching words: "Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will answer for thee to Christ.' Thereupon, continues Clement, the youth "embraced the old man with lamentations, being baptized a second time with tears. Then the Apostle assuring him on oath that he would find pardon with the Savior, fell on his knees in prayer and kissed his hand, as now purified by repentance, and brought him back to the Church. There he offered up many prayers, and strove with him in continual fastings, and subdued his mind by various exhortations; nor did he stop until he had restored him to the Church, presenting a great example of true repentance and a great token of spiritual recovery." In the first place it must be noted that we cannot establish from these texts "the power of the Keys." The "man of God" to whom Clement commends the sinner, has for his mission to stir him up to repentance, to uphold him in temptation, to strengthen his resolutions. Nothing is said concerning absolution given or withheld; he is spoken of not as a confessor, but as what would be now called a director of conscience. And in the story of the brigand the Apostle St. John restores the sinner to the Church when he judges that he has been purified by contrition. At first he had pledged himself that he would 4Quis dives, 41: Strom. vii, 1. 'Quis dives, 42. |