indissolubility of marriage he is not a very nice person. So she goes off, and lives happily in adultery with Mr. Robinson. Some time later, Mr. Smith meets someone else more to his taste. After 18 months (which in my professional experience is the usual length of time religious scruples last in the matrimonial field) he summons up his courage, divorces his wife, and marries his sweetheart. Mrs. Smith is now free, and she marries Mr. Robinson. Mr. and Mrs. Robinson continue to be just as happy now, as they were when they lived in adultery. The secular state in its ignorance says that both pairs are now married, and that any children born afterwards are legitimate. The Church in her wisdom says, “No, they are not married; it is Mr. Smith and Mrs.Robinson who are married”. Quite what the point is in saying this, is not very obvious, particularly if the two pairs both live happily till death. If the Church believed that marriages were immortal, there might be some point in maintaining this attitude; but it doesn't, it says they end with death - see the Prayer Book.
Now imagine the situation slightly changed. Mrs. Smith soon tires of her husband, and enters a surreptitious and adulterous association with Mr.Robinson. Mr. Smith has his suspicions, but before he does anything about them, he gets influenza, and by a kindly stroke of providence dies. Mrs. Smith after a suitable period of mourning, has a posh society wedding; but she does not marry Mr. Robinson as you might think. He is all right in bed, but he has no money. So she marries a wealthy jeweller instead, in Church. According to the Church, God is supposed to give them his blessing, and marry them indissolubly; because of course she has repented of her adultery, and the efficacy of marriage in Church is not affected by the somewhat practical motives of those taking part. If it were, only one marriage in a million would be valid, for which of us is entirely free from selfishness?
Why does the Church say in the first case that Mr. Smith and Mrs. ….