BAPTISM AND MARRIAGE

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22111, 5 June 1937, Page 20

BAPTISM AND MARRIAGE

TO THE EDITOR OP THE PRESS. Sir—While there is much on the subject 01 baptism in Canon Hanby'a letter with which one is in agreement, surely the rest of his letter concerning marriage is, in effect, the setting up of a double standard. He implies that those marrying in the registrar’s office undertake obligations which are less binding than those uridertaken by people marrying in a Christian church. While Christians should pledge themselves faithfully to the fulfilment of the highest marriage standard, yet it remains true that marriage is not a distinctively Christian institution. There were true marriages before the Christian era, and marriages contracted outside the Christian Church may still be true marriages—that is, valid and binding in the sight of God Marriage, in other words, is a natural Sacrament. \ Christian ~ marriage certainly emphasises its obligations, and demands a from the parties. Those obligations, however, are im-

piicit, also, in all marriages performed by the Slate. . The Church itself recognises these marriages. When people who have been State-married become definitely Christian they are not required to Ik remarried, although husband and wife will often attend church tor a service of Divine blessing upon (heir marriage. Similarly, in the mission field, a native married according to tribal rights is not required, on becoming a Christian, to submit to a Christian form of marriage. His marriage is merely blessed by the clergy. While in sympathy with Canon Hanby’s plea for a higher marriage standard, I feel that the suggestion that marriage may be more lightly undertaken in a registrar's office is a dangerous one. It would certainly create a double standard, and may even give encouragement to divorce. — Yours, etc., VIGILANT. June 4, 1937.,