THE LAW OF DIVORCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18080, 3 May 1922, Page 8

THE LAW OF DIVORCE.

HOSTILE ANGLICAN OPINION. THE LAMBETH AFFIRMATION THE STATE AND THE CHURCH A discussion on tho resolution of the Lambeth Conference dealing with problems of marriage "and sexual morality was commenced in tho Anglican General Synod yesterday afternoon, tho Primate, Bishop Julius, presiding. Bishop Averill moved that tho synod associate itself with resolution 67 of tho Lambeth Conference, 1920, which runs as follows: —"Tho conference affirms as our Lord's principlo and standard of marriage, a life-long and indissoluble union, for belter for worse, of one man with ono woman, to the exclusion of all others on cither side, and calls on all Christian people to maintain and bear witness to this standard. The conference, while fully recognising tho extreme difficulty of governments in framing marriage Jaws for citizens, many of whom do not accept the Christian standard, expresses its firm belief that in every country tho Church should bo free to bear witness to ?,hat standard through its powers of administration and discipline exercised in relation to its own members." At Bishop Averill's request the following clau/Je was added to his motion:— "In view of the fact that the conference admits the right of a national or regional church within our communion to deal with cases which fall within tho exception mentioned in the record of our Lord's word in St. Matthew's gospel under provisions which such church may lay down, the Most Reverend tho Primate bo respectfully requested to appoint a recess committee to consider the matter fully and report to the next session of synod." Remarriage not Recognised. The question at issue, said Bishop Averill, was of supreme and outstanding importance at the present day. Ho had moved for the reference of tho problem to a recess committee because ho ventured to think that in two or three years scholars would come to conclusions moro definite than at present. The Lambeth Conference affirmed the principle that there could bo no such thing as divorce, and called upon all Christian people to maintain a definite standard on tho matter. Tho attitude of the Church in New Zealand was the same as that of the Church in England, namely, divorce, or rather, remarriage, was not' recognised. The controversy, however, revolved round the difficult position of the so-called innocent party, and the Church's attitude depended on tho interpretation to bo placed on the passage in tho gospel of St. Matthew, where fornication was mentioned as an exception to the Lord's definition of adultery. The .Lambeth Conferonce cave no advico as to tho interpretation which should be placed on this important exception. " This," said Bishop Averill, " leaves us free, if wo thought fit, to put our own interpretation on that exception. Thus we could so amend our custom as to allow remarriage in our Church if wo thought fit." Bishop Averill mentioned that the gospel of St. Mark, which, he said, gave the most simple teaching of Christ's words, did not contain a word about divorce. He reviewed current theories of Christ's teaching on divorce. Archbishop Charles, ho said, maintained that Christ laid it down absolutely definitely, that divorce was not permissible except for adultery, and that the gospel of St. Matthew was the correct interpretation. Another theory maintained that the gospel of St. Mark contained the right teaching, and that Christ did not allow divorce on any ground. This theory further held that tho exception was introduced as the reflection of tho old Church that the dictum was too strict. ' Yet another theory, held for a long time, and seemingly very feasible, was that the exception referred to pro-nuptial sin. So the matter wan really in the melting pot, and it would be dangerous to act definitely at present. Ho felt, however, that the problem should be studied, , and tho pronouncements of world authorities reviewed. Archdeacon Charles had maintained that it was the act of adultery itself, and not the Divorce Court, which broke the bond of matrimony. "Must Resist , the State," " I am not ashamed to confess," eoneluded Bishop Averill, " that it would give me tho greatest joy and comfort if we had permission to remarry the innocent party in our churches." This could not be done, however, until the truth was established that the ..:', of adultery itself destroyed the bond. If this were proved then it would be possible for the Church to issue a decree of annulment. In connection with that portion of the motion dealing M'ith tho difficulty of Governments in framing marriage laws Bishop Averill said that ho was much afraid that the Government of the country would not legislate merely from the Christian point of view. The State was not a Christian State, and all conditions of men were admitted to citizenship. They must make sure, however, that the State recognised Christian principles a far as it was possible. The State had no right whatever to impose burdens on the Church in teaching tho Word of Jesus Christ. The legislation on divorce recently passed by Parliament was a disgrace, and tho Government had been compelled to repeal a great deal of it. Wo have got to see that the State does not stop us , from standing up for our ideal," concluded Bishop Averill. "If the State makes us do what we believe is against our conscience wo must resist the State. I believe it is our duty to do so." Bishop Sprott, of Wellington, seconded the motion. He did not believe that there was any original ambiguity in the Lord s teaching. The ambiguity had arisen because of the forgetfulncss arising through the ages. Tho Lord's teaching on marriage was not systematic, but was given in answer to questions. - '■• The bishop spoke at somo length on the functions of State and Church. Ho said he was sorry he could not say that the State was a Christian State. Such a State did not exist in the world to-day. It was the Church's function to hold up the moral idea—what people ought-'to do and be— and foster an inner reverence for the ideal. The State confined itself to the wrongdoings of men necessitated by .the Church's failures. To tho extent that the Church succeeded tho State s penal functions would disappear. It was essential to the State's existence that the idea should be promoted, and it flowed that the State's greatest ally was the Church. At this point the discussion was adjourned.* ______„„. —— ' V.