THE CHURCH AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3510, 21 June 1921, Page 8

THE CHURCH AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. AN APOLOGIA.

By

J. MacGregor,

M.A., N.Z.C.

It any suy that marriage was not instituted by Christ, as truly and properly one of the seven Sacraments . . . let him be . anathema. If any say that the bond ol marriage can be dissolved ou account of . absence from the wife (desertion), let him be anathema. If any say that the Church errs when she taught ami teaches that, . . the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved on account of adultery, . . . let him be anathema.—Decree of the Council of Treat (l-ifiS). Reference was made in the first article to the difference between the atittude assumed towards questions of marriage by the Protestant Churches in England on the one hand, and in other Protestant countries such as Norway, fcwetien, Denmark, and Scotland on the other hand. The former seem to have been unable to shake themselves clear of the dogmas and anathemas of the Council of Trent. On this subject it may bo worth while referring to a pronouncement made by that eminent judge, Lord James of Hereford, in the House of Lords: —■ “1 protest against this country, blessed with the results of the Reformation, going hack to the opinions of the early bishops and learned men of narrow views for rules as to what is right and wrong for the social life of to-day. What can be said on this ground to our Nonconformist fellow-countrymen? How can they accept the opinions of a Church with which they have nothing to do as guides in the law of marriage? There can be no law in this matter but the law of Parliament.”

If an Anglican judge could speak in such terms' in England with its State Church, is it. not high time that the people of Protestant New Zealand should inquire how it has come about that Roman Catholic traditions and doctrines on the subjects of marriage, from which Scotland shook itself free after the Reformation, still dominate to so large an extent the life and thought of the various Protestant Churches in New Zealand, especially the Anglican ChurchOn this subject even Presbyterian and other ministers seem to accept Roman Catholic doctrines, while fiercely rejecting the other doctrines of that Church; for there seems to be no doubt that the sound Protestant view is that marriage is not a sacrament in any sense of that much abused term, and that, in spite of the Council of Trent, marriage is not indissoluble. How, then, has it come about that prelates of the Anglican Church in New Zealand, in spite,, of the fact that their Articles of Religion expressly declare matrimony not to be a sacrament, still insist upon making it out to be a sacrament of some sort? And how is it that the sacramental character given to marriage by the Roman Catholic Church lias, in a country like New Zealand, been allowed to influence so largely the life and thought of the people and even the course of legislation? People calling themselves Protectants seem to have forgotten Luther’s attitude on such subjects—although it must be admitted that he does not seem to have been quite consistent; hew he commenced his attack upon the Roman Catholic Canon Law by repudiating the sacramental conception and the indissolubility of marriage, how a few years later he gave expression to t he feelings of the half of Christendom by puTjiicly burning the Canon Law at Wit-ten-bUnon certain points the Reformers seem to have been unanimous—that the Canon Law was anti-Christian and false lawthat marriage was not a sacrament, but simply civil contract; that judicial separation had no Scriptural authority; that divorce was allowed bv the Scriptures, not only on the ground of adultery, but also on the ground of wilful desertion. In other Protestant countries the sacramental conception of marriage gradually disappeared, but in England the superstition that marriage was a Divine institution seems to have taken such a ho ah owm# to the matrimonial jurisdiction of the Church, that the people had got into the habit of regarding sacerdotal nuptials as indispensable to the validity, or, at- any rate, to the respectability, of marriage. When any question is raised as to the origin and the grounds of such ideas, most ministers ore content with the answer that, whatever their origin, they constitute a lofty ideal, forgetting that an ideal that is admittedly untrue and impossible is no ideal at all, .and is apt to be worse than useless. ‘‘Marriage is nothing but. a. civil contract.” said John tjeldon, one of the great jurists and statesmen of the English Revolution. “’Tis true ’(is an ordinance of God—-so is every contract. U: d commands me to keep it when 1 have made it.” If Seldcn were writing in our day in modern times, he would probably express bis ideas in such words as these: "Ideally marriage is no doubt a Divine institution, but ln.toricnllv is nothing of Hie kind. It is simply the outcome of social evolution, and has lieen the subject of change and growth controlled by cosmic laws exactly in the same way as other human institutions have been. It is not a discovery, but a growth

I from the necessities of human nature. If j has consequently taken every variety of j form, from simple promiscuity to polyandry (the marriage of one woman with several men), polygamy (the marriage of one man with several women), up to moil 'gamy (the marriage of one man with one woman). And this process has been going on for thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, ol years, before the date assigned to the mythical proceedings described in the first and second diapl vs of Genesis.” 1 here seems, then, lo he no ground for ueseriding marriage as a Divine institution, in any specific sense of the phrase, aiul that. Luther and the Reformers' generally were clearly justified in denying its sacramental character. Pothior, the most celebrated French jurist of the eighteenth century, who was himself a Roman Catholic, declared that the arguments in support of the sacramental theory were simply, frivolous, and were only put forward m order ih at the Rope might obtain exclusive jurisdiction over marriage. Blackstone tells -us that numberless ceremonial impediments were placed by the Church in the way of marriage, the object being “not only to enrich the coffers of the Church by granting dispensations, but to t»give it a greater ascendancy over princes’ of all kinds, when alliances were sanctioned or tepudiated, their issue _ legitimated or otherwise, and the succession to the thrones established or rendered precarious, according to tho humours or interests of the reigning pontiff.” Wo have t on the authority of Lord Acton, a Catholic, that “marriage dispensations became, by careful management, productive sources of revenue and political influence. Divorce served the Pope better than dispensations.*" If any non-Catholics should wish to satisfy- himself as to the frivolous nature of the arguments in support of the sacramental idea of marriage, let him read in the second chanter of John’s Gospel the account of the marriage in Cana, and see whether he can discover there any scintilla of evidence of intention on the part of Jesus to constitute marriage a sacrament. The Council of Trent, in one of its canons, positively declares that Jesus did so constitute marriage, but it evidently experienced great difficulty in discovering the necessary Scripture passage, and that chapter of John seems to be the favourite authority. The fact seems to be lhat the idea did not originate till the third century. “Nothing is more remarkable,” says Dr Conybeare, “than the tardiness with which the liturgical forms fur the marriage ceremony were evolved in the Church. To a father of the Church before the third century the very suggestion of marriage being a sacrament would have seemed in the highest degree indecent.” Although it declared marriage a sacrament, the Church continued to teach that marriage was merely a iiecc-.-sary evil. And, indeed, this idea takes a prominent place in the .Anglican marriage service—a fact that may be regarded in itself as sufficient to account for that Church excluding matrimony from the number of sacraments. It is truly astonishing that such a service should 'continue to be tolerated. And x-et this need cause no surprise in the case' of a church that was referred to a few months ago, in an address delivered by a clergyman before the Unversity of Cambridge, iti the following terms : “The Church is getting too few ordinands —and these not the best. 'J hey (the young men) will not take orders ." . because they cannot assent to propositions which are universafly regarded even by the clergy as antiquated and untrue; to a prayer-book redolent of bygone superstitions, creeds which proclaim with the arrogance of medieval inerran: y ‘facts’ in some cases unbelievable and unbelieved, sacraments for which claims are made which can only be paralleled in the records of white magic.” Such are the “laws” that have stood so long in the way of reform even in New Zealand ! To anyone who has witnessed the solemnity of the “fencing of (he Lord’s Table” in, say-, tho Free Church of Scotland, half a century ago, (he very idea of marriage being a sacrament is an outrage, for piety is the last idea that one would associate witn the ordnary marrage as one of its necessary conditions. Here is a specimen of the teaching of one of those Fathers of the Church to whom we are so much indebted for that conception of marriage which is represented as so lofty that it has been allowed for centuries to bar the way of reform. “Po long as the husband lix-es, whether he be an adulterer, or a sodonist, or lie steeped in all manner of crime, and the wife has left him on aocount of these crimes, he is still regarded as hc_r husband, and she is not allowed to marry again”—words which have been fittingly described as expressing the nadir of tho matrimonial degradation of woman, and afterwards became the basis of the treatment of woman under rhe Canon law. Is it any wonder that Luther burnt it? Marriage seems to have been regarded by the Church Fathers, generally, as an inferior condition to that of celibacy, for their guiding principle was tho familiar text ; “It is better to marry than to burn.” “Few texts,” say Bollock and Maitland in their “History of English Law.” have dine more mischief ’ban this. The law that springs from this source is not pleasant reading.” And the teaching of Anglican bishops that spri lgs from this source is anything but pleasant rending, as witness a pronouncement made bv tho (Anglican' Bishop of Birmingham before the Royal Commission on Divorce to the effect that he would not give release even to a woman forced Try Tier Titisluind to earn her n\inpr upon the streets. Ho would give her only the protect! m <>f separation without the light to remarry !