[TRANSLATED FOR THE N.Z. TABLET.]

New Zealand Tablet, Volume VII, Issue 372, 4 June 1880, Page 14

[TRANSLATED FOR THE N.Z. TABLET.]

(Continued)

Bur, through the efforts of the of the human race, there are not wanting some, who, as they ungratefully repudiate other blessings of redemption, so they either contemn or altogether ignore the restoration and perfection of marriage. Some amongst the ancients were guilty of hostility to marriage in certain respects ; but those who, in the present age, wish totally to pervert the nature of marriage, now complete and perfect in all its parts, sin much iiore perniciously. And the cause of this is to be found chiefly in the fact, that very many imbued with the teachings of a false philosophy and a corrupt habit of mind abhor obedience and subjection ; and passionately labour to persuade not only individuals but also families and the entire human race to proudly despise the command of God. But eince the source and origin of all human society is to found in marriage, they cannot endure that it should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Church ; nay, they endeavour to deprive it of its sanctity, and to force it into that narrow circle of things which have been instituted by human authority, and are governed and administered by the civil laws of nations. Whence it necessarily follows that they have attributed all jurisdiction in reference to marriage to the civil authorities, and conceded none to the Church ; and if she at any time exercised power of that kind, they maintain this was done either by the indulgence of rulers, or unjustly. But now, they say, the time has come for rulers of States to bravdy vindicate their rights— aid undertake to regulate according to their own will all things relating to marriage. Hence have arisen what are commonly called civil marriages ; hence laws enacted concerning causes which are an impediment to marriage; hence judicial sentences as to whether marriage contracts have been rightly entered into or not. Lastly we see all power of legislation, and judging on this subject taken away from the Church so completely, that no attention is paid either to her divine power or the wise laws under which the nations to whom the light of civilisation together with Christian wisdom has reached, have so long lived.

Nevertheless the naturalists and all others, who specially professing to worship the deity of the State, endeavour to involve all States in these doctrines, cannot escape the reproof of error. For, since marriage has been ordained and established by God, and has been from the beginning a shadowing forth of the Incarnation of the Son of G-od, there is consequently in it something both sacred and religious, not adventitious, but innate, not received from men, but inherent by nature. Wherefore our predecessors — Innocent IIT. and Honorius 111. — could affirm, without injustice or] lashness, that the Sacrament of marriage exists both among tlte faithful and among infidels. We call to witness both the monuments of antiquity and the customs and institutions of the nations which were the most highjy cultivated, and which excelled in an exquisite knowledge of law and equity, in all of which it was a settled, and foregone conviction that the very idea of marriage was inseparable from religion and holiness. For this reason it was the general custom amongst them to have marriage celebrated under the authority of the Pontiffs, by priests, and with religious ceremonies. So great influence had the nature of things, the memory of their origin, and the conscience of the human race, even on minds ignorant of Divine revelation. Wherefore, since marriage is by its own nature and power, and of itself sacred, it is fitting that it shop Id be regulated and governed, not by the civil power, but by the laws of the Church, which alone possesses authority in sacred things. Then the dignity of the Sacrament by the addition of which the marriages of Christians have become most excellent, must be taken into account. Bat by the will of Christ, the Church alone can and ought to legislate and give directions concerning the sacraments, so that it is contrary to reason and right order to endeavour to transfer any even the least part of her power, to the rulers of the State. In fine, we know from the highest and most weighty historical authority, that the Church freely and constantly exercised this legislative and judicial power of which we are speaking, at a time when it would be irrational and foolish to pretend that the civil authorities either consented or connived at this action of the Church. For how absurd, how incredible, to suppose that Christ our Lord condemned the inveterate custom of polygamy and divorce, by a power delegated to him by the governor of the province, or the ruler of the Jews ; or in like manner that the Apostle Paul declared divorces and incestuous marriages to be unlawful, with the consent and connivance of Tiberius, Caligula, or Nero ? Nor can any sane man. be ever persuaded that the Church enacted so many laws concerning the sanctity and stability of marriage, and regarding marriages between slaves and

free "women, by authority derived from the Roman Emperors, the most deadly enemies of Christianity, who undertook nothing more earnestly than to destroy the growing religion of Christ, by violence and, blood ? especially when it is considered that the law of the Church sometimes differed so widely from the civil law, that Ignatius tie Martyr, Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian, condemned as unjust and adulterous, the marriages of some who had, however, complied with the Imperial laws. But when all power fell into the hands of Christian Emperors, the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops assembled in Council persevered with the same liberty and the same knowledge of their own rights in giving commands and enforcing prohibitions according to the requirements of the times, no matter how inconsistent their enactments might seem to be with the civil laws. All know that the Councils of Illiberis, Aries, Calcedon, Millvis, and other Councils, made many regulations concerning impediments arising from the marriage tie, vow, difference of religion, consanguinity, crime, honourableness, which regulations often differed widely from the decrees sanctioned by Imperial authority. And so far were princes from ascribing to themselves power over Christian marriages, that on the contrary they acknowledged and declared that that power in all its fulness, belonged to the Church exclusively. In fact, Honorius, and Theodosius the younger, did not hesitate to acknowledge that in matters concerning marriage, they had no right to interfere, except as guardians and defenders of the Sacred Canons. And if they made any decree in reference to the impediments of marriage, they of their own accord explained that they did so by the permission and authority of*the Church, whose judgment they were accustomed to ask for, and reverently accept, in disputes concerning the legitimacy of children, concerning divorces, and in fine, on all matters having any kind of necessary relation with the marriage bond or tie. Wherefore, nothing could be more just and right than the decree of the Council of Trent, in which it is declared that it is to the Church it belongs to enact impediments which annul marriage} and that matrimonial causes come under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical judges.