It is this Sacrament of Matrimony, Marriage, or Wedlock, that we are now to consider. We will think of it under four headings:—
(I) What is it for?(II) What is its essence?(III) Whom is it for?(IV) What are its safeguards?
Marriage is, as we have seen, God's method of propagating the human race. It does this in two ways—by expansion, and by limitation. This is seen in the New Testament ordinance, "one man for one woman". It expands the race, but within due and disciplined limitations. Expansion, without limitation, would produce quantity without quality, and would wreck the human race; limitation without expansion might produce quality without quantity, but would extinguish the human race. Like every other gift of God, marriage is to be treated "soberly, wisely, discretely," and, like every other gift, it must be used with a due combination of freedom and restraint.
Hence, among other reasons, the marriage union between one man and one woman isindissoluble. For marriage is not a mere union of sentiment; it is not a mere terminable contract between two persons, who have agreed to live together as long as they suit each other. It is anorganicnot an emotional union; "They twain shall be one flesh," which nothing but death can divide. No law in Church or State can unmarry the legally married. A State maydeclarethe non-existence of the marriage union, just as it maydeclarethe non-existence of God: but such a declaration does not affect the fact, either in one case or the other.
In England the State does, in certain cases, declare that the life-long union is a temporary contract, and does permit "this man" or "this woman" to live with another man, or with another woman, and, if they choose, even to exchange husbands or wives. This is allowed by the Divorce Act of 1857,[2] "when," writes Bishop Stubbs, "the calamitous legislation of 1857 inflicted on English Society and English moralsthe most cruel blow that any conjunction of unrighteous influence could possibly have contrived".[3]
The Church has made no such declaration. It rigidly forbids a husband or wife to marry again during the lifetime of either party. The Law of the Church remains the Law of the Church, overridden—but not repealed. This has led to a conflict between Church and State in a country where they are, in theory though not in fact, united. But this is the fault of the State, not of the Church. It is a case in which a junior partner has acted without the consent of, or rather in direct opposition to, the senior partner. Historically and chronologically speaking, the Church (the senior partner) took the State (the junior partner) into partnership, and the State, in spite of all the benefits it has received from the Church, has taken all it could get, and has thrown the Church over to legalize sin. It has ignored its senior partner, and loosened the old historical bond between the two. This the Church cannot help, and this the State fully admits, legally absolving the Church from taking any part in its mock re-marriages.
The essence of matrimony is "mutual consent". The essential part of the Sacrament consists in the words: "I, M., take thee, N.," etc. Nothing else is essential, though much else is desirable. Thus, marriage in a church, however historical and desirable, is notessentialto the validity of a marriage. Marriage at a Registry Office (i.e. mutual consent in the presence of the Registrar) is every bit as legally indissoluble as marriage in a church. The not uncommon argument: "I was only married in a Registry Office, and can therefore take advantage of the Divorce Act," is fallaciousab initio.[4]
Why, then, be married in, and by the Church? Apart from the history and sentiment, for this reason. The Church is the ordained channel through which grace to keep the marriage vow is bestowed. A special andguaranteedgrace isattached to a marriage sanctioned and blest by the Church. The Church, in the name of God, "consecrates matrimony," and from the earliest times has given its sanction and blessing to the mutual consent. We are reminded of this in the question: "Whogiveththis woman to be married to this man?" In answer to the question, the Parent, or Guardian, presents the Bride to the Priest (the Church's representative), who, in turn, presents her to the Bridegroom, and blesses their union. In the Primitive Church, notice of marriage had to be given to the Bishop of the Diocese, or his representative,[5] in order that due inquiries might be made as to the fitness of the persons, and the Church's sanction given or withheld. After this notice, a special service ofBetrothal(as well as the actual marriage service) was solemnized.
These two separate services are still marked off from each other in (though both forming a part of) our present marriage service. The first part of the service is held outside the chancel gates, and corresponds to the old service ofBetrothal. Here, too, the actual ceremony of "mutual consent" now takes place—that part ofthe ceremony which would be equally valid in a Registry Office. Then follows the second part of the service, in which the Church gives her blessing upon the marriage. And because this part is, properly speaking, part of the Eucharistic Office, the Bride and Bridegroom now go to the Altar with the Priest, and there receive the Church's Benediction, and—ideally—their first Communion after marriage. So does the Church provide grace for her children that they may "perform the vows they have made unto the King". The late hour for modern weddings, and the consequent postponement[6] of Communion, has obscured much of the meaning of the service; but a nine o'clock wedding, in which the married couple receive the Holy Communion, followed by the wedding breakfast, is, happily, becoming more common, and is restoring to us one of the best of old English customs. It is easy enough to slight old religious forms and ceremonies; but is anyone one atom better, or happier for having neglected them?
Marriage is for three classes:—
(1) The unmarried—i.e. those who have never been married, or whose marriage is (legally) dissolved by death.
(2) The non-related—i.e. either by consanguinity (by blood), or affinity (by marriage).
(3) The full-aged.
Obviously, marriage is only for the unmarried. But, is not this very hard upon those whose marriage has been a mistake, and who have been divorced by the State? And, above all, is it not very hard upon the innocent party, who has been granted a divorce? It is very hard, so hard, so terribly hard, that only those who have to deal personally, and practically, with concrete cases, can guess how hard—hard enough often on the guilty party, and harder still on the innocent. "God knows" it is hard, and will make it as easy as God Himself can make it, if only self-surrender is placed before self-indulgence. But the alternative is still harder. We sometimes forget that legislation for the individual may bear even harderon the masses, than legislation for the masses may bear upon the individual. And, after all, this is not a question of "hardversuseasy," but of "rightversuswrong". Moreover, as we are finding out, that which seems easiest at the moment, often turns out hardest in the long run. It is no longer contended that re-marriage after a State-divorce is that universal Elysium which it has always been confidently assumed to be.
There is, too, a positively absurd side to the present conflict between Church and State. Here is a case in point. Some time ago, a young girl married a man about whom she knew next to nothing, the man telling her that marriage was only a temporary affair, and that, if it did not answer, the State would divorce them. It did not answer. Wrong-doing ensued, and a divorce was obtained. Then the girl entered into a State-marriage with another man. But that answered no better. A divorce was again applied for, but this time was refused. Eventually, the girl left her State-made husband, and ran away with her real husband. In other words, she eloped with her own husband. But what is her position to-day? In the eyes of the State, she is now living with a man who is nother husband. Her State-husband is still alive, and can apply, at any moment, for an order for the restitution of conjugal rights—however unlikely he is to get it. Further, if in the future she has any children by her real husband (unless she has been married again to him, after divorce from her State-husband) these children will be illegitimate. This is the sort of muddle the Divorce Act has got us into. One course, and only one course, is open to the Church—to disentangle itself from all question of extending the powers of the Act on grounds of inequality, or any other real (and sometimes very real) or fancied hardship, and to consistently fight for the repeal of the Act. This, it will be said, isUtopian. Exactly! It is the business of the Church to aim at the Utopian. Her whole history shows that she is safest, as well as most successful, when aiming at what the world derides.
One question remains: Is not the present Divorce Law "one law for the rich and another for the poor"? Beyond all question. This is its sole merit, if merit it can have. It does, at least, partially protect the poor from sin-made-easy—a condition which money has bought for the rich. If the State abrogated the SixthCommandment for the rich, and made it lawful for a rich man to commit murder, it would at least be no demerit if it refused to extend the permit to the poor.
But, secondly, marriage is for the non-related—non-related, that is, in two ways, by Consanguinity, and Affinity.
(a) ByConsanguinity. Consanguinity is of two kinds, lineal and collateral.LinealConsanguinity[7] is blood relationship "in adirectline," i.e. from a common ancestor.CollateralConsanguinity is blood relationship from a common ancestor, but not in a direct line.
The law of Consanguinity has not, at the present moment, been attacked, and is still the law of the land.
(b) ByAffinity. Affinity[8] is near relationship by marriage. It is of three kinds: (1)Direct, i.e. between a husband and his wife's blood relations, and between a wife and her husband's blood relations; (2)Secondary, i.e. between a husbandand his wife's relations by marriage; (3)Collateral, i.e. between a husband and the relations of his wife's relations. In case of Affinity, the State has broken faith with the Church without scruple, and theDeceased Wife's Sister Bill[9] is the result. So has it
brought confusion to the Table round.
The question is sometimes asked, whether the State can alter the Church's law without her consent. An affirmative answer would reduce whatever union still remains between them to its lowest possible term, and would place the Church in a position which no Nonconformist body would tolerate for a day. The further question, as to whether the State can order the Church to Communicate persons who have openly and deliberately broken her laws, needs no discussion. No thinking person seriously contends that it can.
No boy under 14, and no girl under 12, can contract a legal marriage either with, or without the consent of Parents or Guardians. No manor woman under 21 can do so against the consent of Parents or Guardians.
These are, mainly, two:BannsandLicences—both intended to secure the best safeguard of all,publicity. This publicity is secured, first, by Banns.
The word is the plural form ofBan, "a proclamation". The object of this proclamation is to "ban" an improper marriage.
In the case of marriage after Banns, in order to secure publicity:—
(1) Each party must reside[10] for twenty-one days in the parish where the Banns are being published.
(2) The marriage must be celebrated in one of the two parishes in which the Banns have been published.
(3) Seven days' previous notice of publication must be given to the clergy by whom the Banns are to be published—though the clergy may remit this length of notice if they choose.
(4) The Banns must be published on three separate (though not necessarily successive) Sundays.
(5) Before the marriage, a certificate of publication must be presented to the officiating clergyman, from the clergyman of the other parish in which the Banns were published.
(6) Banns only hold good for three months. After this period, they must be again published three times before the marriage can take place.
(7) Banns may be forbidden on four grounds: If either party is married already; or is related by consanguinity or affinity; or is under age; or is insane.
(8) Banns published in false names invalidate a marriage, if both parties are cognisant of the fact before the marriage takes place, i.e. if they wilfully intend to defeat the law, but not otherwise.
There are two kinds of Marriage Licence, an Ordinary, or Common Licence, and a Special Licence.
AnOrdinary Licence, costing about £2, is granted by the Bishop, or Ordinary, in lieu of Banns, either through his Chancellor, or a "Surrogate," i.e. substitute. In marriage by Licence, three points may be noticed:—
(1) One (though only one) of the parties must reside in the parish where the marriage is to be celebrated, for fifteen days previous to the marriage.
(2) One of the parties must apply for the Licence in person, not in writing.
(3) A licence only holds good for three months.
ASpecial Licence, costing about £30, can only be obtained from the Archbishop of Canterbury,[11] and is only granted after special and minute inquiry. The points here to notice are:—
(1) Neither party need reside in the parish where the marriage is to be solemnized.
(2) The marriage may be celebrated in any Church, whether licensed or unlicensed[12] for marriages.
(3) It may be celebrated at any time of the day. It may be added that if any clergymancelebrates a marriage without either Banns or Licence (or upon a Registrar's Certificate), he commits a felony, and is liable to fourteen years' penal servitude.[13]
Other safeguards there are, such as:—
The Time for Marriages.—Marriages must not be celebrated before 8 A.M., or after 3 P.M., so as to provide a reasonable chance of publicity.
The Witnesses to a Marriage.—Two witnesses, at least, must be present, in addition to the officiating clergyman.
The Marriage Registers.—The officiating clergyman must enter the marriage in two Registers provided by the State.
The Signing of the Registers.—The bride and bridegroom must sign their names in the said Registers immediately after the ceremony, as well as the two witnesses and the officiating clergyman. If either party wilfully makes any false statement with regard to age, condition, etc., he or she is guilty of perjury.
Such are some of the wise safeguards provided by both Church and State for the Sacrament of Marriage. Their object is to prevent themarriage state being entered into "lightly, unadvisedly, or wantonly," to secure such publicity as will prevent clandestine marriages,[14] and will give parents, and others with legal status, an opportunity to lodge legal objections.
Great is the solemnity of the Sacrament in which is "signified and represented the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and His Church".
[1] Husband—fromhus, a house, andbuan, to dwell.
[2] Until fifty-three years ago an Act of Parliament was necessary for a divorce. In 1857The Matrimonial Causes Actestablished the Divorce Court. In 1873 theIndicature Acttransferred it to a division of the High Court—the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division.
[3] "Visitation Charges," p. 252.
[4] It is a common legal error that seven years effective separation between husband and wife entitles either to remarry, and hundreds of women who have lost sight of their husbands for seven years innocently commit bigamy. Probably the mistake comes from the fact thatprosecutionfor bigamy does not hold good in such a case. But this does not legalize the bigamous marriage or legitimize the children.
[5] The origin of Banns.
[6] The Rubric says: "It is convenient that the new-married persons receive the Holy Communionat the time of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage," thus retaining, though releasing, the old rule.
[7] Consanguinity—fromcum, together, andsanguineus, relating to blood.
[8] Affinity—fromad, near, andfinis, a boundary.
[9] See a most helpful paper read by Father Puller at the E.C.U. Anniversary Meeting, and reported in "The Church Times" of 17 June, 1910.
[10] There seems to be no legal definition of the word "reside". The law would probably require more than leaving a bag in a room, hired for twenty-one days, as is often done. It must be remembered that the object of the law ispublicity—that is, the avoidance of a clandestine marriage, which marriage at a Registry Office now frequently makes so fatally easy.
[11] 25 Hen. VIII, cap. 21.
[12] Such as, for example, Royal Chapels, St. Paul's Cathedral, Eton College Chapel, etc.
[13] Cf. Blunt's "Church Law," p. 133; 4 Geo. IV, c. 76, s. 21.
[14] It will be remembered that runaway marriages were, in former days, frequently celebrated at Gretna Green, a Scotch village in Dumfriesshire, near the English border.
The Second Sacrament of Perpetuation is Holy Order. As the Sacrament of Marriage perpetuates the human race, so the Sacrament of Order perpetuates the Priesthood. Holy Order, indeed, perpetuates the Sacraments themselves. It is the ordained channel through which the Sacramental life of the Church is continued.
Holy Order, then, was instituted for the perpetuation of those Sacraments which depend upon Apostolic Succession. It makes it possible for the Christian laity to be Confirmed, Communicated, Absolved. Thus, the Christian Ministry is a great deal more than a body of men, chosen as officers might be chosen in the army or navy. It is the Church's media for the administration of the Sacraments of Salvation. To say this does not assert that God cannot, and does not, save and sanctify souls in any other way; but it does assert, as Scripture does, that theChristian Ministry is the authorized and ordained way.
In this Ministry, there are three orders, or degrees: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. In the words of the Prayer Book: "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that, from the Apostles' time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons".[1]
Who was the first Bishop? Jesus Christ, "the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls". When, and where, was the first Ordination? In the Upper Chamber, when He, the Universal Bishop, Himself ordained the first Apostles. When wasthe second Ordination? When these Apostles ordained Matthias to succeed Judas. This was the first link in the chain of Apostolic Succession. What followed? In apostolic days, Timothy was ordained, with episcopal jurisdiction over Ephesus; Titus, over Crete; Polycarp (the friend of St. John), over Smyrna; and then, later on, Linus, over Rome. And so the great College of Bishops expands until, in the second century, we read in a well-known writer, St. Irenaeus: "We can reckon up lists of Bishops ordained in the Churches from the Apostles to our time". Link after link, the chain of succession lengthens "throughout all the world," until it reaches the Early British Church, and then, in 597, the English Church, through the consecration of Augustine,[2] first Archbishop of Canterbury, and in 1903 of Randall Davidson his ninety-fourth successor.
And this is the history of every ordination in the Church to-day. "It is through the Apostolic Succession," said the late Bishop Stubbs to his ordination Candidates, "that I am empowered, through the long line of mission and Commissionfrom the Upper Chamber at Jerusalem, to lay my hands upon you and send you."[3]
How does a Priest become a Bishop? In the Church of England he goes through four stages:—
(1) He isnominatedby the Crown.(2) He iselectedby the Church.(3) His election isconfirmedby the Archbishop.(4) He isconsecratedby the Episcopate.
(1) He isnominatedby the Crown. This is in accordance with the immemorial custom of this realm. In these days, the Prime Minister (representing the people) proposes the name of a Priest to the King, who accepts or rejects the recommendation. If he accepts it, the King nominates the selected Priest to the Church for election, and authorizes the issue of legal documents for such election. This is calledCongé d'élire, "leave to elect".
(2) He iselectedby the Church. The King'snominee now comes before the Dean and Chapter (representing the Church), and the Church either elects or rejects him. It has power to do either. If the nominee is elected, what is called his "Confirmation" follows—that is:—
(3) His election isconfirmedby the Archbishop of Canterbury, according to a right reserved to him byMagna Charta. Before confirming the election, the Archbishop, or his representative, sits in public, generally at Bow Church, Cheapside, to hear legal objections from qualified laity against the election. Objections were of late, it will be remembered, made, and overruled, in the cases of Dr. Temple and Dr. Gore. Then, if duly nominated, elected, and confirmed,—
(4) He isconsecratedby the Episcopate. To safeguard the Succession, three Bishops, at least, are required for the Consecration of another Bishop, though one would secure a valid Consecration. No Priest can be Consecrated Bishop under the age of thirty. Very carefully does the Church safeguard admission to the Episcopate.
After Consecration, the Bishop "does homage,"[4] i.e. he says that he, like any other subject (ecclesiastic or layman), is the King's "homo". What does he do homage for? He does homage, not for any spiritual gift, but for "all the possessions, and profette spirituall and temporall belongyng to the said ... Bishopricke".[5] Thetemporalpossessions include such things as his house, revenue, etc. But what is meant by doing homage forspiritualpossessions? Does not this admit the claim that the King can, as Queen Elizabeth is reported to have said, make or unmake a Bishop? No. Spiritualpossessionsdo not here mean spiritualpowers,—powers which can be conferred by the Episcopate alone.The "spiritual possessions" for which a Bishop "does homage" refer to fees connected with spiritual things, such as Episcopal Licences, Institutions to Benefices, Trials in the Ecclesiastical Court, Visitations—fees, by the way, which, with very rare exceptions, do not go into the Bishop's own pocket!
What is meant by Episcopal Jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is of two kinds,HabitualandActual.
Habitual Jurisdiction is the Jurisdiction given to a Bishop to exercise his office in the Church at large. It is conveyed with Consecration, and is given to the Bishop as a Bishop of the Catholic Church. Thus an Episcopal act, duly performed, would be valid, however irregular, outside the Bishop's own Diocese, and in any part of the Church.
Actual Jurisdictionis this universal Jurisdiction limited to a particular area, called a Diocese. To this area, a Bishop's right to exercise his Habitual Jurisdiction is, for purposes of order and business, confined.
The next order in the Ministry is the Priesthood.
No one can read the Prayer-Book Office for theOrdering of Priestswithout being struck by its contrast to the ordinary conception of Priesthood by the average Englishman. The Bishop's words in the Ordination Service: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God," must surely mean more than that a Priest should try to be a good organizer, a good financier, a good preacher, or good at games—though the better he is at all these, the better it may be. But the gift of the Holy Ghost for "the Office and Work of a Priest" must mean more than this.
We may consider it in connexion with four familiar English clerical titles:Priest, Minister, Parson, Clergyman.
According to the Prayer Book, a Priest, or Presbyter, is ordained to do three things, which he, and he alone, can do: to Absolve, to Consecrate, to Bless.
He, and he alone, canAbsolve. Think! It is the day of his Ordination to the Priesthood. He is saying Matins as a Deacon justbeforehisOrdination, and he is forbidden to pronounce the Absolution: he is saying Evensong justafterhis Ordination, and he is ordered to pronounce the Absolution.
He, and he alone, canConsecrate. If a Deacon pretends to Consecrate the Elements at the Blessed Sacrament, not only is his act sacrilege and invalid, but even by the law of the land he is liable to a penalty of £100.[6]
He, and he alone, can give theBlessing—i.e. the Church's official Blessing. The right of Benediction belongs to him as part of his Ministerial Office. The Blessing pronounced by a Deacon might be the personal blessing of a good and holy man, just as the blessing of a layman—a father blessing his child—might be of value as such. In each case it would be a personal act. But a Priest does not bless in his own name, but in the name of the Whole Church. It is an official, not a personal act: he conveys, not his own, but the Church's blessing to the people.
Hence, the valid Ordination of a Priest is of essential importance to the laity.
But there is another aspect of "the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God". This we see in the word
The Priest not only ministers before God on behalf of his people, but he ministers to his people on behalf of God. In this aspect of the Priesthood, he ministers God's gifts to the laity. If, as a Priest, he pleads the One Sacrifice on behalf of the people, as a Minister he feeds the people upon the one Sacrifice. His chief ministerial duty is to minister to the people—to give them Baptism, Absolution, Holy Communion; to minister to all their spiritual needs whenever, and wherever, he is needed.
It is, surely, a sad necessity that this ministerial "office and work" should be so often confused with finance, doles, charities, begging sermons, committees, etc. In all such things he is, indeed, truly serving and ministering; but he is often obliged to place them in the wrong order of importance, and so dim the sight of the laity to his real position, and not infrequently make his spiritual ministrations unacceptable. A well-known and London-wide respected Priest saidshortly before he died, that he had almost scattered his congregation by the constant "begging sermons" which he hated, but which necessity made imperative. The laity are claiming (and rightly claiming) the privilege of being Church workers, and are preaching (and rightly preaching) that "the Clergy are not the Church". If only they would practise what they preach, and relieve the Clergy of all Church finance, they need never listen to another "begging sermon" again. So doing, they would rejoice the heart of the Clergy, and fulfil one of their true functions as laity.
This is one of the most beautiful of all the clerical names, only it has become smirched by common use.
The word Parson is derived fromPersona, aperson. The Parson isthePerson—the Person who represents God in the Parish. It is not his own person, or position, that he stands for, but the position and Person of his Master. Like St. Paul, he can say, "I magnify mine office," and probably the best way to magnify his office will be to minimize himself. The outward marks ofrespect still shown to "the Parson" in some places, are not necessarily shown to the person himself (though often, thank God, they may be), but are meant, however unconsciously, to honour the Person he represents—just as the lifting of the hat to a woman is not, of necessity, a mark of respect to the individual woman, but a tribute to the Womanhood she represents.
The Parson, then, is, or should be, the official person, the standing element in the parish, who reminds men of God.
The word is derived from the Greekkleros,[7] "a lot," and conveys its own meaning. According to some, it takes us back in thought to the first Apostolic Ordination, when "they castlots, and thelotfell upon Matthias". It reminds us that, as Matthias "was numbered with the eleven," so a "Clergyman" is, at his Ordination, numbered with that long list of "Clergy" who trace their spiritual pedigree to Apostolic days.
"Seeing then," run the words of the Ordination Service, "into how high a dignity, and how weighty an Office and Charge" a Priest is called, certain safeguards surround his Ordination, both for his own sake, and for the sake of his people.
No Deacon can, save under very exceptional circumstances, be ordained Priest before he is 24, and has served at least a year in the Diaconate.
This fitness, as in Confirmation, will be intellectual and moral. Hisintellectualfitness is tested by the Bishop's Examining Chaplain some time before the Ordination to the Priesthood, and, in doubtful cases, by the Bishop himself.
Hismoralfitness is tested by the Publication during Service, in the Church where he is Deacon, of his intention to offer himself as a Candidate for the Priesthood. To certify that this has been done, this Publication must be signed by the Churchwarden, representing thelaity, and by the Incumbent, representing the Clergy and responsible to the Bishop.
Further safeguard is secured by letters of Testimony from three Beneficed Clergy, who have known the Candidate well either for the past three years, or during the term of his Diaconate.
Finally, at the very last moment, in the Ordination Service itself, the Bishop invites the laity, if they know "any impediment or notable crime" disqualifying the Candidate from being ordained Priest, to "come forth in the Name of God, and show what the crime or impediment is".
Why all these safeguards? For many obvious reasons, but specially for one. Priest's Orders are indelible.