The Church: Her Books and Her Sacraments

by E. E. Holmes

CHAPTER IX.

HOLY MATRIMONY.

We have called Holy Matrimony the "Sacrament of Perpetuation," for it is the ordained way in which the human race is to be perpetuated.

Matrimony is the legal union between two persons,—a union which is created by mutual consent: Holy Matrimony is that union sanctioned and sanctified by the Church.

There are three familiar names given to this union: Matrimony, Marriage, Wedlock.

Matrimony, derived from mater, a mother, tells of the woman's (i.e. wife-man's) "joy that a man is born into the world". Marriage, derived from maritus, a husband (or house-dweller[[1]]), tells of the man's place in the "hus" or house. Wedlock, derived from weddian, a pledge, reminds both man and woman of the life-long pledge which each has made "either to other".

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?

(I) WHAT IS IT FOR?

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 is indissoluble. 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 an organic not 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 may declare the non-existence of the marriage union, just as it may declare the 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 morals the 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.

(II) WHAT IS ITS ESSENCE?

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 not essential to 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 fallacious ab 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 and guaranteed grace is attached 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: "Who giveth this 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 of Betrothal (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 of Betrothal. Here, too, the actual ceremony of "mutual consent" now takes place—that part of the 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?

(III) WHOM IS IT FOR?

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.

(1) The Unmarried.

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 harder on the masses, than legislation for the masses may bear upon the individual. And, after all, this is not a question of "hard versus easy," but of "right versus wrong". 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 not her 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, is Utopian. 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 Sixth Commandment 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.

(2) The Non-Related.

But, secondly, marriage is for the non-related—non-related, that is, in two ways, by Consanguinity, and Affinity.

(a) By Consanguinity. Consanguinity is of two kinds, lineal and collateral. Lineal Consanguinity[[7]] is blood relationship "in a direct line," i.e. from a common ancestor. Collateral Consanguinity 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) By Affinity. 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 husband and 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 the Deceased 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.

(3) For the Full-Aged.

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 man or woman under 21 can do so against the consent of Parents or Guardians.

(IV) WHAT ARE ITS SAFEGUARDS?

These are, mainly, two: Banns and Licences—both intended to secure the best safeguard of all, publicity. This publicity is secured, first, by Banns.

(1) Banns.

The word is the plural form of Ban, "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.

(2) Licences.

There are two kinds of Marriage Licence, an Ordinary, or Common Licence, and a Special Licence.

An Ordinary 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.

A Special 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 clergyman celebrates 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 the marriage 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—from hus, a house, and buan, to dwell.

[[2]] Until fifty-three years ago an Act of Parliament was necessary for a divorce. In 1857 The Matrimonial Causes Act established the Divorce Court. In 1873 the Indicature Act transferred 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 that prosecution for 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 Communion at the time of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage," thus retaining, though releasing, the old rule.

[[7]] Consanguinity—from cum, together, and sanguineus, relating to blood.

[[8]] Affinity—from ad, near, and finis, 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 is publicity—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.