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".
{107}
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 {108} 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
{109} 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.
{110}
(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 {111} 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 {112} 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?
{113}
(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 {114} 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 {115} 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 {116} 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 {117} 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
{118} 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.
{119}
(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.
{120}
An _Ordinary Licence_, costing about L2, 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 L30, 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 {121} 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 {122}
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.
{123}