IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) L /. ^ f/. '/ 1.0 1.1 " m 12.2 iy5 iu U 1.6 ^Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 rn>^ iV qv <^ ^> < raproduitaa ewac la plua grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da I'axampiaira film*, at an eonformit* avac laa eonditiona du eontrat de filmaga. Laa axamplaira«^ originaux dont la eouvartura in papiar aat imprimia sont film«a 9n commanoant par la pramiar plat at w turmlAant soit par la 69miin paga qui eomporta una amprainta d'Impraaaion ou d'illuatration, soit par la sacond plat, salon la ea«. Tous laa autras sxamplairas originaux sont film«s an commanqant par la prami^ra paga qui eomporta una amprainta d Impraasion ou d'iliuutir^ tion at «n tarminant par la damiira paga qui eomporta una talla amprainta. Un daa symboloa suivsrts apparaitra sur la damiAra Imaga do chaqua mieroficho, salon la caa: la symbola — ^ signifia "A SUIVRE" la symbola V signifia "FIN". Laa cartaa. planchas. tablaaux. etc.. pauvant itra filmte A das taux da rMuction diff«rsnts. Lorsquo la documant aat trop grand pour itrtt raproduit an un s*jl ciich*. II aat film* * partir da I'angia sup*riaur gaucha. da gaucha i droita. at do haut an baa. an pranant la nombra d'Imagaa n*caaaaira. i.aa diagrammas suivants iiluatrant la m*thoda. H K. : VORCE AND J^ E - M A R R I A G E ff/STORICAL F.VWEXCF. BV HOLI.INGWORTII TLI LV KlVr i»r.v , BisjioiaoAi.jru.R or kkki.er,, ,..s- ' The saiictitv of niiim inr >. , *~i, •h«- faithful u„,o„ „f ZZ^ •;,^. ^'^^'^"••'" -W,fi.„on „„p„e. nishop> ""^i^ll /■.»,}; l„ol, 1888, iij-nctl U 14, '••■ -U KKNOUl, ST ,AT,M.:iUX,.: STKK 5i'e&cncfoii ^^■- !'• T. M^Nt:T^, ni-KI^X .TK,,i:t i;r -v^ MINTED BV SPOTTt-iWOODR AND CO., NKWSTREET Sijl ARE LUNUON ^' ■ .. \oM^ CONTENTS. Introduction SECTION I. The New Testament Scriptures II. The Canons of the Church III. The Fathers ok the Church . IV. The English Chi-hch . V. The Greek and Roman Church VI. Divorce in Caxa DA TACm I 5 43 75 93 99 1? INTRODUCTION. In September 1889 the Lower House of the Provincial tC"^ , • 'I'r ^-'^^'"'■^''t'-'*' l*'--incc of Canada requc cd hat a Joint Committee of Hoth Mouses m.Vht be appointed to prepare and present a Canon on the subject of MaXe and Divorce, to report at the ensuinji session in ,892 ^ .« tL PP^' """''^•^^P"'"*^-^^! the writer of this pamphlet occ.'renre ^^'P^^-^-^^'-^^'— '-^t unusual, if no"? u./ique! .rr.o?"^ though this was a very great honour, >ct it entailed 111 1.^1 f I ^^V■•'»^'^"""d to be impossible to brill- all the historical evidence together in the report wh ch recommended the Canon ; and as it was ve v vi v Ir .f no necessary, that the evidence shoulcrL brou t ogether. hat .t might be in the hands of the membcr^of the Synod while the matter is under discussion.Thc sol n :rSr ""'''' "°"^^ "^ ^'^'-P^ '- under^.^:lrS , An endeavour has been made to present the evidencf. Jess rather a difficult matter. It must be confessed that • h?elrsti;e;fflu; ^'^^^f t' '^^""■"^' ^^^^^ Mr KeWc's ' L 1 "*'' "^ * r'" '^"'"'''^ ' ''^ information in ivir. Keble s Sequel, seems far more conclusive to the . compiler of this pamphlet than the meagre aiul aJ J, // ;;;:^;P^^uchced note of Dr. I'usey. again5 wS'£V^ - When there was abundance of evidence as to the mind of S. Aujjustine on the matter in hand, Dr. Puscy vi ho any reference to the many folios of the Fa he.?; otc ^ uLiv f "1 :r 'rr'r '"" '' ^''- — -iage a^cr ^moHo|, but icgards ,t as a venial error.' Jiin.Jham of li Introduction the same Father writes :— ' S. Austin was fully persuaded in his own mind that such marriages after divorce were unlawful,' and gives six references in proof of his statement. At first it would seem hard to reconcile the two decisions ; but, as it would seem, Dr. Pusey's view is very partial, and in combining the two judgments some interlinear italics are advisable. Thus : — ' S. Augustine regards it as a venial error in the unbaptised and uninstructed heathen, but was fully persuaded in his own mind that such marriages after divorce were unlawful _/(?r Christians' The unconditioned statement of Dr. Pusey can scarcely (so far as the search of the writer goes) be substantiated. In all such investigation care must be taken to dis- tinguish between ' divorce a vinculo matrimonii' — divorce from the bond of marriage, which leaves both parties free to marry — and 'divorce a mensa et thoro' which is now commonly called separation. In the English Church divorce from the bond has only been granted for such antecedent impediment as made the supposed marriage an unreality, or nullity. Mr. Keble argues that there is nothing to show that where divorce o: separation is recognized, as is sometimes the case, remarriage after such separation is allowed. Certainly sometimes (as e.g. in the Apostolical Constitu- tions, which see in the Section on 'the Canons of the Church ') the language is somewhat strained in order that a particular interpretation may be enforced. Then, again, when the Church was surrounded by unbaptized unbelievers, the divorce or desertion by the unbeliever was a different matter from the separation of two Christians. In the Section on ' Divorce in Canada ' the writer untied the red-tape knot, which had not been untied (so it seems) for one hundred years ; and prints now for the first time the ' observations of the Bishop of London ' upon the Marriage and Divorce Act of New Brunswick. It is true that the Legislature of New Brunswick was the first in the British Empire to pass an Act to make adultery a cause for divorce fro7n the bond of marriage in the Law Courts. But it is also true that it was only done in consequence of the suggestion of the Bishop of London for the tjime being, Dr. Beilby Porteus, a native of Virginia. It would almost seem as if the Bishop entirely failed to see the distinction (recognized in the first Act passed, and emphasized by the as fully persuaded after divorce were jf of his statement, the two decisions ; is very partial, and : interlinear italics ^gardsitasavenial !' heathen, but was ich marriages after rhe unconditioned > far as the search be taken to dis- trimonii ' — divorce 3 both parties free ro,' which is now the bond has only ment as made the V'. ing to show that , as is sometimes ation is allowed, •stolical Constitu- e Canons of the lied in order that :d. s surrounded by desertion by the the separation of ' the writer untied tied (so it seems) for the first time mdon ' upon the iwick. It is true as the first in the adultery a cause the Law Courts. 1 consequence of >r the tjime being, It would almost 2e the distinction nphasized by the Introduction -, wise Governor, Thomas Carleton) between divorce from the bond and divorce from bed and board The Legislature were quite ready to take the hint, and in 1791 adulterv was for the first time m the British Empire, made one ^f the ordinary causes of divorce from the bond of marriage In England ' relief had been given from time to time rn^.lTT A".'' P"'"''^'" ^^^^ ""^ Parliament to such^s could afford the expense, but it was not until 18 ;7 that a regular civil Divorce Court was established r.nnJ\^^"°"*°u^^ recommended to the Provincial Synod cannot be given here, as it has not yet been presented to fofk^fTbe'passed.'^ '°^^' ^'^" ^^ ''''' '' ^ '^^'^ ^^^-'^ fr- ?^ ^°"]P''er desires to record his thanks to a kind friend, who for a quarter of a century has never failed in throigh';;Tpr:]r ''' ""'^"^'^" ^ -^^^ ^^^ ^-^-- rP^mnrrl"^- ^''° "^^'"^ *^ ^'^^""^ ^'- J°hn Alexander Gemmill for his courtesy in affording him ample information SmenitTv^e."^"^'^ '''''''' ^"^ '^ '^''^ ^^^ ^ Almost all the quotations have been verified in the compiler's library ; there are one or two which have been aken directly from Mr. Keble, who had access to large authnS' r^K *° ^- '^°'°"'^' ^'■'^^^P- I" ^-^h case the the r.m^ l'' f'"" F'^ ■ ^^vantage has been taken of ohn VV.T. ? ^ ^'^' ^"'"^ ^"^ '^'•°ther, the learned John yV alter Lea, now gone to his reward. A more im- partial and evenly-balanced mind the writer nev^? came into contact with. His beautiful death (he died in churTh frLds. """^ '^' ^''""^^^ ""^ ^ g^-^^t '°^^ 'o his ance^fn%h!'°'"""^-^°''' ^%l ^'"" ""^ ""^'^ ^'^ '^^^ assist- ance in the compilation. The list might be enlarged for b tZtr ^^' ""'"''T^ ^'-^ - attracting much atfen ion Dut the following are the most valuable :— ^"''''transSiJn 'o/'t^ ?i'- °" ^^^^ ^^' "^ '^' ^'^' -'""^e of the (two pages) '"" '" '^^ ^'''"'"'y 'f '^" ^^«'^'^'-^- '842 Kcble, John : Sequel to Argument. 1857 (pp. s-'o) Consideratiom on Divorce a Vinculo. By a Barnsier. ,857. A letter to Lord Arthur Her,. Paul must come IS one of the first :he attention, and of the Apostle to Id. kably in the very )uld be but some into heaven. The d been converted weeks only. Yet the Apostle had he extreme im- iar manner under ;ion of the whole id exhort you in how ye ought to lo walk— that ye what orders we s the will of God, irselvesback from J how to acquire nour, not in the li know not God ; s brother in the all these things. reme sanctity of 1 that he handed imander-in-Chief, ord used, Trapay- orders ' given by The word occurs ach time in this charge,' which is Tiptory character aid (Acts v. 28), i special orders' 24), "TrapayysXiav an order.' S. 7Vn- Epistles o/S. Paul 9 Paul uses the word twice in the First Epistle to Timothy (I Tim. i. 5), ' the end of the general order is this ' ; and (, I Tim. i. 18), ' this general order I commit into your hands,' evidently for transmission. So in this passage we may paraphrase, 'You know perfectly well what the general orders are which we gave you from the Captain of our Salvation, the Lord Jesus.' The next point to be remarked upon is the phrase ' acquire his own vessel ' ; this most probably means ' get his own wife.' The common interpretation has been improperly emphasized by the marginal reference, inserted without authority, under the supervision of one Dr. Blayney, about one hundred years ago. It is not in the Authorized Ver- sion, and probably can be convicted of a double error : giving a wrong meaning here, and an erroneous interpreta- tion m F Sam. xxi. 5. The tense of the verb precludes the meaning of the Authorized Version, 'possess': the Revised Version attempts a modification, ' possess himself of,' but it is simpler to use the representative English word 'to acquire.' The word is used in the old Greek ' Authorized * Version (the Septuagint) for marrying a wife (Ruth iv. 10, 'have I purchased to be my wife,' KSKTrjfiai Hs yvvaiKa). The word ' vessel ' is a word commonly under- stood by the Jews for wife ' (r/ S. Peter iii. 7, ' the weaker vessel ). The Authorized Version, ' any matter,' as if of business m general, is not in accordance with true grammar. The true rendering is in the Authorized margin. The Vulgate version, negot/o, influenced our translators from the first Wichff had ' chaffaringe,' which Tyndale changed to ' busi- ness ' ; the Geneva version had ' any matter,' which was accepted in 161 1, though the true rendering found a place in the margin, namely, ' in the matter.' It is interesting to remember that in another passage S. Paul uses the same word as a gentle euphemism for incest (2 Cor. vii. 11). The words in the Greek for ' ^°^l ""Cleanness ' in Dcut. xxiv. i are daxwov -rrpa^iia. The Apostle here asserts that the avenger in such cases IS the Lord Himself He also asserts that this is one of the matters on which he has orders from the Lord to transmit to others. He ends this paragraph in the most solemn way : ' Therefore he that despiscth, despiseth not man, but God, Who hath also given unto us His Holv bpirit. 1 he law he had given them about marriage and lO The Neiv 'restament Scnptures Its surroundings was not the law of man ; it was an order from God. The whole paragraph emphasizes in a remark- able manner the extreme sanctity of marriage, and the foremost place it occupied in the Catechism of Christianity This, too. as the result of the direct instruction from the Lord Jesus Hnnself Next vvc find a more direct statement in what is one of the next, if not the next, inspired writing of the New Testa- ment, the First Epistle to the Corinthians. When S Paul wrote to the Thessalonians he was preaching at Corinth the most luxurious and licentious city of the time, worse.' probably, than Antioch. The language he uses in his letter would teach us that the Christian law of marriage would certainly be prominent in his sermons at Corinth In the First Epistle to the Corinthians he is answering questions of casuistry which had arisen in the church of his founding Amongst the questions there were some on the subject of marriage. In the middle of his answer he writes (i Cor. vii. lo) : — _ ' To the married I order (not I, but the Lord) the wife IS not to be parted from her husband ; but if she have been parted, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband abandon his wife.' And, further on : ' A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth ; but if her husband have fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whom she will ; only in the Lord ' (verse 39). This is the essence of the whole passage : this forms part of the 'General Orders' of the Commander-in-Chief tor the word is irapayyiXXta, which is a military word for giving orders. It is certainly remarkable that here and in the passage in the Epistle to the Thessalonians the military terms TrapayyeWco, •n-apayyeXia should be used as of officers orders, which none dare disobey. Here the orders are practically this : that the married were not to be so treed by divorce as to be allowed to marry again There IS no condition expressed or implied. ' Let her remain unniarried is unequivocal, and is emphasized by the verse at the end of the whole passage : ' A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth ; but if her husband have fallen asleep she is free to marry whom she will ; only in the Lord. Remark here that the pair are both Christian (tor death is a sleep), and the only separation that is thought of IS death. This of itself is significant t tires it was an order iizes in a rcmark- larriage, and the n of Christianity, ruction from the in what is one of f the New Testa- VVhen S. Paul :hing at Corinth, the time, worse, he uses in his law of marriage ions at Corinth. he is answering n the church of re were some on )f his answer he 3 Lord) the wife but if she have be reconciled to aandon his wife.' long time as her "alien asleep, she \y in the Lord ' ;agc : this forms nander-in-Chief, lilitary word for that here and in ans the military be used as of lere the orders e not to be so r again. There Let her remain ed by the verse is bound for so r husband have le will ; only in : both Christian aration that is cant. The lipistles of S. Pan/ II In this connection attention should be drawn to the fact that m this Epistle the Apostle claims to have two messages to deliver ; one from the Lord Himself, and one Irom himself, as an inspired Apostle. The first from the Lord Himself, Here we must remember that S. l>aul claims more than once that his mformation about our Bles.sed Lord and His (iospel was not derived from man. nor from anj-one who was an Apo.stle before b. Paul, but from the Lord Himself This he empha.sizes in the first two chapters of the Kpistle to the Galatians. This he claims in his description of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, which was the first account oi the institution committed to writing (i Cor xi 23) It is well to remember this, because it is very mis- leading to do, as has been continually done, namely, to refer from I Cor. vii. 10 to S. Matthew's Gospel, as if S. Paul were quoting from S. Matthew ; whereas S. Matthew might be regarded as quoting from his predecessor S. Paul 1 he truth IS that both received personal instruction from the Saviour, at first hand ; both would be regarded as of equal value as witnesses. The sc.und message of command was from S. Paul himself, the value of which he has himself appraised in a ater chapter of the Epistle (i Cor. xiv. 37) : ' If any man t/unfc himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknow- ledge that the things that I write unto you. are the com- reputed to be a prophet.* and the test of the reality of his reputation is to be his acknowledgment of the realitv of ^. Pauls commission, as the ambassador of the Lord empowered to give commands, et ris BoksI 7rpovrvs shai 1 nis sense of hoKsiv is not unusual in classical, New Testa- ment, and ecclesiastical writers.' uses' the w^h£'" •" It? ('alo'ians written just at the same time, .S. Paul uses the word Sow.i' in this sense, which makes it the more likely that it hZ. [o^be D Har/' whn „i *''°/r'"' "J' ^«'"«^»^«t.' twice ; 9, ' who seemed 10 De pillars, who are reputed as pillars. Similarly i Cor. xi. i6 ' If anv man.«.Mot«eontemious>; Hebrews iv. 1. « any oL should ;.<^«' to com^ t.W'b^inlTev'ou, "in^^""^ man -c«,« to be religious'; has the reputa- sTn^hatE.-/ .^"f.^'nP"'"?-^- Luke viii. .8 with xix. 26, it will be ^ZTl oi Zl-^*" ^""l "'- ''"r '^'";" "" * *^''- I" the Septuagint, HisT onhe^^eonrTvi "^^'^""r. ^^' ^«<«;/Tha.c who were reputed fovcmours Mmililr^A* ^V^'l°'" J"- 27. «f'^ ^«vi (Ephes. V. 22) : — ' Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord : because the husband is the head of his wife, as also Christ is the Head of the Church, and He is the Saviour of His Body. But just as the Church is subject unto Christ, so also let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands love your own wives, just as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify her, having purified her by the font of water by the word, that He might Himself present to Him- self the Church glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or an)' .such thing, but that she .should be holy and undefiled. So ought men to love their own wives as their own bodies : he that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for none ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, just as the Lord does the Church ; because we are members of His Body from His Fle.sh and from His Bones, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the tivo shall become one flesh. This mystery is great ; but / speak with reference to Christ and His Church. Nevertheless do you, too, individually, each one of you, so love his own wife even as himself ; and the wife sec i!i;rt she reverence her husband.' ' Tlie mystery [writes Mr Mcj'rick, in Th Speaker's Commentary] is the anah .^y between the married state and the spiritual union betwixt Christ and the Church. Thi.s had hitherto been a secret unrevealed thing, which was now first made clear, and therefore the holiness of marriage was comparatively unknown.' But what can be clearer against Divorce and Polygamy, and Polyandry, than the revelation of the mystery that Christian marriage was upon earth the representation of the spiritual union between Christ and His Church ? Can Christ the Lord cast away, divorce His Bride the Church ? Away with the horrible thought ! Has Christ more Brides than one.' ' My Dove, my undefiled is one.' The answer is ■'iptures lorious mystery that b is more fully de- ), which was written istle to the Romans. wrote dccpr, dvic- \ long stay amongst the deep ttachlii;., as folio v\; (Ephcs. Dwn husbands, as to lead of his wife, as ch, and He is the e Church is subject their own husbands own wives, just as imself for her, that her by the font of self present to Him- )t or wrinkle or anj' and undefiled. So Sieir own bodies : he elf: for none ever 1 cherisheth it, just we are members of is Bones, For this id his mother, and '0 shall become one )eak with reference eless do you, too, is own wife even as rence her husband.' c, in Th Speaker's ; married state and the Church. This thing, which was loliness of marriage >rce and Polygamy, r the mystery that e representation of His Church ? Can Bride the Church ? Christ more Brides )ne.' The answer is r/ic J: pi sties of S. Paul *5 of old. Can we think that the Bride the Church has more heads than One } God forbid ! What a flood of light does this glorious passage throw upon whole tracts of Scripture in the Old and New TcsS- mcnt! I" the prophets, in Isaiah, Jeremiah. Ezekiel Jewish Church being married to God ; and, in consequence Idolatry or worship of fal.se Gods is spoken of under the Mnir x\ ^r'^T"" .^"i "^"'^'^•■y- ' ^ 'Phraim is joined to •do let 1;-'" alone/ But the prophets, while tliv speak of the Jewish Church being adulterous, still regard her a.a truewife. who cannot free herself from her brd. b u u U 1 ultimately be pardoned, and received back with an everlas mg covenant. The whole of the sixteenth chapte^of E^oku i ■s of this spintua meaning. God, in His love and mere chose out the Church, and espoused her, but she wen t astray after other 'lovers,' fell away like their forefVhcrs worshipped idols. For this she ';vas to u£ eveS There rf" "'.' "P°" '"^P-ntance. she would be restored rhere ,s a singular argument in the twentieth chapter of the same prophet where, indeed, the Church is represented as saying that they would be divorced, ' We Jibe as the heathen as the families of the countries, to serve wood and s one ; but this rW^ not be ; and God claims hI Hghl and authority over them, so that they should be punXd for M r P'll^ f '"*^^' /""^ ^^ ^'•^"^ht back again Wh^ Malachi, the latest of the prophets before Gospel t mes has an earnest passage on the question of marriage and^fv^rce which IS rendered in our Authorized Version. • the Lord the God^of Israel saith He hateth putting away, ' that is, hateut true^tSLT"^ °" *'""' P^^'^P °^ ^^'^^hi in passing. It is rroreL C''^\'' ^'^r*'^, ""^ ^^' b^^" vlriously nterpreted. But, perhaps, the learned Pococke (after a us7h 'r^ t?"'''°"^ ^r' '^^ general meaning wel 'to us [he says], learning from Christ the true import of the Scriptures the pa.ssage will be more absolutely a prohibi tion from God both of divorce and polygamy!^Take heed to yourselves as ye love your souls, that yToffend not bv mdulgmg your unbridled lusts in either of ^these kinds and SoTforlhe'^"-"' *'^ '^'''^ 'y^ of wedlock instituted by , 1 he implied condemnation of divorce and the promised i6 The New Testament Scriptures pardon of the adulterous Church, with the prophecy of full restoration of the Christian Church, prepared the way for the unequivocal condemnation of divorce and remarriage of either party, as an offence against the indissoluble union between Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride the Church. Do we not believe that now the union between Christ and His Church is so intimate that it cannot be dissolved ? If so, must we not believe that the marriage union is of the same character ? Does not this reflect light back upon the whole of the marriage question, and all its surroundings, in the Old Testament ? Must we not think that this is why the Apostle in this passage traces all back to the prime ordinance of marriage in Genesis ? Remark how the Apostle quotes the Greek Authorized Version rather than translate the Hebrew afresh ; and at the same time remark how this version is authenticated by our Blessed Lord's adoption of it, as recorded by S. Matthew and S. Mark (S. Matth. xix. 5, S. Mark x. 8). The Hebrew has, ' They shall be one flesh.' This is reaffirmed in the New Testament, with the special insertion of the limitation TWO. ' The two shall be one flesh.' At the Creation there was no need of such limitation in language, as there were but two persons, a male and a female. But when the Great Charter of Marriage is re-enacted, and the deep mystery therein contained is declared, the fact that there is a multitude of either sex seems to require the limitation, which is not omitted, ' the two .shall be one flesh.' This helps us to understand why such stress was laid upon the sins against marriage in the Old Testament. The curious researches of moderns reveal more and more the necessity of such continual warnings against such sins. * Defile not yourselves in any of these things ; for in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you ; and the land is defiled ; therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants ' (Lev. xviii. 24, 25). So also from S Paul's words, still under consideration, we can understand the title Bridegroom, given to our Lord by the Baptist, and adopted by the Lord when He spoke of the Apostles as 'children of the bride-chamber,' and of Himself as the Bridegroom. This, too, shows that the Jews wer--; quite prepared to understand the teaching con- ve)'ed in the title, and that the Hebrew Christians thorough!)' 'iptures the prophecy of full epared the way for e and remarriage of ; indissoluble union 3 Bride the Church, between Christ and t be dissolved ? If ige union is of the light back upon the its surroundings, in ik that this is why 1 back to the prime ; Greek Authorized rew afresh ; and at is authenticated by rded by S. Matthew Mark x. 8). The This is reaffirmed al insertion of the me flesh.' At the itation in language, ind a female. But is re-enacted, and declared, the fact seems to require 2 TWO shall be one ch stress was laid d Testament. The nore and more the against such sins, igs ; for in all these t before you ; and he iniquity thereof t her inhabitants' ider consideration, given to our Lord d when He spoke idc-chamber,' and DO, shows that the the teaching con- ristians thorough!)' The Epislh's o/S. Paid ^7 understood it, as forming part of Apostolic teaching is seen not on y from th.s passage of S. Paul, but from^the tSe Bnde g.ven to the Church in the Apocalypse. From all thi.s, then, we learn the extreme Sanctitv of the Marriage Estate in the eyes of the Creator. We need qu s^nlr's^'S"; '^^"^^ P^°"^'""^"- given to^^he question m S. Paul s teaching ; so that, though he onlv testified rt '• i" » Pasage where He I. S. Matthew v. 31, 32. I.f l-^ ^^^^ u^^" ^^''^' Whosoever shall put away his wife let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto the' cJu^' 7';°'°'""': '^^^^ P"' ^^-^y '^'s wife. savL for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit aduferv and whosoever shall marry a divorced woman commS 11. S. Luke xvi. 18. »nnff/^'^ ""^^ ^^^^ P""^^'' away his wife and has married another committeth adultery: and every man th^t h!= Sri' ^^'°"^" P"' ^^^^>''-- ^ hSndTollttet" i8 The Neio Testament Scriptures III. S. Matthew xix. And the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him and saying Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? And he answered and said unto them — H Have ye not read that He Who made from the be- ginning made them a male and a female, and said. For this shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh ? So that no longer are they two but one flesh. That therefore which God hath joined together let not man put asunder. H They say unto Him, Why then did Moses com- mand to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away } He saith unto them, Moses for the hardness of your heart suffered you to put away your wives : but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso mar- rieth one that is put away doth commit adultery. S. Mark x. And the Pharisees came to Him and asked Him, tempting Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife } And He answered and said unto them — What did Moses com- mand you ? And they said, Moses suffered to wj-ite a bill of divorcement and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them. For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept, but from the beg'n- ning of the creation He made them a male and a female. For this shall a man leave his father and mother, and the two shall be one flesh. So that no longer are they two but one flesh. That therefore whicl; God hath joined togethci let not man put asunder. unequ S. Pat divorc' There S. Lut and mi Bui the sec social J Commj traced an unit ' That \ manner powerle action c mar an said. Go man cai S. I\ ■ipturcs 5. Mark x. the Pharisees came I and asked Him, J Him, Is it lawful m to put away his He answered and them — Gospels of S. Mat/Iu'xv. S. Mark, and S, Luke '9 t did Moses com- ^ou ? And they ses suffered to w/ite divorcement and to away. Jesus answered and 3 them, :he hardness of your e wrote you this but from the begin- the creation He em a male and a For this shall a ve his father and and the two shall flesh. So that nc •e they two but one 'hat therefore whicl: th joined together lan put asunder. S. Mattiikw S. Mark And in the house His disciples continued to ask Him again of this. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall have put away his \\\{q and married another, coin- mitteth adultery against her ; and if a woman shall have put away her husband and be married to another she conimitteth adultery. His disciples say unto Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marr>-. But He said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying sa\e they to whom it is given. In these three passages that recorded hv ^ r i • divorced, >wih a"rs t^z Lrp:!:?"^^? r° and m„r. especially Z S Greek GeSs *' '^™"''^^' .he?elrdTa';r;aro1lvo^efpIr„sr "°' ^^^"^ °' social po,;^, of wel but SrpT;l7br° ach' o?.he "S"'"' T Commandment. It is adultery in God Whf *t? Seventh traced to the inability of man to divide tvhf k A'''" '"°J' an unit. Por it i.s not ' r/„„ ""viae unat God has made • Tf.t which • ; U: action'^f'So^'ts'^n' t'^^ ^■°'"^^''>"* manner made man and wife one /7^/l mysterious powerless really to seoara e th?! •! ' "'"""^ therefore, is action of God, LsLlK///^ ""'ty ; nothing but the mar and defile the unitfbur^^^ ''^" "^^^ said, God Himself is the aveng*; of all su'c h of?' """^'T^^ man cannot set straight offence, which S. Mark, writing for the Ger,tiles, and specially the c a 20 The New Testamoit Scriptures Latin branch of the Gentile world it is thought, gives no exception to the rule the Lord Jesus lays down in the house in private to His disciples. A man who divorces his wife at all, and marries someone else, commits adultery against his wife, as marring the unity which still exists in God's sight, though man has caused a separation. Similarly a woman who divorces her husband, and marries another man, commits adultery. But S. Matthew introduces an exception {except it he for fornication). Remark, however, that this does not excuse remarriage with another woman ; it excuses separa- tion from the wife. Our duty must be reverently to enquire how this exception is to be reconciled with the unequivocal, unconditional condemnation of divorce by S. Paul, S. Mark, and S. Luke, or rather by the Lord Jesus as recorded by these inspired writers. As S. Paul wrote before S. Matthew (in all human pro- bability), we cannot say that the exception in S. Matthew was intended by S. Paul to be understood by his converts to be read into his representation of our Lord's Words, So that we might think that S. Paul's witness would remain the law for the Gentile Church, agreeing absolutely as it does with the two Evangelists whose Gospels are believed to have been written for the Gentile converts. This thought may help as to the true interpretation of the excepted case in S. Matthew. For it is generally agreed that S. Matthew in writing his Gospel had specially in view the needs of the converted Jews ; and the case of the adulterous wife being excepted here, and here only, may have reference to the law of Moses. We certainly find in S. Matthew that the first passage occurs in the midst of our Lord's clearing away from the various Commandments the lax interpretations which the perversity of men had introduced. In each case we have first the inadequate or erroneous interpretation recorded ; then the true bearing and drift of the moral law in its stringency is asserted. In this matter of marriage, then, we should naturally expect the same : and so we find it. ' It was said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a divorce.' This was the lax rendering. Then follows the true drift of the law. ' But I say to you. Whosoever shall put away his wife (outside the question of fornication) causes her to commit iptuj-es 5 thought, gives no s down in the house o divorces his wife ts adultery against till exists in God's ation. Similarly a arries another man, xception {except it that this does not : it excuses separa- ^verently to enquire th the unequivocal, )y S. Paul, S. Mark, us as recorded b\' (in all human pro- :ion in S. Matthew od by his converts our Lord's Words, tness would remain g absolutely as it )spels are believed rts. This thought ■ the excepted case Jatthew in writing Is of the converted ife being excepted o the law of Moses, the first passage ng away from the etations which the (i case we have first on recorded; then w in its stringency ;, then, we should id it. ly his wife, let him follows the true put away his wife es her to commit Gos/)e/s o/S. Matthew, 5. Mark, and S. Luke 21 adultery ; and whosoever marries a woman that has been put away, commits adultery.' First, then, we see that it is only the continuance of the marriage bond, even after the divorce (whether under the pretence of law or not), that can make the remarriage of the divorced woman, adultery. Next, remark that the Law of Moses regarded adultery in the wife as a case which de- manded separation ; for the wife was to be put to death as well as her paramour. This case, therefore, had to be excepted from the general prohibition of separation : if all prohibition of separation were insisted on while still the Temple stood, before the full message of forgiveness of sins had been purchased by the death of the Cross, and proclaimed, then the separation by death of the adulterous wife would have been forbidden. But in each case, in which 6. Matthew (the Evangelist to the Hebrews) records our Lord s words, this special exception is mentioned. VVhere the law of Moses was not binding— as, e.(r. on the Gentile world— then the exception was not requFred ; and m the writings for the Gentiles the exception does not occur, and is not mentioned. This interpretation does not restrict the word iropvela to antenuptial impurity, c ^i" ,^^^ .third passage, as given by S Matthew and b. Mark, it is strikingly corroborative of some such inter- pretation that while to the Pharisees the exception is given to the disciples in the house the law is unconditionally stringent. ' There are, however, some five or six other interpreta- tions which must be referred to. One makes iropvsia equivalent to ' idolatry,' in which spiritual sense it is often used in the Book of Revelation In this case the exception would be similar to the permis- sion of b Paul to allow the idolatrous heathen to depart Another restricts the word to antenuptial incontinence, as recognized in the Law. Another interprets the word to be a special restriction of the word in Deuteronomy xxiv. i, rendered ' unclean- ness the one cause for which divorce was allowed under the Law. In this sen.se it would cover any immorality of conduct, ill respect of the Seventh Commandment Another would interpret the exception as referring to marriages which were null and void from the bcginniiu- as of ending against .some of those restrictions on marriaee which arc coiilanicd in the Book of Leviticus 22 TJie New Testament Scriptures a.f^t^ f •. ?1'?*'°" " ^'■°'" S- Augustine, who sug- gests that ,t would be a greater sin to dismis^ the wife without this provocation, not that it would be no sin with his provocation to dismiss her, and marry another ; for he says, the Lord pronounced it adultery in either case— ' ^o" quia et hoc adulterium non est, sed quia minus est ' ' 11 ^ u-^^u '■'^"'f'"^ o"e interpretation, if it may be so called which regards the exception as a kind of specimen of a class of causes for which divorce and remarriage are permissible. ^ ...r^.!l^% latter we may say that the human mind can ^ .1 B-u'*"^^ °^ anything. The law of God as revealed m the Bible ever allows and demands man's free choice and in this matter of divorce this is remarkably exempli- fied. The law of Moses allowed divorce if the husband found some uncleanness ' in his wife. The carnal Tew interpreted this to mean anything whatever which was the cause of displeasure ; as Milton expressed it, < a natural annoyance, defect, or dislike, whether in body or mind ' If a wife salted the porridge too much, the will of man saw m the little word of Moses' law, permission for dismissal bo this exception of our Lord as recorded in the Gospel for Hebrew Christians has been strained and extended nearly as wide by some. Milton, however, hesitates not to say This saying of Christ, as it is usually expounded, can be no law at all, that a man for no cause should separate but for adultery, except it be a supernatural law, not binding us as we noiv are. * c T\?^..u^'^ f '"* i"'^^'' *^^ position of the record of b. Matthew chronologically is of some value in argument tor chronologically it occurs between our Lord's a*-^^^ as delivered by the hand of S. Paul, and His sayings as recorded by S. Mark and S. Luke. If, therefore the earlier is to be explained by the later, S. Matthew must be explained by the unequivocal sayings in the later Gospels. If the later writer is to be supposed (as some would have us believe) to expect readers to introduce some qualifica- tion from the earlier, then S. Paul's Epistle is the earlier But as we find that S. Paul, S. Mark, and S. Luke are recognized as having written for a different class of believers —VIZ. the Gentiles, who were not bound by the law of Moses— and all these three agree precisely in th^ law of jesus Christ enunciated for His disciples, we may be right ' De Coitj. Ad. I. 9, Tom. vi. col. 391. 'ip tares LUgustine, who sug- dismiss the wife )uld be no sin with narry another ; for, ry in either case — :d quia minus est' ' ion, if it may be so a kind of specimen ind remarriage are human mind can if God as revealed man's free choice, markably exempli- •ce if the husband The carnal Jew 2ver which was the ised it, 'a natural body or mind.' If le will of man saw sion for dismissal. 1 in the Gospel for d extended nearly litates not to say, expounded, can be lould separate but ^aw, not binding us of the record of alue in argument, ir Lord's Order as 1 His sayings as If, therefore, the Matthew must be the later Gospels, some would have e some qualifica- stle is the earlier, and S. Luke arc t class of believers d by the law of sely in the law of , we may be right 39'- 'h ■f ■5 Gospels of S. Mattliciv. S. Mark, and S. Liikc 23 in assuming that in the record of S. Matthew, of sayings of our Lord which had in each case a special bearing on the law of Moses, there was intended to be a reference to that law as affecting the Jews (for whom S. Matthew wrote) so long as that law was in force and the Temple was standing, with which that law was identified. There does not seem to have been any doubt about the Christian law of marriage until the Emperor became Christian. From that time there was a laudable attempt on the part of the Emperor to assimilate the civil law to the Christian law ; and this was met by stretching and straining the Scriptural law to meet the restrictions of the civil requirements, so as to attempt a compromise between the Church and the world. This affected the seat of Empire in the East more than in the West, so that as Ayliffe in his ' Parergon ' says : ' The Bishops for a long time did not govern themselves in this matter according to the Canons of the Church, but in pursuance of the rules of the Imperial laws' Hence we find lax interpretations of early Canons. For example, the Greek Canonist, Theodore Balsamon, in the twelfth century, speaking of the Canon in the African Code which forbids the marriage of divorced persons as adulterous, writes: 'Remark that the 117th Novel of Justinian [N.B. a Royal and civil law] in the vii. title of the 28th Book has altered the law about dissolving mar- riage. The contents of the present Canon of Africa, being very much older, are obsolete.' The Nestorian community, however, have all along refused to allow the remarriage of a divorced spouse, and this refusal would testify to the rule before they separated. As will be seen, the English Church has maintained the binding character of the marriage tie, only allowing a divorce from the bond of marriage so as to permit another marriage, where some valid antecedent impediment has ^prevented true marriage. This has been the law of the I English Church for some fifteen hundred years with scarce any, if a.^y, variation. It is most earnestly to be hoped that we shall be able ; to maintain ' that idea of marriage which Christ has brought into the world, and which He has set His Church to main- tain and uphold against all those influences which are ever ^at work in a sinful world, to lower and debase it' (Abp. ^: Trench). For we must set before our minds the great |truth that ' Every offence against marriage is an antagdnism 24 The New Testament Scriptures and a contradiction to the supreme Archet^al mystery of the Incarnation.' And while the consent df a man aifd a ait of r^^n ' °^ that union, unity. Therefore, while the act of man may suspend the union, no act of man can destroy the umtj which can only be dispersed by ?he ac" TH hus ma] rec( % ipt tires hetypal mystery of nt of a man and a t is the act of God Pherefore, while the o act of man can spersed by the act is the exclamation He therefore that ho hath also given II. THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. According to Evangelical and Apostolical discipline, neither a husband dismissed by . wife, nor a wife dismissed by a husband, may be married to another, but let them remain so, or b^ reconciled.'— ^/r»<-a» Canon. * • The Canons are mainly ■luoted, or translated from the edition cit Labbe. The Canons o! Arle-:. are quoted from Bruns (' Canones ; Berlin, 1839) from Mansi. t II. d from the edition ot om Bruns ('Canones ; THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. '^, I- The Apostolical Canons. The date of these is uncertain, and the various Canons are probably of various dates. This Canon is regarded as one of the most ancient. They are all probably Ante- Niccne. Canon 48. Ei rts XaiKos rrjv iavrov yvvaiKa sk/SoKwv f) hepav Xdfioi, fj trap' dXKov aTroXsXvfisvjjv, ciopi^swns of the Church If a man who is baptized has a wife and a concubine he may not communicate : but if a man has not a wife and has a concubme instead, he is not to be refused com- munion ; only that he must be satisfied to have one, wife or concubine, whichever he pleases. Otherwise he is to be excommunicated until he ceases to offend thus, and be restored by penitence. . ^^ »u uu rv. ™s Canon is introduced to show how the Spanish Church dealt with the civil law. This law gave aTS status to concubinage. This was a permanent cohabita- tion of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman resembling somewhat the so-called ' Morganatic ' marriage where the woman does not take the man's rank, and the man has no legal right over the children. 5. African Codex. Date a.d. 407 (or 397). Canoh 102 Placuit ut secundum Evangelicam et Apo- stohcam disciplinam neque dimissus ab uxore neque dimissa a marito alteri conjungatur, sed ita maneant aut sibimet reconclientur : quod si contempserint, ad poenitentiam romu" ari ^"^ *^^"^^' ^^^"^ '"^Perialem petendum est AniLrf . ^•'°-''r'^ that, according to Evangelical and Apostolical discipline, neither a man dismissed by a wife "°^u^ ^u\ ,^'^™^^^^ "^y a husband, may be joined to another, but let them remain so, or be reconciled. But if they despise this, they must be put to penance. In which case we must petition for an Imperial law to be promulged and put in ure. ^ ^ This is a renowned Canon, often referred to and re- enacted. The last clause, that a civil law should be petitioned for to enforce the Canon, introduces the first element of weakness. The later Greek Canonists take hold of this to show that the later civil law repealed the Eccle- siastical law. ^^«.iv. Remark that the rule is claimed as laid down in the Gospels and Epistles. There is clearly no doubt in the mind of those who passed this Canon. They say that Gospel and Epistle both condemn the remarriage of a divorced person, without any condition whatsoever But, most unfortunately, they ask for Imperial sanction hurch vifc and a concubine, in has not a wife and to be refused com- led to have one, wife Otherwise he is to be offend thus, and be )w how the Spanish lis law gave a legal permanent cohabita- unmarried woman, organatic ' marriage, man's rank, and the n. The Canons of the Chin-ch 31 ). vangelicam et Apo- uxore neque dimissa laneant aut sibimet t, ad poenitentiam iaiem petendum est :o Evangelical and ismissed by a wife, may be joined to reconciled. But if jenance. In which w to be promulged eferred to and re- n\ law should be ntroduces the first "anonists take hold epealed the Eccle- laid down in the ' no doubt in the I. They say that i remarriage of a ■hatsoever. Imperial sanction Canon 17. >ii'()rd. 6. Council of Milevis. Date a.d. 416 (about). Re-enacts the African Canon word for 7. Council of Angers (Andegavense). Date a.d. 453. .. Canon 6. Hi quoque qui alienis uxoribus, superstitibus cipsarum maritis, nomine conjugii abutuntur, a communione liabeantur extranei. Those who, under pretence of marriage, live with other jmen's wives during the lifetime of their husbands are to be held excommunicated. This probably refers to marriage after divorce. Com- pare the words of S. Augustine, quoted in Canon of Troli A.D. 909. 8. Council of Vannes (Veneticum). Date a.d. 465. Canon 2, Eos quoque qui relictis uxoribus suis, sicut in Evangelio dicitur, excepta causa fornicationis sine adul- terii probatione alias duxerint, statuimus a communione similiter arcendos, ne per indulgcntiam nostram praeter- 4nissa peccata alios ad licentiam erroris invitent. > Those who have left their wives, as it is said in the fCospel, except for the cause of fornication, without proof -hi adultery, and have married others, we decide are to be Repelled from communion, lest sins passed over by our ^tenderness incite others to freedom of error. l This seems to connive at remarriage after divorce following proof of adultery. ' 9. Council of Agde (Agathense). A.D. 506. '^ Canon 25. Hi vero saeculares qui conjugale consortium -^ulpa graviore dimittunt, vel etiam dimi.serunt ; et nullas ausas discidii probabiliter proponentes, propterea sua ma- rimoiiia dimittunt, ut aut illicita aut aliena praesuniant ; si ^.ntequam apud episcopos comprovinciales di.scidii causas 'ixcrint, et prius uxores, quam judicio damnentur, ab- The Canons of the Church jecerint ; a communione ecclesiae, et sanCto populi coctu Canon 25. These laymen who, by some grievous fault are dismissing or even have dismissed, thfir wives and without credibly declaring any cause for divorce' are getting nd of their own marriages in order to ve^tu upon unlawful or strange connections; if they have ca away their wives before they have stated their causes fn divorce before the Bishops of their Province and their wive are judicially condemned, let them be exc uded fronT th commun on of the Church, and the holy congrega°l J?oTaTj^mtL^^^^ Milton, in his ' Tetrachordon.' quotes thic: r=,n«„ • favour of divorce and remarriage. C! on the face of there IS not much evidence of any desir; to encourage th saeculares, to form other marriages, even if ?heTr rfason for divorce were good and valid. 10. Council of Hertford (Herudforense). Date a.d. 673. Canon 10. Ut nulli liceat nisi legitimum habere con nubium ; nullus incestum faciat ; nullus conjugem propria^" msi ut sanctum Evangelium docet fornicatifni? cS re inquat: quod si quisquam propriam expulerit conjuJm legitimo sibi matrimonio conjunctam. si Chr stianus fsse recte voluerit, nulli alteri copuletur. sed ita permaneat praemaneat] aut propriae reconcilietur coniugi ^ c"atn' %i^^•^f ^-7' teache^^r Te ctseT ^^ cation. But f a man have driven out his own Jt joined to him in lawful marriage, if he really wishes to be a Christian, let him not be coupled to anotherXt re na^ so or be reconciled to his own wife It IS said that 'this is a counsel rather than a rule nt ,» Tfr.°"T'?^ ■ • ,?'" "■= =»"^'™. • if h« really wi.he, tcai I irepc tvpst 'J time other \vido^ O if she rathei there. John them. hadb so. 1 canno Vet.e most i marria intima in whi Lord. in wh a^ all ^ys. " inparry.' fhe hai It doei kfis the Ilpod, w l^sides llessed. in itself nothing, 1|ie act #h dii !neral % ^hurch sanCto populi coctu, nt, excludantur. some grievous fault, ied, their wives, and se for divorce, are in order to venture s ; if they have cast ited their causes for I'ince, and their wives : excluded from the loly congregation of tains upon their own lotes this Canon in It, on the face of it, re to encourage the ven if their reasons T/ie Canons of the Church Z^ II. ^erudforense). timum habere con- conjugem propriam nicationis causa re- sxpulerit conjugeni si Christianus esse ita permaneat \ot :onjugi. il marriage. None ave his own wife, the cause of forni- out his own wife, really wishes to be nother, but remain 3ncubinage allowed ler than a rule of if he really wishes iristian law, what- Apostolical Coxstitutions. Pate uncertiiin. Book III., Chapter i, about the middle «>er occasion, and remain., by herself ha^WH -fZ *,dowhood, she will be found (o be btsse^^'"8 "" »" °' If *?h dL^'t e"g1S t rnShf:!' ' '"?P'y"g plainly .ha. rather reading into the pa^SewhJ'- «"•""= i-^ ^••ely then. . ,f by .„j, :z™ts Zrzf.Tt'Z''j;^ fcadbeen meant, it would surely hav^^ tecTc^r''^'''^ So. The words mplv more th/n ^« . u *° ^^V cannot see what warranTue hT r "'^ occasion, and I Vet. except for ^ Cca to '' ouT T"^ ' ''"^'^^*'°"- most indubitably forbid ^rdiVorce and / fT''' T^' marriage. These word732. marriage, but after one of these occurs the remark, ' Hoc ecclesia non rccipit ' ; this may imply that the other pro- visions were received by the Church. Some are curious. Here is one : 3. ' If a priest have his granddaughter to wife he must put her away, and be degraded. If another man have married her, let him also put her away. If he cannot remain unmarried, let him take another as wife. For it is blanrieworthy for another man to have to wife the relict of 9. priest.' The Canons (so called) show a wide divergence from the ideal of marriage set up by S. Paul. Canon 11. ' If a man from some inevitable necessity has fled to another duchy or province, or has followed his leader to whom he owes fealty, and his wife, though able refuses to follow him, she shall remain unmarried so lon^ras her husband, whom she ha.s not followed, is alive : butlier husband may take another wife, but do penance for it' Fleury sums up other Canons: 'He who hath com- mitted mcest with his daughter-in-law, mother-in-law or Sister-m-law, or with his wife's cousin, shall never marry her, or any other ; and the woman guilty shall be subject to the like penalties : but the innocent party may marry again, that is ' (adds Fleury, to soften matters) ' after the Death of the other. . . . Servitude makes marriage null • 80 that he who marries a woman that is a slave, supposing her to be free, may marry another.' . Canon 5. ' If a woman plots the death of her husband with other men, and in self-defence he kills one, and can prove It, he may divorce his wife, and, if he will, he mav marry another.' ^ ^ This last Canon is entered in the Corpus Juris ' But the words ' after the death of his wife ' are added • *nd Fleury adds them from the Corpus, but without authority. % 13. Council of Compi£gne (Compendiense). Date a.d. 757. , This also was more of a National Assembly, but as the Pishops were present, and consenting, it is spoken of as a :=CounciI. The legates whom the Pope had sent into France |vere present, and assented to some of the Canons ijGeorgius Episcopus Romanus consenr.it' ' Detret. Greg. lib. IV. tit. xix. cap. i. D 2 36 The Canons of the Church Many of the provisions of Verberie are repeated U sake of God the roan may take a lawful wife Similarlv ... the case of a woman. George consented '^ '-,'"?" >8- 'If.men escape to another country on ar he"™!"™ X''^ ''""• '"" *'""^' 'heir wiveT njlthe George con"e«eS.' """"'" "= '° "''' ("*") ^""-"^ CAPITOLARV OF Aix-la-ChaPELLE (Aquisgranense). Date a.d. 789. Charlemagne succeeded his father in 76S and he .t t^'rlireThrCh' ? ^°"r *^^ ^^^^h- about'C:. to raise the Christians from semi-barbarism and sem; heathenism to a higher Christian life We all know hn J" sent to the EngHsh Church to help him and howTheTreaJ Lniversit.es of France owe their existence orTheir excel lence to S. Anselm, the English Churchman. Charlemagne with the assistance of Bishops drew un •Capitularies/ which were issued with his authority but are reckoned amongst Ecclesiastical documen /^' th Capitulary of Aix-la-Chapelle will show a dSire to Id K;^":^:-riJis " ''- ''''''-- -^ "^- ^ ^^ Chapter 43. 'It is ordered in the African Council that he'r h?:.h/;'' ^T^'^ ^"-^"^ ^ ^"^band take anothe whi Srst w fe fs 'aliv:> VT ' ?^?," ''''' ^"°^^^^ ^'^^ -hire h ins) follows the Canon given above, 14. Council of Friuli (Forojuliense). Date a.d. 791, 1 the t of m agait the i read dism was : and i Cpro . Ci adhib ah'oqi the Ci wise i marri; Tl marry words, '' Th additic words This Council was held in the reign ofCharlemaene and wkh?h?'^'^ r"" ^'' ^«'■•^^"P• ^^^'^ foundTeaffavou with the King because of his learning and piety. Th: tti writ llquita ^e dai ".hurch Tie are repeated. In J the innocent party ed his wife, and have ery for the sake of a monastery for the wful wife. Similarly sented.' lealthy wife, if he is lother) husband, the les. Similarly in the >ther country on ac- 3 their wives, neither ike (other) consorts. The Canons of the Church ^1 E (Aquisgranense). in 76?^, and he at hen about him, and irbarism and semi- We all know how he I, and how the great ence or their excel- iman. )f Bishops, drew up his authority, but 1 documents ; the ow a desire to ap- ti, and not, as in his Trican Council that take another while other wife while his I^anon given above, The loth Canon of the Council is somewhat long, but the terms are as follows :— < Though a man break the bond of marriage on account of fornication, he may not marry agam while his wife lives, adulteress though she be • and the adulteress must never marry again. Fd hough it is read in the page of the holy Gospel that a man might dismiss his wife only for fornication, it is not read that it was allowed to the man to marry another while she lived • and It cannot be doubted that it is altogether prohibited ' (•prohibuisse quidem modis omnibus non ambigitUi- '). IS- Council of Rome. Date a.d. 826. Canon 16. Nulli liceat excepta causa fornicationis adhibitam uxorem relinquere et deinde aliam copulare • ahoquin transgressorem priori convenit sociari conjugio ' , • No man may leave his acknowledged wife, except for the cause of fornication, and then marry another : other- Wise It behoves the transgressor to be joined to the first marriage. This implies permission to 'the innocent party' to words ^^*'"' ^''°"^'' '^ "^"^^ "°* ^'^^ permission in so many 16. Council of Rome. Date a.d. 853. This Council re-enacted the Canons of 826 with some Ihe 36th Canon was not altered, though a few additions. words were added at the end. 17. Council of Toul (Tullense). Date a.u. 860. rojuliense). f Charlemagne, and 'bund great favour nd piety. This Council directed Archbishop Hincmar, of Rheims to write a letter in their name to the two Metr;poIitan of Aquitaine about the marriage of one Count Stephen and fte daughter of Count Raimond. The whole et^ter is on ^^ indissolubility of marriage : it occupies n neteen SoivThc drift ''"' *'" following are extra'cts which S ;8 The Canons of the Church .u Jlu^ ,"".'°" "" preserved in Christ ?nd the Church that the living with the living can be separated by no divorce for ever in the City of our Lord, in His holy Moun- tain, that is, in the Catholic Church. ' Wherefore those who are lawfully coupled by marriate cannot be separated except for the cause of fornication and those who are separated for the cause of fornication must either remain unmarried or be reconciled, as the authority of the Gospel and the Epistles teaches, and the A/ncan Synod have defined.' The African Canon is then quoted as above. 'Hence it is clearly seen that, just as if the Sacrament of baptism be once received, by which each of the faithful IS incorporated into Christ in the unity of the Catholic £3 ; ^^'^^*^'' 'f '^"?t J°st by any cause ; so, also, the bond of marriage, lawfully celebrated, remains indissolubly knit, though It may seem to be separated for fornication or any other cause. The judgment is learnedly supported from Canon and patristic authorities. 18. Council of Aix-la-Chapelle (Aquisgranense). Date a.d. 862, HI. This Council vvas called on account of the desire of Lothaire to be divorced from his wife Thietbur^a Thev appointed two of their number to resolve this question • • Is It lawful for a man to divorce his wife and to marry another .n the lifetime of the first > ' ' The two worked L\ nigh ' ( nocturno actum tempore'), 'and each handed in his re- port, and all the Council applauded, and with one accord gave thanks to God. The report fills about nine columns of folio, and the conclusion is, 'We contend that he of whom we have to speak must either remain unmarried or be reconciled to his wife, If, at least, he wishes to render obedience to the bacied Scriptures or the authority of the Fathers.' The Apostohc Canon, the African Canon, &c., are quoted to bear this out. This, then is the decision of the Council, who. however, decreed that Lothairc's marriage was null and void from the beginning, so that he was free to marry again Iinrch M The Canons of the Chnrch ;q ist gind the Church, be separated by no d, in His holy Moun- • coupled by marriage :ause of fornication ; cause of fornication e reconciled, as the ties teaches, and the frican Canon is then as if the Sacrament I each of the faithful lity of the Catholic ' cause ; so, also, the remains indissolubly ed for fornication or ed from Canon and APELLE III. It of the desire of Thietburga. They e this question : ' Is nd to marry another worked all night' 1 handed in his re- id with one accord s of folio, and the whom we have to be reconciled to his obedience to the the Fathers.' The &c., are quoted to ncil, who, however, mil and void from rry again. 19. Council ok Nantes (Nanncten.se). Datk uncertain, generally placed at the end of the ninth century, but Sirniond siiys that, if any one thinks it of the seventh century, he is at hberty to do so. Canon 9. If a man's wife have committed adultery, and this have been discovered, and made public by the husband, he may divorce his wife, if he likes, for the cause of fornica- tion ; and she must do public penance for seven years, liut her husband mu.st on no account take another during her lifetime. If he wishes to be reconciled to her, he may, but he must do penance with her ; and, having fulfilled the penance, after the seven years they may come to com- munion. 20. Irish Synod. Date unknown, called after S. Patrick, but without likelihood. Canon 26. Hear the Lord saying, He that is joined to a harlot is one body : again. Let the adulteress be stoned — that is, let her die for this offence— that she may fail to increase, who docs not fail to commit adultery: again, If the woman have become an adulteress, is there any return to her first husband } again. It is not lawful to dismiss a wife except for fornication, as if He would say he may do it for this, therefore if a man marries a second wife as if the first were dead, let them not forbid it. Whoever drew up this Canon had not verified his quotations. The references seem to be to i Cor. vi. 16, Leviticus xx. 10, or S. John viii. 5 — for the law said nothing about stoning — Jeremiah iii. i, S. Matthew xix. 9. But the passage in Jeremiah would certainly excite the hope that under the Gospel dispensation there might be recon- ciliation. The phrase ' Audi Dominum dicentcm ' would not necessarily refer to our Blessed Lord ; it probably means no more than the prophetical ' Hear the word of the Lord,' though the Vulgate generally has ' Audi verbum, for) vocem, (or) sermoncm, (or) consilium, Domini.' Still, we may say that the Canon would have been more regarded if the argument had been omitted. The argument seems to be that, as Scripture said that the adulteress was not to be allowed to live, and, also, that she was not to return to her first husband after a sccoikI legal marriage, thorcfr.re a Christian man is to treat an adulterous wife as if she were 40 T/w Canons of the Chnrch . tiead ; he is not to be recorr-ilpH f« », , another if he pleases. ''^''°"-''^d to her, and to marry 2^. Council of Worms (Wormatiense). Date a.d. 868. to belong ,o th,s Council I f 1^ r"°"' ""•' ^"'>"' marriage to .ho woman in a gros ca'^of "•■■""■? "^ adultery by her hushanH K»f^ if- ^ °' incestuous Jmph-es'iha'^: the w"fe musM^ve h "Tt^' ^'^'^ ^^^'•- '^ his antenuptial incesrw th tl .''"'^^"^ because of to her. ^ '"^'^^ ^''^^ ^ho were not related 22. Council of Tribur (Triburiense). r>ATE A.D. 895. vvom';'n°Lfis'':1i:fn,l'\^"^-^^'^ of concubines. A woman may marrva manThil^^ '°"'"^'"^' ^"^ ^ ^ee the slave wo'maHave been ,,'L/^^^^^^ «"^ '^ lawfully married her he mustT^n h ' ^"r'' ^^^ "'^" ^^^'^ for the cause of "rn'.-catZ «n? \ °" ^^^ ^"'^^^ ^^^^Pt must not marry ^nXr ' '° '°"^ ^' ^'^^ ''^^^ h^ the'mr Ha^;- a^n^d^rbroXrl^rel h^rfe^^r"'"'"^^^^ specified who a errriLndL ""n^ kT,'"'^-,. ^^* '« "°t of the brothers and th^ woman ) ' ^ '^'^ "" '^'^'^ '^'^ to dSrby1e/Llal";rartoX^ S ^^th^Tf"^ long a^:r,it:s: "^^ ^-^-^ '^^o:.^'^:^;^^^^^ 23. Council of Troli (Troslejanum). Date a.d. 909. ■ laws of the Em Jror° one nS ? ^"'■. '>''°"=' "'^ from s. Augustirwhich" s^r^™ ''T r^TT followmg words •— ""^^f^ca. in it occur the Chapter Vlli. (middle). If .he wife have, committed forni( but a And, sUll a Ai marri( Ca for a V iong ai cared i fires of Th Car withoul the for reconci: It i so«icalle ptt^iss This with ne were res The Canons of the Church (iKvch _ __^ 4t > her. and to marry fornication, and the husband so wills it, let her be^Wced • but another wife is not to be married during her lifetime' And, men do not keep wives whose former husbands are still alive, for such marriages arc adulterous. ormatiense). J cases of in -est and Canons are certain Canon permits re- case of incestuous irriage with her. It lusband because of > were not related ■iburiense). of concubines. A cubine, and a free concubine. But if and the man have >n [as wife], except "(^Z as she lives he innot consummate is wife, they are to le same woman to larry. (It is not bly all three, each read of being put Jishop, the Bishop marry another so Another Council of Troli. 2Janum). form of chapters, ^ni. quotes the as a long extract In it occur the have, committed Date a.d. 927. At this Council a Count did open penance for having married agam durmg the lifetime of his first wife. 24. Council of Eanham. Date a.d. 1009. Canon 8. . . . Let no Christian have a divorced woman for a w.fe ; nor take another wife, whilst he has one, but so tongas she hves let her be the only one, if he have really cared fc.- he law of God and have saved his soul from the nres ot nell. This seems plain enough. 25. Council of Boukges (Bituricense). Date a.d. 1031. . , i^u^Tl '^' '^'^°f "^^^ ^^"^ a^^ay their lawful wives wrthout the cause of fornication, may not take others wh'le reLncilTd' "°'' '"^^' husbands ; but let them be It is generally thought that this indirectly allows the «^a led • mnocent husband or wife to remarry. Such permission is certainly at most indirect. 26. Council of Limoges (Lemovicen.e). Date a.d. 1031. _ This Council was almost a continuation of the former with nearly the same Bishops. The Canons of Bodges were read and confirmed, and none others were passed 27. Council of Rouen (Rotomagense). Date a.d. 1072. JTanon 17. No man whose wife has taken the veil mav ever marry another while the first lives ^ Canon 18. If the wife of a man who has gone on a 42 The Canons of the Church pilgrimage, or otherwise, shall have married another man until such time as she have certain information of thi death of the first, let her be excommunicated until sIk have made due satisfaction. The first of these Canons contradicts or repeals th( 13th Canon of Compiegne, A.D. 757 above. The following is a summary of the conclusions arrive at in the preceding pages. For the reasons the reader 1 referred back : — I. 2. 3- 4. 5- 6. 7. 8. 9- 10. II. 12. «3- '4- «S- 16. 17- 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25- 26. 27. Apostolical Canons Elvira Aries Toledo African Milevis Angers Vannes Agde Hertford Apostolical Constitut Soissons Verberie {civil) Compiegne Aix-la-Chapelle (mv" Friuli Rome Rome Tou! Aix-la-Chapelle Nantes Irish Worms . Tribur Troli Eanham . Bourges . Limoges . Rouen ions. A.D. . Second Century. A.D. 305 .. 3'4 I. 400 « 407 „ 416 .. 453 .. 465 „ 506 673 {English) (?) 744 » 753 » 757 ■^ ., 789 79' 826 853 860 862 (?) (?) 868 895 909 1009 {English) 1031 103 1 1072 Prohibit remarriaj Prohibits Prohibits Prohibits Prohibits Prohibits Non-committal Non-committal Prohibits Not to the point Probably prohibit: Allows Allows Prohibits Prohibits Probably allows Probably allows Prohibits Prohibits Prohibits Allows Allows Prohibits Seemingly prohih Prohibits Probably prohibii Probably prohibii Prohibits TH Kai MA Church 1 married another mar in information of tlii nmunicatcd until sIk radicts or repeals tli ibove. lie conclusions arrive reasons the reader i tury. 'I) Prohibit remarriag Prohibits Prohibits Prohibits Prohibits Prohibits Non-committal Non-committal Prohibits Not to the point Probably prohibit: Allows Allows Prohibits Prohibits Probably allows Probably allows Prohibits Prohibits Prohibits Allows Allows Prohibits Seemingly prohih Prohibits Probably prohib:! Probably prohibii Prohibits III. THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. •caffapov oj5i/ ror lov, wavsp re lepov dya\fia, row /iiaivovTwv (livKaKTeov.—S. Clement of Alexandria. MARRIAGE, UKE A HOLY IMAGE, MUST BE KEPT PURE FROM THINGS THAT DEFILE.' HI. THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH 1. Hermas, A.D. about loo {Roman). n said unto him \i.e, the Angel of Repentance who ap- Sared to him m a vision] Sir, if a man should have a wife at IS faithful m the Lord, and shall catch her in adultery •hall a man sm that continues to live still with her ? And ^said unto me. As long as he is ignorant of her sin he ^mmits no fault in living with her; but if a man shall J^ow his wife to have offended, and she shall not repent erf her sin, but go on still in her fornication, and a man ? M. ^°"*'""^ nevertheless to live with her, he shall become |iilty of her sin, and partake with her in her adultery ^nd I said unto him. What therefore is to be done if the goman continues on in her sin ? He answered. Let her Misband put her away, and let him continue by himself. But If he shall put away his wife, and marry another, he shall J|so commit adultery. And I said. What if the woman gat IS so put away shall repent, and be willing to return t|> her husbar.d, shall she not be received by him > He s»«d unto me yes ; and if her husband shall not receive her ne will sin ; and commit a great offence against himself «ut he ought to receive her though an offender, if she repents ; only not often. For to the Servants of God there Mrbut one repentance. And for this cause a man that iJUeth away his wife ought not to take another, because ^ may repent This act is alike both in the man andTn tte woman. Now they commit adultery, not only who pollute their flesh, but who also make an image. If there fore a woman perseveres in anything of this kind and repents not ; depart from her and live not with her, other- wise thou also Shalt be partaker of her sin. But it is there fore commanded that both the man and woman should ^iiaui unmarned because such persons may repent. Nor ao I in this administer any occasion for the doing of these things so : but rather that whoso has offended .should not 46 The Fathers of the Chiuxh u*~''°' "^"'^ " ^•^"" ^^ suffi^iendy^ccrate" Here, then, the command is positive ; and when Dr Pusey says that Hermas ' peremptorily calls ' the marriage of either divorced party during the lifetime of the other adultery, he is perfectly right. It will be well to rema the difference between this passage and the following on the marriage of the divorcod. ^ 'I said, If a husband or a wife die, and the party which survives marry again, does he sin in so doin/? He tha sTn^l ^Tn'lt? 'I"' "^'- "°^'^^'** 'f ^^ ^hall rema I tret;rd-^'(li^'Tp^';^" ^° ''"^^''^^^^^ '°"°"^--^^ While there is a counsel, or advice, here given it i^ quite different from the 'peremptory' forbidding of the marriage of either party to a divorce. 2. S. Justin Martyr, a.d. 140 {Asiatic). In his first Apology (cap. 15) he gives the Emperors Thus'^-'"'""'^''^' ^""'^'^ '"°'^' precepts, and begin< th/^T;?"'"^ chastity He uttered such sentiments as these: Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before GOD And If thy right eye offend thee"cut it out for It ,s better for thee to enter into the kingdom of Heaven with one eye, than, haying two eyes, to be cast into ever- lasting fire. And. Whosoever shall marry her that \< divorced from another husband, committeth adultery bo that all who by human law are twice married, are in "the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her.' ^ XT- The translation of Mr. Marcus Dods, in Clark's ' Ante Nicene Library, is followed (p. 18) as sufficiently faithful Mr. Dods gives the note ' Twice married, lit. : contracting a double marriage. Of double marriages there are three kinds : the first, marriage with a second wife while the first IS still alive, and recognized as a lawful wife, or bigamy the second marriage with a .second wife after divorce fro'rr the first ; the third, marriage with a second wife after the dcat thes right be r word opin caiur the ] word a pei with t^ult marr to ^ m 1 adop Athe excel jClaus rile r( or pi; teach ppini( inissi( 4- Church icr sins God, Who ha< ledy : for it is He Whc :• iv. I). The transla- s sufficiently accurate 'sitive ; and when Dr ily calls ' the marriage : lifetime of the other, will be well to remark and the following on J, and the party which so doing? He that :it if he shall remain elf great honour with ice, here given, it is y' forbidding of the The Fathers of the Church 47 140 {Asiatic). gives the Emperors precepts, and begins such sentiments as man to lust after her, ilready in his heart "end thee, cut it out ; J kingdom of Heaven to be cast into ever- marry her that is itteth adultery. . . :e married, are in the ? who look upon 3 is, in Clark's ' Ante- sufficiently faithful (i, lit. : contracting a jes there are three i wife while the first j1 wife, or bigamy p after divorce from econd wife after the death of the first. It is thought that Justin here refers to the second case ; ' i.e. that of marriage after divorce. And rightly so ; for if he was not referring to this, there would be no special reference in his quotation of our Lord's words which would be applicable. That this was no private opinion of S. Justin, but the received doctrine of the Church, is proved by his challenging the Examination of the Emperors into his statements. 3. Athenagoras, A.D. about 177 {Athenian). •For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions— that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage ; for a second marriage is only specious adultery. For whosoever puts away his wife, says He, and marrie-^ a.. other, commits adultery ; not permitting a man to ' ' ler away whose virginity he has brought to an end, lie , arry again.' Ihe translation in Clark's ' Ante-Nicene Library' is adopted (chapter xxxiii. p. 418). It will be remarked that Athenagoras quotes our Lord's precept without any excepting clause, as if he did not regard that excepting dause to apply to the Gentiles. It is true that he condemns .^e remarriage of the widowed under the name of specious, or plausible, adultery. We can understand that the high ^aching of the New Testament would give rise to this pinion, which is logical ; were it not for the express per- lUission of such marriages in S. Paul's writings. 4- S. Clement of Alexandria, a.d. about 192 {Egyptian). ' Now that Holy Scripture counsels marriage and allows no release from the union is expressly contained in the law, " Thou shalt not put away thy wife ex'^ept for the cause of fornication " ; and it accounts it to be adultery to marry a second time, in the lifetime of the other who has igecn divorced.' ' Ilere, then, is the prohibition to separate, which confirms the bond ; and there is the prohibition to marry after separation, which also confirms the bond. He then gives |he main cause for this ; he regards it as giving space and Opportunity for repentance. ' • Stromal.' lib. U. cap. xxiii., ed. Poller, 1715, p. 506. 48 The Fallin-s of I he Cliiinli would no. ..ceive her, she wU, .turn .o'L M Thus far then, at least, there is no symptom that «, Church ,n any way tolerated remarriage in Kr mrtv t tharxS-lulHanT''- '"■="■"••' °f ''°«'- Some hav SS tnat lertuiJian was inconsistent. " 5. TeRTULLIAN, A.D. 200 (^A/frt«). The remarkable point about the evidence of T. tulhan IS th s : that when Dr Pnc«,, f^iaence ot Tcr translation of Tertullian " tS • lSv of Ve°F i" "i iote .1-1 '"""T- "ote against his friend and h t rf e.t!™Th,-hriit^^uth:;?;^v- ts - ^t;.;}. of as aiwal;rSs° e"r;n;^;ys"rtur''ft" =sir.•r„t^\-ris:H3: Lord confirmed the limLfon mike brMoses Atllr' .^ *., ./ *..., Mr. KeSl's Sgt/nfc'ovl^tS fe„ol"s;rr'Jr„"t ,"t:'Lli^^cS'oit tT'e ^^' ^f °^1 ll%W of cc O{^0 not c shoul u{ion eaily dtffici Tertu a»sor If Dr. explic divorc sancti is clea speak' demnc divorc taken It niaj such a thin o Th pilatc seiibnd course death, divorce on thei Vol. P- 431 iq. wafe ofi of! so : nol ch( they -sh esq^rcs.s mire tt peisibic h«?e, th Oditrar) ^The tl^n, f 4| 'i ■^^ ' C/iitn/i :ed woman, committct divorce his ivife, h he compelleth her t who divorced her ar ed her into his houst lion to sin. For if h eturn to her husband The Fathers of the Ch%inh 49 no symptom that th Jage in either party t . Some have though ) {African). he evidence of Tcr sey, in a note in hi rary of the Fathers, arriage after divorce, St his friend and hi; ' to demur to the in- 5 on which it stands iction marriages after the Fathers, the sup- "ten a mere ' reading • taking for granted separation is spoken lied a breach of the arriage with another '*m need not imply as many after him, :thew, by which our ^ Moses in respect oj ^en as an indication the right o{ separa- fument covers eight now, best beloved 5r thee, as well as I d by a holy woman, ', taken away. Let 1, out of regard to im women warning itti who when, by divorce or a husband's death, an occasion of contmency is offered, have not only thrown away the opportunity of so great a good, but even in marrying have not chosen to remember the rule, that first and chiefly thev should marry in the Lord.' ' y ^/ Here the translation by Dr. Pusey is taken, as he founded ujion this passage his note affirming that Tertullian and the e^y Church allowed ' of marriage after divorce.' It is rather d^cu t to see how this could be asserted ; for, first of all rtrtulhan cites the examples of these women as a warnin<^ aj^omething to avoid, as having violated Christian precept' Ifl)r. Pusey s argument holds, that ' Tertullian here, not less eg)hcitly because incidentally, allows of marriage after divorce, it must also hold good that Tertullian explicitly «inct.oned marriage with a heathen. If he regarded (as i^ isclear that he does) marriage with a heathen, which he 2!!! J" .u ' u^'"^ ^^''*'" P'^'^^' ^= ^'■°"g and to be con- demned, then he cannot be said to allow of marriage after divorce It would seem that he mentioned both assaying taken place, as to be regarded as examples to be avoided It may be said that he seems to regard the marriage of sueh a woman as worse if it take place with a heathen th»n otherwise but this is about all that can be .said ^The remarks of Mr. Kcble here seem so very aDoro- I^te that they arc given :-' At the beginning of Ts se^nd book Ad Uxorem, in warning his wife a^rabst a c^rse to which he thought^she might be tempted after his death, he makes mention of "certain women who, when by divorce" (which, be it observed, might be quite involuntary pn^their side ;-it might be a case of the unbeliever depart^ wl' nfl ""J '^P h"^band s death, an occasion of continency w^ offered had not only thrown away the opportunity of so great a good, but even in marrying again had thl rT. '° '"'""'^^r '^^ '■"'^' that first^ and chiefly th^ should marry in the Lord." I cannot see that thi^ expresses any permission of marriage after Divorce, any ^ K I" ";'arrying an unbeliever. No doubt both were poteibic by the secular law, but for anything ^hat apo^ars ^•rarJto"? p'^^r' ""^ " uncanonica'l, as^censl-abT a cofltrary to S Paul's rule, as the other ' The other passages alleged from Tertullian are. all of -, ffom t.-catises written after he had lapsed into *u A J. Uxor. II. X, E 50 The Fathers of the Church heresy, but there fs only one which does not unequivocal condemn marriage after divorce. In his treatise De Momgamid, the ninth chapter \ takes It for granted that there can be no divorce and'f argues against the Church for allowing second m'arria?t while condemning marriage after divorce He felt Athenagoras did, that one and one only marriage was • be tolerated for man and woman. In this chapter he li- the following :— speaking of the Roman civil law \ says : — * They, while they do not divorce, form adulteroi connections : we, though we divorce, will not be allowc even to marry.' That is, the divorce is only one a tnensA et thoro ar not a vinculo. ' In the Fourth Book of his treatise against Marcio m the 34th chapter, another passage occurs Te tulhan is arguing against Marcion, who alle&ed' certa passages '^om S. Luke's Gospel (the only Gospel whk Marcion accepted) as contrary to the Old Testament I the passage in question Marcion says that the Lore teaching about divorce is contrary to that of the Law Moses. Tertullian answers that he will not allege t^ passage m S. Matthew, which would disprove this but i will take S. Luke's account. ' ' I say that He forbade divorce with a condition if man put away his wife in order to marry another ' F( he who marries one unlawfully put away is as much a adulterer as if she were not put away at all. For marria^ which is not duly broken remains. And while marria' remains to remarry is adultery. Thus if He prohibited" put avvay a wife conditionally, He did not prohibit altogether. And what He did not altogether prohibit F permitted in other cases where the cause of prohibitic ceases. ^ The argument is strained, because there is some sped pleading involved, so that it is not altogether to be woi dered at that the passage is explained both ways. Ill Keble says, « The course of the argument is somewhat pe plexed ; but is it not on the whole tolerably clear that ti Divorce which it recognizes does not go beyond tt Xassa 4 ' In «|it he jjlacefu «|ulter #cept Hdhe "'^^ e Church does not unequivocal , the ninth chapter,!: be no divorce, and \ ving second marriage divorce. He felt ; e only marriage was : In this chapter he hi Roman civil law \ 'orce, form adulteroi :e, will not be allowe : a mensd et thoro, ar itise against Marcio assage occurs. Te I, who alleged certa le only Gospel whic e Old Testament. 1 says that the Lore to that of the Law e will not allege \\ disprove this, but \ with a condition, if arry another . , . F( away is as much « at all. For marria^ And while marria: IS if He prohibited ; : did not prohibit (together prohibit, F cause of prohibitii there is some speci iltogether to be wo: ned both ways. M lent is somewhat pe erably clear that ti not go beyond tl other supposition le citation from tl: iiately precedes tl: The Fathers of the Church 51 present quotation. It would seem as if the uncertainty of flie utterance m this particular passage arose from the necc ity of maintaining what must be regarded as an erroneous position, instead of maintaining that the require- ments of the Christian life are higher than those required of Jewish hardheartedness. . The next passage is remarkable for the great variety g- readmg, which introduces great change of meaning The passage is from the treatise De Exhortatione Castitath Chapter iv. In the Paris Edition of 1675 it is as follows •-- , ' But neither in tne Gospel, nor in the Epistle of Paul Wmself, can you find that the separation of the marriaee te IS permitted by the command of God. Whence one aiing IS confirmed to be held, that what is not found to be permitted by the Lord is excused.' This last sentence seems strange, therefore it cannot be jpondered at that there is some variation. The text of ^hler, 1853 (vol. ii. p. 743) is as follows :— xL ' ^^} "^'^^*^'" '" *^^ Gospel, nor m the Epistles of Paul Wrnself, can you find that the iteration of marriage is per- mitted {iterationem instead of separationem) by the com Mand of God. Whence one thing is confirmed to be held l|at what is not found to be permitted by the Lord is mnowledged to be forbidden' (cignosciturinterdictum instead m tgnosatur). Some manuscripts have rationem instead ofZ/^rationem ' or ' j^/«rationem,' as if the scribe was uncertain. However fell-^!]'^ ?^^"'"| ?" b^ tJ^at marriage after divorce is forbidden, for S. Paul distinctly allows, nay, in some cases recommends, the second marriage of widowed spouses Again, in his treatise on Modesty, chapter xvi.. there is a passage as follows : — ^ ' In the meantime also in prohibition of divorce, instead of It he maintains either continuance of widowhood, or else peaceful reconciliation, by the Lord's command against adultery: since, "Who.soever hath sent away his wife Wtcept because of adultery, maketh her to commit adultery,' S^nl^! fv! TV}^^ .f. '^°"'^" '^"' ^'^^y ^y ^^' husband committeth adultery. ^ Of all these passages, the first alone was written by ^hodox Tertulhan ; in that he speaks of the examples of asvorced women marrying again as examples to be avoided much as Christian women marrying heathen men. The »ers are all written after he became a heretic. But iit K 2 f2 TAe Fathers of the Church ma,nla,„ an indefensible position ; and the e?r^,l" co« adic. Ls l/''^" '" '"^""'= "■'^' «>™ TertullS 6. Origen, A.D. 245 {Egyptian and ^/to«). In his homilies on S. Matthew " r>^:™„ l case as exceotiom,! °' ^^'^'^*'^".'ty- Origen mentions this recorded b/s° M^t^.f '' "' ''^^"'"^ *^^* ^^^ "^<^Ptio" oiaecl by b. Matthew was not regarded as allowi.ii^ rem inos Hon affec preti Wou lerpi tfien Itfer geh's i \ ffiudi the f Jlestif 'and ] up in whicl .wife let hi Ir of Mi ■ttien lean t mttem ;:tiate Jtvas a iiccon ^rue f)egin! '1 Ti thefb fellect :|raditi Ifthe or r>) vol. iii. p. 647. Bi- p"hetor imonf ^ivine, ^^langua Ibably SConstz ^hurch The Fathers of the Church 53 irding marriage after lere he is striving tn and there, too, the permission to marry this, then Tertuliian t and Syrian). Origen has a lonj,- and marriage after be sufficient for our even some of the certain woman to and, acting contrary " A woman is bound n, "Then the woman Jand's h'fetime, shall ther without excuse, permitted in coni- yy to what from tin as Scripture' And as a woman is an ' be married to a '^e; so also a man does not so much >n, as h've in a state able, for it covers f Egypt, and also art of his life. He itted the marriage law and Scripture gen mentions this only tolerable as ins. He says dis- ^ the marriage of. luring the lifetime : this was so from lemarnage after divorce to Christians. It is certainly most remarkable that we cannot find any trace that the exccL tton mentioned in S. Matthexv was regarded as in any 7vay affecting the unconditional condemnation of such' seeming' or pretended marriages (as Origen calls them). This surely would imply that there was some traditional mode of in- terprcting S. Matthew, which was tacitly accepted Had fliere been no such tradition we might expect some IteJercnce to the seeming discrepancy between the Evan- 0eiists. ■^ fr\ *''''"' 'r '''^'l.^^ '^^l' t" "lake a pause, because the ttiuddy stream of avil policy from this time begins to soil ttie pure flow of Christian tradition. The Fathers thus far Jest.fy to the tradition of Egypt, Syria, Athens, Rome, jnd perhaps As,a Mmor. Their testimony is well summed Bp Ml vyhat is called 'the forty-seventh Apostolical Canon' which .s as follows :-' If any layman having put away his y^ife marry another, or marry a woman divorced by another let him be excommunicated* ' _ In the year 3 14 a.i, there was issued the famous Edict Of Mi an and it began to be popular and fashionable for f^en to 'call themselves Christians.' From this time we «an trace an ebb and flow of Christian law : there was an attempt to rela.x the strictness of Christianity to accommo- date semi-heathen morals, while at the same time there was an endeavour to make the heathen law more strict to jccommodate relaxed Christian law. This seems to be the leSn^'^beS" "' '^" '"'"'"" "'^'^^ ^''^"^ "^'^ ''^^' ■ Tradition begins to lose its force : the great Saints of |he fourth and fifth cer^uries introduce (q Jte rightly) in fellectual argument, wh ch gradually takes the place of |radit.onal teaching until it becomes difficult to separate «he one from the other. ^-^-aiaic 7. Lactantius, A.D. cir. 320 (African). lat the exception rded as allowint,' iii. p. 647. k, ,^'!^°P ^"" says of Lactantius that he was rather a |hetor.cian than a theologian, and was never received ;-?amongst the doctors of the Church. He was a Court jdivine, and was so imperfectly informed that he uses language at times which may be heretical, but which pro- |bably was not mtended so to be. He was the tuto? to |Constantme's son, Crispus. 54 Tlie Falhers of I Ik Church fono« ""'"■''' °" "■= '■"'J=" """^ consideration Z, a, her husband, but the husband evenTheSLT" ''""■* ■s free from the charge of ad',?,™ ' ^B„^t\rDrvirT"' ever have wrenched asunder f^l adulterous who- ^:^ioi; ISS~r™?--^^^^^ woman put away f om her hf, K !;^° ^^\ "^^'"'^^ ' except for X^^llZ^i ^aL ^l""^ '' ^ ^^^° he who, to marry another For r ^'^' ^.^' P"' ^^^^ ^is wife dissever/d. andt^ncSd a^ulde^rBo^rv^Af ^ '°^^ worts &t;Te%:nTs ^K ^^^^^te^ - As a other, so let the husband h.T. J'C *'''?'*'*>' *° ^^^ire no God hath%Ld tSer hX"nH^^ '^^ 'f^^ ^^^' «'"« of one body. On twfaccounrHr,? ^""^ ""'^^ '" ^^^ ""i"" wife shall noVbe out .Z ^^' commanded that the adulteo': thatsothrbondo?r''P' -^'^' '°""''=''°" °f nev.^e dissolv^iXt^uX^fX^^^^^ ^r:^\s^:sf^ '•" ^^^ --f r miirab^'s The reader can judge for himself nf ti,» . inaccuracy of this remark n^ S^ ^ *"^ accuracy or words, but onW iTetth. r^^^y "^""^^ not quote the betwe;n ?he lines ^hen.t '^^^'^''^^- Without reading law for both husbandinf A ""'".' *° ''^^"''•^ ^^e sam does uo^ °ay th^t dJht"!;' ^e^C ^7.^^"-^'^ '>'. -^ silent about the man a, ^hL[?u^' ^'^^ Passage is as remarriage. It might as well £e T""'." with respect to says that ' he is an ad.flLT u^ \'^"^^ ^^^^ "^^cause he pu't away from WhulbtT^het^he'rlhrbT"^^^^ ^- "°'"^" party or not : therefore th^ "^"etner she be an mnocent a.i.e, and if ^.Te S^CIris Se^ntr Sh"™" Ifospiti « W( Church ' consideration are as nethod of public law, has another beside he has many women, But the Divine law persons into marriage oned adulterous who- ipacted body.' And, Id think that he can epts, there are added fraud be put out of who has married a d ; as also he who, s put away his wife not have the body ook vi. § 23). 1 he writes :— ' As a hastity to desire no the same law, since nd wife in the union commanded that the after conviction of ■riage covenant may ess have broken it Dr. Pusey remarks lits it \i,e. marriage Ke man ; about the of the accuracy or does not quote the Without reading to require the same ire conjungit '), and The passag*^ is as lan with respect to ed that because he married a woman he be an innocent woman is not an c is married is an t both are bound >ken for both. The Fathers of the Church 55 8. S. Ambrose, a.d. 386 {Lombardy). ' Let no man make himself easy on account of mere . nan laws. All illicit intercourse is adultery ; and that it not permitted to a man which is forbidden to a woman. The same chastity is due on the husband's side, as on the M^fe's. Whatever has been committed against her who i» not the man's lawful wife incurs condemnation as «|ultcry.' ■ , In his Sermons on S. Luke,^ he says, ' Be unwilling therefore to put away a wife, lest thou deny God to be ^ Author of thy marriage. For if you ought to tolerate Mid amend the manners of strangers, how much more of your wife! Hear what the Lord said. He that putteth away his wife causeth her to commit adultery. Because, since it is not lazvful for her during her husband's lifetime t9 enter upon a new marriage ' (' mutarc conjugium '), ' sin- illl desire may possibly steal in upon her by surprise. And SO he that is the cause of her error, is guilty of her fault.' 9. S. Jerome, a.d. 346-420 {Roman and Assyrian). His account of the penance of Fabiola for having Married a second husband in the lifetime of her first liusband, whose evil life had driven her to separate from Wm, is well known. The following are one or two nassaees from it :— ' ^ % ' Fabiola then, because she had persuaded herself; and Wought that her husband was rightfully divorced, and iecause she had not known the full force of the Gospel, in which every plea for marriage, while the husbands live, is tut away from women, in avoiding many wounds of the devil, incautiously received this one." Just before he had Said, ' With us (Christians) what is forbidden to women, is equally forbidden to their husbands, and the same rule is f ecreed by like condition.' ^ , He goes on to say that, after the death of her second ftusband, she ' came to herself,' and put on sackcloth and ittood amongst the penitents in Rome ; and when before the Church she had been readmitted to communion, she fave up her ample fortune to the poor, and founded a ospital, and worked in it as a nurse. We see that Fabiola, being young, took advantage of ' De Abraham, I. iv. Opera (Paris, 1686), Tom. i. col. 291. » Lib. vjii. § 4, ib. col. 1471. • Epis. Ixxvii,, Ad Oceanum, § 3. 56 The Fathers of the C/iunh she ' came to herTeir she d h ' ^"'''f ^ = ^"^' ^^at when which she would nVhav^fr'"'n°^^-^^ '^^^^'"itv Roman Church at the tfme tn?" f^^^^^ *° ^° ^^^ the is ridiculous to suppose That t'''^ '""'^ T"'''''^^^^- '= allowed to do pubr;enance h TaXor ' ''^*^ "^"^ nary fault. It is quite true that S Li. ^T ^" '"^''^Si' for her. which am^ount to th^-d^/t shTwT"''' '^'^""^ s:sj^pre^:;r' -^ '^^ - wt.:^.=^.v- wo^an.^h::^j^fs: di;:>r:i/^^s^^rf ^ ^^^^^^^^^ to another, and who wished TrT'i .5>^/°''^e carried by foTcT :X'aS; Tr'^h^w^^^ f ^'' "- -™p="^' of Christ, and no be r'epu eJan a nl^'^'^ *= »°''' penance: so that howev/r S .r """"pf'^'^s, must A i^ not called a''hu^r„rCt*:dXr"er 'r'"""' "* company from the time of her penatSc ■ ""^ ""' n.onJ rlS ^speS^rthfTar ':^ ^^'^^^ much room for doubt here. '^'^'^ '^ "°* 10. S. Augustine, a.d. 354-429 {African). afterdfvotcrDr"?ulf :f "" ^'^-^^ suades from\ but thSsTrvr-'T^'^ 'Augustine d,^. reference to any of the cleien ^T""^ T""' = ^^ ^'^^^ "" but probably he had in M= a '"'u'""'"' °^ '^'^ ^^0'-'<^ treatL Z?. J/ilV2)irL^ m-nd the passajje 'in the Ji^t^^'^SfSSiSr^F^^ married anoSr does ^otM'*"'/"! '" ^^"'^^^-y' ^"^ have who divorce excent for S. *° ^' "" ^ P^"" ^^''^h those again :and'nSiv[nesen'tr.ol?^^^ ^"^ "^^-3' theman.whowiSr^S?"^'^-t--l.tHc. ' Epis. Iv. §4, AdAmandum. C/tunh narriagc, and married isband ; and that vvlicn e of extreme scveritv lowed to do had the J such marriages. It lan would have been :kcloth for an imagi- irome makes excuse; she was young, and V the strictness of the u are deaf, let His ST NOT have con- you must not have marry wives. How if you wish to have ist not have wives And, women, you er wives still live, y the law of the "i- You may not )m her husband by •ecause of fornica- may not be mar- men as husbands, ^ divorce : they are single reference, thinks it a venial night be quoted; . Austin was fully h marriages after '503. The Fathers of the Church 59 II. S. Chrysostom A.D. 347-407 {Eastern). The golden-mouthed rhetoric of S. Chrysostom makes it somewhat difficult to be certain what his opinion was • the result seems rather to be that he is quoted on both #des, which may be due to his superabundant rhetoric. . There is no doubt expressed in the following passage ffom his 62nd Homily on S. Matthew :— ' But now both by the manner of the Creation and the toanner of the legislation, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never be separ- ated. . . . After that, with authority He Himself interprets ind gives the law, saying, So they are no nore two, but line flesh. As, therefore, to mutilate the flesh is impious so to divorce a wife is against all law. And He stayed not tihere, but also brought in God, saying. What therefore God joined together, let not man put asunder : Showing fiat It IS done against nature, and against law : against jature, for one flesh is cut in twain ; against law, because llrhen God hath joined, and commanded that there be no ieparation, ye yourselves endeavour to do it' .^ It would be impossible to use stronger language in fcvour of the indissolubility of marriage; but in the J^th Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians there is a rhetorical passage, which may mean that mar- •lage may be dissolved by unfaithfulness. He is speaking On the passage ' the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the Wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband ' •He asks why this is. 'How, then, in this case has the Jncleanness [of unbelief] been overcome, so that fellowship *as been permitted ; but in the case of the woman who Commits fornication, the husband who casts her off is not Condemned? Because in the one case there is a hope to lave the lost party by means of the marriage, but in the bother the marriage has been already dissolved ; there both are corrupted, but here the accusation is only against f ne. . . Again, after the wife's fornication, the husband J no longer a husband, but in the other case, even if the |v^^ be an idolater, the right of the husband is not It may be doubted whether more is meant here than m extreme kind of rhetorical antithesis. There is no ord of permission of remarriage. 6o The Fathers of the Church 12. S. Basil, a.d. 360-378 (Eastern). Ethics-Rule 73. ' A husband must not separate from h.s wife, nor a wife from her husband, except onH detected m fornication, or be hindered from piety ' V Ii \f%' T u'"''^ '^'l i-^ grounded are S Matthew vii. 10, II '"''• '^' ^- ^^"'^"^ '^•^- 9, I Co, Rule 74. ' A husband who has sent away his own wifr The text in proof is S. Matthew xiv. 9. 1 his IS the opinion of Basil before he came into a •Even though her husband be rough and brutal in manners, yet she must bear with him, and on noexcul must she consent to tear asunder the unity ' Thus far we seem to have S. Basil's own mind • but when he became Bishop and Metropolitan hT had administer the Canons and Customs he found in use R.-ci, f'l^^^. ^ '^"*^' ^ Canonical letter (216) "to the B. hop of Iconium, and here we can see that he docs no quite agree with the rule he has to enforce ' Canon 77. He that leaves his lawfully married wife and marries another, according to t'.. Lord's decision ' ?,?;H\°^^"^."•'''>'• ^"* ^y *h^ ^'^"°"« of our father .uch should do penance as Mourners for one year Hearers' for two years, Prostrators fo, three years and in Z seventh year should be reckoned :^th' the fait ful an thus^be reckoned worthy of the oblation, if with Eears they infl.""* ^fT ?'' ^^ ^^^ '^"^ °ther answers which have Church 8 {Eastern). Jst not separate from band, except one be i from piety.' ided are S. Matthew tthew xix. 9, i Cor, It away his own wife I'oman divorced from iv. 9. "ore he came into a disciph'ne, and whilst he preached some ' these he speaks to usbands though they >ugh and brutal in n, and on no excuse inity,' iil's own mind ; but )politan he had to ; found in use. letter (216) to the see that he docs not irce. vfully married wife ■ Lord's decision, is ons of our fathers, r one year, Hearers years, and in the h the faithful, and n, if with tears they inswers which have •e quoted by Arch- He seems to be d (as is natural) by The Fathers 0/ the Church 6: )crtains equally to ng lawful to with- draw from marriage except for fornication. But custom is not so.' 'Canon 21. If a man living with his wife, and then not content with his marriage, falls into fornication, we judge Wm to be a fornicator, and we give him a longer penance However, we have not a Canon to bring him under th^ diarge of adultery if the sin be with an un.narried Woman ... So that a wife must receive her husband «oming home from his fornication ; but the husband shall lend away from his own house his wife who has been defiled. And of this the reason is not easily given : but tSustom has so prevailed.' ' Canon 48. She that has been deserted by her husband according to my opinion, should remain unmarried' S. Basil then seems to bear witness that a laxer rule, Which was not e.^sy to excuse, was tampering with the Strictness of Evangelical discipline. 13- S. Epiphanius, a.d. 367-403 {Eastern). ■ .There is one passage in his great work on heresies Which bears on this suK--ect. It is obscure in the original ^nd, iiKleed. \ho text a. 1 : stands is corrupt, but the general drift of It is plain. f 'It is lawful to bear with the weakness of the lay |)eople, and when they cannot stay at the first wife, they may couple with a second wife after the death of the first ^nd he that has had only one is held in higher esteem and ^onour with Church people. But he that cannot be tontcnt with one after her death, divorce havi v^ taken place on any excuse, fornication, adultery, or other evil cause, if the man marry a second wife (or the wife a ;|iecond husband), the Divine word blames him not, and Soes not hide him from the Church and life, but tolerates Jiim because of his weakness. Not that he may have two ^ives at the same time, but having been separated from one, If perchance he have been lawfu^.y married to a second, the Holy Word and the Holy Church of God have pity on him. \\^XQ' lawfully married ' clearly refers to the civil law i;.piphanius does not cite any passage of Scripture, or ^anon. and the causes mentioned for divorce are wider than the exception in S. Matthew. i 62 The Fathers of the Church 14. Hilary, the Deacon, cir. a.d. 384 {liofnan). He is the reputed author of a Commentaiy on S Paul's Epistles, generally bound up with the worksofS. Ambrose which has caused him to be called Ambkosiaster Hijan- was a man of some importance. He was sent by L."eri wuh Lucfer of Cagliari and the priest Pancratfus to ] Emperor Constantius. This intimacy with Lucifer led his embracmg for a time the views (which were regarded and treated as heretical) of Lucifer of Cagliari. But h was reconciled to the Church before his death. The foT owing passage is from his Commentarj^ on the First Epi °e to the Connthians vi. 10, 1 1. His view is remarkabte^^ r .u u \^P°^*^'^s advice is that if the wife depart because of the husband's ill life, she must remain unmar ed or reconctledto her husband. But [he says], if she cannn contain because she does not wish to'^fi'gh against h flesh, let her be reconciled to her husband For iHs no a owed to the wife to marry if she have put away he husband on account of fornication, or apostasy, or Lo! immora ity : because the inferior has not altogether The ^sZ law as the superior. If, he v.yer, he have fpostatized o 'And the husband must not dismiss his wife But we must understand "except for the cause of foT^cation ' And therefore he did not add, what he did of the S". wi^f %K '" "^^y-^arry again if he dismisses his sln^in. wife; for the man is not bound by the same law as Hp woman. For the head of the woman is the man ' r..J 'A '" °"\*^'".g about this, that the writer knows his own mind, and that is that the rights of the two sexes a e altogether unequal. The perfectly innocent w^?e ma' not ag in"atXsure ' "'" "'^ '""'" ^'^ ^'''' ^^ --ry IS. S. ASTERIUS, A.U.,- ^^ (^Asiatic). FathJ'r'''? "° Tif^" r °^ '^^^'''''^ *° ^^^ ^'"'g'nal of this K:;i::.'se;ud.';'T/:^ ^°"'^^^'"^^ ^° -py ^-m m^ Church The Fathers of the Church D. 384 {Roman). timentary on S. Paul's works of S.Ambrose, 3R0SIASTER, Hilary was sent by Liberius ;st Pancratius to the 7 with Lucifer led to which were regarded of Cagliari. But he his death. The fol- r on the First Epistle tv is remarkable :— wife depart because ain unmarried, or b( ays], if she cannot :o fight against the band. For it is not have put away her ■ apostasy, or gross f altogether the same ave apostatized, or marry another, nor iss his wife. But use of fornication." le did of the wife : smisses his sinning e same law as the the man.' le writer knows his ■ the two sexes are cent wife may not it be reconciled to is wife, and marry ' They are lo more twain, but one flesh. What, there- fore, God hath joined together let no man put asunder. So He then spake to the Pharisees : Hear it now, ye who trade in wives, who change them as garments from time to time . . . Who marry the dowry and the property, but count the persons matter of gain and traffic : who on alight offence write a bill of divorce, and leave, as it were Wiany widows living. Make up your minds, be entirely f onvinced of it, that marriages are severed by nothinz save -math and adultery' ' He dwells [says Mr. Keble] on this sub-V-t long and earnestly, introducing a great variety of topics, as one who ^as dealing with a present and flagrant >-vil : allowing however, in conclusion, that if the husband justly plead Adultery as his ground of divorce, all our approbatic- and Sympathy should go along with him. ^ ' "The^law of continence [adds Asterius] is enacted of Xjrod, not for women only, but for men as well : although they, adidtng by human lawgivers, who give them leave to Je impure^ are severe judges and exactors of female thastity, while themselves, with all shamelessness, run wild ^fter many wives ... But if any, lending ear to the laivs 0/ Rome, think themselves licensed to commit whore- dom . . . they know not how very greatly the Divine laws (disagree with the doctrine of men." ■ ' Probably [is tl • comment of Mr. Keble] the writer of :'- ^ater on ife w ot^ miZ:tl'Zl^l': '"^^^P-*^^ *- mean something Letter IX. (what„o„ede„ies)tha,shrwas h™a„' „i?e' Ah ^^^^^^^^^ «* determine, in' accordance Wiethe C^.hol^'TJh"'?,^'; «=t,s marriage whicl, was first perform^tyM^f^et^^^^^^^ ■not even east off by divorce 'th^l ,hI"T""i '''•'■"^>''' *» n-oi^tSi'se 5- :",fdiitr r tLr h iz Labbe, ConciUa, Tom. ii. col. ,256. . n,u. Ton,. ii. col. 1263. 66 The Fathers of the Church m by no law, or no agreement' ; pactum has been used r a marriage contract. The meaning might be that as t c|v. lawhad not been invoked to dissdve thf mkrria' SeSa ' Th ''V'"^ ^"" ^°"^^ "^^'^^ the seco?/ma of f Jfl ^^ Y^ "^"^f "°t '^^"^ *° be the least sympto first quSS °' °P'"'°" '^^"^ ''''' ^'^'^^ «-'y - t" i8. S. Hilary of Poitiers. a.d. 356 {Gallican). S. Hilary has been quoted as in favour of divorce an remarnage. but the passage scarcely bears out thrdaTm - Commendmg equity towards all, He commanded tb It should specially be maintained in the peacTS marrla, adding much to the law [of Moses] and takin^noS from ,t. Nor indeed can the improvement be^diW For when the law had given liberty of giWng Xo' under the authority of a writing, nlw thffLkli of t Gospel not only enjoined a wish for peace on the husbarJ but also laid on him the guilt of a wife forced into adJ pelled to depart : as it prescribes no other cause of ceas°V of cfs"sS!nn nr l' "° ""^'^ ^^'^ "^^'"^ t^^" ^^e permission would imply shameless and continued sin T^J^l ^'!, ^^'"Pe"* on the nineteenth chapter of « Matthew there ,s nothing bearing on our present subiec* he'matter ToeL"'*' -mewhaf of awe an'Sr^ncfo; c;.«'i^"' ^•^'■^ "l^^'^age is a sacrament (or mvsteriou- simile, or sign) of the heavenly life and of the eteSX hey'mfdtVvTe I^^^t'^'-' ^'^^5^ SirfaS eteTnSf .L V ^^^V ^"^""'^ *^^ association of thi. fll ! S ^ . ^"'^ '" *b'^ place indeed we will eive Sfv^rcT to '^nn'T 5? -^^g'-" above in treSi^| 1 i-'ivorce, to consider diligent y what is sifrnifipH ^r^u nature (..,i,„.) of .he RlsurrJction and To .tt whS ■tras grca 6y.' 1 Jlker the] Ittto IV iKar line, : I from |Bntei fer ui fornic^ They r« |»efer which freely »wife prmit Irself ^ainsl )d.' Hei ^twee wh 1st, a Mr. 3of t to disn ' /» m!; L? '"•••§ f ' ^f'^"^'- '730. i. col. 686. /« Matt. cao. XXII. § 3 ; ibid. coj. 77S. ■fe Sevc llowin gi Church might be translate^ turn has been used r might be that, as tli: dissolve the marriag: tiake the second mar be the least symptoir : stated firmly in tht The Fathers of the Church ^ 67 ras spoken to Eye in the person of Adam, because it is a reat sacrament (or mystery) ; lest it be carelessly passed 3. 356 {Gallican). "avour of divorce anc )ears out the claim :- He commanded tha le peace of marriage and taking nothin. )vement be disputed y of giving divorct ow the faith of the eace on the husband ■ife forced into adui ise of his being com ther cause of ceasing jsband by the societ; than the permissior 'ca.se prostitutes uxori sin. nth chapter of S our present subject we and reverence 01 of the Marriage c ent (or mysterious of the eternal glon .ightly therefore are association of this new body was now ndeed we will give »ove in treating o' is signified of the nd also that which . i. col. 686. Here then there js little ground for mistake ; S. Hilary JJcens marriage to the eternal union of soul a^d body n Je Resurrection ; ths does not admit of any divorce " •• to admit of remarriage with another "'^orce, so , Mr. Keble says: 'To estimate these sayings we must fc' Vw"!'^i-^' ','u"f.'° frequently asserted by S.Augus ine. That Indissolubility is inseparable from the primlve |r Christian, or Sacramental Union of Marriage.' f '^^' I 19- S. Chromatius, A.D. ctr. 405 {/tattan). Lnl M^'V'lf"'''' ^^^'^ ''°''''' °^this Father, and quote wom Mr. Keble's translation.* ^ 'Wherefore let those men be well aware what a heavy gntence of condemnation they incur in God's sight who Thnlh^? ' ;? ^T ^^""^ '° P^^^ t° another marriage ^Z^^^aT .k'^ "^^ '? ''''^ \rr^?rxmty, because it seems Mrmitted by the laws of man and of the world ; not know- ^ that hereby they aggravate their fault, in that th^y SSch God'Lr i°-'T''u'" ^^''^^'"g that lawf ( Seclv aUowPH h °''''^'"«'^ *° ^.^ ""'^^^"'' because it is JS I ^ r^.""^"' ^"* ^^ •' 's '"ipiety to put away a wife who IS living in chastity and purity so ^Lll ErTeir^nfi't ?o"^r^^" ^^""''r^^' becE^hThalrmlde Herself unfit for the society of a husband, who by sinning :ainst her own body hath dared to profane the tempko^f ^tv^e'elTcrrist's iLw "T ^'''''■"''°" ""^ *^^ antagonism .iween Lhrists law of marriage and the Imperial civil which was gradually corrupting the DivineTaw n hi .nf ;u . S ^^^^rks on the quotation : ' There is no dLmSat' "^ '" ' '"'"^"^"* '"^^"^Se. as well a^ 20. Theodoret, A.D. 433 {Syrian). ^^^(:^i^::^\:z.:^ ^^""^ ^^--^ ^^^^-' ^^^ ^^^ Sr,/i/.-/, p. rsi, ' /*'V. p. 166. r 2 68 The Fathers of the Church In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Roman, chapter vii. 3,' he says : — ' The law calls her an adulteress, not the one who join. herself to another man after the death of her husband bu' who, while her ronsort survives, is joined to another'- fo- this on . to:., wands to be punished as insulting the'lau of marr:age It is manifest, then, that when her husbanc has reached the end of his life, it is lawful and not un awful for the widow to marry another. And the Apostle knew that the law gave free license to the living to dis sever their marriage when it was not to their mind But he gave heed to his Master's teaching, which said tha- Moses gave this law because of the Jews' hardne<^s 0; heart ; but the law of nature added nothing of the sort i' • God made one man, and one woman, laying down the lau of marriage m their very creation.' This seems pretty clear ; it speaks of marriage a^ existing between one man and one only woman, jujf as r was instituted in Paradise. .J"- ctbi Again, on i Cor. vii. 10, ii*, he writes : — 'The Apostle here reminds them of the law of ui Gospel. For the Lord said in the Holy G ^pels Every one that putteth away his wife, save for the cause of for. cation, causeth her to commit adultery. Therefore adds, "Not I, but the Lord." But ihe saying, Lei h, runatn unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband is m opposed tr the other. Defraud not one the other, except it k imthconse '. For this is not said to those who separate fo any other reason than only for continence ; but above lit gives the law to those who quarrel with their yokefellow about other doings. And he endeavours to guard the marriage botid unbroken; but yielding to infirmity, he lays down the law of continn-.ce to che one that depart^ and by this ^r.tinence he prohibits the dissolution r marriag- lor by prohibiting connection with another he cor ^Is each party to return back agai 1 to the forme marri' Thi aga seems unmistakeably to assert the perma nence of the marriage bond. Observe, too, that Theodore uses the seemly word irpa^/fia to rep^resent unseemly doing- as does S. Paul in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians u- u,."''\^'^'^'''' ^^^"'■^ Theodoret had used Ian. u which has been cited as allowing marriage after dil ' Opera (Paris, 1642), Tom. iii. 51. 2 /^y,/ ^ ,^j t ■uaj, )rci Church •istle to the Romans not the one who joiiii ^1 of her husband, but 'oined to another ; for as insulting the law at when her husbanc s lawful and not un er. And the Apostle to the living to dis. to their mind. Bui ing, which said tha: e Jews' hardness o hingofthesort V- laying down the la« aks of marriage a^ ily woman, ju j<- as i: ites : — 1 of the law of u oly G >pels, Every •r the cause of fori ery. Therefore, ihe saying, Let hn her husband, is no; the other, except it k 3se who separate fc encc ; but above lis ith their yokefelioiv /ours to guard the "ng to infirmity, k le one that depart^ the dissolution r :tion with another agai 1 to the forme assert the perma too, that Theodore nt unseemly doings o the Corinthians, lad used lau-uaj;c riage after divorce ' Ihid. p. 151. t The Fathers of the Church 69 ^\^^^ treatise against paganism and pagan philosophy Which Julian the Apostate had endeavoured to revive iti the 9th Sermon, or discourse, he is contrasting Christian morality with that of Plato.' ' And he for his part enacted that men might without icruple company with other men's wives ; but the Creator rf nature, since in making man's nature He formed from the begmning one man and one woman, also forbade damage to he dissolved ; and gave one only cause of dis- *^lving, which truly wrenches the yoke asunder. For He lys. He that puts away ' wife except for the cause of )rnication causeth her to commit adultery ; and he who 'p.s married a divorced woman commits adultery In Which \\ords he bids all other defects of a wife to be tole- yted, though she be a brawler, or a drunkard, or addicted lb scolding. But if she transgress the laws of marriaee Jid looks towards another man, then he commands to toose the yoke And again He gave the same laws by the Tentmaker. And he, writing to the Corinthians, proposed ipic same for all men.' ^ *. fif^J— '!,"? ^f ^ here of remarriage ; and his reference to thehpistle to the Corinthians would seem to imply that Jje same teaching is in both, and as Theodoret assert/there #at he prohibits the dissolution of marriage,' it is reason- |pl' suppose that he does here. i2i. S. Gregory the Great, a.d. 600 {Roman). fdlows--" ''^^' ^'■^S°''y 's quoted in the Canon Law, I 'Those who detect their wives in adultery, t? ,- may ^^^^^^z:^^"^ ^"^^'^^^-'^ - ^-^-- This is introduced in the Decretum with 'Item illud J regoru ; but Berardi ' denies that it is or can be written i> Uregory However, he cannot trace it anywhere else t IS given here for what it is worth. 22. S. Zachary, a.d. 7S0 {Roman). The very next chapter to the above contains a decision Zachary as follows :— ^ uci,i3iuii ' Opera (P, ris, i 42), Tom. iv. p. 619. Dec-et Pars II. caus, xxxii. q. vii. c. 22. Madrid, 1783, Tom. iii, p. 154. Deoefum, Lyons, 1606, col. 1642. '^ 70 The Falhey-s of the Church 'Have you lain with your wife's sister ? Ifyouhavr you must have neither the one nor the other ; and if shi who was your wife, was not conscious of your wickedness, ii she cannot contain, let her marry in the Lord whom slit will.' Berardi ' shows that this is not to be attributed h, Zachary, Oriental though he was ; but that it belongs to a penitential of Bishop Burchard, of Worms, a.d. cir. 1006. No passage bearing on the question in an Author nol quoted above has been knowingly omitted. In voluminous writers such as S. Augustine, much has been necessarily omitted to avoid unnecessary prolixity. The following summing up of this part of the evidence by Mr. Keble is so valuable that it is here given, as the pamphlet is now verv scarce : — ' Only three or four of the whole number speak un- equivocally for the exception : Lactantius, of whom S. Jerome intimates that he was very imperfect in hi- Christianity ; perhaps S. Asterius of Amasa, who seems to have been perfectly overwhelmed and scared by the multi- tude of divorces under the imperial law ; S. Epiphanius, in a passage obviously corrupt and imperfect ; and Hilar} the Deacon, or whoever else compiled the Commentarj on the Epistles, which goes falsely by the name of S. Ambrose. • But the spirit of the great Theologians. Tertullian Origen, Basil, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom Augustine, is decidedly against any exception to the indissolubility of Christian marriage, and that especially on high sacramental grounds. And where they appear to speak otherwise, they will be found to be either speaking of separation short of divorce, or of marriage not altogether Christian, or of equitable allowance in enforcing discipline, due to persons who from the state of the civil law, or other causes, might be presumed to have sinned in ignorance Such consideration on their part does but add weight to their agreement in the general principle ; it shows thai they were not blindly and fanatically maintaining a mere current tradition, but sounding their way as they went while, as experienced pilots, they had no doubt of it> general bearings, 'he like may be said as to their evidcir, ' Madrid. 1783, Tom. iii. p. 186. freed tend< Meet excel not f imex of th {n an Itngu kept Way < ' ) ipcak card it prcmi »mct we m J^eat rules ipen i l^ere fpcev •Pdtl S^ sor It ai He Ibbjec Iplity Ulatio '" n Ii iroug nde •nd i leak a s ike i inoce (essed It to A If'tical iinong iDt to ^ liunli sister? If you have, he other ; and if she if your wickedness, ii the Lord whom she to be attributed tu : that it belongs to a »rms, A.D. cir. 1006. on in an Author not ted. In voluminou> has been necessarily ity. The following :e by Mr. Keble is so amphlet is now very : number speak un- Lctantius, of whom ry imperfect in hi- Lmasa, who seems to icared by the multi- ^ ; S. Epiphanius, in erfect ; and Hilary d the Commentar) by the name of jlogians, Tertullian erome, Chrysostom • exception to the id that especially on :re they appear to • be either speaking ■riage not altogether enforcing discipline, le civil law, or other nned in ignorance but add weight to pie ; it shows that maintaining a mere way as they went id no doubt of it> i as to their evident i 186. T/ie Fathers of the Church 71 freedom, with one exception or two at most, from any tendency to disparage Holy Matrimony, such as by a false Wceticism many were led to in their time. The one wcception is, of course, Tertullian, who has been cited here not so much for his own theological judgment as for his unexceptionable testimony to the contemporary judgment ^ the Church. The same remark m^y perhaps apply (but III an immeasurably less degree) to S. Jerome ; and yet his gnguage also in the ca.se of Fabiola shows how open he lept himself to all that might be said in particular ca.ses bv l^ay of mitigation. S, ' Very observable again is the coincidence (generally Ijpeaking) of these great men one with another in the #rdinal points of their several arguments. They agree in fremisses, but differ in details, sometimes of exposition, •Ometimes of practice, in a way precisely analogous to what we may observe in them, when they are dealing with the great and known verities of the Creed, or with the prime fWles of Christian discipline. Everywhere they write as Jen having in their minds a certain standard, of which ^ere was no doubt in the Church, whereby a wide differ- fpce was for ever constituted between her marriage laws md those of the world. And this, not as men might speak m some isolated point of discipline, however momentous, mJt as a very material part of the system of the Kingdom m Heaven. Not one or two, but all who go into the •ubject, treat, as has been seen, of the absolute indissolu- bility of marriage as of a great mysterious doctrine,— or, if ^e may so call it, a great sacramental fact,— having special plation, on the one hand, to the creation of man in God's fm Image ; on the other to the restoration of that Image rough the Incarnation of the Son of God, and our wonderful union with Him. Of the continuance of the bond m those even who are separated for adultery, they ^c^k as of something analogous to the supernatural effect -n a sacrament, abiding for condemnation in those who ike It unworthily ; and as to the continency of the inocent party, fAai associates itself in their minds with the lessed duty and doctrine of not so rejecting a sinner, as ^t to leave room for entire absolution on true repentance ' All this unity of thought and principle harmonizes ritjcally with the fact, that a distinct Canon was existing tiong them, " whereof the memory of the Church reached )t to the contrary," to the effect that " if any layman 72 The Fathers of the Church cast out his own wife and take another, or if he take one dismissed by another man. he must be excommunicate s bure y it is contrary to all notions of regular and reasonable i legislation that the framers and authoritative maintain 1 of that Canon should not sooner or later have modified \i according to the supposed exception had they really mtended that exception. ^ ^ ' It will also have been observed, that after the Empire became Christian, and the law of Constantine on Divor ^ had been enacted, the Christian divines still continued ^ remai^ on the difference between the laws of the oSrc I and of the world, much in the same tone as before, men! I- r ^"?^';°se.W''ote, "thou puttest away thy wife, and thmkest that It is permitted to thee because human lav^ fo, bids It not ; but the law of God does forbid " ;-i" was b t the repetition of remarks made by S. Justin and Tertullia to the same purpose. He seems to say, with S. Jerome on Yet wh.n'?!'';'^^''' ^"":S >' ^^^^^""^ ^^^ Chris?i,^ Yet when S Ambrose and S. Jerome wrote, the " Law of the C^sars had approached, if we may believe modern statements, within a hair's breadth of the law of Christ i aTfh^v \ n"'^'"''^ 'It' *° P"^ ^"-^y- The Christi 2:rrtS f "f' "' .Separation for adultery dissolves marriage ; Constantine's law, as we have seen, added, the s?me °" uM"'"'"'"^ ""- ^""^ pandering to lewdness, doc the same. Is this sufficient to account for the stress laid rh.,fi,'"'^7 P'fT o°" ^"^^ discrepancy between the th." nr ' '"^M"'^ *t^ ^'^'"'^ ^ ^^ "°^' ^a" ^ve well a oid the inference, that the Fathers noting that discrepancy, did Surch'sTawV''^ exception^or adultery as pLt o"f the The following Table will show the result.s arrived at in the preceding passages from the Fathers :— Hf;rmas. a.d. ioo. Roviatt. Prohibits. S. Justin Martvr, a.d. 140, Asiatic. Prohibits Athenagoras, A.D. 177, Athenian. Prohibits. TFRTun?Av . n'f "'^'J^/ '>•''• '^'' ^Sy^n. Prohibits, Op™ M ' •°- ^°°' 4/^^««- Probably prohibits. ORioEN, A.D. 24s, Egyptian and Syrian. Prohibits. Pilw n^^' '^•^- •^^°' '^■f''''""- S''^"' ^'^«"' remarriage m either man or woman. "^ 8. S. Ambrose, a.d. 386, Lombard. Prohibits. .^" ^' l';f°^''^' '^•°- 4°°. ^'""^« and Syrian. Prohibits. out tlimkb that Catechumens so married may be baptized. I. 2, 3- 4. 5- 6. 7- hurch The Fathers of the Church 11 T, or if he take one be excommunicate, gular and reasonable aritative maintainors terhave modified it m had they really hat after the Empire stantine on Divorce es still continued to '■ laws of the Church le as before. When away thy wife, and ause human law foi orbid " ;— it was but ustin and Tertullian with S. Jerome on a arum aliae Christi,' wrote, the " Law oi lay believe modern he law of Christ, in .'ay. The Christian adultery dissolves have seen, added, ig to lewdness, docs t for the stress laid •ancy between the ' can we well a old lat discrepancy, did :ery as part of the ':f|2. #3. |4. |5- ■^16. 17- .r|9- S. Chrysostom, a.d. 400 dr., Eastetn. but has no word of lawful remarriage. Rhetorically indefinite S. Basil, a.d. 400, Eastern. Cannot excuse the laxer rule that is creeping in. S. Epiphanius, A.D. 400, Eastern. In an obscure and corrupt passage, seems to allow marriage to both parties when the civ^I law allows it. Hilary the Deacon, a.d. 384, Roman. The man may dismiss his wife and marry again : the former wife, though innocent. may not marry again. ' S. AsTERius, A.D. 400, Asiatic. Ascribes same effect to adultery as to death ; probably implies permission. S. Gregory Nazianzen, a.d. 2,'&o, Eastern. Inveighs against the laxity of civil laws; probably prohibits. S. Innocent, a.d. 415, Roman. Prohibits. S. Hilary of Poitiers, a.d. 356, Gallican. Probably prohibits. S. Chromatius, a.d. 405, Italian. Indefinite. Theodoret, A.D. 433, Syrian. Probably prohibits, b. Gregory the Great, a.d. 600, Roman. Prohibits (as quoted) result.-- arrived at 111 s : — >hibits. ibits. tian. Prohibits. prohibits. Prohibits. about remarridge o\ Prohibits. )hil)its for Christiaih may Ije baptized. i IV. i THE ENGLISH CHURCH. The sanctity of marriage as a Christian obligation implies the (aithful union of one man with one woman until the union is severed by death. '-Zaw*«A'. Encyclical, i8?8, signed by 145 Bishops. IV. THE ENGLISH CHURCH. It is hardly possible to doubt the mind of the Endish u "'. cV7^''u "^"i" ?^ ^'^^^^ ^^^"^ ^'thout variation for ;about hfteen hundred and eighty years In A.D 3 14 there were three British ' Bishops present at :theCouncilof Aries, and they brought back with them the Canon of that Council:—' Of those who detect their wives in adultery, and are young Christians, and are forbidden to marry : it was resolved that by all means they be coun- selled not in the lifetime of their wives (though adulterous) to take others. The divorced woman is still called ' wife ' .hence 'they are forbidden to marry.' for such marria4 fwould be polygamous. It is possible that another Canon see part II § 3) was also passed at this or a succeeding .ouncil of Aries:-' It was resolved that by all means a iinan be restrained from thinking it lawful during the life- time of his divorced wife to marry another in addition • but whosoever shall have done so shall be cut off from iCatholic Communion.' In AD. 671 Archbishop Theodore held a Council at Hertford, when the following Canon was passed •— .= fL AT '^^" 'T^ ^f °'''" '^'^^' ^^^^Pt for fornication, as the Holy Gospel teaches. But if any man have driven |OUt his own wife, joined to him in lawful marriage-if he [real y w;shes to be a Christian-let him not be coupled to ^another, but remain as he is. or be reconciled to his own f..!" ?^'ru' ^':^°'? J^'th this is the note of the glory of :the early Chrr. ho'- England, the Venerable Bede, in his commentary .>« S. Mark x. 10. He writes •- sh.l/^nf ^"'''^ •' '" -r""^" '"''-'-^ ^' ^^"5^^h' " Whosoever m\ J^^L^'' ' '"'i^^' t^^^P* '^"^^ ^''' fornication, and marry anot ler. committeth aduH«^r"" ''''--^-c is '■'-— n only mr«.// cause ivhv a wife should be put avvrnHhat is ;lornication ; and one only ^-piritua/ cs^nse, the fbar of God, 78 The English Church as many are read of as having done for the sake of reh'gion. But there is no cause, written in the law of God,, why another should be married in the Hfetime of her that has been left' It is quite clear that Bede did not regard the exception mentioned by the Lord as authorizing the remarriage of a Christian after divorcing his wife. Of the Penitential of Archbishop Theodore and of the Excerptions of Archbishop Egbert, a few words wiK be said in an Appendix : they need not be mentioned here; though Archbishop Egbert quotes the African Canon (part II. § 5). In the tenth century, in the latter half of the century, we have certain ' Laws of the Northumbrian priests>' which are interesting in this connection : — ' 35. If a priest dismiss one wife and take another, let him be anathema ! ' 54, If any man dismiss his lawful wife whiile she is living, and marry another, let him want God's mercy, unless he make satisfaction for it ; and let every man retain his lawful wife so long as she lives, unless they both choose to be separated by the Bishop's consent and are willing to preserve their chastity for the future.' ' In or about A.D. 1009 the Council of Eanham was held, which was, indeed, a National Council, as both pro- vinces of Canterbury and York were represented. ' § 8. Never let it be that a Christian marry ... one that is divorced. Nor let him who desires to observe God's law aright, and to guard himself against hell fire, have more wives than one ; but continue with her only, so long as she lives.' This Canon was repeated in nearly the same words about ten years later in King Canute's time. Thus it continued until the Reformation. When in A.D. 1537 'the Bishop's Book' was issued, it was there asserted ' that the bond of lawful marriage is of such sort that it cannot be dissolved or broken but by death only.' Words of similar import were in * the King's Book ' of 1 543, and a few words were added to emphasize the meaning. Thus in the following extract the words italicized were added in 1543. — 'It is clean contrary to the godly institution and natural order of the laws of . . 1 _. .lit; .Xg!.!.,-!!^,, that any man married should be divorced from his lav ful ' Johnson's English Canons, i. pp. 377, 381- h The English Church the sake of religion. law of God^ why ime of her that has ;gard the exception ;he remarriage of a heodore and of the V words wiK be said tioned here; though "anon (part II. § 5). lalf of the century, )rian priestS)' which d take another, let wife while she is ^ant God's mercy, id let every man s, unless they both 5 consent and are future.' ' 1 of Eanham was mcil, as both pro- •resented. m marry . . . one lesires to observe against hell fire, z with her only, so • the same words me. nation. When in sued, it was there ige is of such soit t by death only.' the King's Book ' to emphasize the xtract the words clean contrary to er of the laws of ••n the beginning, d from his lav ful 7, 381- 79 ^M^: ''vf f f ''^' ^'^"'^^- '" '"'"'''''y- ^gai". further on. Notwithstandmg.in marriages lawfully made and according to the ordinance of matrimony prescribed by God and the laws of every realm, the bond thereof cannot be dissolved during the lives of the parties between whom such matri- mony is made. Then there came an attempt to introduce a new code of Ecclesiastical Laws which only issued in what has been well-called by a medical simile. «a wandering clot of fs?eXpendt'BV^' "^^" ^"^ ^""^^^ °" *^' C^"-^' Arllf^^'"'^' ^^'""^ '!T' *° ^^^^ been prepared by Archb^hop Crarimer and Peter Martyr, first saw light in 1 57 1, being published under the sponsorship of Foxe the Martyrologist. who was eager L its adoption by the Church and Parliament and the favouring countenance of learned men. He ends. ' I earnestly asklhat they ^^^ Tn good part this my boldness in issuing the book ' ^ In Convocation and Parliament the book was quietlv iif Ca'nterh.'; '^^'' ^' ''''' ''^'' •^^"^^' '^^ Convocation of Canterbury passed some Canons, the tenor of which In these Canons there are several which take care for greater regard being paid to the sacredness of marriage children were riot to marry without consent of parents, fnd ?f i^rj^'' ''""'T "°'' ^'^ ""der fourteen might mar^ If any had married within the forbidden degrees of affinS^' v2 wf /° ^^ ^^V^r^^^d by authority of the Bishop m/e s sister , for this is thought to be prohibited in Leviticus by common consent and judgment of learned men ' in 159; the Convocation of Canterbury passed certain Canons which were properly authenticated Ld ' promulged "neither" ''''"' ^'"'°^^"^'^"^^° ^^ carefully oSefed in ether province, as well Canterbury as York' Two of the « Capitula sive Constitutiones ' arTabout mamai and Te^TtUT' ''''\'' ^he -ggestions of the'i'^f;;:^' J^^^m, and a rc-enarting of the old law When a full code was drawn up in ,6l4, passed by both Srocation ^CaStulf? 'r '''''' C^^terbury and York, the two e!;Silt.-"t- °"- "' ^597 were somewhat u^y'ru -ticnguicncd,ana appear as Canons 105, 106 bond o^'Zr ^^°^ ^°^^^^ recognized-theone from the b-nd of matrimony ,s nothing more than a declaration 8o The English Church that an antecedent impediment had prevented true marriapc takmg place ; the other is a separation from bed and board only. In this last case bond and security were to be taken from both parties that they would not marry again. The Lnghsh of the Canons is as follows, for these were passed in English and Latin : I do not know that the Canons of 1 597 were ever issued by authority in English. All three copies which I have are in Latin : the Original, published in 1 597 by Barker, the Reprint by Sparrow, and the Reprint by Cardwell. ^ Canon 105. No sentence for Divorce to be given upon t/ie sole confession of the parties. Forasmuch as matrimonial causes have been always reckoned and reputed among the weightiest, and therefore require the greater caution, when they come to be handled and debated in judgment, especially wherein matrimony- having been in the Church duly solemnized, is required upon any suggestion or pretext whatsoever to be dissolved or annulled, we do straitly charge and enjoin, That in all proceedings to divorce, and nullities of matrimony, good circumspection and advice be used, and that the truth may (a,s far as is possible) be sifted out by the deposition of witnesses, and other lawful proofs and evictions ; and that credit be not given to the sole confession of the parties > themselves, howsoever taken upon oath, either within or without the court. 106. No sentence for Divorce to be given but in oten court. ^ No sentence shall be given either for separation a thoro et inensa, or for annulling of pretended matrimony, but in open court and in the seat of justice ; and that with the knowledge and consent of the Archbishop within his pro- vince, or of the Bishop within his diocese, or of the Dean of the Arches, the Judge of the Audience of Canterbury, -' or of the Vicars General, or other principal officials, or scchvacante, of the Guardians of the Spiritualities, or other Urdinanes to whom of right it appertaineth, in their several jurisdictions and courts, and concerning them only that arc then dwelling under their jurisdictions. 107. In all sentences for Divorce, Bond to be taken for not marrying during each other's life. In all sentences pronounced only for Dfynrre r,prl separation a thoro et mensa, there shal'l be a caution and restraint inserted in the act of the said sentence, That the ;nted true marriafje om bed and board y were to be taken narry again. The these were passed hat the Canons of ngh'sh. All three ginal, published in V, and the Reprint 'jyii' Euo/is/i C/itinii Si to be given upon ave been always iest, and therefore ime to be handled erein matrimony, lized, is required er to be dissolved :njoin, That in all matrimony, good lat the truth may the deposition of mictions ; and that »n of the parties either within or ■iven but in open eparation a thoro latrimony, but in id that with the p within his pro- :, or of the Dean e of Canterbury, :ipal officials, or tualitie5, or other 1, in their severa' lem only that arc i to be taken fo) hr Divorce ami ; a caution and itencc, That the ^:artiies so separated .••.all live chastely and continently pieither shall they during each others life contract matri-" inony with any other person. And for the better obscrva- ,ion of this last clause the said sentence of Divorce shall lot be pronounced until thesaid party or parties requiring the ;ame have given good and sufficient caution and security nto the court that they vvill not any way break or transgress the said restraint or prohibition.' No such thing as divorce from the bond of matrimony as recognized, except so far as it was a declaration of ntecedent impediment which prevented the existence of lawful marriage. This has been ever since the law of the Church of England. "uii-ii ui In the same year that the Canons were pas.scd, the first ear of King James I., an Act was passed making it felony ,o have more than one wife, or than one husband! and offenders aga.n.st thi.s law were excepted from the various Vets of general pardon. But the Act excepted from hs pcrat.on those who had married after seven yeaS of .bsence.or who had been divorced, .^ n>cusa et^thoro or KcTsia'kariVurt' Th" t"'^"' """ ''^"'^ ^'^ ^'- ecclesiastical Court. This does not make it Imvful for Jich to marry, ,t only excludes them from t\.JpeIatyof ieath mo her words it makes it a less crime in civ 1 faw The civil law of England was content to accep from nL?"fl°^ England the law of marriage until th^ n.ddle of the century. Then the great case of R^lnav Mts drew attention to the fact that the law of Sand jquired the minister of lawful marriage to be a St "n ^s'cr^?. A ""^ ' ""^ changes began to be'introduced! and n t8s7 an Act was passed which erected a Court foi- releas Jng married folk from the Bond of Matr Lnn, !i .Agarded the remarriage of such divolcl^n Tn, i^^^ j^^^^^ '^nder certain conditions. >■* '■'on.s as legal Before 1857 relief was given by Act .f Pf\rliament fo •uch persons as could afford it, to enable divo led persons |> marry legally, so as to legitimate their islur TheTs .other raarnage, which should ho JalidTn the eveTf X' w. H,s be,ng divorced » „u„sa e, //«.. vvoulS (by Z 82 The Eiii^/is'i Church Act of Jaincs I.) prevent his hcmg^ felon if he married again ; but it would not legitimate the issue of such bigamous contract, nor exempt him from other penalties. The licentious King, Charles II., took such interest in the matter that he himself appeared at the debate, on his throne, though not in royal robes. Milton, the stalwart advocate of easy divorce during the Commonwealth, was sought out to advise the promoters of the Bill. The Bill became an Act of Parliament, and the precedent of a series of Indemnity Acts ; a precedent which has been adopted in the Colonies of Upper and Lower Canada. But these Acts were in personam, and not in rem, private Acts which enabled individuals to contract bigamous alliances without incurring legal penalties. They did not affect the law of the Church, nor the law of the land at large. The Act of 1857 did not affect the law of the Church, which was so far forth recognized in the law, that priests of the Church of England were not compelled in this case (as they ^re in others) to marry persons whose divorced partners were still alive. On February 19, 1879, a Committee of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canteibury presented a Canon on marriage after divorce, which had been concurred in by a Committee of the Province of York. The Canon, which passed the Lower House without a dissentient voice, is as follows : — ' Whereas the Church hath ever held that the bond of Holy Matrimony cannot be dissolved by any authority of man, teaching that those whom God hath joined together no man may put asunder, we do solemnly admonish all members of the Church who are married that they do not contract another marriage unless the former marriage hath '& been dissolved by death. And we also admonish all minis- ' ters that they do not solemnize such second marriages, without sufficient proof that the former marriage has been so dissolved.' The Upper House of Canterbury has not yet expressed an opinion on this proposed Canon. In 1888 the solemn Lambeth Conference in quasi- conciliar action passed the following ' Resolutions,' which! indeed have not the force of Canons, but which must have] great influence : — ' 1. That inasmuch as Our Lord's words exjiresslyi forbid divorce, except in the case of fornication or! felon if he married the issue of such Dm other penalties Lich interest in the he debate, on his ilton, the stalwart ommonwealth, wa-. be Bill. The liill ■cccdent of a series IS been adopted in inada. But these arivate Acts whicli s alliances without ; affect the law of rgc. aw of the Church, e law, that priests ipelled in this case IS whose divorced The English Church 8- adultery, the Christian Church cannot recognize Divorce in any other than the excepted case, or give any sanction to the marriage of any person who has been divorced contrary to this law, during the life of the other party. '2. That under no circumstances ought the guilty party, in the case of a divorce for fornication or adultery to be regarded, during the lifetime of the innocent party! as a fit recipient of the blessing of the Church in marriage '3- That, recognizing the fact that ■ always has been a difference of opinion in the Chu. ,i the question whether Our Lord meant to forbid marriage to the inno- [cent party in a divorce for adultery, the Conference recom- niends that the clergy should not be instructed to refuse the Sacraments or other privileges of the Church to those hvho, under civil sanction, are thus married.' :ee of the Lower )ury presented a ad been concurred )rk. • House without a that the bond of r any authority of th joined togetlicr inly admonish all I that they do not Tier marriage hath Imonish all mini>- second marriage- ler marriage ha- not yet expressed Terence in quasi- Resolutions,' which '\A which must have words expressly! f fornication 1 I r. 2 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) k /, ^/>t^^ / 4^ ^y 1.0 1.1 11.25 ^ fei 12.2 U 11.6 Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)873-4503 ^ \ <^ '», ^^ "^^ ^\ ^ *, a m' nth after his wife's death ; a woman may marry a year after her husband's death. 19. 'If a woman leave her husband because she despises him, and will not return and be reconciled to her husband, after five years, with the Bishop's consent, he may marry another. 20. < If a wife is carried away captive and cannot be redeemed the husband may marry another after a year. ' 23. ' If a rac^.i's wife have been carried off by the enemy, and he cannot get her back, he may take another ; for this is 'better than fornication. 24. ' If afterwards his wife returns, he must not take her, if he have another, but she may take ar other husband to herself if she had one before.' It has been thought that these answers were given by Theodore before he cane to England, while he was on the Con- tinent of Europe. If so, it would account for the laxer views here revealed. He was passing from the rule of the (ireeks, and had not come under the influence of the stricter discipline of the Church over which he was to preside, as seen in the Canon of Hertford. 2. The Excerptions of Egbert, ARCFinisHor of York. These extracts,' Collected out of the Sayings and Canons of th.> Iloly I'athcr,' made about the year 750, have more the character of a Commonplace Book than anything else. They rather testify that the Archbishop was endeavouring by caro'^ul study to make himself acquainted with the v; riety of opinion and of Canon I.aw whieii existed, in order that he himself might be informed on the various topics dealt with. But otherwise they would not help us in the present imjuiry. The various items are often con- tradictory, sometimes self-contradictory. A few are given in explanation of this. '120. The African Canon. According to Evangelical dis- cipline, neither let a wife dismissed from her husband take another man, the former living, nor an husband another woman : but let tiiem so remain or be reconciled. '121. Augustin says : If a woman commit fornication she is to he relinquished, but another must not uc taken so long as she lives. '122. A Canon says: If a woman depart from her husband with a contempt of him, refusing to return and b^ reconciled Uv iiim he may take another wife after five or seven years, nitn the bishops consent, if he cannot contain. But let him do penance ti.r three years or even so long as he lives, becausi' he ts omvutcd <>J luiiiitery fiy flic sentence of our Lord." _ This last 'Canon ' seems reiiiarkiible. I'or, as Johnson savs. It It was a cMiiie, how ( ould the l!ishop\s consent niake it lawful ? ii It was not a crime, wliat been erroneously stated. Nothing came of this, and with the death of the King all was estopped. The consent of the clergy was to the Art of the A7;/i,' himself personally ; and the Act of Parliament reciting this atti- tude of the clergy gave power to the King personally, and not to the Crown, and the whole matter came to the ground. When Edward VI. came to the throne a fresh Act of Parlia- ment was passed (a.d. 1549) with a different object. The King is still empowered (for a snace of three years) to appoint thirty two persons as before, but liiey are to com/> He fresh Eaiesiasticol laws to be practised in all the Spiritual Courts of the Realm ; and Rejoniiatio Lcouni 87 JTICARUM there is no word now of the clergy being consulted. In this matter nothing was done ft)r two years, and then eight Coni- missioners were appointed as a commencement, Archbishop Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and six others. For some reason the matter still hung fire, and the Archbishop himself, with the assistance of Peter Martyr, a foreigner, took the matter in hand, and compiled some laws. What relation these had to any work of the original Committee appointed by Henry VIII. we have no means of knowing ; all we know is from the Preface which John Foxe wrote when he published the work in 1571. John Foxe says in effect (the preface is in Latin, as is the work itselO : ' The object of the King (Henry VIII.) is certainly to be praised, nor perchance are the endeavours of (the Committee) to be otherwise than praised, who then had comi)iled laws, though they were very much unlike those .hat follow.' Whatever, therefore, was done by Cranmer and Peter Martyr must be regarded (so far as the English Church was concerned) as having been done by Cranmer alone (for Peter Martyr was not of our Church), and this, too, not as Archbishop, nor as Metropolitan, at the request of Convoca- tion, but simply as Chairman of a Commissio.n appointed by Edward VI. under authority of an Act of Parli: mtnt. Edward VI. died before anything came of this attempt ; but the MS. by some means came into the hands of Archbishop Parker, who is said to have revised it to a certain extent, but how far we do not know. The MS., with Parker's emendations, came into ihe hands of John Foxe, 'the Martyrologist,' who published it in 1571 with a preface signed J. F. He says that if Edward VI. had lived, this code of Ecclesiastical laws would have been made law ; but while it was to be ook. 88 Reformatio L egu)n It was reprinted in 1640 in troublous times, seemingly bv J.nyate enterpr.se; and again in 164, by the Company ol" Stationers; a copy of this reprint is in my library. Afurthe rcprmt with corrections was issued by Dr. Cardwell in 18^0. Such IS the history of the document, which has been called a abor.ous fiasco,' and, borrr.ing a happy simile from a dan gcrous disease, a wandering clot of legislation.' It is said to have been compiled by ArcM)ishop Cranmer, with the assis ance o I'eter Martyr, to have been translated into Latin, or to have had \o\^'iZlT'i^x '"^ ^^'■^'^f^ ^y ^^'-''^^■^ Haddon'and perhaps Sir iTr di.^r^^^ A "™'" "' ^Pl^ndorem addidit Gualterus Hadonus \rdisertus. Qum nee .satis scio an Jamn. Checi viri singularis e.dem negotio adjutn.x adfuerit manus.' So says Foxe It has no further authority ; indeed, as we shall see, it would seem t<. have been deliberately ignored by the Church, and many of its suggestions directly negatived. ^ Indeed, we have reason to be thankful that a good Providence At the time of its publication by John Foxe in 1571, the Convocation of Canterbury put out certain Canons; and certainlv n these there is no evidence that the Canons were influenced favourably by the Reformatio Legxnn Ecdesiasticarum. If that document had been at that time understood to have any force or valiir c should have expected to find some similarity; but if anything is to be traced, it would seem to be antagonism lake, for example, the Canon on Preachers issued by Convo- cation, and the Chapter on Preachers in the Reformatio Le^m. 1 he Canon commences thus : « None shall preach publicly in TJT A ^^'^'''^ "1"^'' ''"^"-'^^ by his Bishop, nor hereafter shall he dare to preach outside his parish unless he have received authority so to preach either from the Queen's Majesty through the whole .ealm or from the Archbishop through his province, or from the Bishop throughout his diocese. But for the future no license shall be valid, or have any authority, unless it have been ol)tained after the last day of April, 1571.' In contrast with this read the fourth Chapter of the Title ' Of 1 reachers in the Reformatio, which is as follows :— \ X^u^T^t'l' ^^^f""*^^'"" of preaching properly pertains. 1 he Archbishops should hold the first place in this function of preaching. I et Bishops, Deans, and other dignitaries come next. Nor should these only be occupied in this most sacred duty, but the same power should be yielded to pastors and parish priests in their flock, unless there should be just cause for the Bishop to impose silence upon them.' The difference here is very marked. The Canon passed bv Convocation imposes silence on all who arc not specially licensed to preach : whereas the chapter in John Foxe's hook would permit all lu preach who were not specially silenced. This would .show Reformatio Lcgum «9 f the Title ' Of that the views, or some of them, certainly lacked the acquiescence of Convocation. As has been said before, the same Convocation of 1571 issued certain regulations about marriages not at all in the direction of the views of the Reformatio. But when, in 1597, and again in 1604, the Church issued Canons on marriage and divorce, they are toto coelo opposed to the twenty-one chapters of the Reformatic under the title ' De Adulteriis et Divortiis.' The title of the twenty-one chapters are here given, with here and there a sketch of the substance of the chapter. 1. Adultery to be severely punished. 2. Ministers convicted of adultery. Their property is to be given to the wife and family, if there are any ; if not, to the poor. They are to be transported or im- prisoned for life. 3. Laymen convicted of adultery. Dower to be restored to wife and half her property. He to be transported or imprisoned for life. 4. Wives of ministers or laymen. 'I'hey, too, are to be transported or imprisoned for life. 5. The guiltless person passes to ne'w nuptials. When one spouse has been convicted of adultery, the other innocent one may at pleasure proceed to a new marriage. 6. Reconciliation is to be desired. 7. None can leave a spouse at will. Sentence must be pronounced, and then the judge, in hope of reconciliation, is to assign a certain time within which a new marriage is not to take place— say a year or six months. 8. Divorce for desertion. If the spouse refuses to return, imprisonment for life : and the other can marry again. If the deserter cannot be found, the other must wait two or three years and then marry ; if then the deserter returns, imprisonment for life is penalty. 9. Divorce for lengthened absence. The same penalty as before when deserter returns. 10. Deadly enmity a ground of divorce. Maltreatment at last a ground of divorce. Small quarrels^ unless perpetual^ not a ground. Inairable disease does not break ivedlock. Hoiv the accused is to be maintained during the trial. Guilt of false accusation. Guilt of husband persuading wife to adultery. Where both are adulterous. 1 8. Guilt of abetting adultery. 19. Separation from bed and board abolished. Society of bed and board used to be removed from sjjouse, in certain rrinics, the law of wedlock being still preserved between lliem. ^\■lllcI1 law, since il is foreign to Holy Scripture, and has II. 12. '3- 14. 15- 16. 17- 90 Ri/or mafia Lcp^um great perversity and has brought a sink of evils into marriage, is wholly abolished by our authority. 20. Hmv incest and harlotry is to be punished in /ay wen. 21. JJfl7v dastards are to be maintained. It will be observed that these are wholly different from any other document professing to emanate from the Church, which this Keformatw never pretended to do. »», 1^.^'^° *'" Y observed that when in 1597 and again in 1604 the Church spoke out m Canon about marriage, the only divorce allowed was that from bed and board, on which the Reformatio casts contempt as unscriptural, ridiculous, and harmful : and when divorce was pronounced the parties were required to give bond not to marry again while they both lived. AVhen some faithful minds were grievously pained at the admission of some old heretical renderings into the margin of he Revised New festament of 1881, one of the faithful Revisers n vf^'lfT? P°'"ied o"' the value of them, as distinctly show- ing what had been deliberately rejected. We may say, then, that the chief value of the Apocryphal document, the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticartm, is, that it distinctly shows what the Church deliberately refused to adopt in the sixteenth century : nay more, what Parliament also refused to consider in 1571. APPENDIX C. THE CANONS OF 1603 RECOGNIZED IN CANADA. It would be natural to suppose that the Canons in force in It-ngland m the Church would be regarded as binding on the members of the Church when they settled in the Colonies, until at all events they had been altered or repealed by proper authority 1 here is, indeed, evidence that such was the case. That the Canon law about marriage was regarded as binding will be seen in Part VI., ' Divorce in British North America ; ' but we will here briefly remark on the Canon law in general. We find that in one of the earliest Acts of Assembly ever passed m British North America relating to the Church of i^ngland, the Canons of that Church are laid down as the only rules by which the clergy of the Church of England were to be governed in their official acts. In the first marriage law passed in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1750, there were heavy fines imposed upon the clergy for the omission and commission of certain acts. These were not pleasant ; so w-e find that in a Church law passed in 17=9 it was enacted that 'the ministers of the said Churrh. not conforming themselves to the rules prescribed l)y the Canons of the said The Canadian Church 91 Church, shall be subject to the censures and penalties incurred therein, and none other, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.' 'I'his, as Uniacke points out, repeals the clauses imposing fines on the clergy. In the Royal Instructions issued to Thomas Carleton, Esq (dated August 18, 1784), the first Governor of the newly-esta- blished Province of New Brunswick, there is a slight reference which is of interest: — *77. And you are to take especial care that a Table of Marriages, established by the Canons of the Church of England be hung up in all places of Public Worship, according to the rites of the Church of England.' This shows that the Tables of Affinity, established by Canon, were regarded as part of the law of the land ; this would show that the Canons were regarded as binding. One further hint may be found in the first Act about Marriage and Divorce passed and approved by the Crown in New Bruns- wick. It is sufficient to show that the Canons were regarded as legally binding. The Act provides that when there is no clergy- man, a Justice of the Peace may solemnize marriage, and in this case he is to keep a register of such marriages ; and such registry is to be taken as good evidence of such marriage ' as the registry of such marriage would be if made by any Parson, Vicar, Curate or other person in Holy Orders of the Church of England.' agreeable to the Canons of the said Church.' In 1 85 1 the British North American Bishops gave it as their opinion that the Canons are of some authority, but did not define further; except that they said they were 'of opinion that they should be complied with so far as is lawful and practicable.' APPENDIX D. THE AMERICAN CHURCH. In the General Convention of the American Church the Joint Committee on Marriage submitted the following Canon, which is still under consideration : — Canon 13. Of Marriage and Divorce. ^^' ^{"^"y persons be joined together otherwise than as God's Word doth allow, their marriage is not lawful. § 2. Marriage is prohibited by the Word of God, and by iliis Church, within the degrees of consanguinity and affinity sijccified ill Lev. xviii. 6 18, 92 The Amt'n'can Church § 3. I. It shall be the duty of ministers to admonish the people from time to time that the Church discountenances marriage m private, and that the public solemnization thereof ought not to be dispensed with, except for good cause and under special circumstances. ii. No minister shall solemnize the marriage of any person under eighteen years of age, except the parent or guardian of such person be present, or shall have given written consent to the marriage. iii. No minister shall solemnize a marriage except in the presence of at least two witnesses, each of whom shall be personally acquainted with both parties. iv. No minister shall furnish witnesses to persons coming to him to be joined together in marriage. V. Every minister of this Church shall keep a Register of Marriages, in which, at the time of marriage, he shall record the names, birthplace, age, residence, and condition of each party ; and the said record, duly transcribed in the said Register, shall be signed by both parties to the marriage, by at least two witnesses, and by the minister who performs the ceremony. § 4. i. The law of this Church concerning Divorce is that con- tained m S. Matt. v. 32, xix. 9 ; S. Mark x. 1 1 : and S. Luke XVI. 18. ii. Marriage when duly solemnized may not be dissolved,, except for adultery or fornication. iii. The guilty party in a divorce for adultery is prohibited from marrying again during the lifetime of the other party. IV. Persons divorced may not be married again to each other, if the woman meanwhile shall have married again. § 5. If any minister of this Church shall perform a ceremony of marriage in violation of the provisions of tliis Canon, he shall be subject to trial, and liable to admonition for the first offence, and to suspension or deposition for a repetition of the same. § 6. Persons who shall marry in violation of the f)rovisions of this Canon shall not be permitted to receive the Holy Communion, except upon penitence and avowed final separation. Provided, Aowever, that no minister shall in any case refuse the Sacraments to a penitent person in imminent danger of death. § 7. Questions touching the facts of any case arising under the provisions of this Canon may be decided by the Ordinary, after such inquiry as he may deem necessary. admonish the scountenances zatiori thereof use and under jf any person irdian of such onsent to the except in the lom shall be ns coming to I Register of all record the f each party ; Register, shall at least two sniony. :e is that con - and S. Luke be dissolved, is prohibited party. each other, 1 a ceremony non, he shall first offence, e same, provisions of Communion, 1. Provided, e Sacraments arising under he Ordinary, THE GREEK AND ROMAN CHURCH. ' The Bishops for a long time did not govern themselvcr. in this matter according to the Canons of the Church, but in pursuance to the rules of the Imperial laws.'— Ayi.iffe, Parergon. Till allo^ men certJ thre mar cffec the : the I Hoi; cith< com man volv ackr whei for c I Apo whic are i dealt 1 anot exec ( {ctr. unyc V. THE GREEK CJIVRCIL TilK Orthodox Greek Church Is said to discourage, but to allow marriage after divorce. The following is the state- ment of the Archimandrite Dionysius I'laisas in reply to certain questions : — ' My Church tries to conciliate the unhappy couple three months before proceedings for a dissolution of marriage are conmenced. Hut if a conciliation cannot be effected, then the Church herself, and the State, dissolve the marriage. Three months after the Divorce is issued, the Church, according to the Thirteenth Encyclical of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, gives permission to cither of the divorced to remarry.' ' The Nestorians, who were at one time the largest community of Christians, have always forbidden such re- marriage. The Abysslnlans practise polygamy. ' In Russia, adultery, sentence to punishment in- volvmg loss of civil and political rights, absence, as acknowledged by law, U. absence for at least five years, the whereabouts of the absentee being unknown,' are grounds for dissolving the marriage bond, according to J. \V. Lea.^ But in the Code of Canons of the Greek Church the Apostolical Canon, and the Canon of the African Code, which without exception condemn marriage after divorce! are incorporated ; it will be interesting to sec how these arc dealt with. The Canon is : ' If a layman dismiss his wife and marry another, or marry a woman divorced by another, let him be excommunicated.' On this the renowned Greek Canonist Balsamon {ctr. A.D. 1 1 80) comments: 'Divorced, that is a woman unyoked from her husband not according to Imv: Ho also ' Comernmg Divorce ; a Paix-r rend nt S.nlisbury, iSSo. p. 11 - Christian Maiiia;^e, p. 26. 96 The Greek Chunk says that the former clause of the Canon means, • a layman dismissmg his wife [Tra/jaXoywy] uurmsonai'/j'.' Similarly Alexius Aristenus (a.D. ii66), in his Synopsis, has, ' If a man dismiss his wife wit/wut one of the /awful causes, And marry another, he is excommunicated' Zonaras {ar. A.D. 1 150) has much the same. ^ When the African Canon has to be dealt with the Canonists say in effect that it was repealed by the law about divorce in the Novellae of Justinian, which laid down the lawful causes of divorce. The comment of Balsamon on the African Canon runs as follows : — 'This Synod decrees that a woman that has been removed from her husband is not to marry another and again, the husband is no*- to cohabit with another' but either to remain single or be reconciled ; and then the Synod recommends that all should be compelled to do this by Royal Decree. But remark that the 117th Novel of Justinian, in the Vii. title of the 28th Book, has altered the law about dissolving marriage; and read the 87th Canon of the Council in Trullo, and the remarks on it and you will find much on such questions. For the con- tents of the present Canon, being very much older, are obsolete. The Novel referred to is of considerable length, but the causes of divorce are as follows : — The causes for which a man may send a divorce to his wife: I. Treason against the Emperor known and not revealed. 2. Adultery. 3. Attempt on the husband's life 4. Associating and bathing with other men against her husband's will. 5. Attending races, or theatres, or hunts without her husband's permission. The causes for which a woman may send a divorce to her husband : i. Treason against the Emperor known and not revealed. 2. Attempt on the wife's life. 3. If he attempt to prostitute his wife to other men. 4. If he prosecutes his wife for adultery and fails to prove it 5 If he lives with another woman in the same house as his wife or in another house in the same city, and refuses to discon- tmue the habit when charged with it now and again. Then there are three other causes for which divorc may be given : i. Impotence from the commencement of marriage. 2. The retirement of either into a monastery 3. The imprisonment of either for some time. Thus the Greeks say the old Canons of the Church are repealed by the imperial law. IS, • a layman 06), in his 9uf one of the nmunicated.' lit with, the le law about lid down the 3aIsamon on t has been nother, and, mother, but n the Synod do this by Novel of has altered id the 87th tiarks on it, or the con- older, are ■th, but the ^orce to his n and not iband's life, igainst her , or hunts, divorce to tnown and 3. If he 4. If he Mt. 5. If IS his wife, to discon- ;ain. :h divorc icement of nonastery. T/ic /\0)iiau C/iiinh hurch are THE ROMAN CHURCH. As will have been seen above {Canons of the Church t I}' ',?'*' '^^ Roman Church in the ninth century probably allowed remarriage after divorce. It is true that It IS not said so in so many words, but this is the probable rneanmgof the Canon. In A.D. 726, Pope Gregory allowed the husband of a sick wife to marry another, if he allowed alimony to the first. On this astounding proposition Gratian remarks : ' This decision of Gregory is altogether contrary to the sacred Canons, yea also to the teaching of the Gospels and Apostles." In A.D 865, Pope Nicolas used language which implied that a husband might murder an adulterous wife On this Gratian says: ' Nicolas seems to pern husbands to kill their wives because of adultery, or some other crime of the same kind. But ecclesiastical discipline bids criminals to be smitten with the spiritual, not the material, sword ' But in the Council of Trent the Roman Communion settled that marriage is unlawful after divorce ; but in order to satisfy the legates from Venice (who said that there were Greeks under Venetian rule who would not accept an anathema against all who said that the bond of marriag-c was broken by adultery), the form of the anathema was changed, and issued against those who said that the Roman Church was wrong in maintaining the indissolu- bility of marriage.' But the practice of the Pope in granting all kinds of dispensations in respect of marriage deprives the law of the Roman Church of the respect it would otherwise command. It is startling to read that in A.D. 1225 William Dens, Vicar of the Church of Mundeham, had two wives, and exhibited a papal dispensation to allow him to have them In our own times the Lady Mary Hamilton was divorced from the Prince of Monaco, and married, at Vienna to a Hungarian Prince; and in September 1888. the Italian, Duke of Aosta, was married by dispensation to his own brother s daughter. The following extract from the London Times of February 9, 1876, will be interesting, as showing how the system of dispensations works : — ' See Hrcnt's ///V/, Co. 7'ifiif, p, 754, u 98 The Roman Church A curious case has been decided in the Irish Rolls Court A bociety had existed for the purpose of providing life annuities for the widows of Constabulary officers, and one of the conditions was that a widow remarrying should forfeit her annuity. The bociety had been ordered to be wound up, and in the liquidation proceedings the annuities were capitalized, and a rateable value was paid to each annuitant. The husband of the claimant died in 1869 and in 1875 she went through a ceremony of marriage with the husband of her deceased sister before a Roman Catholic priest in a chapel in the county of Kerry, and the question was whether she had thereby forfeited her annuity, the ceremony being a nullity according to the law of this country, though it was stated to have been celebrated under a special dispensation from the f ope. After her marriage she had made the statutory decla- ration that she was still a widow, and contended that she was entitled to the rateable bulk value of her annuity. His Honour decided that she was legally entitled to the money sought, but com- mented strongly on her having kept back the real facts from the Lolls Court. A e annuities for the conditions annuity. The the liquidation rateable value limant died in marriage with man Catholic ! question was the ceremony though it was lensation from atutory decla- that she was His Honour ght, but com- facts from the VI. DIVORCE IN CANADA. its a'id'rJ'f, ''"'•''" ^ T'^ permanent union where Religion lends Its aid and solemnity to the transaction.' Governor Carleton, 1789, 113 I] a1 re T tc b< WJ ha mi bii kii wi yei aiK an to ' wi cat sill! VI. DIVORCE IX CANADA. In 1758 the Legislature in Nova Scotia passed an Act about Marriage and Divorce, without any suspending clause reserving the right of the Home Government to interfere. This led evidently to some correspondence, and eventually to the repeal of certain parts of the Act. Clause I of the Act provided that no marriage should be celebrated without the publication of Banns, or license from the Governor. § 2. If a clergyman refu.sed to publish the Banns, he was liable to a fine of 50/., and an action for damages. . f •^- ^^ ^ clergyman refused to marry a couple, he was liable to a fine of 50/, and an action for damages. § 4. Bigamy is declared a felony. § 5. This not to extend to divorced parties. § 6. The Governor and Council are the Court to deter- mine matters concerning prohibited marriages and divorce. , . j.7- Declares the English law about prohibited degrees binding, and allows Divorce a vinculo for impotence, and kindred ; and divorce (i.e. from bed and board), for adultery, wilful desertion, and withholding maintenance for three years. § 8. Incest, how to be punished. § 9- Adultery to be punished by fine, imprisonment, and action for damages. However, in 1759 clauses § 2 and 3 were repealed by an Act which declared that the clergy were to be subject to the penalties of the Canms and none other. And again in 1761 an Act was passed which withdrew ' wilful desertion, and withholding maintenance,' from the causes for which divorce from bed and board might issue, since this was ' inconsistent with the laws of England.' Sections 4 and 5 are simply a precis of the Act i Jac I. cap. II, § ii. ill. iv. Erom section 5 uc may Icarn (a.s the editor I' niiickc I02 Divorce in Canada points out) that the divorce referred to was only a divorce from bed and board, since no divorce from the bond of matrimony requires a proviso. The proviso bein^ Pro- vided nevertheless that if a divorced person marry again he shall not be convicted of a felony under § 4. In 1786 the Legislature of the New Province of New Brunswick began its work, and the House of Assembly passed a long Bill covering the whole question of marriage and divorce. In the nth section divorce a vinculo\ granted for precontract, impotence, and kindred In section 12 ' the innocent and injured party ' in a judgment of divorce (from bed and board) ' may marry another person. The Bill was read the first time on January 19, 1786 passed, and sent to the Council for concurrence nine day.s afterwards, on January 28. The Council introduced se- veral amendments, some of which did not meet the views of the House of Assembly, and the Bill was dropped for that year. The patticular amendment, which seems specially to have caused the rejection of the Bill, was ' that the several powers hereinbefore given to Justices of the Peace shall only be exercised by them when there is no parson, vicar or curate, nor any person in Holy Orders within the Parish' to execute the same.' The Bill gave unrestricted powers to the magistrate to marry couples at will with the license ol the Governor, or publication of Banns. This seems to be the first declaration in any English Legislature that ' the innocent and injured party ' may marry after divorce from bed and board. In 1787 the Bill was again introduced and passed into an Act with a suspending clause reserving it for ' His Majesty's consideration.' The Council did not insist upon their amendment, that the Magistrate should not officiate when there was a parson at hand. In this Act (§ 10) it is declared ' that the causes of divorce from the Bond of Matrimony, and of dissolving and annulling marriages, are, and shall be, precontract . . . impotence and consanguinity ... and no other causes whatsoever.' This, of course, was the English law of divorce a vinculo In the next clause (§ 1 1) it runs, 'after a sentence, decree or judgment of r/«wr\st of July, 1789. 'Adultery is not considered in this Act as a cause of Divorce from the Marriage Bond, but (agreeably to the laws of England) only from Bed and Board. It is, therefore, subjected expressly with other de inquencies to the cognizance of the Governor and Council ; and to remedy any particular case, it provides for the remarriage of the innocent party by the special license of the Court. Ihe expediency of this license is, I confess, questionable • but no law can pass here as in England, for a particular divorce • and the question was whether this mode, or a dissolving of the Afarnage Contract, should be preferred. 'I heartily subscribe to the observations respecting pre-con- tracts, and wish they had been so restricted here 'Respecting the want of appeal, I can only .say that causes of this kind should not be too easily agitated-that they are by this law to be heard in the first instance before the most responsible persons of the province, the (Jovernor, or Commander-in-Chief for the time being, and His Majesty's Council-and that in cases of magnitude where perhaps the spirit of party or faction might be supposed to influence, an appeal to the King in Council rnav be construed from the Royal instructions. 'This Act has the me"> of limiting in some degree the indis- criminate celebration of marriage allowed by the laws of Nova Scotia, and in many respects defines what is there, perhaps left too much at large. But, on the whole, I do not approve of hold- ing up marriage so openly in the light of a merely civil contract The Justices might have been restrained from officiating in parishes where a clergyman resided ; for Marriage will (generally speaking) be a more permanent union where Religion lends its aid and solemnity to the transaction ; and I cannot help thinking the manners of the people require the causes of divorce to be narrowed as much as may be, consistently with the nature of the contract and that the liberty of renarrying by permission had better have been omitted. ' Clergymen of every denomination are in the habit of cele- brating marriage through the Colonies, and this Act only aims at restraining and regulating them.' Here remark that the Bishop of London fails to see what the Act clearly intended— viz. to make a keen dis- tinction between divorce n vinculo and that a mensa et thoro. The divorce a vinculo was only to be granted in such cases as certain precedent impediments to marriage rendered io5 Divorce ill Cauaiia the marriage a nullity— viz. impcjtcncc, precontract, con- sanguinity, and such h"kc. These would render the mar- riage contract a nullity, and ab initio void. Adultery - being subsequent to marriage, is regarded only as a proper cause for a temporary separation -that is, a divorcer mensa etthoro. The Act .says that no other cause whatever than certain antecedent or precedent impediments should break the bond of marriage. But the Bishop of London did not ob.servc this distinction, and suggested that adultery should be made a cau.se for divorce a vinculo. The answer of the Lieutenant-Governor Carleton shows that he appreciated the difference which the Bishop overlooked ; and Governor Carleton and his advisers were certainly in the right. However, in 1791 (there does not seem to have been r meeting of the Legislature in 1790) the Bill was intro- duced afresh, and passed with the alterations hinted at or suggested by the Bishop of London ; and now for the first time, and this in consequence of the suggestion of a Bishop of the Church, adultery was made one of the ordinary causes of divorce from the bond of marriage This being the case, there was no need of any license or permission to the innocent party to marry ; for the bond being broken, both parties were free to marry others. At the same time the clause in the former Bill, which recog- nized separation from Bed and Board, remains the same in the new Act ; though as adultery is now held to authorize divorce from the Bond there is no longer any cause recog- nized for separation from Bed and Board. There is evidence in the original of this Act of very great care. The Bill is altered and amended and clauses are introduced and others struck out, so that in some parts it IS rather diflficult to be quite certain of the sequence of clauses or words. But the MS. is more accurate than the printed copy of 1805, which speaks of the ' rights of the Church,' whereas the MS. has, accurately, rites. There was an attempt made to allow of an appeal as suggested in the Bishop of London's letter, but it was ultimately struck out. The right of appeal was introduced into Clause 5, but it was struck out. Though by succe.ssive Acts of Assembly since 1791 almost all the Act has been repealed, yet the causes for divorce from the bond of matrimony still remain the same to the present day; and adultery remains a cause of Divorce in Canada 107 tract, coll- ar the mai- Adultcry, IS a proper cc a mensa tcvcr than 3uld break an did not ery should Carlcton he Bishop iscrs were liave been *vas intro- ited at or r the first tion of a le of the marriage, icense or the bond liers. At ch recog- s same in authorize ise recog- : of very auses are e parts it ucnce of than the 's of the ppeal as t it was troduced ce 1791 uses for he same cause of divorce from the Bond to the present. It was introduced in answer to the ' Observation ' of Bishop Bcilby I'ortcus, which ' Observation ' was clearly due to an oversight. It may be noticed in passing that, though this seems to be the first case of the admission of adultery to be a cause for divorce a vinculo in a general and not special English law, yet in Massachusetts, in the Act passed March 16, 1786, and in the Statute in New York passed March 30, 1787, adultery is admitted to be a cause for dissolution of mar- riage. In Nova Scotia at the present day a divorce from the Bond of matrimony may be granted for ' impotence, adultery, cruelty, or kindred within the degrees prohibited.' In Prin'CE Kdwaki) Island, Cruelty is not a cause for divorce a vinculo, but the causes are ' impotence, adultery, and consanguinity,' as in New Brunswick. Thus much for the Maritime Provinces. In Canada proper — that is, in Quebec and Ontario — the procedure is different, and is .similar to the process in England before 1857. Special Bills for divorce in individual cases have to be introduced into Parliament, and they have to be there discussed before they are passed. It seems that from 1867 to 1888 twenty-three Bills have been passed in the Dominion Parliament for divorce because of adul- tery, and ten such applications have been rejected. This latter information (about Quebec and Ontario) is due to the courtesy of Mr. J. A. Gemmill, the author of a well-known book on Parliamentary Divorce in Canada. rniN'TED BY srorriKWoiPiiK and