THE INCORRECT PRAYER BOOK [To the Editor of TILE SPECT.■TOR.1
Sta,--I should _like to point out a deduction to be made from the case cited by Mr. Mead in your issue of September 18th, not necessary for his point. It was there laid down, in the broadest possible terms, and especially by Lord Loreburn in the House of Lords, that, if a marriage is valid according to the secular law of England, it is valid also by Church law. It follows, therefore, that all marriages of persons properly divorced are valid for all Church purposes, and, consequently, that both parties to them are entitled to Communion and must not be repelled as " notorious evil livers." No doubt the Bishops and clergy know of the case, and I understand that a large number of them, whom it displeases, simply ignore it. In disobeying the law because they do not like it, it seems to me that they place themselves in the same position as farmers who refuse to pay tithes, but the clergy do not appear to tolerate the breaking of the law in the latter instance. Some, I believe give communion to the " innocent " party, and refuse it to the " guilty." As to how " innocence " and " guilt "
should be apportioned when a husband, pestered by the urgent solicitations of a wife who finds her marriage vows irksonie to her, goes and commits bogus adultery in an hotel, I am not qualified to decide, but the law does not differentiate between the validity of their respective subsequent marriages.-
5 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C. 2. ALFRED FELLOWS.
Previous page
