which your article refers. It lays down that • .
•
" the marriage being annulled, the respective parties may many
again, as if the prior marriage:had been dissolved by death " ;
and that "this liberty extends to the guilty parties.- clergyman of the Church of England is bound to remarry -guilty person divorced ; but he must grant the use of his church for the purpose to any other clergyman licensed to officiate in the diocese."
It will be noticed that no attempt is made to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent party ; this distinction is difficult to establish ; as a rule there are faults on 'both sides. The Lower House of Convoestifth protested ; -Mit no action was taken by the Bishops ; many '''bf the most important of them voted for the Bill. Since then the "parochial atmo- sphere" in the Church has collie to prevail more acutely and on a wider scale. Whether this is a good, or a bad, thing is
matter-of opinion : but-it has certainly synchronized with the decline of the'Chureh as a factor in the national life.-
Of late years Civil Marriage has become common among all classes ; and it is improbable that there will be much demand for the rites of the Church on the part offpersons who have gone through the Divorce Court But where this demand is made in 'good faith, it is difficult to see on what religious or rational ground it can be resisted. The words of Christ with regard to Divorce are neither certain nor statutory ; the Eccle- siastical tradition is neither uniform nor authoritative : the matter is -one' of expediency, not of principle, and the real question lies -behind. It is this : Is communion to be refused to persons who, having been divorced, have lawfully and in good faith contracted another marriage ?—i.e., . are such per- sons, ipso facto, living in sin ? That this is so is a position which the lay conscienee refuses to accept.7–I am, Sir, &c., A LIBERAL. CEMAN.
Previous page
