[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] Sin,—Your excellent article under
the above heading expresses what most good men would agree with. There are, however, one or two points suggested by a misuse of words which is only too common when the question of marriage and divorce is discussed ; these are the term " sacrament " and " the law of the Church." And both of these conceal a fallacy.
There is a sense, no doubt, in which marriage can be called a sacrament, namely, that which can be applied to every sensuous object and every act of man. But this is not the sense in which it is applied to marriage in current controversy. It is suggested that marriage is a sacrament of the Church in the same sense as are Baptism and Holy Communion. But this sense is for us barred out by the XXVth Article of the Church of England. This lays down that there are two sacraments of the Gospel, and that the five commonly called sacraments " are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures." Among these five is Marriage ; and we are left with one of two definitions of it.
When, therefore, it is said that " marriage is for the State a civil contract, for the Church a sacrament " we are not at liberty to give the word " sacrament " any technical signi- ficance. Moreover, we have the authority of the late Arch- bishop Davidson for saying that " marriage after all, is in the view of the Church itself, initially and fundamentally a civil contract." (Life, i, p. 554.) The second misleading phrase is worse, and is far more common. It occurred so recently as in a letter from the Dean of Ely which appeared in The Times of January 80th last. He spoke of the law of the Church as of higher authority in this matter than the law of the State. He ought to have meant by the Church the Established Church. He might have reminded himself that by the laws which establish our Church the King is its " Supreme Governor," and that there- fore the King's ecclesiastical law is the " law of the Church." And, therefore, the law of the Church as concerning divorce is contained in the Act of 1857 as repealed and re-enacted in the Judicature Act of 1925. " From the time of the Reformation no change has been made in the law of the Church which has not been made by the King and Parliament."
Of course, the retort may be that, if that is the case, so much the worse for the Establishment, and it had better go. But let those who say this ask themselves whether they are sure that the only form of government which would then follow would be likely to be an improvement ; that would be certainly government by the bishops. And the history of the rise and growth of the Papal power is not encouraging to another such experiment. Nor, however anomalous may an alliance between Church and State seem, can it be denied that the existing system has worked in practice better than an a priori theory might seem to offer ?—Your obedient servant, W. F. GEIKIE-COBB. [The word " sacrament " was used simply in the sense of " a sacred pledge," as opposed to a civil pledge.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
