Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 75

[introduction]

[unclear: s] to the nature of marriage there are two [unclear: inct] conceptions—the ecclesiastical and the [unclear: onalistic]. According to the former marriage a divine institution—"holy" matrimony,—our knowledge of its nature and essentials derived from revelation and patristic [unclear: tradi-] This idea of the sacredness of marriage commonly and thoughtlessly, and, to my [unclear: d], blaspbemously, expressed in the vulgar [unclear: ing,] "Marriages are made in Heaven." acording to tbe rationalistic view, on the other [unclear: d], marriage is simply an outcome of some-[unclear: ng] inherent in human nature, and is subject development as other institutions are, such the family and the State. It in the result of process of evolution from tribal promiscuity [unclear: d] "marriage by capture," through polyandry [unclear: d] polygamy, to the very imperfect form of [unclear: nogamy] now prevailing. According to the [unclear: elesiastical] view the essentials of [unclear: marriage] to be found in the "marriage" in Para-[unclear: e], and the most important of those essensials indissolubility, a doctrine based upon a [unclear: eral] rendering of the obviously metaphorical pression, "they shall be one fleet." This [unclear: ctrine] in all its strictness is held mainly by [unclear: tholics] and by the High Church section [unclear: of] English Church, who regard matrimony [unclear: as] of the sacraments, and as partaking of [unclear: eir] mystical character.

[unclear: With] people imbued with this doctrine, dissition were useless, because for them the sub-[unclear: et] is placed beyond the region of [unclear: discussion] the express teaching of an authority which [unclear: ey] regard as infallible. The Catholic believes [unclear: arriage] to be indissoluble because he is taught [unclear: st] God, through tbe Bible and an infallible [unclear: urch] has miraculously so declared it. Other [unclear: ligious] bodies hold a somewhat similar view, [unclear: hough] on different grounds. Whilst reject [unclear: g] the Catholic doctrine, which treats matri-[unclear: ony] as sacrament, they still more scornfully [unclear: ject] all rationalistic ideas on the subject, and establish their doctrine upon certain utterances attributed to Christ, which they accept as miraculously inspired. The position of the Catholic, however much one may dissent from it, must be admitted to be logically tenable and comparatively secure, for be is enabled to overcome all difficulties in the interpretation of Scripture by accepting the teaching of his church as equally inspired with Scripture itself. The remarkable thing is that other religicus bodies, whilst rejecting the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the teachings of a church, accept a particular traditional interpretation of Christ's utterances as being no more open to doubt than Christ's miraculous character and the miraculous accuracy of tbe Gospels. Whilst the Catholic builds his superstructure upon a foundation which other religious bodies regard as unsound, they themselves retain the superstructure with no foundation at all, but suspended in mid-air.

I have no intention of entering upon any questions of interpretation; but to complete this part of my argument it is necessary to state the position a little more fully. The ground, then, on which opposition to proposals for the amendment of the law of divorce is unually based is found in certain texts of Scripture, of which the leading one is: "What, therefore, God hath joined together let not man put asunder." The Catholic Church accepts this ulterance in its simplicity as an absolute prohibition of divorce on any ground. Others, however, qualify the generality of this utterance by another, "Whosever shall put away his wife except for fornication [porneia], and shall marry another, committeth adultery." New it is well known that of this text there are various readings, in some of which there is no reference to the exception allowing divorce on the ground of porneia.

But besides the difficulties arising from this great diversity in the readings, there is an even greater doubt as to the interpretation of page 2 the word translated "fornication" [porneia]. The Catholic overcomes, or rather evades, all such difficulties by accepting as final and infallible the teaching of his church, which settles the matter by declaring against divorce for any caute. For those who are doable to accept this position, the rational course is to recognise that utterances so conflicting in their terms and so doubtful in their meaning cannot have been intended as the promulgation of a law. What a forcible illustration we have here of the truth of the saying "the letter killeth"! People who in dealing with all other social questions have shaken themselves Free from the fetters of theological dogmas and superstitions continue to be dominated on this subject by considration derived unconsciously from centuries of Catholic tradition—a tradition the rejection of which was one of the leading points in the Protestant revolt against the Catholic Church. People who would not for one moment allow a text of Scripture however plain its meaning, still less a traditional interpretation of an obscure text, to arrest a proposed reform in any other social sphere are brought to a standstill here. Bow has it come about that whilst no man in his senses is expected to accept certain other injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount as constituting a law valid and binding for all time, this particular one should be so accepted ? Most of those other injunctions have been taken solemnly, but not seriously.

If we are to be told that, in some cases, Christ's sweeping mandates are, of course, not to be understood literally, when they are so clearly expressed, is it not strange that passages that require interpretation by an infallible church are to be accepted as conclusive, and as forming a bar to all reform ? Texts whose meaning is clear are either ignored or explained away, whilst those whose meaning it is impossible to ascertain with certainty are dressed up as theological scarecrows. The explanation of the matter is found in the fact that most people are, on this point, still urconsciously dominated by the teachings and traditions of a church claiming to be infallible, and by the laws imposed by that church. Unfortunately, our marriage laws have come to be regarded as sacred because they are of ecclesiastical origin, and consequently it is assumed that they cannot be improved as other laws are. Marriage has thus come to be regarded as a stationary institution, and not subject to change and development like other institutions. It affords an illustration of the law stated by Spencer: "Whenever requirements which have their roots in the order of nature come to be enforced by an extrinsic authority, obedience to that extrinsic authority takes the place of obedience to the natural requirements." As Milton says :"Whose prefers matrimony or other [unclear: ordin] before the good of man and the plain [unclear: er] cies of charity, let him profess Papist [unclear: or] testant or what he will, he is no better [unclear: th] Pharisee."

To me it seems a misuse of [unclear: Scriptur] expect to find therein either law or [unclear: ct] Christ's doctrine of divorce is one [unclear: that] Protectant nation has dared to [unclear: incorp] into law or carry out in practice. He [unclear: sa] man may put away his wife for one [unclear: cause] one only, but He makes no provision [unclear: for] wife putting away her husband at all [unclear: for] cause! The New Testament doctrine of [unclear: div] is entirely one-sided, and can never [unclear: have] intended as the promulgation of a law [unclear: bind] for all time.

Now, in what has preceded, my [unclear: object] been, not to discuss the grounds of the [unclear: ec] astical conception of matrimony, but [unclear: merely] point out that the ordinary theological [unclear: ob] tions to the extension of the liberty of [unclear: div] beyond the grounds of adultery are not [unclear: be] upon Scripture, but upon a traditional [unclear: i] pretation derived from the Catholic [unclear: Ch] This was recognised even in England in [unclear: e] post-Reformation times, as [unclear: appears] Cranmer's "Reformatio Legum," which [unclear: show] recognised opinion and sentiment of the [unclear: Ch] of England at that time, and [unclear: contains] views of the Reformers. This work [unclear: allowed] lawful causes of divorce, not only [unclear: adultery] also desertion, protracted absence, [unclear: m] enmities, and lasting cruelty. This [unclear: op] prevailed for a period of only [unclear: about] years, and as a rule [unclear: d] ngland, in [unclear: re] to the marriage laws, as in most [unclear: ma] ecclesiastical, took a middle course, [unclear: and] every stage the history discloses [unclear: "l] Catholicism," to use the happy phrase [unclear: of] G. H. Lewes. In Scotland the view [unclear: ad] by the Reformers has prevailed ever [unclear: since] since the sixteenth century desertion has [unclear: be] ground of divorce. And yet not long [unclear: a] number of ministers of the Presbyterian [unclear: Ca] of Otago committed themselves to a [unclear: pronun] ment to the effect that divorce on the [unclear: gro] desertion is not only unscriptural [unclear: but] sarily subversive of morality—a [unclear: position] is quite untenable. No social problem [unclear: wa] adequately solved by this light and airy [unclear: m] of passing resolutions embodying [unclear: state] that are quite incapable of proof. [unclear: For] of Scotch Presbyterians to pronounce [unclear: di] on the ground of desertion [unclear: subver] morality is simply to libel their [unclear: country], to show how little consideration they [unclear: gave] important question; whilst the [unclear: narrow] matic spirit shown is worthy of men [unclear: who] be prepared to rend in twain their [unclear: church] such a question as that of marriage [unclear: w] deceased wife's sister.

The question can never be [unclear: adequitely] with until it is recognised as a [unclear: purely] page 3 and not a theological one, to be handled as freely as other social questions are—until we put away from us a11 theological prepossessions, which prevent the application to this subject of those principles which are applied in discussing all other social subjects.