THE MARRIAGE ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2177, 16 September 1920, Page 3

THE MARRIAGE ACT.

REV. ELLIOTT'S STATEMENT. Wellington, Sept. 14. - Rev. Howard Elliott made the following -statement to-night:—“The. pronouncements which have been made, by Archbishop O’Shea and Bishops Cleary and Brodie, respecting the amendments to the Marriage Act are remarkable in their ingenuity and avoiding the real point at issue in the proposed legislation. The prehtles named would make it appear that the aim of the clause referred to is to interfere with (ho religious liberty of Roman Catholics, and to make it an offence for members of that denomination to hold or proclaim marriage as a sacrament, whereas the clause, whilst permitting the fullest legitimate liberty, proposes to make it an offence to allege, either expressly or by implication, that any person lawfully married are not truly and sutficiently married, or that the issue of any lawful marriage is illegitimate or born out of true wedlock. The Roman Catholic Church has so alleged in the Fink Catechism, and in approved publications. No Church or person can claim the right to make such an allegation. To do so is an insufferable infringement of the civil rights and religious liberty of others. The proposed legislation will vindicate the supremacy of British law, protect the rights of citizens, and guard children against the stigma of being branded illegitimate: and in so doing will have the hearty support of every liberty-lov-ing Britisher. There are real injustices and great wrongs which will be corrected by the passing of this legislation, and threats of bishops are not likely to affect the minds of legislators now that the evidence has convinced one of the strongest and most representative committees in Farliamenl of (he necessity for such legislation. Neither is it likely that the purpose of the legislation will la del'ealed by the introduction of words which would destroy the working.of the measure." / A FRESBVTER.IAN VIEWPOINT. PROPOSED CLAESES CONDEMNED. The Presbyterian viewpoint was expressed by the Rev. I. .lolly, minister of St. Stephen’s Church, Ponsonby. He said he regarded the proposed new clause as “a piece of monstrous folly." “As a strongly convinced Pro-le-slant," said Mr .Jolly, "I object to persecuting principles, and the proposed new clause, if enacted, would become an instrument of persecution against every sincere Roman Catholic. Of course, 1 believe Roman Catholics are wrong in regarding marriage as a sacrament, but (be fact remains that the Roman Church declares matrimony to be a sacrament ; as a consequence every sincere Roman Catholic is hound to regal'd a marriage performed by one who is not a priest, as insufficient, it is nothing to the point to say thev

are wrong in that. The fact remains that that is their sincere eonvieion. and to send them to gaol for holding that belief and expressing it is to revive the era of religious persecution by the Slate. As a .Presbyterian i believe that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and t object to a Roman Catholic priest being sent to gaol for his religious convictions. Every intelligent Protestant will object to it. And the folly of the proposal! That law could not possibly be enforced. Just imagine our judges sending Archbishop O’Shea and Bishop Cleary to gaol for a year for expressing Hie views of the Roman Catholic Church on the qnesiion of marriage! The thing is too absurd.’’

Continuing, Mr Jolly said Hie proposed clause might: easily result in a Protestant being sen! to gaol with a Roman Catholic.. “While disliking a mere civil marriage by the registrar.’' he said, “our Church accepts it. But if the Stale enacts grounds of divorce, which we believe to be contrary to the law of God, we are bound to regard people who are divorced on those grounds a- being -till married, and any marriage entered into subsequently by them would be null and void. No Christian Clmreb can allow the State to dictate to it its doctrine of marriage. Marriage is an ordinance of (tod, and a Christian Church cannot subordinate Hu* law of Cod to an Act of Parliament. On this Dr. Charles Hodge, a well-known Presbyterian theologian, says: “The Stale can no more free a husband or wife from the bond of matrimony than it can free a father from the bond'of posterity.’ It seems to me it is time the Presbyterian Church was looking into this question of divorce and its relation to Christian doctrine. I believe that in America our Church had simply to refuse to recognise the grounds of divorce Unit were legal in many States."