THE MARRIAGE LAW.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2181, 25 September 1920, Page 1

THE MARRIAGE LAW.

THE SANCTITY OF WEDLOCfv

NOT AFFECTED BY CEREMONY.

The following statement was made in connection with the Marriage Law controversy by the Rev, W. Beatty, vicar of St. Mark’s Anglican Church, Rcmuera, hist Sunday :

“It is quite (dear from reason, Scripture and history that the sanctity and binding nature of marriage in no wise depends upon any religious ceremony. The religions rites which are properly associated with it by -lews and Christians do not constitute the sanctity of the relation, bn) only recognise il. The writer of Hie article on marriage in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible says well: ‘lt may be said lo have been ordained by Cod insofar as man’s nature was ordained by Him; but its formal appointment was the work of man, and it has ever been in its essence a natural and civil inslituCon, though admitting of Hie infusion of a religious element into it. It is God and not the person officiating, whether lay or clerical, that joins man and wife together. The Bible regards as valid and bindingall marriages, even of heathens, that were celebrated according to Hie laws and customs of the country.’

“To ((Hole again the same writer: ‘The conditions of legal marriifge are decided by the prohibitions which the law of any country imposes on its citizens.’ Again he says: ‘Wti come now to the wedding itself, and in this the most observable point is that there were no definite religious ceremonies connected with it.’ The Jewish custom in biblical limes was for the bridegroom with befriends to go to the bride’s house and escort her and her maiden friends to his own home, when a feast was celebrated, which often lasted seven, or even fourteen days. In the New Testament there is not. the slightest hint given by our Lord or His apostles that it was obligatory to have a religious ceremony performed by a minister of the Church. However,-even admitting for the sake of argument the claim of the Church of Rome that marriage is a sacrament,, that does not make it indispensable that a priest should officiate. That Church in urgent cases permits a layman, or

& even n nurse, to baptise an infant, and since baptism is the divinelyordained means of admitting: a person into the visible Church, it is difficult to see why a layman should be competent to administer this rite and incompetent to join together those who desire to enter into the marriage relation. ‘■'Again/’ continued Mr Beatty, “1 have it on Hie authority of Mr E. Blackwood Wright, barrister-at-law, and author of legal,works, that until the Council of Trent, held in Hie sixteenth century, even in canon law it was not necessary for its vaiidty that marriage should'be performed by a person in holy orders. Its sacramental character, according to the old canon lawyer’s view, was not affected by its having been celebrated without a priest. The Church of Rome may be quite justified in requiring as a matter of order its members to be married by a priest, and in administering censure and discipline to those who fail to obey the rule'; but anyone who denies the validity of a marriage celebrated otherwise is as much at variance 3 with Holy Scripture, reason .and history as he is with Christian charily.”