bility which religion laid upon the sexual relationships of men and women became converted into a new tenderness, and the self-denial which it demanded from unchastened passion turned into a new capacity for love and devotion."

It is to be regretted that Protestantism has increasingly led its adherents away from this idealistic, religious view of marriage in the direction of the secular view. Those who have played fast and loose with their marriage vows, and desire to enter again upon the marriage relationship, can always find some kind of a Protestant minister who, for a consideration, will be glad to pronounce them man and wife. The Catholic Church, whether Roman, Orthodox, or Anglican,— has in the main stood unflinchingly for the stricter ideal of marriage as set forth in the Gospel.

The form for the "Solemnization of Matrimony," in the Prayer Book tells us that marriage was "instituted of God"; that "it is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God." The persons who are to be married are solemnly warned "that if any persons are joined together otherwise than as God's Word doth allow, their marriage is not lawful." The

vows made by the contracting parties are made for life, "so long as ye both shall live." They take each other to have and to hold "till death us do part." After the prayers, the minister is directed to join their right hands together, and say, "Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder." Can any one seriously doubt that the Prayer Book teaches the indissolubility of marriage?

It may be said that the clear-cut position of the Prayer Book as to the indissolubility of marriage is inconsistent with the actual practice that we find in the American part of the Church to-day. It is true that the canons of the Church, as passed by the General Convention, now make it possible for the innocent party in a divorce granted by the court on the ground of adultery to marry again, providing it is not within the year after the divorce was granted. This canonical law is based upon our Lord's words in St. Matthew, XIX, 9. "Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." There has been much controversy as to the interpretation of these words. It has been maintained by many that the clause except it be

for fornication" applies to sins of the woman that may have been committed before marriage. It has also been maintained that the clause is an interpolation, as it is not found in the other reports of our Lord's words given us in the other Gospels. It is an anomalous situation, that we should find the advocates of modern Biblical criticism claiming that this phrase is an interpolation and therefore that there is no authority in our Lord's words for the breaking of the matrimonial bond under any circumstances; and on the other hand that we should find old-fashioned and orthodox churchmen who object to modern critical methods in the interpretation of the Bible, claiming that this passage should be retained, and therefore opening the way for those who believe that marriage is sometimes dissoluble. Thus we see many Catholic churchmen believing in the indissolubility of marriage and adhering to the text that makes their position impossible, and many Broad churchmen reconstructing the passage in a way which entirely condemns their own laxity in sometimes performing the marriages of divorced people.

The whole problem is by no means a simple one. Undeniably in the early Church there was a very free use of the power of dispensation, which made possible in many cases the remarriage of

divorced people. Origen, though condemning such laxity, recognized the fact that some bishops in his time would allow a divorced husband or wife to remarry while the separated party was still living. The Ninth Canon of Illiberris allows a woman who has left an adulterous husband and married another to be restored to communion, after the death of her first husband; and even sooner in case of necessity, without requiring her to break with her new partner. The modern Roman Church uses the power of dispensation very freely, annulling many marriages for a vast number of causes, and thus practically giving consent to many divorced people to remarry.

Perhaps the simplest way out of the difficulty would be to return to the practice of the early Christian centuries, by which all marriages were performed by the state, and then the parties united in matrimony went to the Church to receive a blessing upon their union. This would obviate the necessity of any ecclesiastical disciplinary regulations as to who should be permitted to marry, and the Church could give her blessing merely to those who were baptized, and living in a state of grace, and had not violated the precepts of the Gospel in regard to marriage.

I

XXVI

CEREMONIAL

'T is quite possible to over-estimate the place

and value of ceremonial in the services of the Church; it is equally possible and much more common to assume that ceremonial is a matter of taste, the outcome of a love for the archaic, to which a normal, healthy-minded modern person will naturally feel no attraction and in which he will see no use. People who are ruled by what they call common sense class the ceremonialist (whom, by the way, they usually miscall the ritualist) with the harmless faddists who collect snuff-boxes or fans or uncut editions. But one cannot get rid of ceremonial quite so easily. In conducting the services of the Church, or any other public function for that matter, it is never a question of ceremonial or no ceremonial, but of a choice between good ceremonial and bad. The most extreme opponent of "ritualism," when he conducts matins or celebrates the Lord's Supper is compelled to use ceremonial. It will no doubt be atrocious, but it will be all the more obtrusive.