Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1895-06-06
Are Eplscopallan Clergymen Compel
ed to Marry Divorced Persons?

A startling sequel to the public pro.
test against the marriages in church
by clergyman of the Church of En-.
gland of a man against whom a decree
of divorce had been granted. which
| was made by the Rev. Mr.. Black at a
| recent London wedding, is the opinion
delivered by DIR. Tristram. Chancellor
OF the diocese of London, that clergy,
| man has no option in the matter, but
/ must perform the ceremony if a special
license has been obtained. The opin-
ion respecting the law has surprised
and alarmed churchmen throughout
| England.
Apart from the question whether his
mode of attracting attention to the case
| was judicious or proper, there is nc
doubt that in opposing the marriage
| the Rev. Mr.. Black represented the sen.
| timent of the great body of churchmen,
English and American, who believe in
marriages as sacrament, and not
merely as civil contract. While there
is diversity of opinion as to to the pro-
priety of the innocent party to a di-
vorce suit remarrying, the bulk of the
Episcopalian communion is shocked at
the thought of the Church sanctioning
the administration of the sacrament to
the guilty party. The law permits
him to marry again, and he can do go
before civil officer; but it has been
assumed hitherto that it did not compel
the Church to perform the ceremony.
and that where such marriages have
occurred it has been due to laxity on
the part of the Church officials. The
subsequent developments in the case
are, therefore, surprising.
The clergyman who officiated pub
lished an awkwardly worded explana-
tion, which seemed to imply that the
divorced man was the innocent party
to the suit, and asserted that he had
no option in the matter, as he acted
by the special mandate of his diocesan,
the natural inference being that the
Bishop of London had interviewed d.
rectly. The mandate turned out to be
nothing more than the special license
dispensing with the banns, issued in
the ordinary course of business by a
subordinate in the Chancellor's office,
of course without the Bishops knowl-
edge. He is reported by the Guar
dian to have said '.that, while he had
no power 10 object, nothing on earth
would induce him to perform such
ceremony himself"
DR.. Tristram, however, who is Chan
celior of the diocese, and as such is
judge of the Bishops consistory court,
took occasion at the next two sessions
of the court to make elaborate state
ments of the law in the matter. AS
len is extrajudicial; but as he has been
at the head of the court for twenty
two years, and is one of the foremost
canon lawyers in England, his opinion
has weight, and he is supported in it
by Lord Grimthorpe, Vicar-General of
the province of York. DIR. Tristram
mountains, first that he has no option
as to granting licenses, for license
must issue as a matter of right to any
one who can show that there is no le-
gal impedinent to the marriage; adding
that when the late Bishop of London
dirented him to issue no license to di-
vorced persons. he disreguarded the
Injunction because it was ultra Uires;
secondly, that the Divorce act pre-
scribes that the guilty party in di-
vorce suit is entitled to be married in