New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-06-12
BANNED. YET BLESSED.

a novel and interesting development OF the
question OF divorce and remarriage Is reported
from the city OF TrenHn. y. j. n man and
woman one of whom at least had been divorced
from a former partner IN unsuccessful matH-
mony, appeared before a well known minister
of the Presbyterian Church. with request that
he celebrate the triumph Of hope over expe-
rence by uniting them IN holy wedlock. The
minister appears to have regarded their desire
with sympathy. and perhaps with individual
approval. But he rightly regarded himself
bound by the rules OF the Church Of which he
was a minister, and thus was constrained. how
ever reluctantly, TO decline the office. His In
terest in their prospective conJugal welfare led
him, however, to bear them company into the
presence OF a justice OF the Supreme Court, and
when the latter had united them as husband
and wife in civ . contract the minister added
his blessing by pronouncing benediction upon
a marriage which he could not perform.
The novelty OF this performance will. We
think, appeal to ALL We do not remember with
confidence any prototype Of II In al the varie-
gated history Of marriage and divorce. The
interest Of It is no less obvious. II sets forth.
In the first place the admirable loyalty Of
Clergyman 10 the rules OF his Church, even
when IN an individual case they seem 10 bear
hardly. lie might have made II convenient 10
be forgetful OF the sact that It was a divorced
person who confronted him, and thus have Sc
cured for the treasury OF the nanse tho fee
that went into the judicial pocket In fact. he
yielded TO no such temptation, but was as mind
ful OF his clerical duty as though he were con
sidering the unbaptized heathen's chances OF
sally alton. Yet he did not entirely cast the
banned applicants into the outer darkness In
stead, he finely set forth that unfailing Chris
tan charity which follows need even unto tho
uttermost So, while he could not, under tech
meal obligations, marry them he could and did
invoke blessing upon their marriage.
The Dropriety Of that benedctlon will not, we
hope be questioned. In Olden time they used
to offer the toast God bless-no harm in bless
ing-the Pretender!' in which there was no IN
dictable disloyalty to the King There can in
the present case be no harm In blessing for
hidden marriage, or, rather the parties 10 1t.
Logic, indeed. well as Christian charity, COM
mends such benediction. Either the divorced
member of the pair was innocent OF wrongdOlng
or was guilty. In the former case, despite the
technical rule of the Church. 1t was fitting TO
invoke blessing upon an innocent pair in their
quest of coniugal happiness. But In the latter
case supposing guilt TO have marked the past
and improperly therefore to mark the present,
there is surely no one more IN need of prayer
for blessing than an evildOer. In any case, It
was well TO pronounce upon them benedictOn,
invoking upon them the grace that falleth, like
the rain, upon the Just and the unjust. The fine
distinction between sanction and blessing we
may safely leave for hair-spHtting metaphysi-
clans and theoIogians Suffice IL for the pres
emit that a way has shrewdly been discovered
In which a wedding which is banned by the
Church may vet secure the Church's prayer for
blessing