THE Archdeacon of
Coventry has been taken to task, and, in our judgment, rightly so,
for deducing from the 105th of the Canons of 1603 the argument that
the Church recognizes the unfaithfulness of either party as a
ground for the dissolution of a marriage, or divorce a
vinculo. It is clear, how-ever, that the Canons recognize only
two kinds of divorce, to use the term in its widest sense, namely,
a decree of nullity and a decree of separation from bed and board.
The former decree could not be obtained on the ground of conjugal
infidelity, but only for some antecedent disqualifications
rendering the marriage invalid. The latter decree carried with it
the recognition of the indissolubility of a validly contracted
marriage, for it was not granted until either party had pledged
himself or herself not to attempt re-marriage during the other's
lifetime. It has been pointed out in the Times, where the
Archdeacon has been defending his position, that his mistake arose
from his not looking at the Latin original of the Canons, where it
is clear what we now speak of as divorce was not referred to. The
Archdeacon ought to have remembered that subsequently to the
adoption of the Canons, until 1857, the few persons who were able
to obtain divorce a vinculo did so by means of a private
Act of Parliament. The Church could not and would not dissolve
their marriages.
Since there is much confused talk, even on the part of
ecclesiastical dignitaries, on the subject of divorce, it is of
importance to point out that divorce as an ecclesiastical term
differs com- pletely from divorce as a modern legal term. . .