Christian Marriage Indissoluble: A Plain Sermon: Preached at Archbishop Tenison's chapel, on the fifth Sunday after Trinity, 1857

In Short

This work is a transcription of a sermon delivered in 1857 at Archbishop Tenison’s chapel during a time of significant moral and legal anxiety. The author argues against the proposed Matrimonial Causes Bill, which sought to formalize divorce in England. By grounding his position in a strict interpretation of the Gospels, he contends that marriage is a divinely instituted, permanent union that no human authority has the right to dissolve. The text serves as a historical artifact of the Church of England’s resistance to secularizing the sanctity of marriage.

The Story

The narrative arc of this sermon begins with a call to arms for the clergy and the congregation. The author addresses a "great moral and religious crisis": the introduction of a bill in Parliament that would, for the first time, establish a general law allowing for the legal dissolution of marriage and the subsequent remarriage of divorced individuals. He frames this not as a mere political debate, but as a direct challenge to the authority of God. He warns his listeners that their past apathy—their failure to "seek the law at the priest's mouth"—has left them unprepared to defend the sanctity of the family against a secular encroachment that threatens to validate "guilty passions."

The argument moves from the immediate political threat to the theological foundation of marriage. Drawing on the book of Genesis and the teachings of Christ in the Gospel of St. Matthew, the author defines marriage as an institution created during humanity's time of "innocency," where man and woman are joined by God to become "one flesh." He interprets Christ’s response to the Pharisees as an absolute, peremptory decree: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." He methodically dismantles the counter-argument that Moses allowed for divorce under the Old Testament, explaining that such permissions were mere concessions to the "hardness of hearts" and human infirmity, not divine approval of the practice.

As the sermon progresses, the author confronts the difficult "exception" found in the Gospel of St. Matthew regarding fornication. He argues that this was a parenthetical reference to the specific Jewish criminal law of the time—which punished adultery with death—rather than a loophole for modern divorce. He insists that even if such a separation were permissible, the remarriage of either party remains an act of "spiritual adultery."

The sermon culminates in a dramatic ultimatum to the state and the church. The author asserts that if the state chooses to treat marriage as a civil contract, it must not force the clergy to participate in the "profanation" of blessing what he considers adulterous unions. He declares that he would rather face conflict with the civil law than betray his allegiance to the divine prohibition against divorce. He concludes with a solemn vow to prioritize the "law of God" over the "law of the land," urging his congregation to stand firm against a measure he believes will lead to the moral decay of English domestic life.

How It Unfolds

The Call to Awareness The author opens by rebuking the clergy and laity alike for their ignorance regarding the religious implications of the pending parliamentary bill. He asserts that the "trumpet has given an uncertain sound," leaving believers vulnerable to a major shift in the moral fabric of the nation.

The Divine Institution He shifts to the biblical history of marriage, tracing its origin back to the creation of man and woman. By characterizing marriage as a type of Christ’s union with the Church, he establishes a framework where divorce is a fundamental violation of a sacred, eternal covenant.

Refuting the Mosaic Law The sermon addresses the historical confusion caused by the Mosaic permission for divorce. He explains that God merely regulated these "lawless ways" due to human stubbornness, rather than endorsing them, and that Christ definitively repealed these temporary allowances.

Addressing the Exception The author tackles the potential loopholes in the Gospel texts, arguing that the biblical mention of fornication does not justify remarriage. He emphasizes that the lack of such exceptions in other Gospels proves that the prohibition is intended to be absolute for all Christians.

The Duty of the Minister In the final movement, the author defines the role of the clergyman in the face of secular pressure. He argues that being forced to solemnize remarriages is equivalent to being forced to preach heresy, and he commits himself to potential civil disobedience to uphold his religious vows.

The People

The sermon features two primary voices: the Author, acting as the representative of the Church, and the State, represented by the anonymous proponents of the bill. The Author is an earnest, uncompromising figure who views his role as a guardian of divine truth. He is deeply concerned that the Church is losing its moral authority, and he positions himself as a potential martyr for his principles, willing to defy the law if his conscience demands it. He sees himself as a voice crying in the wilderness against a tide of secular expediency.

The Legislators and Politicians represent the opposing force. In the author's view, they are "men of the nineteenth century" who prioritize worldly convenience over eternal law. They are characterized by their desire to replace religious absolutes with "civil contracts," seeking to resolve moral problems through judicial courts rather than through spiritual discipline. Their influence is viewed by the author as a "judicial blindness," a group that has failed to heed the warnings of the past and is leading the nation toward a state of moral disorder. Between these two are the Congregation, who are portrayed as well-meaning but currently uninformed and spiritually lethargic, needing to be awakened to the true nature of the covenant they inhabit.

In Its Own Voice

“There is a bill now before the Lower House of Parliament, having passed the Upper House, which proposes to make it a common law of the land, that Christian marriages may, in certain cases, be wholly dissolved.”

The author alerts his congregation to the specific political legislation that serves as the catalyst for his sermon.

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

The author quotes the Gospel of St. Matthew to establish the scriptural foundation for his argument that marriage is indissoluble.

“If this bill passes, without a proviso, that the Church shall not be called on to celebrate or sanction such unions, then we must either wholly renounce our allegiance to Christ in this behalf, or brave the law of the land by becoming rebels against it.”

The author clarifies the extreme personal and professional stakes involved for the clergy if the proposed law is enacted.

What It's Really About

At its core, this book is an exploration of the tension between civil law and religious conscience. It asks whether the state has the authority to redefine an institution that the Church claims as a divine creation. The author wrestles with the question of whether "expediency"—the idea of making the law more practical for a changing society—can ever justify the violation of a perceived religious absolute. Beneath the argument against divorce, there is a deeper anxiety about the loss of the Church's influence over the private lives of citizens. It is a treatise on the nature of authority, the interpretation of scripture, and the boundaries of a Christian’s duty when the state’s mandates collide with their interpretation of eternal law.

Why Read It Today

Readers with an interest in 19th-century history, legal evolution, or the development of religious thought will find this text illuminating. It provides a raw, unfiltered look at the Victorian mind—specifically the urgent, often combative tone of mid-century religious discourse. It is a challenging read, not because of its complexity, but because of its narrow focus and the author’s stark, uncompromising rhetoric. You will encounter the period’s specific anxieties, which feel distant from modern secular pluralism, yet the author’s fundamental struggle—how to maintain one’s values in a changing legal landscape—remains a recognizable human dilemma.

Be prepared for the formal, dense prose typical of 1850s Anglican sermons; the author assumes his audience is already familiar with the biblical references and the political landscape of the day. The text does not shy away from the harshness of its conclusions, and the intensity of the author's moral conviction is palpable on every page. It is a brief but potent window into a worldview that viewed the sanctity of the family as the absolute bulwark against social collapse. If you are interested in the roots of current debates over the intersection of faith and law, this sermon serves as a foundational piece of the conversation.