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

(5 User reviews)   1364
In Category - Theology
Cowan, James Galloway, 1826-1875 Project Gutenberg 2021 Not confirmed
Sermons, English -- 19th century; Marriage -- Biblical teaching; Divorce -- Religious aspects -- Church of England; Marriage -- Religious aspects -- Church of England; Remarriage -- Religious aspects -- Church of England Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 7,299
Reading time 32 min
Text sections 1

Before opening Christian Marriage Indissoluble: A Plain Sermon Preached at Archbishop Tenison's chapel, on the fifth Sunday after Trinity, 1857 — Edition Insights, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 7,299 words, 32 min estimated reading time, and 1 detected text section.

The text analysis averages about 27.9 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Sermons, English -- 19th century,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

A plain sermon preached in 1857 against a divorce bill, arguing from scripture and church tradition that Christian marriage is indissoluble, with a rhetorical shift from exegesis to urgent political warning.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.3/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

e first and closest of human relationships. And fresh, and higher, and holier honours were bestowed on it, when Christ made it the glorious type of His own never-to-be-broken union with His Church; calling Himself the bridegroom, her the bride; giving Himself for her, and loving and cherishing her as His own flesh; and providing that she should be presented to Him a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; that her espousals should be celebrated by angels, and that she should be for ever with the Lord.

The history of the institution of marriage, and this exaltation of it into a type of Christ’s eternal union with the Church (so much dwelt on in some books of the Old Testament) would teach us clearly, that no divorce, _save by death_, was originally contemplated in the Divine mind; and this is further incontestibly proved by Christ in the language of the text—“Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning” (He, that is, who designed what they should be and do, and has an indisputable right to exercise His will) “made them male and female,” (male and female man, this means—imperfect parts of one being—“_man_,”) and joined them together, “and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

This, brethren, is CHRIST the WORD’S answer to the question of the Pharisees, “Whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.” He refers His inquirers immediately to the original institution of marriage, as a sufficient answer, and, quoting the words then used by the Creator Himself, or dictated by His inspiration, expressive of the most entire and permanent union required between a man and his wife—words which He says make them no longer “twain, but one flesh”—He adds His own absolute, peremptory, and unqualified decree, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” In this sentence, observe He makes no exception; He allows neither adultery nor any other cause, as a justification of a breach of His prohibition. He positively forbids every human being to dissolve a union, which, as He shows, the Almighty designed to be indissoluble. {7}

His words were objected to by the Pharisees, as my interpretation of them will doubtless be by some, because in the Old Testament—in the Law given by Moses—there were distinct rules of divorce; not simply of putting away, but of marrying again. “They say unto Him, ‘Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away.’” It is to these words, contained in the 24th chapter of Deuteronomy, vv. 1, 2, that the Pharisees alluded:

“When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.”

The sermon opens with a pointed contrast: the priest’s duty to “keep knowledge” versus the apathy that fails to proclaim God’s will during a “great moral and religious crisis.” Cowan immediately names the crisis—a bill before Parliament to allow divorce and remarriage—and frames his response not as moral reasoning but as a “religious stand” rooted in the Word of God. The voice is direct, pastoral, and combative, addressing “my brethren” as both “God’s priests and God’s people.”

Cowan’s exegesis of Matthew 19:3–6 is brief; he moves quickly to the contemporary threat. The sermon’s structure alternates between scriptural citation and pointed application, with the preacher positioning himself as a watchman against legislative encroachment on divine law.

From Exegesis to Alarm

The sermon’s opening paragraphs establish a tight link between Bible reading and political urgency. Cowan quotes Malachi’s reproof of priests who fail to teach, then pivots to the divorce bill. His language sharpens: the bill would let a guilty party “perpetuate that guilt in company with the first partner in it” and call it “Holy Matrimony.” The rhetorical escalation is deliberate—from calm exposition to a cry of alarm.

Notably, Cowan does not dwell on the Pharisees’ question in Matthew. He treats the passage as settled authority and moves to its application. The pace quickens as he introduces the bill’s specifics, using repetition (“Yea, and even more”) to heighten tension. The congregation is addressed directly, with the preacher assuming shared knowledge of the legislative context.

The Argument from Church Practice

Cowan counters a potential objection: that divorce has been tolerated for three hundred years through private acts of Parliament. He calls this a “relic of Popery,” comparing it to the Church of Rome’s practice of granting dispensations for a fee. The analogy is pointed: both systems allow the wealthy to bypass divine law.

He insists that a private act is not a precedent for a general law. The tone becomes sardonic when he dismisses the idea that past sin justifies future sin: “unless it be a good plea for continuing in sin, and plunging deeper into it, that we have already sinned.” The paragraph builds to a warning: a general law would make “the Word of God… of none effect,” and Cowan cites Prussia’s example as a cautionary tale, though he does not elaborate.

A Closing Plea and a Shift in Register

The sermon’s final paragraphs change register. Cowan acknowledges that his hearers might think he has “taken up your time unprofitably,” and he expresses regret that he cannot speak more often of “our common salvation.” This self-deprecating turn softens the earlier polemic, reminding the audience of the preacher’s pastoral role.

Yet the urgency does not dissipate. He frames the divorce bill as a threat to the very fabric of Christian marriage, and his closing words return to the image of God’s judgment: those who “would not see” are left to “grope in foul darkness.” The sermon ends not with a resolution but with a stark choice, leaving the congregation to act on the warning.

Cowan’s sermon is a specimen of mid-Victorian pulpit oratory, blending close scriptural reading with immediate political commentary. Readers should note how the preacher’s voice shifts—from exegete to alarmist to pastor—within a single discourse. The text is also valuable for its documentary record of Anglican responses to the 1857 divorce debate, revealing the rhetorical strategies used to defend marital indissolubility as both divine ordinance and social necessity.

I remember that stern 1857 sermon, its quiet urgency about vows that bind beyond the grave, and it always calls to mind the long roll of kings in The Bible, King James version, Book 13: 1 Chronicles — Context and Discussion. Both speak of covenants written in blood and duty, unchosen and irrevocable, like old friends who never needed introductions.

Sophia Hall
4 weeks ago

Scarlett White
1 month ago

Grayson Moore
4 weeks ago

Carter Gonzalez
1 month ago

Joseph Martinez
1 month ago

4.5
4.5 out of 5 (5 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
  • ...
    Michael Lang - 1 month ago
    The sermon presents a passionate defense of marriage's permanence, supported by solid theological reasoning. However, it is very much a product of its 19th-century context, with language and examples that may feel distant to modern readers. Still, it offers valuable insights into historical Christian thought.

  • ...
    Patrick Mcguire - 1 month ago
    A powerful and eloquent sermon that upholds the sanctity of marriage with unwavering clarity. The author's logical arguments and scriptural grounding make a compelling case for marriage's indissolubility. A concise yet profound read that resonates with timeless wisdom and moral fortitude.

  • ...
    Seth Jefferson - 3 weeks ago
    This sermon's rigid and dogmatic stance on marriage indissolubility lacks nuance and fails to address the complexities of real-life situations. The author's exclusive reliance on scriptural literalism makes the argument feel outdated and unpersuasive to contemporary audiences. A narrow perspective that could alienate many.


Reader reflection

What did you think of this book?

Answer a few questions and save a private reflection on this device.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

What is your current status with this title?

2

How much did you enjoy the reading experience?

3

Would you encourage someone else to read it?

4

How demanding did the text feel?

Related eBooks