LXXIII. In this world there can be no society durable otherwise than only by propagation. Albeit therefore single life be a thing more angelical and divine, yet sith the replenishing, first of earth with blessed inhabitants, and then of heaven with saints everlastingly praising God did depend upon conjunction of man and woman, he which made all things complete and perfect saw it could not be good to leave man without an1 helper unto the fore-alleged end.
In things which some farther end doth cause to be desired choice seeketh rather proportion than absolute perfection of goodness. So that woman being created for man’s sake to be his helper in regard to the end before-mentioned, namely the having and the bringing up of children, whereunto it was not possible they could concur unless there were subalternation between them, which subalternation is naturally grounded upon inequality, because things equal in every respect are never willingly directed one by another: woman therefore was even in her first estate framed by nature not only after in time but inferior in excellency also unto man, howbeit in so due and sweet proportion as being presented before our eyes, might be sooner perceived than defined. And even herein doth lie the reason why that kind of love which is the perfectest ground of wedlock is seldom able to yield any reason of itself.
Now that which is born of man must be nourished with far more travail, as being of greater price in nature and of slower pace to perfection, than the offspring of any other creature besides. Man and woman being therefore to join themselves for such a purpose, they were of necessity to be linked with some strait and insoluble knot. The bond of wedlock hath been always more or less esteemed of as a thing religious and sacred. The title which the very heathens themselves do thereunto oftentimes give is holy2. Those rites and orders which were instituted in the solemnization of marriage, the Hebrews term by the name of conjugal Sanctifications3.
Amongst ourselves because sundry things appertaining unto the public order of matrimony are called in question by such as know not from whence those customs did first grow, to shew briefly some true and sufficient reason of them shall not be superfluous, although we do not hereby intend to yield so far unto enemies of all church orders saving their own, as though every thing were unlawful the true cause and reason whereof at the first might hardly perhaps be now rendered.
Wherefore to begin with the times wherein the liberty of marriage is restrained4. “There is,” saith Salomon5, “a time for all things, a time to laugh and a time to mourn.” That duties belonging unto marriage and offices appertaining to penance are things unsuitable and unfit to be matched together, the6 Prophets and7 Apostles themselves do witness. Upon which ground as we might right well think it marvellous absurd to see in a church a wedding on the day of a public fast, so likewise in the selfsame consideration our predecessors thought it not amiss to take away the common liberty of marriages during the time which was appointed for the preparation unto and for exercise of general humiliation by fasting and praying, weeping for sins8.
As for the delivering up of the woman either by her father or by some other, we must note that in ancient times9 all women which had not husbands nor fathers to govern them had their tutors, without whose authority there was no act which they did warrantable10. And for this cause they were in marriage delivered unto their husbands by others. Which custom retained hath still this use, that it putteth women in mind of a duty whereunto the very imbecility of their nature and sex doth bind them, namely to be always directed, guided and ordered by others, although our positive laws do not tie them now as pupils.
The custom of laying down money seemeth to have been derived from the Saxons, whose manner was to buy their wives11. But seeing there is not any great cause wherefore the memory of that custom should remain, it skilleth not much although we suffer it to lie dead, even as we see it in a manner already worn out.
The ring hath been always used as an especial pledge of faith and fidelity. Nothing more fit to serve as a token of our purposed endless continuance in that which we never ought to revoke. This is the cause wherefore the heathens themselves did in such cases use the ring, whereunto Tertullian alluding saith, that in ancient times “No woman was permitted to wear gold saving only upon one finger, which her husband had fastened unto himself with that ring which was usually given for assurance of future marriage12.” The cause why the Christians use it, as some of the fathers think, is13 either to testify mutual love or rather to serve for a pledge of conjunction in heart and mind agreed upon between them. But what rite and custom is there so harmless wherein the wit of man bending itself to derision may not easily find out somewhat to scorn and jest at? He that should have beheld the Jews14 when they stood with a four-cornered garment spread over the heads of espoused couples while their espousals were in making, he that should have beheld their praying over a cup and their delivering the same at the marriage feast with set forms of benediction15 as the order amongst them was, might being lewdly affected take thereat as just occasion of scornful cavil as at the use of the ring in wedlock among Christians16.
But of all things the most hardly taken is the uttering those words, “With my body I thee worship17,” in which words when once they are understood there will appear as little cause as in the rest for any wise man to be offended. First therefore inasmuch as unlawful copulation doth pollute and dishonour18 both parties, this protestation that we do worship and honour another with our bodies may import a denial of all such lets and impediments to our knowledge as might cause any stain, blemish, or disgrace that way, which kind of construction being probable would easily approve that speech to a peaceable and quiet mind. Secondly in that the Apostle19 doth so expressly affirm that parties married have not any longer entire power over themselves, but each hath interest in other’s person, it cannot be thought an absurd construction to say that worshipping with the body is the imparting of that interest in the body unto another which none before had save only ourselves. But if this were the natural meaning the words should perhaps be as requisite to be used on the one side as on the other, and therefore a third sense there is which I rather rely upon. Apparent it is that the ancient difference between a lawful wife and a concubine was only20 in the different purpose of man betaking himself to the one or the other. If his purpose were only fellowship, there grew to the woman by this mean no worship at all but the contrary. In professing that his intent was to add by his person honour and worship unto hers, he took her plainly and clearly to wife. This is it which the Civil Law doth mean when it maketh a wife to differ from a concubine in dignity21; a wife to be taken where22 conjugal honour and affection doth go before. The worship that grew unto her being taken with declaration of this intent was that her children became by this mean legitimate and free; herself was made a mother over his family; last of all she received such advancement of state as things annexed unto his person might augment her with, yea a right of participation was thereby given her both in him and even in all things which were his. This doth somewhat the more plainly appear by adding also that other clause, “With all my worldly goods I thee endow.” The former branch having granted the principal, the latter granteth that which is annexed thereunto.
To end the public solemnity of marriage with receiving the blessed Sacrament is a custom so religious and so holy, that if the church of England be blameable23 in this respect it is not for suffering it to be so much but rather for not providing that it may be more put in ure. The laws of Romulus concerning marriage24 are therefore extolled above the rest amongst the heathens which were before, in that they established the use of certain special solemnities, whereby the minds of men were drawn to make the greater conscience of wedlock, and to esteem the bond thereof a thing which could not be without impiety dissolved. If there be any thing in Christian religion strong and effectual to like purpose it is the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist, in regard of the force whereof Tertullian breaketh out into these words concerning matrimony therewith sealed; “25Unde sufficiam ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat et confirmat oblatio?”—‘I know not which way I should be able to shew the happiness of that wedlock the knot whereof the Church doth fasten and the Sacrament of the Church confirm.’ Touching marriage therefore let thus much be sufficient.
← Of days appointed as well for ordinary, as f · Contents · Churching of women. →
Footnotes
-
[So Bodl. MS. 1616: any A. 1662: a K.] 1887. ↩
-
Τοὺς ἱεροὺς γάμους. Dionys. Antiq. lib. ii. [c. 25.] ↩
-
Kidduschin in Rituali Heb. de benediction. nuptiarum. [“Apud Rabbinos קִדֵּשׁ synecdochice dicitur de consecratione sponsæ ad conjugium, pro ‘desponsare, despondere, spondere.’ קִדּוּשִׁים ‘sanctificationes;’ item ‘desponsationes, sponsalia;’ de quibus integer liber extat apud Talmudicos sic vocatus.” Buxt. Lex. Hebr. et Talm. col. 1978, 1980. Comp. Wolf. Bibl. Hebr. ii. 747. The tract “Kidduschin” is the seventh title of the third series in the Mischna, ed. Surenhus. t. iii. 359, &c.] ↩
-
[1 Adm. 16. ed. 1617. “We speak not of licences granted out of this court to marry in forbidden times, as in Lent, in Advent, in the gange week, when the priest in his surplice, singing gospels and making crosses, rangeth about in many places, upon the ember days, and to forbidden persons, and in exempt places.” (Todd, Johnson’s Dict. “Gang week. Rogation week, when processions are made to lustrate the bounds of parishes. This name is still retained in the north of England.”) In Strype, Ann. ii. 1. 382, is the following, among other articles, “propounded and divulged” by Cartwright at Cambridge, 1570. “xx. Matrimonium certis quibusdam anni temporibus interdicere, papisticum est.” See Bp. Cooper’s Admonition, p. 103-107. “ ‘The bishops … . prohibit marriage at certain times, most contrary to God’s word: that is,’ say they, ‘a papistical practice, to fill the clergy’s purse: yea it is a doctrine of Antichrist and of the Devil himself, prohibiting marriage even in laymen.’ … This must needs be thought a captious and rigorous interpretation, to say that a stay of marriage for certain days and weeks is an unchristian forbidding of marriage… For then it is a popish disorder also, and Antichristian corruption, to stay marriage for three weeks, until the banns be asked… But … I think it not a matter of such necessity, neither is it so greatly pressed, as they pretend. I think there is no law remaining, that is so little executed, as that is.”] ↩
-
[Eccles. iii. 1.] ↩
-
Joel ii. 16. ↩
-
1 Cor. vii. 5. ↩
-
[Con. Laod. can. 52; see above, c. lxxii. § 15. note 1, page 423. Lyndwood ap. Gibs. Codex 518. “Solennisatio non potest fieri a ima. Dominica Adventûs usque ad Octavas Epiphaniæ exclusive; et a Dominica lxx usque ad primam Dom. post Pascha inclusive; et a prima die Rogationis usque ad septimum diem Pentecostes inclusive.” Bishop Gibson says, “I find no prohibitions expressed or plainly supposed in our Constitutions or Canons.” Strype, Ann. 1562, has preserved a paper which seems to have been intended for consideration in convocation that year, of which one article is, “That it shall be lawful to marry at any time of the year without dispensation, except it be on Christmas day, Easter day, and six days going before, and upon Pentecost Sunday.” Bishop Gibson, ubi sup. says, “In parliament, 17 Eliz. a bill was depending, entitled, An Act declaring Marriages lawful at all times: and in convocation, 1575, the last article presented to the Queen for confirmation, (but by her rejected) was, that the Bishops shall take order, that it be published and declared in every church before 1 May, that marriage may be solemnized at all times of the year.”] ↩
-
“Mulieres antiquo jure tutela perpetua continebat. Recedebant vero a tutoris potestate quæ in manum convenissent.” Boet. in Topic. Cic. [lib. ii. p. 781. ed. Basil. 1570.] ↩
-
“Nullam ne privatam quidem rem fœminas sine auctore agere majores nostri voluerunt.” Liv. lib. [xxxiv. c. 2.] The reason yielded by Tully this, “propter infirmitatem consilii.” Cic. pro Mur. [c. 12.] ↩
-
Vide Leg. Saxon. tit. 6. et 17. [ap. Herold. Germ. Antiq. p. 124. tit. vi. 3, 4. “Qui viduam ducere velit, offerat tutori pretium emptionis ejus, consentientibus ad hoc propinquis ejus. Si tutor abnuerit, convertat se ad proximos ejus, et eorum consensu accipiat illam, paratam habens pecuniam, ut tutori ejus, si forte aliquid dicere velit, dare possit, hoc est solid. ccc.” and tit. xvii. Lito Regis liceat uxorem emere, ubicunque voluerit. Sed non liceat ullam fœminam vendere.” p. 126. Basil. 1557. (“Litus, adscriptitius, servus glebæ.” Ducange.) First Prayer Book of King Edw. VI. Rubric in Off. of Matrim. fol. cxlviii. “The man shall give unto the woman a ring, and other tokens of spousage, as gold and silver, laying the same upon the book:” ap. Wheatly, c. x. § v. 4, whom see on this subject. Venale illud [matrimonium] facere aliquando intolerabilius etiam est.” Cartwright, ap. Strype, ubi sup.] ↩
-
“Aurum nulla norat præter unico digito quem sponsus oppignorasset pronubo annulo.” Tertull. Apol. cap. 6. ↩
-
Isidor. de Eccles. Offic. l. ii. c. 19. [“Illud vero quod imprimis annulus a sponso sponsæ datur, fit hoc nimirum vel propter mutuæ fidei signum, vel propter id magis, ut eodem pignore eorum corda jungantur.”] ↩
-
Elias Thesb. in dict. Hhupha. [“We call the garment which they spread over the head of the bridegroom and the bride, with four staves at the time of espousals, חֻפָה; from the Scripture expression,” (Isaiah iv.) “Upon all the glory there (is) חֻפָה a defence” (or canopy of light:”) and (Psalm xix.) “As a bridegroom cometh out of his חֻפָה chamber:” (or “from under his bridal canopy.”) Ed. Fagii, 1531. p. 119.] ↩
-
In Ritual. de benedict. nuptiarum. [Comp. Selden, Uxor. Hebr. lib. ii. c. 7. “Solitus benedicendi hic ritus ex majorum instituto fieri, adhibito vini, si adsit, alteriusve potus qui in usu poculo, cui etiam sua pro more præit benedictio … Solennis poculi vini pleni benedictio est, Benedictus sis Dominus Deus noster Rex mundi qui creasti fructum vitis. Benedictione peracta, gustatum a benedicente poculum sponsis traditur, aut a sponso sponsæ, ubi is tam benedicit quam prægustat. Mahanil, fol. 83. et Machazor German. fol. 336. partis 1mae.”] ↩
-
[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 723. “As for matrimony, that also hath corruptions too many. It was wont to be counted a sacrament, and therefore they use yet a sacramental sign to which they attribute the virtue of wedlock, I mean the wedding ring, which they foully abuse and daily withal, in taking it up and laying it down. In putting it on they abuse the name of the Trinity.” Whitg. Answ. ibid. “I know it is not material whether the ring be used or no, for it is not of the substance of matrimony; neither yet a sacramental sign, no more than the sitting at communion is: but only a ceremony of the which M. Bucer … saith on this sort; … ‘This ceremony is very profitable, if the people be made to understand what is thereby signified: as that the ring and other things first laid upon the book and afterward by the minister given to the bridegroom to be delivered to the bride, do signify that we ought to offer all that we have to God before we use them, and to acknowledge that we receive them at his hand to be used to his glory. The putting of the ring upon the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand, to the which, as it is said, there cometh a sinew or string from the heart, doth signify that the heart of the wife ought to be united to her husband; and the roundness of the ring doth signify, that the wife ought to be joined to her husband with a perpetual band of love, as the ring itself is without end.’ ” T. C. 159. (al. 199.) “If it be M. Bucer’s judgment which is here alledged for the ring, I see that sometimes Homer sleepeth. For first of all I have shewed that it is not lawful to institute new signs or sacraments, and then it is dangerous to do it, especially in this which confirmeth the false and popish opinion of a sacrament. And thirdly, to make such fond allegories of the laying down of the money, of the roundness of the ring, and of the mystery of the fourth finger, is (let me speak it with his good leave) very ridiculous and far unlike himself. And fourthly, that he will have the minister to preach upon these toys, surely it savoureth not of the learning and sharpness of the judgment of M. Bucer.”] ↩
-
[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 723. “They make the new-married man according to the popish form to make an idol of his wife, saying, ‘With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship,’ ” &c. Whitg. Answer, ibid. “Yet S. Peter, 1 ep. c. iii. speaking to the husband saith, ‘Ye husbands, dwell with them as men of knowledge, giving honour unto the woman,’ ” &c. T. C. i. 160. al. 199. “M. Doctor … . must understand that it is one thing with us to worship and another thing to honour.” Whitg. Def. ubi sup. “This word worship, when it is spoken of one man towards another, can have no other signification than reverence and duty, which is required by the law of God, of nature, of civility.” Comp. S. Luke xiv. 10. “Thou shalt have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.”] ↩
-
Rom. i. 24. ↩
-
1 Cor. vii. 4. ↩
-
L. penult. D. de concub. [Digest. lib. xxv. tit. 7. l. 4. “Concubinam ex sola animi destinatione æstimari oportet.”] ↩
-
L. item legato. sect. penult. D. de legat. 3. [“Parvi refert, uxori an concubinæ quis leget … . sane enim, nisi dignitate, nihil interest.” Dig. lib. xxxii. l. 49. 4.] ↩
-
L. donationes. D. de donationibus. [“An maritalis honor et affectio pridem præcesserit, personis comparatis, vitæ conjunctione considerata, perpendendum esse respondi: neque enim tabulas facere matrimonium.” Digest. lib. xxxix. tit. 6. l. 31.] ↩
-
[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 723. “Because in Popery no holy action may be done without a mass, they enjoin the new married persons to receive the communion, as they do their Bishops and Priests when they are made.” Answ. ibid. “Truly I marvel what you mean, so wickedly to revile so godly and so holy a law. Well, I will only set down M. Bucer’s judgment of this thing also … ‘Est illud admodum pie ordinatum, ut novi conjuges una quoque de mensa Domini communicent, nam non nisi in Christo Domino debent Christiani inter se matrimonio jungi.’ ” T. C. i. 160. al. 199. “As for the receiving of the Communion when they be married, that it is not to be suffered, unless there be a general receiving, I have before at large declared; and as for the reason that is fathered of M. Bucer, (which is, that those that be Christians may not be joined in marriage but in Christ,) it is very slender and cold: as if the Sacrament of the Supper were instituted to declare any such thing; or they could not declare their joining together in Christ by no means but by receiving the Supper of the Lord.”Compare the following passage in the Life of Kettlewell, compiled from Hickes and Nelson’s papers. “He was married at Whitchurch, Oxon, Oct. 4, 1685, on a Lord’s day, and there was a sacrament on purpose to communicate the new-married couple; whereby they solemnly plighted their troth to their Lord and Saviour, as well as to one another; a practice though so much neglected, yet piously recommended by the Church, whom all ought in this to hear: but sure both by their advices to others, and by their own examples, none should be so fit to retrieve a custom so recommended, as our spiritual guides, according to this pattern here set them.” Prefixed to Kettlewell’s Works, i. 42. ed. 1719.] ↩
-
Οὑ̑τος ὁ νόμος τάς τε γυναι̑κας ἠνάγκασε τὰς γαμετὰς οἷα μηδεμίαν ἐχούσας ἑτέραν ἀποστροϕὴν πρὸς ἕνα τὸν του̑ γεγαμηκότος ζῃ̑ν τρόπον, καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ὡς ἀναγκαίου τε καὶ ἀναϕαιρέτου χρήματος τη̑ς γυναικὸς κρατει̑ν. Dionys. Hal. Antiq. lib. ii. [c. 25.] ↩
-
Tertul. lib. ii. ad Uxor. [c. 9.] ↩