LXXIV. The fruit of marriage is birth, and the companion of birth travail, the grief whereof being so extreme, and the danger always so great, dare we open our mouths against the things that are holy and presume to censure it as a fault in the Church of Christ, that women after their deliverance do publicly show their thankful minds unto God? But behold what reason there is against it! Forsooth1, “if there should be solemn and express giving of thanks in the Church for every benefit either equal or greater than this which any singular person in the Church doth receive, we should not only have no preaching of the word nor ministering of the sacraments, but we should not have so much leisure as to do any corporal or bodily work, but should be like those Massilian heretics2 which do nothing else but pray.” Surely better a great deal to be like unto those heretics which do nothing else but pray, than those which do nothing else but quarrel. Their heads it might haply trouble somewhat more than as yet they are aware of to find out so many benefits greater than this or equivalent thereunto, for which if so be our laws did require solemn and express thanksgiving in the church the same were like to prove a thing so greatly cumbersome as is pretended. But if there be such store of mercies even inestimable poured every day upon thousands (as indeed the earth is full of the blessings of the Lord which are day by day renewed without number and above measure) shall it not be lawful to cause solemn thanks to be given unto God for any benefit, than which greater or whereunto equal are received, no law binding men in regard thereof to perform the like duty? Suppose that some bond there be which tieth us at certain times to mention publicly the names of sundry our benefactors3. Some of them it may be are such that a day would scarcely serve to reckon up together with them the catalogue of so many men besides as we are either more or equally beholden unto. Because no law requireth this impossible labour at our hands, shall we therefore condemn that law whereby the other being possible and also dutiful is enjoined us? So much we owe to the Lord of Heaven that we can never sufficiently praise him nor give him thanks for half those benefits for which this sacrifice were most due. Howbeit God forbid we should cease performing this duty when public order doth draw us unto it, when it may be so easily done, when it hath been so long executed by devout and virtuous people; God forbid that being so many ways provoked in this case unto so good a duty, we should omit it, only because there are other cases of like nature wherein we cannot so conveniently or at leastwise do not perform the same most virtuous office of piety.
Wherein we trust that as the action itself pleaseth God so the order and manner thereof is not such as may justly offend any. It is but an overflowing of gall which causeth the woman’s absence from the church during the time of her lying-in to be traduced4, and interpreted as though she were so long judged unholy, and were thereby shut out or sequestered from the house of God according to the ancient Levitical Law. Whereas the very canon law itself doth not so hold, but directly professeth the contrary5; she is not barred from thence in such sort as they interpret it, nor in respect of any unholiness forbidden entrance into the church, although her abstaining from public assemblies, and her abode in separation for the time be most convenient6.
To scoff at the manner of attire7 than which there could be nothing devised for such a time more grave and decent, to make it a token of some folly committed for which they are loth to shew their faces, argueth that great divines are sometime more merry than wise. As for the women themselves, God accepting the service which they faithfully offer unto him, it is no great disgrace though they suffer pleasant witted men a little to intermingle with zeal scorn.
The name of Oblations8 applied not only here to those small and petit payments which yet are a part of the minister’s right, but also generally given unto all such allowances as serve for their needful maintenance, is both ancient and convenient. For as the life of the clergy is spent in the service of God, so it is sustained with his revenue. Nothing therefore more proper than to give the name of Oblations to such payments in token that we offer unto him whatsoever his ministers receive.
← The celebration of Matrimony. T.C. lib. 1. p · Contents · Of the rites of Burial. →
Footnotes
-
T. C. lib. i. p. 150. [119.] ↩
-
[S. Aug. de Hæres. 57. t. viii. 19. “Postremam ponit Epiphanius Massalianorum hæresin… Græce autem dicuntur εὐχι̑ται, ab orando sic appellati… . Nam cum Dominus dixerit, Oportet semper orare &c… . quod sanissime sic accipitur, ut nullo die intermittantur certa tempora orandi; isti ita nimis hoc faciunt, ut hinc judicarentur inter hæreticos nominandi.” Epiph. Hær. lxxx. § 3, 4. Theod. Hæret. Fab. iv. 11.] ↩
-
[This passage clearly alludes to the academical custom of mentioning the names of founders and benefactors, in bidding prayer before sermons.] ↩
-
[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 535. “Jewish purifyings” are reckoned among the things contained in the Prayer Book contrary to God’s word. And p. 537. “Churching of women after child birth smelleth of Jewish purification: their other rites and customs in their lying-in and coming to church is foolish and superstitious as it is used.” T. C. lib. i. 118. al. 150. “The Churching of women: in which title yet kept there seemeth to be hid a great part of the Jewish purification: for like as in the old law she that had brought forth a child was holden unclean, until such time as she came to the temple to shew herself … so this term of churching can seem to import nothing else than a banishment, and as it were a certain excommunication from the Church during the space that is between the time of her delivery and of her coming unto the church. For what doth else this churching imply but a restoring her unto the Church, which cannot be without some bar or shutting forth presupposed?” Whitg. Def. 534. “Now, sir, you see that the proper title is this; The Thanksgiving of Women after childbirth. The other is the common name customably used of the common people, who will not be taught to speak by you or any man, but keep their accustomed names and terms: therefore they call the Lord’s Day Sunday, and the next unto it Monday profane and ethnical names, and yet nothing derogating from the days and times … The absence of the woman after her delivery is neither banishment nor excommunication, but a withdrawing of the party from the church by reason of that infirmity and danger that God hath laid upon womankind in punishment of the first sin, which danger she knoweth not whether she shall escape or no: and therefore after she hath not only escaped it but also brought a child into the world, to the increase of God’s people, and after such time as the comeliness of nature may bear, she cometh first into the church to give thanks for the same, and for the deliverance by Christ from that sin, whereof that infirmity is a perpetual testimony. And this being done not Jewishly but Christianly, not of custom but of duty, not to make the act of lawful matrimony unclean but to give thanks to God for deliverance from so manifold perils; what Christian heart can for the name’s sake thus disallow of it as you do.”] ↩
-
Dict. v. cap. Hæc quæ. [in Corp. Jur. Canon. p. 3.] “In lege præcipiebatur ut mulier si masculum pareret, 40, si fœminam, 80 diebus a templi cessaret ingressu. Nunc autem statim post partum ecclesiam ingredi non prohibetur.” [The rubric in the Use of Sarum on the Purification of Women runs thus: “Nota quod mulieres post prolem emissam quandocunque ecclesiam intrare voluerunt gratias acturæ purificari possunt, et nulla proinde peccati mole gravantur, nec ecclesiarum aditus est eis denegandus; ne pœna illis verti videatur in culpam. Si tum ex veneratione voluerint aliquamdiu abstinere, devotionem eam non credimus improbandam.” The service at that time was read at the church door, and after it the priest took her hand and led her into the church, saying, “Enter into the temple of God, that thou mayest receive eternal life, and endure through all ages. Amen.” Cf. Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, (1882.) i. 46, 7.] ↩
-
Leo Const. xvii. [Corp. Jur. Civ. p. 244.] “Quod profecto non tam propter muliebrem immunditiem quam ob alias causas in intima legis ratione reconditas et veteri prohibitum esse lege et gratiæ tempus traditionis loco suscepisse puto. Existimo siquidem sacram legem id præscripsisse quo protervam eorum qui intemperanter viverent concupiscentiam castigaret, quemadmodum et alia multa per alia præcepta ordinantur et præscribuntur quo indomitus quorundam in mulieres stimulus retundatur. Quin et hæc providentiæ quæ legem constituit voluntas est, ut partus a depravatione liberi sint. Quia enim quicquid natura supervacaneum est idem corruptivum est et inutile, quod hic sanguis superfluus sit, quæ illi obnoxiæ essent, in immunditie ad id temporis vivere illa [illas] lex jubet, quo ipso etiam nominis sono lascivi [lasciva] concupiscentia ad temperantiam redigatur, ne ex inutili et corrupta materia ipsum animans coagmentetur.” ↩
-
[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 537. “She must come … covered with a vail, as ashamed of some folly.” Bishop Gibson (Codex, 1, 373. tit. xviii. ch. 12.) has the following note on the words “decently apparelled” in the rubric on this subject. “In the reign of King James I. an order was made by the chancellor of Norwich, that every woman who came to be churched should come covered with a white vail: a woman refusing to conform was excommunicated for contempt, and prayed a prohibition; alleging, that such order was not warranted by any custom or canon of the Church of England. The judges desired the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who convened divers bishops to consult thereupon; and they certifying that it was the ancient usage of the Church of England, for women who came to be churched to come veiled, a prohibition was denied.”] ↩
-
[T. C. i. 118. al. 150. “To pass by that, that it will have them come as nigh the communion table as may be, as they came before to the high altar;” (the rubric till the last review directed that it should be “nigh unto the place where the table standeth;”) “that of all other is most Jewish, and approacheth nearest to the Jewish purification, that she is commanded to offer accustomed offerings, wherein besides that the very word carried with it a strong scent and suspicion of a sacrifice, … it cannot be without danger that the book maketh the custom of the popish church, which was so corrupt, to be the rule and measure of this offering.”] ↩