ADDENDA.
Note, vol. i. p. 263. l. 1–4. 1st edit.—p. 250. l. 7–10. 2d edit.
In the Quæst. et Respons. ad Orthodox, usually printed with the works of Justin Martyr, the former part of the 132d Question runs in English thus:
"If, according to the Mosaic law, a man taking the wife of his brother, who was dead without issue, begat issue of her, which issue by nature were his, but by the law his brother's—how could this be otherwise than wrong, in case the surviving brother had another wife, together with whom he also took the relict of his deceased brother?"
THE ANSWER.
Του νομου μη κωλυσαντος τους Ισραηλιτας γυναικα λαβειν, ει βουλοιντο, ου μονον συγγενιδα, αλλα και αιχμαλωτιδα και παλλακιδα ουδεν αρα ατοπον, ουδε βλαπτει εκ του γυναικα επι γυναικι λαβειν αδελφου του τελευτηκοτος, του νομου μη καταλυομενου πασα γαρ ατοπια επι τη παραβασει του νομου καθισταται.
"Since the law did not prohibit the Israelites, if they chose, from taking a wife, not only of their own nation, but likewise a captive and a concubine, there could, therefore, be nothing wrong or injurious in a man's taking the relict of his deceased brother to a wife he had before; for the law was not hereby violated: for all wrong consists in the violation of the law."
Vol. ii. 215, n. 1st edit.—2d edit. 197, n.
In the time of the troubles in the last century, by an ordinance of August 1653, 'twas enacted,
"That all persons intending to be married, shall come before some justice of the peace; and if there appear no reasonable cause to the contrary, the marriage shall proceed in this manner:—The man to be married, taking the woman by the hand, shall plainly and distinctly pronounce these words:—I A. B. do, in the presence of God, the searcher of all hearts, take thee C. D. for my wedded wife; and do also, in the presence of God, and before these witnesses, promise to be unto thee a loving and faithful husband.—The woman promises, in the same form, to be a loving, faithful, and obedient wife.———And it is further enacted, That the man and woman having made sufficient proof of the consent of their parents and guardians (if under the age of twenty-one years) and expressed their consent unto marriage, in the manner and by the words aforesaid, before such justice, in the presence of two or more credible witnesses, the said justice may and shall declare the said man and woman to be thenceforth husband and wife; and the marriage shall be good and effectual in law," &c.—The reader may find the whole at large in Schobel's Collections, 2d part, p. 236.
This was called—"being married by the Directory."———The generality of the Presbyterians were then married in this manner, enjoined by the Directory, and not by the Liturgy, though there were some instances to the contrary; and among these, Mr. Stephen Marshal (who was a zealot, and had a chief hand in compiling the Directory) did marry his own daughter by the form prescribed in the Liturgy, being unwilling to have his daughter "returned to him as a whore, for want of legal marriage, the statute establishing the Liturgy not being repealed:" and having so done, he paid down five pounds to the churchwardens of the parish, as the fine or forfeiture for using any other form of marriage than that in the Directory. See Heylin's Examen Historicum, p. 364.—Grey Hud. vol. ii. p. 177, n.
By this we may perceive, that they did not attempt the invalidation of marriages, because not solemnized according to a particular form or ceremony.
In the above, there was an effectual care taken of the civil contract; and, by placing it in the hands of the civil magistrate, it was restored to its ancient and proper jurisdiction.
Vol. iii. p. 271. l. 13, 14.
I mentioned vol. i. p. 79. 2d edit. n. this third volume, in which I said it would appear, that the "making marriage under the New Testament different from what it was under the Old Testament, is true genuine Popery."—I appeal to the above sentiment, or rather dogma, for the fulfilment of what the reader was to expect.
In this there are three propositions, every one of which is a downright falshood—1. "That marriage is a sacrament" of the New Testament. 2. "That it was instituted by Christ." 3. "That it is appropriated to Christians;"—and, of course, the whole dispensation of marriage, as revealed in the Old Testament, is as much antiquated and laid aside, as the rites of circumcision and the passover.
Now, how does the matter really stand? It is surely evident, that the specific ordinance by which the man and woman become one flesh, is set down Gen. ii. 24; and that the indissolubility of the union arises from what is there said.
Our Saviour, so far from making the least alteration in this point, recites this very passage—Matt. xix. 5.—and infers from it (v. 6.) the indissolubility of the contract, in order to shew the Jews the unlawfulness and inefficacy of their wanton and arbitrary divorces.
St. Paul states the very same passage, as his authority for determining the abuse of the marriage-ordinance, in the illicit commerce with an harlot. 1 Cor. vi. 15, 16.
The same apostle cites also the same passage of Gen. ii. 24. in order to prove what constitutes marriage, so as to render it an emblem of the union between Christ and his church.———See Eph. v. 31.
After all this plain, clear, unequivocal evidence, what shall we say to the position, that—"marriage under the New Testament is different from what it was under the Old Testament?"—We may as well say, that arithmetic has changed its calculations; that among the ancient Jews two and two made only four, but now they make fifty.
Note, vol. iii. p. 275. l. 23–26.
Dr. Grey, in his edition of Hudibras, among many other curious and instructive anecdotes, which are well worthy the reader's perusal, has the following:—Part iii. Canto i. l. 627, 628. n.
"The Emperor Leo (as my very worthy and learned friend Dr. Dickins, professor of civil law in the University of Cambridge, informs me) allowed a separation in the case of incurable madness.
"Per conjugium, inquiunt, in corpus coïerunt, oportetque membrum alterum alterius morbos perpeti: & divinum præceptum est quos Deus junxerit, ne separentur. Præclara quidem hæc & divina, utpote quæ a Deo pronuntiata sunt: verum non rectè neque secundum divinum propositum hic in medium adferuntur: sI enim matrimonium talem statum conservaret, qualem ejus in principio pronuba exhibuisset, quisquis separaret, improbus profecto esset, neque reprehensionem effugeret.
"Jam verò cum præ furore ne vocem quidam humanam a muliere audias, nedum aliud quidquam eorum quæ ad oblectamentum & hilaritatem matrimonium largitur ab illâ obtineat: quis adeo acerbum horrendumque matrimonium dirimere nolit? Ea propter sancimus, &c. ut si quando post initum matrimonium, mulier in furorem incidat, ad tres annos infortunium maritus ferat, mæstitiamque tolleret: & nisi inter ea temporis ab isto malo illa liberetur, neque ad mentem redeat; tunc matrimonium divellatur, maritusque ab intolerabili illa calamitate exoneretur. Imp. Leonis Novella CXI.
"Per Novellam Sequentem: Si maritus per matrimonii tempus in furorem incidat intra quinquennium matrimonium solvi nequeat: eo autem elapso, si furor eum adhuc occupet, solvi possit.
"By marriage, they say, there is a bodily union, and it behoveth the one member to bear the diseases of the other: and it is a divine precept—those whom God hath joined together, let them not be put asunder. A most excellent and divine saying, as pronounced by God; but here it is not brought into the question (of divorce) rightly, nor according to the divine purpose: if the matrimony remained as at the beginning, maintaining the same state as when the woman was first a bride, whoever should separate, would indeed be wicked; nor would they escape reprehension. But when, through madness, you cannot hear from the woman even a human voice, nor can the husband obtain any of those things which matrimony bestows for delight and comfort, who would not destroy so bitter and horrible a marriage? Wherefore we ordain, &c. that if, at any time after the marriage, the wife falls into madness, the husband shall bear his misfortune and grief for three years—and, unless she shall be delivered, and return to her right mind in that time, then the marriage shall be dissolved, and the husband released from so intolerable a calamity.
"If the husband falls into madness during the coverture, the marriage cannot be dissolved within five years; but, that time being elapsed, if the madness still possesses him, it may be dissolved."
The Emperor seems to have carried his notions and allowance of absolute divorce farther than the scriptures warrant; yet on reasonable proof of the above facts, a separaration, but so as that the man shall still maintain and provide for the woman as his wife, might surely be allowed; as also, that he might marry another, not only on account of madness, but where through other diseases, or unavoidable causes of separation, the man ceases in fact to have any one end of marriage.
The allowance of absolute divorce on the madness of the husband, or other cause of unavoidable separation from him, is a very different question, and does not appear to have any warrant whatsoever from God's word. See Rom. vii. 3. 1 Cor. vii. 11.
Here I would add another remarkable matter, which occurs among the canons of Gregory II. and should have had a place before, p. 84. but was omitted by mistake, though it is mentioned in Du Pin.
"Si mulier infirmitate correpta non valuerit debitum viro reddere, quid ejus faciat jugalis?—bonum esset si sic permaneret: Sed quia hoc magnorum est, ille qui se non poterit continere, nubat magis:—non tamen subsidii opem subtrahat ab illâ quam infirmitas præpedit, non detestabilis culpa excludit."
If a wife be seized with some infirmity, so that she be not capable of rendering the debt to the husband, what should he do?—It would be good if he remain as he is. But because this is very difficult, he who cannot contain, had better marry. Not that he is to withdraw the assistance of his support (and maintenance) from her whom infirmity hinders (i. e. as aforesaid) even some detestable crime does not exclude this."
Though this be the language of a Pope of Rome, it is yet so agreeable to nature, reason, and scripture—to the most apparent dictates of common sense, and understanding—to every principle of justice and equity—and is so calculated to prevent numberless evil consequences, which must flow from a constrained, involuntary, and unnatural celibacy—it is as much to be lamented, that the church could ever alter or abrogate this canon, as it is to be wondered at, that there should be found a Christian legislature which has not adopted it. Well—perhaps—non ut male nunc, & olim sic erit.
Uncharted Knowledge
Wisdom From Previous Realities
View as JSON for agents & LLMs