Truth and Peace, Postscript
POSTSCRIPT.
SECT. I. Of the Manner of Marriages among the Baptized Believers, and that they are warrantable by God's Law.
SOme of the Baptized Believers having been proſecuted as Offenders, for not conforming to the Ceremonies of the Ring, and kneeling to the Altar in the Celebration of Marriage; we ſhall therefore humbly offer our Reaſons why we diſſent from theſe Ceremonies; and why alſo our Marriages are good in the Eye of the Law, (for the Subſtance of them) the omiſſion of theſe Ceremonies, &c. notwithſtanding.
But firſt the Reader is deſired to take notice, that we are not againſt, but for the publick Solemnization of Marriage according to the Law of the Land, ſave that there are ſome Ceremonies uſed therein which we cannot comply with. And becauſe ſome of the Prieſts will not marry us at all, and others will not do it, unleſs we conform to all the Ceremonies required in the Service-Book; this puts us upon a neceſſity to have it done without them, and the manner thus:
The Parties to be married being qualified for that State of Life, according to the Law of God, and the Law of the Land, as to the Degrees, &c. therein limited; They call together a competent number of their Relations and Friends: And having uſually ſome of our Miniſtry preſent with them, the Parties concern'd do declare their Contract formerly made between Themſelves, and with the Advice of their Friends, if Occaſion require it: And then taking each other by the Hand, do declare, That they from that day forward, during their natural Lives together, do enter into the State of Marriage, uſing the Words, or the ſubſtance of them, which are appointed for the Words of Marriage in the Service-Book, (as acknowledging them Words to be very fit for that purpoſe.) And then a Writing is ſigned by the Parties married, to keep in memory the Contract and Covenant of their Marriage, to this effect:
Theſe are to teſtify to all Men, that we A. B. of, &c. and C. D. of▪ &c. have, the day of the Date hereof, entred into the Covenant and State of Marriage, according to a ſolemn Contract heretofore made between our ſelves, and with the Conſ…nt of ſuch as are concern'd in order thereunto▪ And we do now, in the Preſence of Almighty God, and the Witneſſes hereafter named, ratify the ſaid Contract and Covenant. Act of Marriage this day verbally made; in both which we do, in the Fear of God, mutually and ſolemnly, and for our Pares reſpectively promiſe, in the Strength of God, to live together in the State of Marriage, according to God's Ordinance, from this day forward, to love each other as Husband and Wife, and faithfully to perform all the Duties to which we are bound by God's Law, and the good Laws of the Land, in that Caſe provided, till the Lord by Death ſhall ſeparate us. In Teſtimony whereof we have hereunto ſet our Hands, the day of, &c.
Then is annexed a Certificate of the Witneſſes, thus:
WE whoſe Names are ſubſcribed, do teſtify, That the above-ſaid A. B. and C. D. the Day and Year above-ſaid, did mutually take each other into the State of Marriage, acknowledging the Contract and Covenant, and ratifying the ſame by Word, and by the Subſcription thereof as above-ſaid. In Witneſs whereof, we do hereunto ſet our Hands the Day and Year above-ſaid.
After theſe things, ſome ſuitable Counſel or Inſtruction is given to the Parties (but no Man takes upon him the Office to marry any, that being the proper Act of the Parties themſelves) and then Prayer is made to God for his Bleſſing upon the Parties married, &c.
And now whether Marriages thus made, are juſtifiable by the Law of God, is firſt to be conſidered.
To begin with the Inſtitution of Marriage, Gen. 2. 23, 24. there we find all that is eſſential to Marriage: For he that had the right to diſpoſe of the Woman, was pleaſed to bring her and give her to Adam. And Moſes tells us, That they who are thus joined together, are one Fleſh; and are to forſake all other Relations in compariſon of that Relation.
The Marriage-Covenant is explained by God himſelf, Mal. 2. 14. She is thy Companion, and Wife of thy Covenant, of which he himſelf (ſays the Prophet) had been a Witneſs: For whoever elſe are Witneſſes in this Caſe, God is the Principal, and will puniſh ſuch as break their Marriage-Covenant.
And thus it appears, that a Marriage-Covenant between Perſons who may lawfully marry, with Witneſs upon it, are the Eſſentials of this Ordinance; which is yet more evident in the Caſe of Boaz and Ruth, Ruth. 4. 9, 10, 11. And then we may be ſure that God appointed no Ceremony in the Inſtitution of Marriage; nor do we find any Ceremony made neceſſary to the Celebration of Marriage in the Old and New Teſtament; for that paſſage of looſing the Shoe, Deut. 25. 7, 9. and Ruth 4. 7. pertains not to Marriage, but concerns him that refuſes to raiſe up Seed in Iſrael to his deceaſed Brother.
And as there is no Ceremony ordained, ſo there is no one certain Form for the Celebration of Marriage appointed by the Word of God; but this ſeems rather to be left to Liberty, as appears in the Caſe of Iſaac, Gen. 24. 67. and the Marriage of Jacob, Gen. 29. 21, 22, 23. and many others.
The chief Things to be obſerved in Marriage, ſince the Earth was repleniſhed with Inhabitants, are theſe, That regard be had to Religion, that a Believer marry not with an Infidel; that the Perſons to be married, come not within the Degrees prohibited in reſpect of Conſanguinity and Affinity. That the Conjunction, and Marriage-Covenant be between one Man and one Woman; plurality of Wives is utterly irreconcileable with the Inſtitution of Marriage, and with the Doctrine of the Goſpel, as appears Mat. 19. 8. 1 Cor. 7. 2.
And becauſe our Bleſſed Saviour has taught his Followers to diſcern what Corruptions have crept into God's Ordinances, by obſerving the firſt Inſtitution of them, and particularly this of Marriage, Mat. 19. 8. for here he takes down even a Precept of Moſes, becauſe it could not ſtand with the Purity and Simplicity of Marriage in the Inſtitution of it. We therefore confeſs, with the Learned Caſuiſt, Mr. Hugo Grotius, that though the Conjunction of Male and Female, whereby Mankind is propagated, is a thing moſt worthy the care of Laws; yet where God's Law is known, it is eſpecially to be conſulted, both for Matter and Form, in the Things he hath ordained. And therefore we doubt not, but what Rules are given by the Law of God in the Caſe of Marriage are ſufficient, at leaſt ſo far, as that ſuch as are married according to them have all things that are neceſſary to juſtify their Marriages in the ſight of God and Man. Otherwiſe it will greatly reflect upon the Wiſdom and Goodneſs of God, to ſay he has made this Ordinance for the Good of Mankind, and yet left it defective in the very Eſſentials of it; and ſure it would magnify Man too much to ſuppoſe him capable to mend this Ordinance, but if God make any thing crooked, it cannot be made ſtreight, and that which he hath not made at all, cannot be numbred [with his Works, or counted a neceſſary part of them.] Eccleſ. 1. 14, 15.
And ſeeing no Ceremony in Marriage has been impoſed by the Almighty (as in ſome other of his Ordinances he has appointed) let no Man judg one another to be unlawfully married, becauſe ſome Ceremonies deviſed by Men are not obſerved, perhaps it might be as ſtrongly argued retro, That they who have taken upon them to add ſuch their deviſed Toys, (as Dr. Willit calls the Popiſh Ceremonies) have not true Marriage. But as the firſt is groundleſs, ſo this would be uncharitable.
And therefore we deny not but that ſome decent Uſages or Ceremonies may be appointed by Authority for the more convenient Celebration of Marriage, and that the Contempt of them may be juſtly corrected, for the Honour of the Power Magiſtratical: But then it is alſo to be conſidered, that as in other Ordinances of God, ſo alſo in this, Men, yea Authorities in moſt Nations of the World, have groſly abuſed this Liberty, by ordaining things ridiculous and ſinful in the ſolemnizing of their Nuptial Contracts, as ſhall be ſhewed. And therefore when and where ſuch Prophanations are found, it is commendable always, and ſometimes neceſſary, for ſuch as God has enlightened to ſee ſuch Corruptions, to endeavour after a modeſt and prudent manner, to have all the Ways of God, and particularly this of Marriage, to have them, I ſay, reſtored to their Purity, by being purged from ſuch things as tend to the Profanation of them.
And herein the Learned of the Church of England are our Precedents: for when they came to conſider the Popiſh Ceremonies uſed in their Marriages, they were ſo far from conforming to them, or judging thoſe Marriages to be null which were made without them, that they boldly teſtify againſt them, and ſome laid down their Lives among the Martyrs in oppoſition to the Papiſts Opinion and Practice in the caſe of Marriage, as Woodman and Benbridg. This is teſtified by Dr. Willit, Synopſ. p. 679. And where alſo he labours much to ſhew the Errors of the Papiſts, both in their Doctrine and Practice concerning Marriage, and their Ceremonies uſed therein, and particularly upon this ground, Becauſe they made the Celebration of Marriage a Sacramental, or religious Act, and had no word of Inſtitution in the Scriptures for ſo doing.
This therefore which has been ſaid concerning the Eſſentials of Marriage, will (as we conceive) warrant our Marriage-Covenants and Contracts, to be according to God's Law; And tho we deſire and endeavour to come as near as we can to the Cuſtom of our Nation in the Celebration of Marriage, which we confeſs to be of the Nature of moral and civil Contracts of the higheſt degree, and therefore under the cognizance of the Power Magiſtratical; yet when the Church of England interpoſes with her Power Eccleſiaſtical, to oblige us to the obſervance of her Ceremonies, which are not of the Eſſence of Marriages, nor, ſo far as we can judg, ſuch as we can anſwer to God, nor act in with the Peace of our own Souls, we are then conſtrained, as in other caſes, ſo in this, to ſatisfy our ſelves in a diligent obſervance of the Rules of God's Law, both for the Subſtance and Celebration of our Nuptial Contracts; and in ſo doing, we ſuppoſe both the Statute and Civil Law, as well as the Law of Reaſon, will at leaſt ſo far favour us, as to vindicate us therein to have all things neceſſary and eſſential to the ſolemn Ordinance of Marriage, which alſo we ſhall endeavour to demonſtrate in the next Section.
SECT. II. The Law of the Land does not null or make void the Marriages of the Baptized Beliivers, but does rather eſtabliſh them.
THAT this alſo is no uncertain Poſition, but a clear Truth, will appear, if we conſider, firſt, That the chief Grounds or prime Foundations of the Laws of England are clearly for us; for thus ſaith a learned Lawyer,
The firſt Ground of the Law of England is the Law of Reaſon, which is to be kept in this Realm as it is in all other Realms, and as of neceſſity it muſt be; and becauſe it is written in the Heart, therefore it may not be put away nor changed; it is never changeable by diverſity of Place nor Time; and therefore againſt this Law, Preſcription, Statute, nor Cuſtom may not prevail: and if any be brought againſt it, they be not Preſcriptions, Statutes, nor Cuſtomes, but Things void and againſt Juſtice. Doct. & Stud. l. 1. c. 5. &c. 2.
The ſecond Ground of the Law of England is the Law of God. And upon theſe Grounds (I ſuppoſe) was that excellent Statute made in the caſe of Marriage, wherein we have theſe Words, as they are quoted by a learned Man, viz. That no Reſervation or Prohibition (God's Law except) ſhall trouble or impeach any Marriage, 22 Hen. 8. c. 38. Will. Synop. p. 711. Of which Statute, Biſhop Hall gives this account, i. e. The Statute of 32. Hen. 8. c. 38. intending to marr the Romiſh Market of gainful and injurious Diſpenſations, profeſſeth to allow all Marriages that are not prohibited by God's Law: and this Law is not yet repealed. And therefore it hence appears that no Law was then thought neceſſary to the Eſſence of Marriage, but the Law of God. And tho there be a Proviſo in a certain Statute made in the Reign of Edw. 6. that this Statute ſhall not give Liberty to marry without the Ceremonies appointed in the Service-Book, yet it does not null any Marriages that had been, or that might after be made with the Omiſſion of them, or at leaſt ſome of them: for Marriages we know there have been, and are frequently made by divers Miniſters of the Church of England, without the Banes, and ſome other Rites, as well as by Licences obtained, which could not be done, if the Intent of the ſaid Proviſo were to make all Marriages null and void, which are made without Banes, and all the Rites appointed in the Service-Book.
But leſt this ſhould be taken for my private Opinion only, I will here alledg the Judgment of ſuch as are eſteemed among the beſt learned in the Law, whether we reſpect the Statute or Civil Law. And firſt, Mr. Swingburn, Bachelor of the Civil Law, tells us, That an unſolemn Marriage, is not therefore no Marriage, becauſe it is unſolemn, the Banes perhaps not being publiſhed, or the Marriage being not celebrated in the Face of the Church, but privately in a Chamber, or ſome other Rite or Ceremony being omitted; but it is nevertheleſs reputed for true Marriage, both in the Eccleſiaſtical Courts in reſpect of the Eſſence or Knot of Matrimony, and in Temporal Courts in reſpect of the Wives Dowry, and other Legal Effects. Treat. of laſt Will, p. 20, 21.
And to the ſame effect ſpeaketh Eſpenc. c▪ 11. Clandeſt. Matrinto. Conſenſus facit Nuptias, ſed eorum qui ſui jure ſunt; It is the conſent of the Parties which make the Marriage, they being ſuch as are at their own Diſpoſe. And again,
Si pompa al…a que nuptiarum Celebritas omitatur, &c. If the Pomps and Celebrity of Marriage be omitted, nothing is wanting to the Firmneſs and Sureneſs of Marriage. Cod. L 5. tit. 5. tit. 2.
And the Canon Law tells us; Nuptiarum copula Dei mandato perficitur; The Marriage-Bond is perfected by the Commandment of God.
Thus we ſee that Ceremonies are not of the Eſſence of Marriage, that if the Command of God be obſerved, Marriage is perfect. And theſe Teſtimonies are the more conſiderable to our purpoſe, becauſe they are alledged againſt the Papiſts, by a learned Proteſtant, becauſe they doted more then ordinary upon nuptial Ceremonies. Willit. Synopſ. p. 713. 740. And ſo rational and neceſſary it is, that the Ceremonies appointed either by the Papiſts or others, ſhould not be eſteemed to belong at all to the eſſence of Marriage, that Durandus, an eminent Papiſt, tells us, as he is quoted by Dr. Willit, That there is neither any outward Holy Sign, nor [no Miniſter] neceſſary in Matrimony beſides the Parties; for, ſaith he, Matrimony may be ſolemnized by a Proctor between Parties that are abſent. So then the Preſence of a Prieſt is not of the Eſſence of Marriage, ſeeing it may be celebrated without them.
And which is yet more; Bellarmine, that ſo much rennowed Cardinal, is alledged by the ſaid Dr. Willit, ſaying, That Marriage being of the Nature of Contracts, the Parties themſelves ſuffice, and that it may be done in their Abſence. [meaning ſtill, that all Contracts be witneſſed.]
And here the Words of Mr. Diodate are worthy of Remembrance upon Mal. 2. 15. Did not God in the beginning create Adam alone, out of whom he framed Eve to be his Wife, without creating any more Women for one Man, or more Men for one Woman? ſhewing thereby, that as he appointed Matrimony by one only Law [in which to be ſure there was no Ceremonies] of lawful Conjunction, it likewiſe ought to be one with one, and two in the ſame Fleſh.
From all which it is apparent that there may be lawful Marriage where there is no Ceremonies, much more without the Ceremonies of the Ring, and bowing at the Altar, and the Ceremonies are not therefore in any-wiſe to be made eſſential to Marriage, and that the Contract between two Perſons lawfully qualified for the State of Marriage, and their actual taking each other into the Relation and Covenant of Husband and Wife, before ſufficient Witneſs, is eſſential, firm, and lawful Marriage, and conſequently that the Marriages made amongſt the baptized Believers are true Marriages in the Eye of the Law of this Land.
And to make this yet more evident, I will conclude this Section with the united Authority of the late Lord Cheif Juſtice Hales, and Dr. Burnet, who fully expreſs themſelves for the Sufficiency of Marriages as made by the preſent Diſſenters. And thus the Doctor ſpeaks. He (that is, Judg Hale) was very cautious in declaring their Marriage void, and ſo baſtarding their Children. But be conſidered Marriage and Succeſſion as a right of Nature, from which none ought to be barred, what Miſtakes ſoever they might be under in the point of revealed Religion; and therefore in a Trial that was before him, when a Quaker was ſued for ſome Debts owing by his Wife before he married her; and the Quaker pretended it was no Marriage that had paſt between them, ſince it was not ſolemniz'd according to the Rules of the Church of England: He declared that he was not willing on his own Opinion to make their Children Baſtards, and gave Direction to the Jury to find it ſpecial, which they did.—He governed himſelf indeed (ſaith Dr. Burnet) by the Law of the Goſpel, of doing to others what he would have others do to him; and therefore becauſe he would have thought it a Hardſhip, not without Cruelty, if amongſt the Papiſts all Marriages were nulled, which had not been made with all the Ceremonies in the Roman Ritual, ſo he applying this to the caſe of the Sectaries, he thought all Marriages made according to the ſeveral Perſwaſions of Men, ought to have their Effects in Law.
Of how great Value the Judgment of this worthy Man is in all Courts of Judicature, is alſo teſtified by this learned Doctor in theſe words; His Opinion in points of Law generally paſſes as an uncontroulable Authority, and is often pleaded in all the Courts of Juſtice. So that ſuch as out of a Fancy to ſome unneceſſary Ceremonies, would null all Marriages amongſt Diſſenters, though made as publickly and ſolemnly as we can, and every way agreeable to the Law of God, and the Rules of Reaſon, will ſee themſelves concern'd we hope, to be better adviſed than to throw Dirt in the face of this great Patriot of the Law, as if he ſhould be a publick Defender of Whoredom; for ſo do ſome of our raſh Ceremonialiſts eſteem and ſpeak of all Marriages wherein their Ceremonies are omitted.
Furthermore; If in this, or any other Nation, God's Ordinances ſhould become, or be reputed to be Nullities; when in the obſervation of them, the Ceremonies appointed by the Church (or thoſe that call themſelves ſo) are omitted, there could be little certainty of a right or effectual enjoyment of any of them: For Baptiſm, Confirmation, the Lord's Table, Ordination, Excommunication (and what not) as well as Marriage, has been, and is incumbred with ſo many of the Ceremonies of Mens deviſing, that it's not eaſy to number them, much leſs to obſerve them. But yet ſuch has been the Wiſdom of the greateſt Ceremonialiſts, as to be afraid to annual an Ordinance, tho the Ceremonies of the Church were omitted, and particularly in the Caſe of Baptiſm, Ordination, and Marriages. Do not the Proteſtants allow of all theſe among the Papiſts, though many Ceremonies be uſed therein which they diſſallow? Yea, there is no doubt but both the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, would admit the Baptiſm of our Children for a valid Baptiſm, which was performed upon their perſonal profeſſion of Faith and Repentance, and by Immerſion, and by one whom they eſteem a Lay-man, becauſe nothing is wanting in our Baptiſm which pertains to the eſſence of the Ordinance, though we reject all their Rites, Sponſors, Croſſings, &c. And therefore by a parity of Reaſon, our Marriages being warranted by God's Law in all things eſſential to Marriage, muſt be allowed good and honeſt Marriages, tho no Prieſt nor Ring, &c. was concern'd in them.
I ſay again, Does not the Church of England hold the Ordination received in the Papacy to be valid? and yet they condemn ſome Ceremonies which they uſe in their Ordinations for ſuperſtitious Vanities; neither do they marry thoſe Papiſts a ſecond time who become Proteſtants, but do account their Marriages valid and good; and yet their Marriages were not celebrated according to the Rites of the Church of England, not by their Miniſters. And why? Surely becauſe neither the Law of God, nor the Law of the Land, do ſay they are null or void. And then ſure I am, if they will be but as kind to us as to Papiſts, they muſt grant our Marriages to be more juſtifiable of the two. For, … ours is no where condemned by the Law of God, nor the Law of the Land, any more than theirs. And, 2. we bring not in any Roman Rites in the Celebration of our Marriages, as perhaps they do in theirs; but we keep as near the Law of the Land in the Celebration of Marriage as we can, and do undoubtedly keep to the Law of God and right Reaſon therein, as much as any, as has been ſhewed.
SECT. III. Of the moſt important Queſtion touching the caſe depending, viz. Whether it be neceſſary that Marriages ſhould be celebrated by a Miniſter? and whether they may be valid and lawful without them?
THis is the Queſtion propounded by that learned and worthy Man Bp. Hall, in his Book of Reſolut. p. 361. c. 8. whoſe Anſwer will greatly ſtrengthen that which we have ſaid reſpecting the Law of God, for thus he ſpeaks:
It is no marvel (ſaith he) if the Church of Rome (which hold Matrimony a Sacrament, conferring Grace by the very Work wrought) require an abſolute Neceſſity of the Prieſts hand in ſo holy an Act: but for us who (though reverently eſteeming that ſacred Inſtitution, yet) ſet it a Key lower, it admits of too much Queſtion, whether we need to ſtand upon the terms of a Miniſters Agency in the Performance of that ſolemn Action? So then it is a clear caſe it ſeems, unleſs we fall back to the Papiſts to make Marriage a Sacrament, there is no abſolute Neceſſity to have a Prieſt to celebrate Marriage, and conſequently it may be done lawfully (by God's Law at leaſt) without them. And aſſuredly that Doctrine which makes a Miniſter of God abſolutely neceſſary to the Celebration of Marriages can in no wiſe be true, becauſe it is moſt unreaſonable to impeach all thoſe Marriages which all the World over, from the beginning to this day, have been celebrated without them: If then all Nations have all things that are eſſential to Marriage, and yet few Nations have had God's faithful Miniſters to celebrate it, it is manifeſt there may be lawful Marriages without a Miniſter in all Nations, ſeeing the Eſſentials of Marriage is the ſame in all Nations.
But though the Biſhop be for us thus far, yet he ſeems to be againſt us in that which follows, for thus he writes; That as it is requiſite (even according to the Roman Conſtitutions) that he who is entruſted with the cure of our Souls, ſhould beſides other Witneſſes be both preſent and active in, and at our domeſtick Contracts of Matrimony; ſo by the Laws both of our Church and Kingdom, it is neceſſary he ſhould have his hand in the publick Celebration of them; there may then be firm Contracts, there cannot be lawful Mariages without Gods Miniſters.
But (reſerving the Honour due to ſo grave a Writer) I muſt anſwer thus; 1. If there may be firm Contracts without a Prieſt, that is, Contracts made with conſent of Parents, &c. and before ſufficient Witneſſes, and firm, that is, ſuch Contracts as cannot lawfully be broken (and leſs than ſuch he cannot mean); then I ſee not but that the Subſtance, or all that is eſſential to Marriage may be atained without the Prieſts hand, even in the Judgment of this learned Biſhop. But 2. I anſwer further, that by the Teſtimonies of divers learned Men, both in the Roman Conſtitutions, and the Law of this Land, which we have alledged in the former Section; the Biſhop is miſtaken when he ſays the Law of this Kingdom does make the Prieſts hand ſo neceſſary, that Marriage cannot be lawful without them. Sure Judg Hale underſtood the Law of the Kingdom, yet he thought all Marriages made according to the ſeveral Perſwaſions of Men, ought to have their Effects in Law: and indeed ſhould it be otherwiſe, that the Papiſts and other Diſſenters ſhould have their Marriages nulled, which were not celebrated by a Miniſter of the Church of England, it would cauſe great Confuſion in the Land: and again they muſt all be prohibited Marriage, who are unmarried among the Diſſenters, and excommunicated by the Church of England, for they pretend they candor lawfully marry Perſons excommunicated; and how any Church comes to aſſume Power to make ſuch Laws, we cannot underſtand; only of this we are ſure, neither the Law of God nor Reaſon (the prime Foundation of all good Laws) does warrant any Church in ſo doing.
The Proof which the Biſhop ſeems moſt to reſt upon as the Strength of his Opinion, is, becauſe Chriſtians do know Matrimony to be an Holy Inſtitution of God himſelf, which he not only ordained, but actually celebrated betwixt the firſt annocent Pair, and which being for the Propagation of an Holy Seed, requires a ſpecial Benediction; and how can we think any Man meet for this Office but the Man of God ſet over us in the Lord? But ſure theſe Premiſſes are not at all apt to bear this Concluſion, that none but a Prieſt may celebrate Marriage. The Argument ſeems more naturally to be deduced thus: God the Father of Adam, (Luke 3. ult.) who alſo had the right to diſpoſe of the Woman, and to give her in Marriage, did celebrate Marriage between Adam and Eve. Ergo, The Father, or thoſe who have right to diſpoſe of the Parties to be married, may lawfully celebrate the Marriage, and pray for a ſpecial Benediction; ſee 1 Cor. 7. 38. And for this we have ſome light from the Word of God in other places (as has been ſhewed): but that God's Miniſters were either in the time of the Law, or of the Goſpel, concern'd (as God's Miniſters) to celebrate Marriages, does not appear from any hint in the Word of God. And certainly had the Apoſtle been of this Biſhop's mind, he would have given us Direction either by his own Practice, or ſome other way, touching this matter; but that any of the Apoſtles ever married any body, will never be proved: And though Jeſus was at a Wedding and wrought a Miracle there, John 2. yet neither he nor any of his Diſciples did celebrate the Marriage, and then why may we not in reaſon think Marriage may be lawfully celebrated without a Prieſt? We may be ſure that thoſe who called Chriſt and his Diſciples to this Marriage, were ſuch as had a love to him, and being in Galilee, the place where he had been converſant, and where alſo his manner was to perform publick Miniſterial Acts (Luke 4. 14, 16.) the Perſons to be married, or their Relations, would as ſoon have deſired his Aſſiſtance in the Celebration of their Marriage, as any other Miniſter: but the Truth is, neither he, nor any of the Prieſts were imploied in that matter that we read of: And hence we may well conclude there can be no neceſſity to have Marriage celebrated with a Prieſt; and then it may lawfully be done without them. And though we grant a Miniſter may be as fit, and perhaps more fit than another Chriſtian, to give good Counſel to, and pray for the new-married Couple, yet it is apparent the Text, which the Biſhop ſeems▪ to alledg to that purpoſe, intends no ſuch thing at all, as the place being read, will fully demonſtrate, 1 Cor. 7. 39. The Wife is bound by the Law as long as her Husband liveth: but if her Husband be dead, ſhe is at Liberty to be married to whom ſhe will, only in the Lord. Now the Biſhop infers thus; If all our Marriages muſt be (according to the Apoſtle's charge) made in the Lord, who ſo meet to pronounce God's Ratification of our Marriages, as he who is the profeſt Herald of the Almighty? But the Apoſtle does not at all ſpeak of the Perſon that muſt celebrate Marriage, but of the Perſon with whom a Chriſtian may lawfully marry, as Diodate and others do fitly expound the place. And though we yield willingly that a Man of God is a fit Perſon to declare God's Will and Authority in the Ratification of our Marriages, yet it follows not at all, that none but a Man of God may be fit to do this, or that none may lawfully do it but a Herald of the Almighty. But what needs many words? The Biſhop anſwers the Queſtion, where he tells us, that though the Papiſts make it abſolutely neceſſary to have a Miniſter's hand in the act of Marriage, yet the Proteſtants ſet it a Key lower; and confeſſes that it admits of too much queſtion, whether we need to ſtand upon the terms of a Miniſter's Agency in the Performance of that ſolemn Action. So then this ſolemn Action of Marriage may be done without a Miniſter's Agency; therefore there may be lawful Marriages without God's Miniſters: this being granted, we acknowledg it very commendable to have them preſent, if they may be obtained.
But now it would be conſidered, whether the Perſons to be married may not lawfully be ſatisfied that the Perſon whom they imploy in the Celebration of their Marriage, is in their Judgment a lawful Miniſter, or Man of God (ſuppoſing it neceſſary to have ſuch a Man to do the Buſineſs.) This ſeems rational, and if ſo, I doubt there will be a great difficulty in the caſe. And to be plain, though we could admit very willingly of the Prayer of a ſober and pious Miniſter of the Church of England in the Buſineſs of our Nuptials▪ Yet, when we are required to kneel before one whom we know to be a wicked drunken Perſon, &c. how ſhould we act Faith in his Prayer, when God himſelf tells us, The Prayers of the Wicked are an Abomination to him? We may not ſafely conform to ſuch things though the Laws of Men do require it. And indeed the Biſhop ſeems to favour us in ſuch a ſtrait as this: for he ſaith, The Laws of Men do not, ought not, cannot bind your Conſciences as of themſelves; but if they be juſt, they bind you in Conſcience to Obedience. Now to this we do moſt heartily ſubſcribe, only deſiring we may have leave to conſider what is juſt or unjuſt in this caſe, and then we doubt not of our Duty to obey actively what the Law juſtly requires, or elſe to ſuffer patiently what it impoſes.
Now though we can find no ground to believe that to celebrate Marriage is a miniſterial act (though a Miniſter may do it) yet we do not refuſe the Miniſters of the Church of England, becauſe ſuch, but becauſe they will not ratify our Contracts unleſs we conform to ſuch things as ſeem to us to be ſinful (as we ſhall ſhew in the next Section.) And if it were a work peculiar to God's Miniſters, our Straits in coming to the Prieſts would be greater than they are, becauſe we know God does not allow wicked Men to take his Word into their Mouths, ſpecially when they hate to be reformed, Pſal. 50. 16. And beſides, we believe and know, we have of thoſe that more fully agree with us in matters of Religion, that are Miniſters of Chriſt. And therefore were Marriage (in the Celebration of it) a Miniſterial Work, we ſhould not fail to have it rightly done by them; but this is not our Perſwaſion: though we think as reverently of this Ordinance as any, yet we believe it moſt fit to be teſtified before thoſe who are appointed by the Laws of the Land, and therefore do what with a good Conſcience we can to have it ſo, but being rejected (as we have ſhewed) we know our Marriages are not therefore null; becauſe we have all that is eſſential to lawful Marriage, both in the Eye of the Law of God, and the Law of the Land alſo. For the firſt, this Learned Prelate does not deny, whilſt he makes not a Miniſter abſolutely neceſſary to the Celebration of Marriage. And the Learned Judg Hale grants the ſecond, that our Marriages ought to have their Effects in Law. And Durand (a Man well skill'd in the Roman Conſtitutions) tells us, There is no holy Sign, nor no Miniſter neceſſary in Matrimony, &c. as we have ſhewed. And beſides this, it is fully ſhewed by this learned Biſhop, that many Chriſtians in all Ages have done, and may lawfully do ſome things, tho they be Lay-men, which are moſt fitly to be done by ſuch as have a Miniſterial Authority thereunto, namely, to catechiſe, defend and propagate the Goſpel. Such were Origen, Ariſtides, Hegeſippus, Juſtin, and many others; ſee his Book of Reſolut. p. 265. chap. 10. Thoſe who called themſelves Catholicks in Auguſtin's time, did allow the Baptiſm and other ſacred Acts of the Donatiſts, &c. to be valid. It is ſtrange then that the Marriages of the preſent Diſſenters ſhould be made Nullities by the common Proteſtants; who themſelves are eſteemed but Diſſenters in a Neighbour Nation, and therefore their Marriages are as liable to cenſure there as ours are here; but theſe are Hardſhips and Cruelties in the Opinion of that learned Lawyer, the late Lord Chief Juſtice Hale.
SECT. IV. Of the Rituals of the Church of England concerning Marriage, and the Reaſons why the Baptized Believers comply not with them.
HOW gladly we ſhould be to ſee an end of all Contention amongſt Chriſtians about unneceſſary Ceremonies, we have ſhewed in our Friendly Epiſtle, and our late Apology; wherein alſo we have profeſſed our earneſt Deſire for Concord with all that love the Lord Jeſus, and more particularly with the Church of England. But it ſeems all that we can offer below a full compliance even with the moſt uſeleſs Ceremonies, is not thought worth the notice of the preſent Clergy, who now do many of them wonderfully exalt themſelves, deſpiſing ſuch as diſſent from them, and that ſo much the more as by how much we ſeek to them for Peace.
Marriage-Covenants we confeſs are things of that nature and importance, that they are worthy the care of the Laws of all Nations. But ſuch has been the unhappineſs of the Churches which are National, as to ordain ſuch things in order to the Celebration of Marriage, which becomes a Snare to many; this the Proteſtants found true by Experience, when under the Papal Yoke, and therefore have exploded part of their Ritual, whereof we have an account from Dr. Willit, and the manner thus.
1. They who are to be joined in Matrimony, muſt be bleſſed by the Prieſt.
2. Oblation muſt be made for them in the Sacrifice of the Maſs.
3. They are covered with a Vail.
4. They are coupled together with a Ribbon, partly white and partly blew.
5. They Bride giveth to the Bridegroom a Ring, hallowed firſt, and bleſſed by the Prieſt.
6. The Prieſt commendeth them to God in Prayer.
7. He admoniſheth them to their mutual Duties. Dr. Willit, Synopſ. p. 713.
Now this uſe of the Ring amongſt the Papiſts is condemned by this Learned Doctor of the Church of England, for a ſuperſtitious Toy, partly for that it muſt be hallowed by the Prieſt; and partly for that the Man holding the Woman by the Ring, their Fingers a-croſs, ſome inchanting words, ſays he, are then muttered; but the words he ſets not down.
And now becauſe the uſe of the Ring in the Church of England, and the kneeling at the Altar, and to the Prieſt for his Bleſſing, are very doubtful to us, we ſhall here take a view of the matter. And,
1. The Ring muſt be laid upon the Service-Book.
2. The Prieſt muſt then give the Ring to the Bridegroom.
3. The Bridegroom muſt put the Ring upon the fourth Finger of the Woman's left Hand.
4. And holding the Woman by that Finger, muſt ſay theſe ſtrange Words, With this Ring I thee wed: with my Body I thee worſhip: with all my worldly Goods I thee endow. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. Amen.
Now theſe things, ſo far as we are able to underſtand them, do look as much like Superſtition, as any thing which the Proteſtant Doctor has to object againſt the Popiſh uſe of the Ring: For why muſt the Ring be laid upon the Service-Book, and ſo paſs through the Prieſts hand, before it be fit for the uſe it is to be made of? Certainly the Ring is hereby ſuppoſed to be made more fit to wed the Woman; and this it cannot be, unleſs it be ſuppoſed to be ſanctified, or if there be nothing of all this, it ſeems to be wholly ſuperfluous.
And for the Man to ſay he weds her (whom he has married ſufficiently before) with that Ring, in the Name of the Father, &c. is ſo like a Sacramental form of Words, as that we are ſure none more ſolemn are appointed to be uſed in Holy Baptiſm: nor can any higher form of Words be deviſed. Had Almighty God appointed this form of Words to be annexed to the uſe of a Ring, all Men would and ſurely might have concluded Marriage among Chriſtians to be a Sacrament as well as Baptiſm: but ſeeing he hath not done it, it ſeems to us too bold an attempt; for any Church to impoſe ſuch a Rite or Ceremony in ſo great a Name, and therefore in Conſcience we dare not conform to the Church of England in this thing; for it is dangerous to ſpeak a Word, much more to make an Inſtitute, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, which he hath not commanded.
Let us conſider whence the Ring in Marriage was derived, that we may the better judg of the matter. 1. Then it is reckoned among the Heathen Roman Rites in their Marriages, and the manner thus; The Man gave in token of good Will (they ſay) a Ring unto the Woman, which ſhe was to wear upon the next Finger to the little Finger on the left Hand, becauſe unto that Finger alone proceeded a certain Artery from the Heart: Here ſeems to be the Radix or Spring of the Ring in Marriage, unleſs perhaps it might be before this among the ſuperſtitious Jews; for thus we read,
The Wedding-Ring among the Jews had this Inſcription, MAZAL TOB, [which the Learned ſay, is to wiſh good luck] and it was given to the Bride-wife: and the Hebrews called the Planet Jupiter Mazal, whoſe Influence they thought to be of great force for Generation. Godwin. Antiq. of the Rom. and Jews.
Now which of theſe ſoever was the Spring-Head, though there ſeems to be ſomething of Superſtition or Folly in the Buſineſs, yet I think an impartial Man muſt needs ſay the Ring has attracted more of that kind among the Chriſtian Nations, than it had among the Jews or Heathens. The ſhort is▪ Were the Ring uſed only as a Civil Ceremony, without this ſeemingly ſacred Solemnity, we ſhould ſay nothing. But for Chriſtians to adopt either the Heathen or Jewiſh ſuperſtitious Rites into the Service of the Church, and to make the Celebration of them miniſterial Acts, is the Buſineſs for the ſerious and thinking Chriſtian to conſider.
And aſſuredly till it turn to the Lord to encline the Hearts of his People with one accord, to reſtore his Holy Ordinances (and amongſt the reſt this of Marriage) to their Native Purity and Simplicity, there will be continual cauſe of Sorrow, Diſcontents and Animoſities amongſt Chriſtians, and occaſion thereby given in all Chriſtian Nations for the more Carnal and Ceremonious, to perſecute the more ſpiritual and ſerious ſort of Chriſtians. And the grave Author of the the firſt part of the naked Truth (not that of Mr. H.) makes thoſe without doubt to be always the weakeſt and moſt carnal, who ſtand ſo much for Ceremonies; and ſpeaking of the Ring, he makes it (in reſpect of himſelf) as a thing of meer Indifferency, to be married with or without it. And were it left to that Liberty, we ſhould not much complain; but alas 'tis made ſo neceſſary that we cannot be married by a Prieſt without it.
2. We cannot underſtand how to worſhip our Wives, yet we can underſtand St. Paul, where he bids us give them Honour as the weaker Veſſel. To worſhip any Creature in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, is very ſuſpicious; but I ſay, to worſhip our Wives thus, is a thing we underſtand not. This ſeems to be borrowed from the forementioned Jews, who had Jupiter in ſuch eſteem: For the ſame Antiqueriſt tell us, that the Words of their Dowry-Bill ran thus, Be thou unto me a Wife according to the Law of Moſes and Iſrael, and I according to the Word of God will worſhip, honour, maintain and govern thee, &c. But where the Word of God obliges a Man to worſhip his Wife, is yet unrevealed to us. There is indeed a Civil Worſhip due to our Superiours, or Perſons of great Worth, Luke 14. 12. But the Law of God and Nature has made the Man ſuperiour in Marriage, and why are we to unman our ſelves to gratify a Ceremony?
In all that I have written I deſign nothing againſt the Church of England, whom I unfainedly honour, as I do all that heartily love Jeſus Chriſt, as Charity commands me to believe ſhe doth; yet let me freely ſay, that the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm (though certainly an Errour, becauſe added to a ſacred Inſtitute of Chriſt, without any Allowance from his Word, yet) is much more excuſable than this Sign of the Ring. For if we conſider their Original, the Croſs was uſed in Defence of his Honour who died upon a Croſs, and in oppoſition to the Blaſphemy both of Jews and Heathens. But the Ring was borrowed from the ſuperſtitious Rites both of Jews and Heathens, and ſo more unfit for any Service among Chriſtians.
Again, The Croſs is not ſo highly honoured in Baptiſm, as the Ring is in Marriage; for the Croſs is not made or uſed in the Name of the Trinity, as we ſee the Ring is. Moreover, the Sign of the Croſs may be omitted ſometimes, even by the Laws of the Church of England, (as in private Baptiſm) but the Ring is not ſo. That Baptiſm is not doubted to be valid, which wants only the Sign of the Croſs, but (according to ſome of our preſent Clergy) the Ring muſt be one, or elſe they will not celebrate Marriage, and if it be done without the Ring, will almoſt condemn it for no Marriage at all. But ſure it is not in the Power of any Church to make Laws, Ordinances, Rites or Ceremonies, ſo neceſſary to this Ordinance of God (I mean Marriage) as that the Omiſſion of them ſhould null God's Ordinance, or put a Bar againſt Mens having the Benefit of that Ordiaance, which both the Law of God and Nature allows them.
Hath not the Church often been not only the leaſt, but alſo a perſecuted People in a Nation, and may be ſo again; how then can it pertain to her to make Laws in caſes which concern Men as Men, and all Men in a Nation as much as any? and in which ſhe is bound to obſerve the Laws of theſe Nations (ſo far as ſhe may do it without Sin) rather than preſcribe (unleſs to teach the Law of God to them) what ceremonies they muſt uſe in their Nuptial Celebrations.
But foraſmuch as Marriages are the Foundation of Families, and that upon the Legality whereof the Good of Poſterity does much depend, we therefore conclude, this univerſal Ordinance of God is under the Cognizance of the Magiſtrate, whoſe care is to ſee that nothing be done herein againſt the Law of God, right Reaſon and common Honeſty, but that all Violation of theſe rules of Government ſhould be corrected, and the contrary encouraged. And herein we chearfully ſubmit our ſelves to their Majeſties, and to all that are in Authority as in Duty bound, moſt humbly intreating that ſome prudent care may be taken by our Superiours that whatſoever is grievious herein may be removed.
FINIS.
End of the text · Thomas Grantham, Truth and Peace (1689)