[18] CHAP. I. Of MARRIAGE as a Divine Institution. WHEN the great and all-wise Creator had formed man upon the earth, male and female, He blessed them, and said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. Gen. i. 28. This command was to be fulfilled in a way of GOD's own appointment; that is to say, by the union of the man and woman in personal knowledge of each other. This is the only marriage-ordinance which we find revealed in the sacred scriptures. Wherever this union should come to pass, though two distinct and independent persons before, they now were to become as one. They shall be one* flesh, Gen. ii. 24. and so indissolubly one, [...] * dxa dXbl �?nbsp; as one flesh �?έις σαρχα μιαν, Gr. Test. The Hebrew l prefixed, hath often this sense. See Josh. vii. 5. Lam. i. 17. So the Greek preposition εις, which answers to it. Compare 2 Sam. vii. 14. with Heb. i. 5. where the !bl and bal of the Old Testament, are rendered by έις παΊερα and έις ύιουin the New Testament; and clearly evince the names of Father and Son to be æconomical names of office in the covenant of redemption, not descriptive of an inferiority and subordination, in the persons of the GODHEAD. Compare Luke i. 35.
[20] [...] of the marriage-union, but that which constitutes it in the sight of GOD. In all which there is not the least hint, or most distant allusion, to any outward rite or ceremony administered by any person whatsoever; but the whole is made to rest simply and only in the personal * union of the man and the woman. It is this alone which, according to the Apostle, makes them one flesh. * It may be presumed, that in what Adam said, Gen. ii. 23. he had an immediate reference to her formation out of a part of himself ; but there was also an allusion to the personal union of the male and female, in what he says, ver. 24. is clearly proved by the Apostle's argument, 1 Cor. vi. 16; otherwise his citing this passage of Gen. ii. 24. would have been nothing to the purpose to shew that this makes them one flesh. The Hebrew wtXa qbr is rendered by the LXX, ПΡОΣΚΟΛΛΗΘΗΣΤΑΙ προς τnν γuναιχα ἀΊν�?/EM> in Matthew xix.5. ПΡОΣΚΟΛΛΗΘΗΣΤΑΙ, τ�?/SPAN> γυναικ�?/SPAN> αὐτοῦ. Let the reader compare all this with the Apostle's �?KOΛΛΩ′MENOΣ �?σόρν�?/STRONG>, and it will be very easy to see that the same idea runs through the whole; which is, that those who are thus joined, are one body, and pronounced by GOD �?/FONT> one flesh. This will appear still the more evidently, if we consider OUR LORD'S expression, as represented by the Evangelist, Matt. xix. 6. where he uses the word ΣτΝΕZEτEEΝ, hath joined, or yoked together, as the effect of the cause expressed by ProscollhqhvseΊaι. All this will appear still more evidently, if, with the accurate Ar. Mont. we translatewtXab qbrw αἀharebit IN UXORE SUA.
[21] If the licentious and temporary union with an harlot, makes a man to become one body, and one flesh with her, we may suppose that the sin of fornication receives no small share of its malignity, from the abuse thereby committed of the ordinance of marriage as established by GOD: as entering into it without any intention of abiding by it, but merely to gratify a transient lust, and that with a woman who departs from one to another, as gain or evil desire may lead her. Nevertheless the Apostle, on the authority of Gen. ii. 23, 24. says, that he that is joined to an harlot, is one body, and one flesh with her, by being engaged in that ordinance, of which these things are declared, in the passage referred to, to be the inevitable consequences. From what has been said, it appears, that marriage, as instituted of GOD, simply consists (as to the essence of it) in the union of the man and woman as one body; for which the plain and evident reason, no outward forms or ceremonies of man's invention, can add to or diminish from the effects of this union in the sight of GOD. What ends these things may serve, as to civil purposes, I shall not dispute: but I cannot suppose that the matrimonial-service in our church, or any other, can make the parties more one flesh in the sight of GOD, supposing them to have been united, than the burial-service can make the corpse over which it is re[a]d more dead than it was before. C 3
[22] Supposing they have not been united, they are not one flesh in the sight of GOD, by any virtue in the words of the service, any more than a piece of wafer becomes flesh and blood by a Popish priest's consecration. It is not man, but GOD, which makes the twain one flesh; neither is it man's ordinance, but GOD's institution, which brings that to pass. If this be not so, why, notwithstanding the words of service, does incapacity, inability, or impotency, in either party, render all that has been done null and void? See Burn, Eccl. Law, vol. ii. p. 39. By observing the outward ordinance, the intention of the parties is publickly recognized, and they are pronounced man and wife in the sight of the world; but they are not so in GOD'S sight unless by anticipation, as it were, with respect to the mutual promises made to each other, which the sacred scriptures call betrothing of espousing ; but the contract is then, and only then, complete in the sight of GOD, when the only ordinance which He has appointed has passed between them; and therefore it is very properly styled �?/FONT> the consumation.
[23] As to the person celebrating the marriage �?the place where �?/FONT> the manner how; it is very certain, that these things are wholly of human invention, and therefore not only various in the different parts of the world, but also in the same country. We have amongst us Jews, Papists, Quakers ; all these observe an outward form or ceremony from each other. As for the church of England, we have differed from ourselves; for the same ceremony which would have constituted a legal marriage before 26th of the late King George II. will not do it now, unless certain circumstances, introduced and insisted upon by act of parliment be observed. But the all-wise Legislator of the universe hath not left His divine institutions on so vague, so precarious, so uncertain a footing. But see, said He to Moses, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewn the in the mount. Heb. viii. 5. We find every particular, down to the very pins in the tabernacle, every rite and ceremony, even the minutest circumstance, exactly delineated and revealed. But we find no marriage-service, or religious ceremony of an* outward kind, so much as mentioned. * As for the manner of celebrating marriage, Moses has left no direction about it. We do not find it accompanied with any religious ceremony, such as going to the Tabernacle or Temple, offering sacrifices, or even that it was performed by or before a priest. See Ant. Univ. Hist. vol. iii. p. 145. C4
[24] The business of marriage was left as at first ordained, to the one simple act of union. A conclusive proof this, that nothing else is of divine institution; consquently, that nothing else is essential to constitute a marriage in the sight of GOD, but that this is. Should the Reader retain the least doubt of the truth of what has been said, or be under the difficulty in understanding what is meant by those words �?They shall be one flesh, we may refer to a very clear explanation of the matter, not only by reviewing St. Paul's words, 1 Cor. vi. 15, 16. but also by considering more minutely what is meant by those passages mentioned before, from the law of Moses; but as the texts are not cited at length, I will here set them down as they stand in the places referred to. Exod. xxii. 16, 17. If a man entice a maid that isn't betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Continue
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
