A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3). George Elliott Howard
is a Sign of all others, most usual in Spousals and Matrimonial Contracts, I think it requisite to speak of it, before all other Signs; the rather because the Writers upon this Sign have diligently described unto us, what Persons did first devise the same, and to what end; and what was the matter, and what the form thereof, on which Finger it ought to be worn, and what is the Signification of each of those Circumstances, with divers other Observations which I will briefly run over. The first Inventer of the Ring (as is reported) was one Prometheus; The Workman which made it was Tubal-Cain, of whom there is mention in the fourth of Genesis, that he wrought cunningly in every Craft of Brass and Iron: And Tubal-Cain by the Counsel of our first Parent Adam (as my Author telleth me), gave it unto his Son to this end, that therewith he should espouse a Wife, like as Abraham delivered unto his Servant Bracelets and Ear-Rings of Gold, which he gave to Rebecca, when he chose her to be Isaacks Wife.... But the first Ring was not of Gold, but of Iron, adorned with an Adamant, the Metal hard and durable, signifying the continuance and perpetuity of the Contract; the vertuous Adamant drawing the Iron unto it, signifying the perfect unity and indissoluble Conjunction of their minds, in true and faithful love; Howbeit it skilleth not at this day, what Metal the Ring be; The form of the Ring being circular, that is, round, and without end, importeth thus much, that their mutual love and hearty affection should roundly flow from the one to the other, as in a Circle, and that continually, and for ever; The Finger on which this Ring is to be worn is the fourth Finger of the left hand, next unto the little Finger; because by the received Opinion of the Learned and Experienced in Ripping up, and anatomizing Mens Bodies, there is a Vein of Blood which passeth from that fourth Finger unto the Heart, called Vena amoris, Love's Vein. And so the wearing of the Ring on that Finger signifieth, that the love should not be vain or fained, but that as they did give their Hands each to other, so likewise they should give their Hearts also, whereunto that Vein is extended. Furthermore I do observe, that in former Ages it was not tolerated to single or unmarried Persons to wear Rings, unless they were Judges, Doctors, or Senators, or such like honourable Persons: So that being destitute of such Dignity, it was a note of Vanity, Lasciviousness, and Pride for them to presume to wear a Ring, whereby we may collect how greatly they did honour and reverence the Sacred Estate of Wedlock in times past, in permitting the Parties affianced to be adorned with the honourable Ornament of the Ring: As also the Vanity, Lasciviousness, and intolerable Pride of these our days, wherein every skipping Jack and every flirting Jill, must not only be ring'd (forsooth) very daintily, but must have some special Jewel or Favour besides, as though they were descended of some noble House or Parentage, when as all their Houses and whole Patrimony is not worth the Ninth part of a Noble; or else, as if they were betrothed or assured in the holy Band of Wedlock, when as indeed, there is no manner of Contract betwixt them, unless peradventure it be such a Contract as Judah made with Thamar, ... which bargain he concluded by delivering her a Ring."[1210]
This curious passage is here quoted at length, not because it has historical value, but because the author has condensed therein the symbolism, conceits, and folklore connected with the betrothal ring as these are found in the writings of the canonists, whom he carefully and minutely cites in the margin.[1211]
Before the act of 1753 persons contracting espousals de praesenti might be compelled to celebrate matrimony in facie ecclesiae, under penalty for refusal of excommunication by the spiritual and imprisonment by the secular power;[1212] but in case of a mere contract de futuro, if either party refused to keep his engagement, he was rather to be "admonished than compelled." The "judge is not to proceed to the Significavit, but rather to absolve that cursed Party which contemneth the Censures of the Church, albeit there be no Cause of favour, but fear of further mischief, by compelling them to go together, which hate one another. Yet is not this froward Party thus to be dismissed, but is to suffer pennance" for breach of faith.[1213]
II. AS TO THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE
In its practical results, therefore, the Reformation had little effect on law and theory as to the form of wedlock. For England it had no significance at all; and the same is true of Germany, except so far as Luther's view of the sponsalia may have found some expression in legislation and judicial decree. With respect to the nature of marriage the case is very different. The dogma of its sacramental character was abandoned throughout the Protestant world.[1214] In its place a new conception arose; and it is very instructive to trace the process of change in the mind of Luther himself.[1215] As late as 1519 he declares that "the marriage state is a sacrament," an outward "symbol of the greatest, holiest, noblest, most worthy thing that has ever existed or can exist: the union of the divine and human natures in Christ;"[1216] and this symbol he explains entirely in harmony with the "dogmatism of the Middle Ages, notably that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who sought the motive of marriage sacrament in legalization of the sensual impulse."[1217] In the very next year, however, and again in 1539, he expresses himself decisively against the ancient Catholic doctrine.[1218] Nevertheless in his various attempts to define the matrimonial state an apparent contradiction is presented which is hard to reconcile, and which is of great significance in the long struggle for the instituting of civil marriage. On the one hand, though not technically a sacrament, marriage is described as holy, a "most spiritual" status, "ordained and founded" by God himself. It is the source of domestic and public government, the foundation of human society, which without it would "fall to pieces."[1219] So holy is the state of matrimony, in Luther's conception, that he must perforce still use the term "sacrament" to convey his meaning.[1220] On the other hand, his writings contain passages of a very different tenor. "So many lands, so many customs, runs the common saying. Therefore since weddings and matrimony are a temporal business, it becomes us clerks and servants of the church to order or rule nothing therein, but to leave to each city and state its own usages and customs in this regard."[1221] Elsewhere, in words which anticipate the sentiment of Milton by a hundred years, he insists that "matrimonial questions do not touch the conscience, but belong to the temporal power," warning the clergy not to meddle with them unless commanded by that authority.[1222] Marriage, he emphatically declares, is a "temporal, worldly thing" which "does not concern the church."[1223]
Thus Luther provided the arsenal from which both the friends and the foes of civil marriage drew their weapons. His name, says Friedberg, became the "battle-cry," the "shield and mantle," of the contending factions; and while urging that Luther must be regarded as the champion of marriage as a "worldly thing," the same writer points out the two powerful motives which may in large measure account for this apparent contradiction.[1224] First, the evils growing out of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matrimonial causes were becoming an intolerable burden to Christendom; and only by denying the sacramental nature of marriage could the way be cleared for a transfer of that jurisdiction to the secular courts. Secondly, the abuses connected with sacerdotal celibacy were scarcely less threatening. The licentiousness of the clergy was "beyond belief." Many "bishops were at last content to convert the vows of celibacy into sources of revenue, suffering the clergy to live in concubinage in return for a yearly tax;"[1225] and yet the "ill preserved chastity of the priesthood was interpenetrated then as before by a profound contempt for the marriage state."[1226] Hence Luther proclaimed the natural and scriptural right of priests to marry; and rejecting the low ascetic ideal he laid stress on the purity and holiness of marriage as an institution ordained of heaven.[1227] But, after all, this doctrine is not so entirely out of harmony with the view that matrimony is a "worldly thing;" for with the Reformation a new conception of the temporal power arose. During the Middle Ages the contrast was not between church and state, as the latter is now understood; but between the "unholy world and the holy church." Hence the state, because it was comprehended under the conception of the world, "partook of its unholiness. The Reformation formulated the antithesis differently. It released the state from its shell of 'worldliness,' ascribed to it ethical tendencies, and made it the bearer of morality. Formerly the state was unholy, because it belonged to the world; now the world became ethical, because it fell within the sphere of the state, for the state itself was moral."[1228] Thus, in the sixteenth century, the conception of the "Christian state" and of the "Christian prince," to which Erasmus gave such fine expression, became thoroughly established.[1229]