Now online: “On Retention of ‘Obey’ in the Marriage Service” (1915)

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by JonahAF, Oct 3, 2021.

  1. JonahAF

    JonahAF Moderator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    237
    Likes Received:
    220
    J. Wickham Legg, On Retention of the Word ‘Obey’ in the Marriage Service (1915)

    This important historic artifact perfectly captures the tumultuous changes which swept over the Church of England in the early 20th century. Traditionalists in the Church looked on as new forces such as feminism, egalitarianism, and others began to come in, and gather adherents who adopted new opinions about previously-established doctrines. The author intended this text as a message in a bottle, to inform future generations and other provinces, about what the traditional Church of England doctrines were before they had been swept away.

    In a real tour-de-force he takes the entire history of Christianity as his aim, to answer the question: how have all Christians thought of men and women, the equality or inequality of the sexes, and the same or different duties in marriage. How did Christians view these things? It’s a fascinating question, with almost no good answers offered today. He aims to provide perhaps the most detailed answer ever given on this question, citing hundreds of arcane texts, marriage rites, liturgies, and family customs, in the entire Christian world from Armenia to Ethiopia and Switzerland. The impact of the breadth of Christian history is truly breathtaking. Enjoy!

    https://www.anglican.net/works/j-wi...ge-service-of-the-book-of-common-prayer-1915/

    legg.png
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2021
  2. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    A bit off-topic, but I find it very interesting that the author should mention the "blind adherents of the school of Westcott and Hort" extant in his day. The present-day general acceptance of Bible versions which spring from the "scholarship" of those two gentlemen (which encompasses nearly all the Bible versions) shows us that the modernism feared by the author did affect more than just the view of husband-wife relations.
     
  3. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    This paragraph sums it up nicely:

    It is a commonplace of the theologians following St. Paul, to compare the union of the Christian man and woman to the union of Christ with his Church ;  and to declare that as the Church is subject to Christ, so the woman is subject to the man.  If this be so, and it is the universal Christian teaching, there can be no doubt of the difference between man and wife.  She is inferior to him ;   “ the weaker vessel ”  of St. Peter, as the sincerely good wife is the first to acknowledge.  The equality of the sexes is no Christian doctrine.

    Of course, "inferior" is therein meant to apply not in terms of capability but in terms of priority, as (for example) a sergeant is inferior to his lieutenant and conversely the lieutenant is the superior officer of the sergeant.
     
  4. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Well now....
    how do we put the genie back in the bottle?
     
  5. J_Jeanniton

    J_Jeanniton Member

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    7
    "It is a commonplace of the theologians following St. Paul, to compare the union of the Christian man and woman to the union of Christ with his Church ;  and to declare that as the Church is subject to Christ, so the woman is subject to the man.  If this be so, and it is the universal Christian teaching, there can be no doubt of the difference between man and wife.  She is inferior to him". But is it on account of her essential nature as a female? Well, what would happen if that had been so???

    It is a fundamental principle of Reason that identical causes produce identical effects; and that equal causes produce equal effects - and it cannot make any difference what sort of adventitious, adscititious, or incidental circumstances occur.

    Thus if it had been on account of the essential nature of the female sex that the wife is inferior to the husband, then it follows by parity of reason, that every individual woman would have been essentially and intrinsically inferior to every individual man merely because of the differing essential natures of the sexes. Neither does it may any difference what sort of spheres of life the sexes are engaged in at the moment or they have encountered: no difference or change in the spheres of life they participate in or merely encounter can change the differing essential natures of the sexes.

    Therefore, a widow having adult male sons would have been inferior to each and every one of her sons.

    Yea, and furthermore, it also follows that the greatest Queen in England would not have been equal (nor superior) to the lowest of her butlers, footmen, or varlets working as menial staff in the royal household, but on the contrary, she would have been inferior to him, and therefore it would not have been lawful for her to command him, but on the contrary, it would have been her duty to obey him, and that irrespective of whether or not they are husband and wife.

    It also follows that the following statement of Blackstone's Commentary would have a heresy and error against Christian morals (as well as a grievous indignity against the male sex):

    https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-104/:

    "The husband of a queen regnant, as prince George of Denmark was to queen Anne, is her subject; and may be guilty of high treason against her: but, in the instance of conjugal fidelity, he is not subjected to the same penal restrictions. For which the reason seems to be, that, if a queen consort is unfaithful to the royal bed, this may debase or bastardize the heirs to the crown; but no such danger can be consequent on the infidelity of the husband to a queen regnant." - Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, Chapter 4.

    All of these paradoxes could have been simply resolved by the following considerations:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=oFcEAAAAQAAJ&pg= PA58&dq=%22PIETY+THE+BEST+ORNAMENT+OF+WOMAN%22&hl= en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwictMP43 ZHzAhXBTTABHepIBjkQ6AF6BAgCEAI#v=onepage&q=%22PIET Y%20THE%20BEST%20ORNAMENT%20OF%20WOMAN%22&f=false:

    '[We believe, teach, and confess that]...it is not only proper, but it is necessary, that woman should know the rank which she holds in creation. She is not the slave, not the dependent, not the [essential, substantial, or zoological] inferior, but the meet companion and in all essential respects the equal of man. If an apostle styles her, in one place, "the weaker vessel," it is because she is more delicate in her frame, and therefore more easily injured and broken--and therefore, too, to be treated with the greater tenderness. That this is the true meaning is obvious from its forming a reason for respect. What says the apostle? "Give honour" - "give honour to the woman, as unto the weaker vessel." There is, indeed, a certain official superiority, if I may so speak, which belongs to the man by the ordinance of God - an ordinance that cannot in this case, nor in any, be safely violated [but this "official superiority" of the husband in the marriage is PRECISELY what these "Militant Suffragettes" within the Church of England, calling themselves the Spiritual Militancy League, had been trying to exterminate when they demanded or petitioned that the word obey should be removed from the bride's oath in the Marriage Service]; and there may be a certain softness and timidity, a sense of dependence, distinctive of the woman, and a certain severity, and courage, and decision of character, distinctive of the man so that the one is formed to be protected and the other to protect. But there is here no essential difference, no intellectual difference, but a difference arising merely from obvious external circumstances. In both there is the same intelligent understanding mind; in both there are the same rational faculties, the same endless capability of improvement, the same capacity of happiness and of misery, the same everlasting destiny.'

    - Source: The Females' advocate [afterw.] The Female mission record, Volume 1, pages 58 & 59.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2021
  6. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    I don't think the two things are comparable....
    As he seems to anticipate in teh article,

    "Queen Victoria was a sovereign princess and as such it might have been expected that she would have taken the vows before her future husband whose rank was much below that of a crowned head.  Yet the Church of England did not allow this ;  and farther, the Queen promised to  “ obey and serve ”  one whose only title to superiority was that of husband."
     
  7. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    302
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    From J-Jeanniton's Link

    THE prince of Wales, or heir apparent to the crown, and also his royal consort, and the princess royal, or eldest daughter of the king, are likewise peculiarly regarded by the laws. For, by It is equally treason (by the statute 25 Edw. III.) to compass or imagine the death of our lady the king’s companion, as of the king himself: and to violate, or defile, the queen consort, amounts to the same high crime; as well in the person committing the fact, as in the queen herself, in consenting., to compass or conspire the death of the former, or to violate the chastity of either of the latter, are as much high treason, as to conspire the death of the king, or violate the chastity of the queen.

    Since you seem to have a legalistic mind, you may want to inform her majesties authorities that James Hewitt might be guilty of high treason under this 1351 law. You can be assured that he will no longer will be hung drawn and quartered as mentioned in the law.

    Now Blackstone says
    It is equally treason (by the statute 25 Edw. III.) to compass or imagine the death of our lady the king’s companion, as of the king himself: and to violate, or defile, the queen consort, amounts to the same high crime; as well in the person committing the fact, as in the queen herself, in consenting.

    If it is treason for the queen to consent to "violation" would this also apply to Princess Diana in this analogous situation?

    With respect to Blackstone I can't see any provisions for the Queen or the King's eldest son's wife being quilty under the statute 25 Edw. III. but then again my Norman French is not what it could be.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  8. J_Jeanniton

    J_Jeanniton Member

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    7
    Correction! What I should have written is: "It also follows that the following statement of Blackstone's Commentary would have been a heresy and error against Christian morals (as well as a grievous indignity against the male sex)". But just the same, unless a suitable distinction is made, it is simply theologically impossible to reconcile Blackstone's statement that the husband of a reigning queen is her subject with the Scripture's moral and matrimonial teaching that wives must be subject to the headship of their respective husbands.

    The proper place where the distinction should be made is in the extent of the husband's jurisdiction as head of the wife. It is a maxim of common law that Verba, quantumvis generalia, ad aptitudinem restringenda sunt, etiamsi nullam aliem paterentur restrictionem: The words [of a divinely revealed dogma on faith and/or morals], howsoever general, are restrained to fitness (i.e. to harmonize with the subject-matter) though they would bear no other restriction. And, Verba restringenda sunt ad habiltatem rei vel personam: The words [of a precept] are confined according to the character of the thing or person. Since the words in the N. T. precepts teaching the subjection of the wife to the headship of her husband are not confined according to the individual characteristics of the parties, they can only be confined according to the essential nature of the relationship for which the NT is laying down those regulations, ergo they can only be confined according to the context of that relationship. The most general and categorical of the terms and provisions laid down in those precepts is found in Ephesians 5:25 - "As the church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Matthew Henry's Commentary states: "So it follows, Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ (v. 24), with cheerfulness, with fidelity, with humility, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thingin every thing to which their authority justly extends itself, in every thing lawful and consistent with duty to God."

    Either it is altogether lawful according to the divinely revealed moral laws fully worded in Scripture, for a woman to inherit a throne, in a professing Christian monarchical nation, for lack of heirs male lawfully begotten of the immediately previous king from whom she inherited the title, or else it is altogether unlawful. If lawful, well then "the husband of a reigning queen is her subject" cannot be true matrimonially in any such peculiar sense as though the reigning queen had been the head of the marriage union subsisting between her husband and herself, but on the contrary, only in a civic / PATRIOTICAL sense, meaning that the husband, in his capacity as a natural-born citizen, naturalized alien, denizen, or alien friend of the realm his wife inherited, owes civil and political PATRIOTICAL allegiance to the reigning queen as the nominal or real political, civil, or juridical sovereign of that realm. But if unlawful, well then Blackstone's statement on the husband of a reigning queen is null and void as well as heretical. I also recommend John Aylmer's Harbor for Faithful and True Subjects [i.e., all Natural-Born Citizens, Naturalized Aliens, Denized Aliens, and Alien Friends ranking below the sovereign ruler of the country] against the Late Blown Blast, concerning the Government of Women, wherein are Confuted all such Reasons as a Stranger of Late Made in that Behalf, with a Brief Exhortation to Obedience. Year MDLIX [1559], site: http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A00060.0001.001.

    https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A00060.0001.001/49:3?vid=466:

    "For they thought it better to marrye one, whiche might be their seueral Lord, then to ioign Britaine with such a realm, as shuld drown the name of it, and bring them (as they be) to slauery: Amias was defen∣ded by a womā, against tharmy of Maximiliā,* it had ben els lost, as al the french men confessed, her name was Catherina licia. A maid defēded Orliance,* in ar∣mor, against the duke of Burgundie and the English army, and after with the same her army led the yōg king Charls the .7. to Rome, ād ther crowned him. Before this maids time, the English euer prospered, and the french wer euē at the last cast, geuing vp the goste, but she brought them into that condiciō, that afterwarde, they grewe: and we appaired.* Helena the Quene of the Adiabenits, ruled so wisely and godli: that after her deth, the Iewes erected a monumēt for her remembrance at the gates of Ierusalem: She mi∣nistred to the nede of the pore liberally, in the greate dearth that than was in Iury.* Thus thou seest (good Reader) that if this man take nature so generallye, as it may stretche to all conntries, all tymes and al cō∣mon welthes, and then saye, it is against nature for a woman to rule: That is againste the generall con∣fente and order, engrafte by nature, in al peoples and mennes mindes: that then it is mooste vntrue. For I haue proued, that neither the Iewes, nor the Gētils, nor yet the christiās, had that〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉that cōmō opiniō plāted bi nature in their harts that it stode not with good order of nature that one of that sex shuld rule. But shortly I reasō thus with him, whatsoeuer is natural, the same is vniuersal. But that womē shuld not rule is not vniuersall, Ergo, it is not naturall. If to rule in women be vnnaturall: then not to rule, is naturall. But not to rule is not vniuersall. Ergo it is not natural. That it is not vniuersal we haue proued by a great number of histories which testify that we∣men in al ages, and all countries, haue gouerned. A∣gain what so euer is naturall hath in the mind of mā 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as that there is a God, all menne haue it in their mindes ingrafted by nature, that al societies must be ruled and ordered by magistrates and lawes: that murder is wicked and against nature. &c. which be common opinions in the table of mannes minde, written by the finger of God, with the pen of nature: but of this (that only men must rule and not women when it pleaseth God) there is no such principle vni∣uersal in mens mindes. For you see that a number of countries, decree the contrary, wherefore it can not be said, that it fighteth with nature: But you will re∣ply vpon me thus peraduenture: Nature hathe made her a subiect, Ergo, she can not rule. I deny your ar∣gument, for nature hath made the childe and the ser∣uāt subiects. And yet they may rule as Fabius sōne: and the Kinges seruaunt may be my master, where∣for you must vnderstand the argument thus, that if nature haue made her a subiect: in that state she is a subiect, and in respect of them to whome she is sub∣iect: she can not be their ruler. As a childe in the du∣tie of a childe towarde his father, is his fathers sub∣iect And a seruaunt in respecte of his master and the duty of a seruaunt, can not be his masters heade. But in respect of Ciuil pollicie, the sonne bearing office, may be in that functiō his fathers head, and the kings seruaunt an other mans maister,* as Ioseph was in the house of Putiphar. So the woman being eyther as a childe to hir father, or a seruaunt to hir maister, or a wyfe to her husband, respecting these persones: can not be head ouer them in those offices: that is in the office of a father, a maister, or a husband. But in the office of a ruler and a magistrate she may be this mās wyfe, that is his subiect, and his head, that is his ma∣gistrate. So that this argument by destinction is no∣thing, for it is a Fallax, called ignoratio elenchi, as re∣solue it, and you shal see the faulte. "VVho so euer is one mans subiect, can not be another mans ruler, or the same mans ruler in an other respect. But a wyfe is hir husbandes subiect: ergo she can bee none other mās head, nor his in an other respect." This is false, for the contradictorie is true: That a wyfe may be this mans wyfe, and that mans maistres, and this mans subiect in the dutie of matrimony, and the same mās head in thauct horite of office. [But this proposition of Aylmer's cannot be justified unless some suitable limitation of the sphere of the husband's jurisdiction is both admissible and is also made on the grounds of the context of the precept found in Ephesians 5:22-24!] Thus we se that al rea∣sons well set out, are lyke a wel kempt buss he wher neuer a here lyeth amysse, so longe as he hath a hous to couer him. But when he cummeth into the wynde it is sone ruffled. Or lyke a paynted madams face, whiche so longe as no mā bloweth vpon it nor sweat ryseth in it: is gay glistring, but any of these meanes make the wrinkles sone to appere. So a false argumēt decked with fayre wordes, semeth good: but turne it naked and you shall sone see the botches."

    But already this quotation is quite long. The point is, unless some suitable limitation of the sphere of the husband's jurisdiction is both admissible and is also made on the grounds of the context of the precept found in Ephesians 5:22-24, Blackstone's statement that the husband of a reigning queen is her subject is intrinsically irreconcilable with the Scripture's moral and matrimonial teaching that wives must be subject to the headship of their respective husbands.

    Also, I will attach a PDF copy of the entire text of "John Aylmer's Harbor for Faithful and True Subjects", entitled:
    quod_lib_umich_edu_e_eebo2_A00060_0001_001_1_3_rgn_div1_view_fulltext.pdf. That source is a fully Anglican source. It was written by John Aylmer, an Anglican bishop.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the bulk of your adult life has been spent unmarried, if for no other reason than that you make ridiculously long posts citing obscure sources on a site for people who practice a different religion than you do, in favor of a view that no self-respecting man would advocate in the 21st century, and no self-respecting woman would remotely tolerate. Personally, I think you’re just a troll wasting everyone’s time.
     
    Annie Grace likes this.
  10. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    well first of all, I don't see how Blackstone's words can be termed a heresy, since he was making a comment about civil jurisdiction, rather than theology... so at best you could argue he is in error, about the husband of a Queen being her subject

    But indeed I do not think that Blackstone was in error, even though I reject any form of women's ordination

    Indeed a husband of a Queen is her subject.. else he would be King, but he is not, he is the prince-consort

    So what is the difference between the man when he is king, versus when he is a prince-consort and it is his wife who is Queen?

    The difference would seem to be, that when he is prince consort, the wife obeys to him in the family (and in spiritual matters), while he obeys her in the national, military, and civil spheres
     
  11. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    302
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    What religion does J-J... follow?

    I see he hasn't replied to your question "And yet you belong to a church founded by a woman. Square that circle for us." In the women and music thread.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  12. Annie Grace

    Annie Grace Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    242
    Likes Received:
    276
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican (Australia)
    Things we think but don't say. I wonder also about these strange posts from J_J.

    When I start to read things like this, I just do the whole TL;DR thing and skip it. As you point out Invictus, no self-respecting 21st century female is going to be swayed by these long winded arguments. I can accept that not everyone agrees with female ordination and that they often want to support their view with theological arguments, but for every point of view one way, there is always another a different way, each with their own supporting arguments. That's what is great about theologians, they can agree to disagree while citing their references. Stimulating discussions! But I don't really think too many minds get changed by a long winded argument and citations.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  13. ZachT

    ZachT Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    476
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I believe he introduced himself some months ago as a Seventh-Day Adventist.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  14. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Oh, he never does. I’m not the only one here who has raised the question and gone ignored. The point of his posts is simply to overwhelm the forum, not to actually have a reasoned discussion. Part of me wonders if he even believes any of it, frankly.
     
    Annie Grace likes this.
  15. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    727
    Likes Received:
    273
    Alright everyone, please.
     
  16. J_Jeanniton

    J_Jeanniton Member

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    7
    Actually, I have: see https://forums.anglican.net/threads/women-in-church-music-and-church-choirs.4325/page-4#post-49867. But by the way folks, JonahAF has testified precisely about the kind of antinomian and radical fanatical tricks the "feminists" have been playing under the pretext of the essential equality of the sexes. One of these tricks happens to be precisely the total obliteration of the word obey from the bride's promise in the Marriage Service. Another is the campaign for women's ordination to the so-called "clergy" (i.e. pastors, elders, bishops, rectors, vicars, curates, ...)

    These 'feminists' made the most of every cavil, but never minded the solution to any of their objections. Their antinomian tricks are nothing but a cavalier dismissal of the solution I had already discovered to their pretended cases of necessity: The article in The Females' advocate [afterw.] The Female mission record, Volume 1, pages 58 & 59 had already shown that there is really no irreconcilable conflict between essential equality of the sexes and the official superiority of the man in the marriage relationship. We don't need any more of the antinomian and radical jacobinical tricks of the radical feminists!