This facile method of obtaining dominion over men, by branding a universal instinct unclean and then prescribing the only means of cleansing it, was a natural result, perhaps, of the association of a religious ceremony with the civil contract. Though "Küchler states that in Japan the marriage ceremony is entirely of a social nature, no religious element entering into it all," yet in most countries easy occasion has been provided for an ecclesiastical contract to supersede the civil one. Thus, by way of example, "though by Buddhist monks marriage is regarded as a concession to human frailty, and in Buddhistic countries it is therefore a simple civil contract, nevertheless it is commonly contracted with some religious ceremony, and often with the assistance of a Lama."2 Moreover, it would be very difficult to believe that a religion that contains the myth that “Buddha's mother, who was the best and purest of the daughters of men, had no other sons and her conception was 1 Westermarck, p. 425, note 3. 1 due to supernatural causes," would have nothing to say to the daughters of men, who proposed to depart from that great example and to conceive by natural causes. "Among the Mohammedans also, marriage, though a mere civil contract, is concluded with a prayer to Allah." But surely, wherever prayer obtains, Religion guides. 2 Again, " among the Hebrews, though marriage was no religious contract, and there is no trace of a priestly consecration of it, either in the Scriptures or in the Talmud; yet, according to Ewald, it may be taken for granted that a consecration took place on the day of betrothal or wedding, though the particulars have not been preserved in any ancient description." But if the Mosaic law did not control marriage itself, it regulated its concomitants, seduction and divorce, as well as prohibiting it within certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity. " 3 At all events, "from S. Paul's words, Τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν, in the Vul2 Ibid, p. 425. 4 Ephesians v, 32. 1 Westermarck, p. 153. 3 Ibid. gate translated Sacramentum hoc magnum est, the dogma that marriage is a sacrament was gradually developed. Though this dogma was fully recognised in the twelfth century, marriage was nevertheless considered valid, without ecclesiastical benediction, till the year 1563, when the Council of Trent made it an essentially religious ceremony. "1 This usurpation by Religion of authority over a contract, the uses of which are entirely social, political, and commercial, naturally led to some very curious results, since Religion's first object of solicitude is always herself. For instance, "although S. Paul indicates that a Christian is not allowed to marry a heathen,2 and Tertullian fiercely condemns such an alliance, yet in early times the Church often encouraged marriages of this sort as a means of propagating Christianity, and it was only when its success was beyond doubt that the Council of Elvira expressly forbade them." "3 1 Westermarck, op. cit. pp. 427–428. 2 1 Corinthians, vii, 39. 3 Westermarck, op. cit. p. 375. In short, ecclesiastical authority has never found it convenient to admit that "the nakedness of woman is the work of God;"1 which is the poetic way of saying that sex is the work of God. When the words are written down one wonders whether it can be necessary to declare such a truism. But is it a truism? Religion has never accepted it; perhaps never will; though it may be that at some future time it will become a question dividing the world. Religion regards not Love as divine, but Marriage; and even that very grudgingly. Marriage is divine in the sense that all things are; but love preceded marriage, and when Man created marriage, he surely never contemplated that it would be accounted more holy than love. Jesus said that divorce was permitted because of the hardness of men's hearts. May not the same cause be alleged for the institution of marriage? What is it but a contract devised for the protection of women and 1 The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. See Selections from the Writings of William Blake, p. 157. children? And whence does it derive its force, if not from the Statute Book and the penalties attached to infringement, supported by custom and the sanction of society, as all effectual law must be? Poetry has no fault to find with marriage, as a legal bond designed for the benefit and continuance of society; but whereas Religion holds that Marriage alone sanctifies Love, Poetry affirms that Love alone sanctifies Marriage; which is plainly Milton's opinion in his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce; for that which is unclean can never be sanctified,1 nor can a ceremony change the nature of an act. “Why, papa, I thought that marriage was a rather wicked sacrament, said a young lady, who had been 1 Our very “ideas of clean and unclean are largely derived from the primitive custom of taboo. . . . Touching of a holy thing made a man unclean as much as the touching of an unholy or anti-holy thing. What we call unclean was a thing set apart from man's use; not necessarily unclean in the ordinary sense of that word. . . . The question of the taboo brings us to the relations of God and Man and conceptions of sin."-The Old Testament and the New Scholarship, by John P. Peters, pp. 118-121. |