“On May 12 the first marriage here took place, which, according to the laudable custom of the Low Countries in which they had lived, it was thought proper for the magistrate to perform, as a civil institution upon which many questions about inheritances depend, and other things requiring their cognizance as well as being consonant with the Scriptures (Ruth iv) and nowhere mentioned in the Gospel as part of the minister’s duty.”
This decree or law, about marriage, was published by the States of the Low Countries, A.D. 1590: “
That those of any religion, after lawful and open publication, coming before the magistrates, in the Town or State-House, were to be orderly by them married, one to another.” (Petet’s Hist., fol. 1029). And this ractice was continued by the Colony, and has been foloowed by all the famous churches of Christ in these parts to this time, -A.D. 1646. (B.)
The History of Plymouth Colony, by William Bradford, modern english version, with an introduction by George F. Willison, copyright 1948 by Walter J. Black
8 Comments
I just read this today. That’s kinda freaky.
DHM, I would really like you to expound on this.
I find this fascinating… my libertarian bone says, “but isn’t marriage a *God-ordained* institution, and what business does government have trying to define (or redefine) or tax or license such a thing?!”
I was just reading Plymouth Plantation with my youngest two on Friday and came across that passage. I found it fascinating, too, since so many believers are unwittingly catering to the homosexual agenda by agreeing to Civil Unions and saying gov’t should have nothing to do with marriage anyway- and acting as though gov’t involvement in marriages is somehow a new thing.
I don’t think marriage should be taxed, but it’s been a gov’t recognized and sanctioned institution as long as there have been governments- as the Pilgrims noted, partly because there are inheritance issues, and I don’t think we should be so hasty about altering that without knowing our history.
DHM, I second EllaJac. I would like for you to expound on this too, because I also have the same libertarian leanings. This is facsinating, though. The earliest colonies recognized that the legalities of marriage needed to be sactioned by some governing authority. I guess that this brings up new questions about the separation of church and state. I wonder (forgive me for the clumsiness of this) if they realized that their belief that the state could not impose a religion on them meant that they also realized that their church could not enforce the legalities of inheritance, ect. But, then, where is the separation, and why? I guess that I have just learned the importance of our current debate.
I don’t think they saw separation of church and state quite the same way we do. The idea that church and state have nothing to do with each other is only a little less recent than the idea that government has nothing to do with marriage.
They sought very hard to restore primitive New Testament worship, basing their church practices on the examples and commands they saw in scripture. They weren’t always succcessful, but rather than looking for other reasons beyond those they state, i think I’d take Bradford at his word- that they found no example of ministers of the gospel performing weddings, so they did not feel it right to have church officials performing weddings; and that because inheritance laws are such a significant issue with marriage, it is properly a civilly recognized institution.
The idea that it isn’t is the new idea, and it comes directly from those who don’t care about marriage at all, except as a tool to promote the homosexual agenda.
Second comment only becaue I forgot to check the box at the bottom of the form…
They’re right. I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where God defined solemnizing marriages as a work for the church to do.
Interesting, I do think that it is our tradition at this point for it to be by a pastor so probably something I would like for my children. I wonder when it changed.