Calvin's Reason for the Reformation: Worship

Sunday is Reformation Sunday and also All Saints Day.  Throughout this week I will be posting quotes from various reformers in honor of the day.

The Reformation was one of the great events in Western history. It began long before Luther and Calvin with men like Huss and Wycliffe. But it culminated in a large group of Christians leaving the Roman Catholic church because it had left the teaching of Scripture. It is always good to go back to primary sources and get their reasons for doing what they did. What led these men to break with Roman Catholic church?

Calvin in his excellent book The Necessity of Reforming the Church, lists two main reasons for the why the reformation was necessary:

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence among us, and maintains it truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshiped; and secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. 

At the center of the Christian faith is proper worship of God and proper understanding of justification by faith in Christ alone. Calvin felt reformation was necessary because these two foundations of the faith had been compromised.

Council of Trent

Calvin then goes on to briefly explain how these two areas have been corrupted by the church (Roman Catholics). Regarding worship he touches on public prayers, which he says are "stained with numberless impurities," adoration of and praying to the saints, numerous rites and ceremonies not found in Scripture, and people who "devote their whole attention to abstinences, vigils, and other things, which Paul terms 'beggarly elements' of the world."

He ends with this:

Having observed that the word of God is the test which discriminates between true worship and that which is false and vitiated, we thence readily infer that the whole form of divine worship in general use in the present day is nothing but mere corruption. For men pay no regard to what God has commanded or to what he approves, in order that they  may serve him in a becoming manner, but assume to themselves a license of devising modes of worship, and afterwards obtruding [imposing] them upon him as a substitute for obedience. 

If in what I say I seem to exaggerate, let an examination be made of all the acts by which the generality suppose that they worship God. I dare scarcely except a tenth part as not the random offspring of their own brain...God rejects, condemns, abominates all fictitious worship, and employs his word as a bridle to keep us in unqualified obedience. When shaking off this yoke, we wander after our own fictions, and offer to him a worship, the work of human rashness, how much soever it may delight ourselves, in his sight it is vain trifling, nay, vileness and pollution. The advocates of human traditions paint them in fair and gaudy colors; and Paul certainly admits that they carry with them a show of wisdom; but God values obedience more than all sacrifices, it ought to be sufficient for the rejection of any mode of worship, that it is not sanctioned by the command of God. 

For Calvin the first reason for the Reformation was that God's people had drifted far from the true worship of God as prescribed in the Scriptures.

Later we will look at the other reason Calvin gives for the Reformation: the obscuring of salvation through Christ alone.

Cold Feet in Calvin's Geneva

I am continuing to work through Kingdon and Witte's book on marriage in Geneva. At the bottom of this post you can find the other articles.

In a previous post I looked at what happens when people get too excited about marriage and up sleeping together before their wedding. As with all periods of history, this problem was common Geneva. However, there was another issue that Geneva faced that is not a problem in 21st Century America; desertion before marriage. This is not an issue today because engagement is binding. If a couple is engaged, it is assumed they will get married. But if they do not wish to get married all they have to do is break off the engagement.  Nothing more is needed. 

However, in Geneva an engagement was almost as binding as a marriage. Someone could not simply say, "I do not want to get married" and then dissolve the engagement. But just as people slept together before marriage in all ages, in all ages men and women get nervous when it comes to finally saying, "I do." Kingdon and Witte say it like this:

The opposite problem of premarital sex was premarital desertion. Some engaged parties got "cold feet" in anticipation of their marriage and took flight from Geneva, with or without explanation. Others had to be away during their engagement for business, to answer court summons, to visit family or friends, or to serve in the military, and then were detained, imprisoned, sick, or died. Still other engaged parties were whisked away by parents or occasionally by former lovers or spouses who did not want to them to marry their new beloved. This was a day of relatively poor communications and public recording keeping in a city with a transient population. Was desertion an impediment that could break the engagement contract? How long was a deserted party to wait before being free to pursue another? What procedures should be followed to inoculate an innocent party against polygamy charges if the deserter later returned and challenged a second engagement or marriage contract? 

The seriousness of desertion was amplified by the seriousness of engagement. It took the equivalent of divorce proceedings to get out of an engagement. Geneva had specific regulations guiding how desertion was handled in their Marriage Ordinance of 1546. Here are the guidelines. I am summarizing and not quoting directly.

1. If an engaged man has disappeared without prior knowledge and it appears that he has done so from bad motives, there is to attempt made to contact him and ask him to return and get married by a certain date.

2. If he has not returned by the set date, the church is to proclaim from its pulpit that he must appear This is to be proclaimed three times, every other week for six consecutive weeks. If at that time he still has not returned the wife is free and the man is "banished for disloyalty."

3. If he has good reason to be gone, such as business, and informs the wife-to-be of his trip, she is to wait one year before "proceeding against him for his absence." If a year passes and he has not returned then she can proceed as above. The situation here is a man leaves on business and is gone longer than expected. She tries to contact him, but cannot get in touch with him. She is to wait one year before breaking off the engagement.  This might also have been in place to prevent the wife at home from getting excited about another suitor and breaking off the engagement prematurely.

4. The husband was to follow the same procedure, except he did not have to wait a year, unless he had given her permission to depart.

5. If anyone, such as a parent or friend, helps an engaged person escape the city so as to avoid the impending marriage they shall be punished and shall make all efforts to get the engaged person back to Geneva.

Beyond these rules Calvin said very little about desertion. He did allow for a wife to divorce if her husband deserted her citing I Corinthians 7:12-16.  Kingdon and Witte note:

Calvin did allow wives to desert chronically abusive husbands who posed grave threats to their bodies and souls, provided that these women gave adequate notice of their intentions. If Calvin allowed wives to desert in these cases, he doubtless would have condoned it even more readily for fiancees. 

Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva, made the desertion laws more strict. In particular, he created a greater disparity between how long men had to wait and women had to wait. Some think the longer waiting period for women was to make sure they were not pregnant.

Geneva's laws regarding desertion do not have much application to current engagements because our engagements are not binding. However, their desertion laws might shed some light on how to handle desertion in marriage. There are differences between engagement and marriage, but what constitutes desertion is hotly debated today. How long does it take before a spouse is considered a deserter? At what point can a marriage be dissolved when one partner has left?  Has the deserted party done what they can to reconcile?  Clarity on questions like these and many others could be aided by looking at how Geneva handled those who ran from their promise to marry.

Previous Posts
General Overview of the Book
An Overview of Marriage Prior to Calvin
Calvin's Attack on Marriage as a Sacrament
Consent to Marriage in Geneva
The Desire for Reconciliation Instead of Divorce
The Power of the Consistory in Geneva
Courtship in Geneva
Coercion to and Conditions of Marriage in Geneva
Parental Consent to Marriage in Geneva
Impediments to Marriage in Geneva
Economics of Marriage in Geneva
Premarital Sex in Geneva

Premarital Sex in Calvin's Geneva

I am continuing to work through Kingdon and Witte's book on marriage in Geneva. At the bottom of this post you can find the other articles.

Chapter 12 addresses how Geneva approached the period of time between engagement and marriage, including how premarital sex was handled, as well as desertion during the engagement. This post will only address premarital sex. 

This time included heightened sexual tension therefore the "Genevan authorities regulated this perilous interval in some detail."  One of the difficulties Geneva ran into was that they treated this period like a marriage except you could not have sex. For example, if an engaged woman slept with someone who was not her spouse to be, it was adultery, not fornication. To get out of an engagement was like getting a divorce. Yet despite all these trappings of marriage, a couple was still supposed to refrain from sex until the wedding day. 

Geneva tried to curb premarital sex between engaged couples in several different ways. First, you had six weeks to get married once you were engaged. If a couple failed to do this they would be called in to give an account for the delay. If they persisted they could be forced to marry.

If a delay is bad, why not get married immediately? Calvin felt this deprived the community of an opportunity to participate in the wedding. It also gave little time for examination of the marriage in case there were problems that needed to be sorted out, such as previous marriages or financial contracts.

Of all the rules and regulations in Geneva, this is one of the wisest. Long engagements are bad for couples. Today we are more interested in having the perfect wedding than we are in actually getting married. But I also think getting married immediately or eloping is not the best choice.  Many couples, especially conservative Christian couples, think long delays are bad. Therefore they assume that getting married as quickly as possible is the best option. But elopement can leave out the family, the church community, and friends. I am not sure six weeks is the perfect time frame, but even three months sounds good.

The second way Geneva tried to curb premarital sex was that if a couple slept together during their engagement they were fined and put in prison for three days, unless the woman was pregnant. If she was pregnant they made her come into church on Sunday and confess her sins before the congregation and ask for mercy from God. The fact that women got pregnant during their engagement shows that the six week gap was the ideal, but was not always held to.

The third method of curbing this behavior is the most interesting.  Geneva eventually reached a place where if a couple fornicated during engagement they had to confess that sin at their wedding. First, Geneva decided that brides who fornicated would not be allowed to wear the traditional wedding wreath, a sign of purity, upon their heads. This was not enough of a deterrent. So Geneva drafted a resolution stating that if a couple fornicated before marriage the minister would "make a public declaration of their fault" at their wedding and the couple "will acknowledge their offense when they are married in the church."

This last method employed by Geneva raises awkward questions that most Christians do not want to answer. Should a couple who waited faithfully to have sex until after they were married get treated the same way as a couple who did not wait, but fornicated?  Should there be some distinction made on the wedding day between virgins and those who are not virgins? Should scandalous sins be confessed publicly and if so how should it be done? Are their other ways of indicating unfaithfulness, besides public confession? What role does the forgiveness of sins play in this scenario? Does forgiveness mean the sin is never brought up again? What role does the fear of public shame play in preventing future sins?

Previous Posts
General Overview of the Book
An Overview of Marriage Prior to Calvin
Calvin's Attack on Marriage as a Sacrament
Consent to Marriage in Geneva
The Desire for Reconciliation Instead of Divorce
The Power of the Consistory in Geneva
Courtship in Geneva
Coercion to and Conditions of Marriage in Geneva
Parental Consent to Marriage in Geneva
Impediments to Marriage in Geneva
Economics of Marriage in Geneva

The Economics of Marriage in Calvin's Geneva

I am continuing to work through Kingdon and Witte's book on marriage in Geneva. At the bottom of this post you can find the other articles.

Chapter 11 of the book is devoted to the way finances were handled when marriages were arranged in Geneva. It is tempting to think this is an area of similarity to 21st century America. However the opening paragraph of the chapter shows that, while there are some similarities, there are also substantial differences.

In sixteenth-century Geneva, as much as today, marriage is not only a union of persons. It was also a merger of properties-land, money, jewelry, clothing, household commodities, social titles, property rents, business interests, and sundry other "real" and "personal" property. When the parties were members of aristocracy or of the ruling class, a marriage could be the occasion for a massive exchange of power, property, and prerogatives that distilled into lengthy written contracts. But even paupers who intended marriage generally made at least token exchanges of property and oral agreements about future transactions. 

Today the rich and wealthy probably do something similar to what is described here. However, the lower and middle classes rarely have anything like a written contract concerning financial obligations, etc. before marriage. The reasons are many, but one would be that most of us have little wealth that we bring into marriage.

These marital property contracts were not essential to a marriage, but they were expected in most cases. Often the property contracts would be negotiated by the families, not the couples. There were three types of marital property exchanges at that time.

First, it was customary for a man to accompany his marriage proposal with some form of a gift to the woman, and sometimes her family. At minimum, the man offered the woman a token gift to signify his affection...A man of more ample means could be more elaborate...But an elaborate engagement gift was neither required not customary by the sixteenth century. 

If the marriage went forward the engagement gift became the woman's or her families. However, if the engagement failed she had to return the gift. A failure to do so could lead to litigation.

Second, it was common for the woman, and her family, to bring property to the marriage. This was called her dowry. The dowry consisted, at minimum, in the woman's clothing and personal effects. But the dowry usually involved a good deal more. Frequently, it included other personal property such as household furnishings and decorations, cooking utensils and linens, poultry and cattle, standing orders for newly harvested fruit and grain, and more. Sometimes, especially with an aristocratic marriage, the dowry was a form of real property, whether land, a home, a rental property, or a place of business...[the] dowry was often a very expensive proposition for the woman and her family, and an ample source of tension for the couple and their families during the marital property negotiations...Once delivered, the woman's dowry did not pass entirely beyond her control or that of her family. The civil law provided that a portion of the dowry remained reserved to the woman and her family after the wedding. 

This last sentence is interesting. The amount of the dowry that remained reserved for the woman was negotiated during the engagement. In most cases, when married, the husband retained control over all the dowry, including the wife's portion. However, the husband could not sell or give away the wife's portion without her consent.  If the husband died the wife's portion went to her and/or her family, while the rest of the dowry went to their children or other heirs.

Third, not only did the wife reserve rights over a portion of her own property through the law of marriage portion. Upon marriage, she also gained rights over a portion of her husband's property through the law of dower. Dower was a form a built-in insurance to provide for wife upon her husband's death. If the wife became a widow, she would be entitled to one-third to one-half of all the personal property (that is, movables, not the land) owned by her husband during the marriage. This was not just the personal property that the husband brought into the marriage or left at his death. Dower rights attached as well to any personal property the husband acquired during the marriage-including, importantly, the personal property in his inheritance from his own family.,Typically the widow received...the right to use and possess the dower property for her lifetime, but with no right to sell or dispose of the property. This dower property would revert to the couple's children upon her death. Dower rights imposed an ample restriction on the husband's rights to dispose of his own personal property during the course of his married life. He could not simply sell, encumber, or give away his personal property without consideration of his wife's dower interests...only if the wife was convicted for adultery or malicious desertion of her husband would she forfeit her dower. 

Calvin used the story of Jacob and Rachel, as well as Isaac and Rebekah's engagement to argue for gifts when engagements were contracted, as well as having the finances of the marriage arranged prior to the marriage. Calvin also believed that if a woman was raped or there was fornication the man had to pay the full marriage price the father demanded. He could he also be forced to marry the woman if that was what the father and woman desired. These men also lost the right of divorce.

Calvin and his successors did little to change prevailing laws and customs of marital property at the time. All financial arrangements were to be made ahead of time in a contract that was clear. They did depart from medieval tradition in two ways. First, marital property disputes were to be resolved by the Council, not by the Consistory. That is it was resolved in civil courts, not in church courts. Second, a failure to deliver on the financial end of a marriage contract did not dissolve the marriage. Many engaged couples were dragged into marriage even after the promised financial deal was not delivered.

What is striking about this chapter is how little a role finances play in most modern engagements compared to ones in the sixteenth century. There are exceptions of course, but it is usually the rich who create contracts before marriage today. Most of us give very little thought to what our future spouse possesses and how it will be distributed during and after marriage. There are a couple of reasons for this. We have no concept of inheritance and passing things down to our children or retaining what was passed down to us. Many of the laws were designed to make sure a portion of the wealth of both the husband and wife remained with the family. When we get little inheritance, give little inheritance, and solidarity with our families means so little, it is no surprise that the laws they had make little sense to us. The other factor is life insurance, social security, and retirement accounts. Husbands still provide for their wives after death. But it does not usually come through property and goods. Instead it comes through these other means. The one difference is that today's husband does not have to provide for his wife after his death. In other words, he could make someone else the beneficiary of life insurance or his retirement funds should he die. In Geneva, it was a stipulation of the marital property contract that the wife must be provided for upon the death of the husband.

Previous Posts
General Overview of the Book
An Overview of Marriage Prior to Calvin
Calvin's Attack on Marriage as a Sacrament
Consent to Marriage in Geneva
The Desire for Reconciliation Instead of Divorce
The Power of the Consistory in Geneva
Courtship in Geneva
Coercion to and Conditions of Marriage in Geneva
Parental Consent to Marriage in Geneva
Impediments to Marriage in Geneva
Marriage to non-Christians and non-Protestants in Geneva

Quotes from Rules for Reformers

Pastor Doug Wilson's latest book is called Rules for Reformers. It is not for everyone, but anyone in Christian leadership should read the book. It has a hard, but cheerful edge to it.  Here are some of my favorite quotes from the book.

A reformer has to be the kind of man who can stand up to the clamor of the mob. 

The wise are those who take the initiative whenever they have the opportunity.

Survival should never be the goal, stalemate is not the goal, absence of collision is not the goal.

We are not to fight to the point of predominance, we are to fight to the point of complete victory.

Cultivate a robust sense of humor. [Wilson repeats this idea throughout the book.] 

Keep the pressure on, wherever you are on the line...Wake up in the morning thinking about what the fires you can set.

The work of cultural reformation is a contact sport.

A godly satirist [a man who uses sarcasm and ridicule] should know the difference between weakness and arrogance, and, as far as possible, reserve his arrows for the latter.

We need to distinguish between those who demand apologies as a weapon, and those who want to see genuine reconciliation.

Winning an argument, with documents and everything, is not what brings repentance. [Pastor Wilson is not saying that arguments have no value. He is just saying that winning them does not produce repentance.] 

The issue is never the issue. Keep your eye on the ball.

The rule is never to apologize for the truth. Never.[Emphasis his.]

Do you want to bring up endangered kids or dangerous kids...Would you like them to be smooth stones in the sling of the Son of David? Or are you just hoping they make enough money to get by, are generally nice people, and always come home for the holidays...Do you want to provide them with Jesus-centered education that will train them for the battle, the way boot camp is supposed to? 

If you do not love the present, which you have seen, how can you love the future, which you have not seen?

When forgetfulness begins, love is then in decline.

The key battle in our culture wars is the reestablishment of worship that is pleasing to God.

The reason for singling out sodomy for particular political attention right now is the homo-activists have made it their central political weapon.

All the Christians in the world, thinking sweet thoughts all at the same time, could not make a minimum wage law that didn't hurt the poor.  

All hope is lost? Good. That means the conditions for a black swan revival are improving by the day. The stone cold deader we get, the more God is hastening the day. Nothing is dying but what has needed to die for a long time. 

There is no solution to our cultural or political troubles apart from the blood that Jesus shed.  

Impediments to Marriage in Calvin's Geneva

I am continuing to work through Kingdon and Witte's book on marriage in Geneva. Here are all the posts I have done so far.

General Overview of the Book
An Overview of Marriage Prior to Calvin
Calvin's Attack on Marriage as a Sacrament
Consent to Marriage in Geneva
The Desire for Reconciliation Instead of Divorce
The Power of the Consistory in Geneva
Courtship in Geneva
Coercion to and Conditions of Marriage in Geneva
Parental Consent to Marriage in Geneva

There is some repetition in the posts, but working through them will give you some idea of how a leading city during the Reformation and her most famous citizen approached the events leading up to marriage and marriage itself.

A new concept to me in this book was that of impediments to marriage. It means exactly what it sounds like: reasons that prevent someone from getting married or can be used to annul an engagement or marriage. Chapters 6-9 cover various impediments to marriage. Here they are in my own words:

1. Children who have not reached puberty could not marry.
2. The insane or mentally impaired could not marry.
3. Someone engaged to one person could not marry another.  This was polygamy.
4. Lack of presumed virginity could prevent a marriage.
5. Contagious & incurable disease that would be passed on to the spouse and children could prevent marriage.
6. Men or women incapable of having sex could not marry.
7. Wide disparity in age could also prevent marriage.
8. People too closely related (incest) could not marry.

I am not going to work through all of the material in the book, but I wanted to bring up a few points from the reading.

First, impediments to marriage were taken very seriously.  Our criteria for who can marry who is lazily thought out. All you need is love. Whatever that is. But for Calvin marriage required certain things. Without those you could not get married. In our age, what, other than lack of consent, is an impediment to marriage?

Second, a physical, sexual relationship that was expected to produce children was necessary to contract marriage. #1, #5, and #6 are all grounded in this idea. #2 and #7 could sometimes be grounded on this same idea. Children could not marry because they could not have sex and produce children. There was no such thing as a marriage of the heart where sex and the possibility of children were not included. Sexual dysfunction was a serious issue. If it was discovered after marriage that the person (usually the man) lied about their ability to have sex, the marriage could be annulled. However, if the reason for the dysfunction occurred after marriage, such as a man being castrated in battle while married, then the marriage could not be annulled. What is meant here, by the way, is the ability to have sex, not the guarantee of producing children. If a couple could have sex, but ended up not being able to have children there was nothing to be done about that.

Third, lying about your virginity or losing your virginity while engaged was a serious issue. People married non-virgins all the time. This was important, but not a huge deal. However, claiming to be a virgin and not actually being one, was considered a breach of contract. Losing your virginity to someone other than who you were engaged to while engaged was adultery and could result in death. A marriage could be annulled if a spouse found out after marriage that their partner had claimed to be a virgin and was not. However, an engaged couple losing their virginity to each other was fornication, not adultery. Geneva was not a huge town by today's standards. Gossip got around, even from neighboring states and communities. If a man had slept with a woman prior to marriage it was best for him to tell his potential wife than have it come up after they were married.

Fourth, the disease impediment is interesting. A disease that was contagious and incurable prevented a person from marrying. However, if the disease was contracted after marriage the marriage could not be annulled. If there was a serious and repulsive physical problem contracted during engagement, but not contagious the couple could still marry. However, the engagement could also be broken. Often, this involved men coming back from war greatly disfigured or men who were seriously injured in an accident. Simply being hurt, even severely, such as blindness, did not guarantee that an engagement could be annulled. The Consistory and Geneva's courts had to approve it. Despite the detailed laws governing this, it was rarely an issue in Geneva.

Fifth, disparity of age was a hotly contested impediment. Understand that by disparity of age we are talking about at least ten years difference and in many cases, much more. For example, Farel, a fellow pastor of Calvin's, married someone forty years younger. Calvin felt for various reasons that those much older should not be allowed to marry those much younger. Younger men would often marry an older widow with money. Calvin felt this situation would keep the young man from leading his household. An older man marrying a young woman, Calvin felt, was driven by lust instead of by what was good for the young lady. However, Geneva did not entirely agree with Calvin on this. Age disparity alone was usually not enough to call off an engagement for the Consistory, though it would have been enough for Calvin. Another problem, usually involving money, had to be raised before the marriage was called off.

Sixth, notice that the period of engagement was essentially like marriage. An engaged person who tried to get engaged to a second person was accused of polygamy. If a person did end up marrying someone else while engaged to another party this was adultery and could end in death. Sleeping with someone other than the one you were engaged to was not fornication, but adultery. Here is why engagements were limited to six weeks in Geneva. Beyond that period the couple was called in to account for the delay.

Finally, the laws governing who could marry were remarkably unromantic. Love, that is a warm feeling for someone else, was not enough to get married.  In our day, if you love someone, anyone, (several someones?) then marriage is a right. In Geneva, it was not because there were Biblical and natural laws which fenced in marriage. You could not get through the gate without certain boxes being checked. For example, if you were physically attracted to a man and got engage, but he went off to war and his face was disfigured you could call off the engagement. To us this sounds mean.  However, Geneva's laws seem to face reality with less of flinch than we do. Geneva knew that without physical attraction the marriage would be difficult to hold together. Romantic notions of love conquering all were not part of Geneva's decision making process. They did think love was necessary. But so were many other things, such as normal sex and physical attraction.

Divorce in Reformation Europe

I just finished reading Robert Kingdon's book Adultery and Divorce in John Calvin's Geneva. In this book he examines four specific cases of divorce in Geneva and what those cases can teach us about how views on divorce changed during the Reformation. Prior to the Reformation divorce was impossible. There were various ways to get out of a marriage including annulment and legal separation. But there was no divorce.  Calvin and other reformers, including Beza and Vermigli, changed this during the 1500s. However, while divorce was permitted it was still extremely difficult to get one. The only reasons for divorce were adultery and desertion. Here are some thoughts from the concluding chapter of Kingdon's book.

"Divorce was now possible in Protestant Geneva, however, it remained difficult. A petitioner for a divorce always had to make a compelling case that adultery or desertion had occurred, a case that could withstand the scrutiny of a full trial.  It was never enough for a husband and wife simply to declare that they had become incompatible and no longer wished to live together...Furthermore, an attempt, sometimes quite strenuous was almost always made to persuade the couple to resolve their problems without divorce, to forgive each other, and in token of this fresh agreement to participate in a formal reconciliation ceremony."

Kingdon goes on to note that most divorces took a long time to be approved. In the four cases described in the book, one took two years, one petition for divorce had to be filed twice, nine years apart, and one man was separated from his wife for eight years before divorce was granted.  He also notes that in the entire period of Calvin's ministry in Geneva (1541-1564) only twenty six divorces for adultery were granted and far less for desertion. In other Protestant areas divorce, while allowed, was almost unheard of.  Basel had less than three per year. Neuchatel had less than one per year . Zurich was around 5 per year. Kingdon goes on to say that from 1500-1592 there was .57 divorces per 1,000 people per year in Basel. In 1910 the rate was 55.8 divorces per 1,000 people per year. The point here is that despite Protestants opening the door for divorce it was still almost impossible to get one. Kingdon cites one author who notes that widespread divorce rates did not take hold on continental Europe until the early 1800s.

All Protestants felt the innocent party in a divorce was free to remarry. Many, especially Beza who wrote a book on divorce after Calvin's death, felt that the guilty should remarry as well. It would keep them from sexual immorality.

Kingdon adds that the death penalty was occasionally used on notorious adulterers, which would of course be a de facto divorce. However, this form of punishment was not common in Protestant or Roman Catholic circles.

Parental Consent to Marriage in Geneva

In most cultures parental involvement in who someone married was a given. Children assumed that the approval, especially of the father, was good and in  many cases necessary for a marriage to move forward. Geneva was no different. Eight of the first ten articles in Geneva's 1546 Marriage Ordinance were devoted to parental consent. The prominence of parental consent issues in this document show the importance of the doctrine to John Calvin. Here is a summary of those eight articles.

1. Any son under twenty and daughter under eighteen years of age had to have the father's consent to marry. After that age they were free to marry whom they wished though the father's consent was still desirable.

In this article the age at which a child can marry without parental consent is given. However, there was "no minimum age children needed to be to enter into marriage in the first place." This was flexible. The child had to be able to bear or sire children and thus must be post-puberty. In theory, any time after puberty a child could be given consent to marry. In reality, the maturity or lack thereof of a child played a big role in when consent was given. I will look at this more closely in the next blog post.

2. If the father was dead, a ward or guardian could take the father's place. Relatives of the child were to be consulted about a child's marriage choice if the father was dead.

3, If two people under-age have entered into a secret marriage it can be dissolved at the parents' or guardians' request.

4. Secret promises to marry between under-age couples were not valid.

Note that the marriage "can be" dissolved in #3 at the parent's request. It does not appear that it had to be. 

The authors make this note. "All the leading Protestant reformers allowed parents to annul their children's secret engagements. The question that divided Protestants sharply was whether parents could annul their children's secret marriages, too."  By 1560 Calvin decided that secret marriages, which had been consummated, could not be annulled just because the couple was under-age.

The authors add

The medieval canonists used sacramental logic: even secret marriages could not be dissolved because they were sacramental. Calvin used prudential logic: Even secret marriages could not be dissolved because that catered to parental tyranny, left despoiled virgins vulnerable to spinsterhood, and consigned any children of the union to the bane of bastardy. 

5. A father cannot withhold the dowry if a daughter above age has married lawfully, but against the father's wishes.

6. A father cannot compel a child to marry against their will. If a young person refuses consent the father cannot punish them for this.

7. If a child rebels against their father's will and marries badly the father can refuse to provide for the child.

This is the balance to #5 and #6. Children had freedom in who they married, but if it could be proven that they married a wicked or immoral spouse then the father had the right to refuse financial support.

8. A previously married child is free to remarry without the father's consent though it is desirable.

Calvin felt that parental consent was essential in making the decision to marry. It gave the child guidance and direction in determining whom to marry. Here are few quotes from Calvin on the matter:

Since marriage forms a principle part of human life, it is right that, in contracting it, children should be subject to their parents, and should obey their counsel. This order is what nature prescribes and dictates.

It is not lawful for the children of a family to contract marriage except with the consent of the parents. And, certainly, natural equity dictates that, in a matter of such importance, children should depend upon the will of the parents.

However, Calvin was no fool and he knew the doctrine of depravity extended to parents as well as children. He often condemned men in the Bible, such as Caleb, for holding out their daughters as prizes of war without consulting them. Here are some quotes that show the balance between the consent of the child and the will of the parents:

Children should allow themselves to be governed by their parents, and that they, on the other hand, do not drag their children by force to what is against their inclination, and they have no other object in view, in the exercise of their authority, than the advantage of their children.

Although it is the office of parents to settle their daughters in life, they are not permitted to exercise tyrannical power or to assign them to whatever husbands they think fit without consulting them.  For while all contracts ought to be voluntary, freedom ought to prevail especially in marriage that no one may pledge his faith against his will. 

Here is a quote from Theodore Beza, John Calvin's successor:

Are children to agree necessarily with those in whose power they are? I reply that they are not forced since a free and fully voluntary consent is a first requirement for marriage. But still the respect owed to parents  and to those who take the place of parents demands that [a minor child] should not disagree with them, except for a very serious reason. But in turn, it is only fair that parents treat their children with moderation and not force them into this or that marriage against their will

Parental consent like individual consent was essential to a valid engagement in Geneva.  A few closing thoughts on Geneva's laws regarding parents involvement in the marriages of their children.

There is a wonderful balance, at least on paper, between the will of the parents and the will of the child. We tend towards extremes. Many evangelical parents have little say in who their children marry. They assume a child can make their decisions with little guidance. In reaction to this many family-centered types have made the will of the child of little consequence. If dad doesn't like the boy then the daughter cannot marry him even if he is godly. In Geneva, neither the child nor the parent got to dictate. Both were to work together towards a mutually agreed upon marriage. Parents should be involved in whom their children choose to marry, even if the child has left the home. But the will of the parents does not trump the will of the child.

In Geneva, the father had real authority, but not absolute authority. In family-centered/patriarchal churches it is often assumed that whatever dad thinks must go. A father makes decisions about his daughter's future and assumes there is no one above him to whom he is accountable. But in Geneva fathers would be chastised by the Consistory if they were exercising their power in a tyrannical fashion. Children could appeal to the Consistory if the father refused consent for selfish reasons. It was specifically said that if a child and parent could not come to an agreement then they should go to the magistrate. Beza said, "Severity of fathers in all aspects of their role should be shunned, and likewise fathers must be warned against abusing the power entrusted them by God."  Patriarchy, as understood by the reformers, meant that fathers were accountable to the elders, the broader community, and the magistrate. The fear some have of patriarchy could be alleviated if there was more authority over fathers and if fathers submitted willingly to that authority. On the flip side, some of those anti-patriarchy folks need to remember that fathers do have real authority over their children. 

The above paragraphs show how Geneva tried to functioned as a community, not a collection of individuals. The decision to marry was not left up to the man and woman only, as is often the case in our society. The parents, extended family, community, state, church, prospective spouses, and of course God speaking in the Scriptures all had a say in who married who.  Today if one person "loves" another person that is assumed to be all that is necessary for a marriage to be formed. But in Geneva that would have been impossible. Outside consent was as necessary as individual consent. The decision to marry was built on the consent of the community not just on the feelings of the individuals involved. 

Consent, Coercion, and Conditions in Geneva

 "In Calvin's Geneva, as much as today, marriage was a contract between a fit man and a fit woman of the age of consent.  It was, of course, much more than a contract: it was a spiritual, social, natural, and economic relationship that could involve many other parties besides the couple. But marriage was never less than a contract. It could not be created unless both the man and woman consented voluntarily to this union."

So begins Witte and Kingdon's fourth chapter on marriage in Geneva. In this chapter the authors explore how Geneva dealt with coerced marriages or false promises of marriage that were never fulfilled.

First, they offer this summary,

Like the medieval canonists, Calvin treated marriage as a "sacred contract" that depends in its essence on mutual consent. Calvin repeated this teaching many times. "While all contracts ought to be voluntary, freedom ought to prevail especially in marriage, so that no one may pledge his faith against his will." When a woman wishes to marry, she must not " be thrust into it reluctantly or compelled to marry against her will, but left to her own free choice." When a man "is going to marry and he takes a wife, let him take her of his own free will, knowing that where there is not a true and pure love, there is nothing but disorder, and one can expect no grace from God"...The doctrine of mutual consent was so commonplace and uncontroversial in his day that Calvin offered little sustained theological analysis.

As background to what follows, remember a public promise to marry someone said before witnesses was binding.You couldn't promise to marry and then back out tomorrow. As you can imagine many couples made public promises they later regretted. And because promises were held in such high regard unscrupulous suitors would try to coerce a girl to promise marriage when under normal circumstances should would have ignored his advances.

Because promises were taken so seriously coercion was a constant problem. Geneva worked hard to make sure both the man and women freely agreed to a marriage. When a person was "physically threatened or coerced into marriage, or they were seduced, tricked, blackmailed, or fraudulently induced into giving their consent, the Consistory annulled their engagement or their marriage and often punished the coercing party quite severely."

What were some of the situations that qualified as a coerced promise of marriage? Getting a girl drunk and then having her agree to marriage or both parties being drunk. Frivolous promises, such as promising marriage after just meeting someone, could also be considered coercive. Getting a girl who was not yet of age to promise marriage without her parents' consent.  In one case, a man asked a girl to marry him if he arranged to get her out of prison. She agreed, but later wanted to back out. The Consistory allowed her to back out because the man had coerced her. A similar situation arose with a girl fleeing persecution. A man promised to pay for her escape to Geneva if she married him. She wanted to back out after arriving in Geneva. The Consistory allowed her to because the promise could not be made freely when she was under duress. In one case, a mother had tricked her daughter into marrying. Calvin said that the marriage should be annulled and that all parties involved in the deceit, mother, witnesses, and the minister should be punished severely. Any contracts where the one of the parties, usually the woman, were "physically threatened or psychologically coerced into marriage could be annulled." (Would Calvin have annulled Jacob's marriage to Leah?)

Sometimes men were forced to keep their promises of marriage. As has been true throughout history, men often want women, but don't want marriage. A man would say to a woman, "Have sex with me and I will marry you." The woman obliges and the man then refuses to marry. The girl would often get pregnant in such situations and be left without support or future prospects. The Consistory would punish both parties for fornication and then force the man to keep his promise.

Finally, conditions were a big part of Medieval marriage contracts. A man would say something like, "I will marry you if your father gives us the house he promised you." Prior to the Reformation there were complex laws to address the conditions people used to arrange marriage contracts. Geneva simplified things. They divided conditions up into two types: ancillary and essential. Most conditions, like the example above, were ancillary and often involved the promise of a possession or money, such as a ring or dowry. Even if an ancillary promise wasn't fulfilled the couple still had to marry, which was in contrast to Medieval practice.  An example of an essential condition would be  "I will marry you if your divorce goes through." This condition struck at the essence of marriage. A failure to meet this condition would lead to an engagement or marriage being annulled. This might seem odd to us, but in Geneva the promise to marry was to be freely given without conditions except those essential to a proper marriage. Property, rings, dowries, living quarters, etc. were not considered of the essence of marriage. Thus to force a potential spouse to give something like this before you marry was a form of coercion. Geneva was fine with conditions being attached to the marriage contract by mutual consent. But if the condition was ancillary its fulfillment could not be made a criteria for marriage.

In conclusion:

The Consistory and Council thus annulled engagement or marriage contracts where they found no full or free consent on both sides...Where the parties gave their mutual consent to engagement but then later changed their minds, however, the Consistory held them to their promises...If it had been properly formed, the engagement contract could not be dissolved even by mutual consent. 

Just a couple of short thoughts from this history lesson.

It continues to astound me how seriously people took spoken vows and promises. Often our promises, even major ones, are broken for the slightest reason. That was unheard of in Geneva. A promise spoken was assumed to be a promise kept.

Second, marriage required full and free consent of both parties. Note Calvin's phrase in the earlier quote, "where there is not a true and pure love, there is nothing but disorder, and one can expect no grace from God."  We often view our fathers in the faith as dictators who cared nothing for the feelings of their children. "Daughter, I know you love John, but you will marry Steve because I said so." The reality was far removed from this. The caricature of hard fathers forcing daughters to marry against their will for money or position and getting away with it is unfounded, at least in Geneva.  The feelings and desires of the child could not be overthrown by the father. Love for a potential spouse, while not the only or primary consideration, was not ignored.

Third, most of the laws and rulings of the Consistory were designed to protect young women. The more history I read the more sure I am that women in America are some of the least protected either by law or societal norms of all women throughout the history of Western civilization.

Courtship in Geneva

This is the continuation of a series based on John Witte Jr and Robert Kingdon's book Sex, Marriage and Family in John Calvin's Geneva: Volume 1, Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage. At the end of the series I will draw some conclusions from the book. For now I am surveying each chapter with a few comments thrown in. If you hit the John Calvin label to the right you can find other posts from the book. 

Marriage was done differently 500 years ago than it is today. Today many, if not most marriages are arranged by the two parties with little consideration of what their parents or other adults might think of the proposed spouse. Often the path that leads to marriage is taken by the two parties alone. There is very little parental instruction to the young people on how to proceed. From the youngest years dating dominates our interaction with the opposite sex and usually our closest advisers are peers. This usually means that the choice of a marriage partner is driven by a fluttering heart or an excited body instead of reason, discretion, and prudence.

But it has not always been so.  In John Calvin's time romantic interaction with the opposite sex was supposed to be reserved for when a person could physically and financially marry. When a couple began to seriously consider marriage they were usually overseen by their parents or guardians. In the third chapter of Witte and Kingdon's book they explore this process of courtship in Geneva.

In Geneva, courtship did not take an exact shape. Calvin gave a few courtship rules such as no sexy dressing, unsupervised trips, overnight stays, dancing, "ribald letters," and premarital sex. But as to the exact way a courtship worked out there were no strict rules. The parents were involved. There had to be free consent of both parties. There parties were to be honest about their financial state. But the details of courtship were a matter of wisdom. "While the Bible said a great deal about the sins of fornication, it said little about the ethics of courtship." Since Scripture is largely silent on the specifics of courtship, so was Calvin. This is an important point for modern courtship advocates. I believe courtship is the model most rooted in Scriptural principles. There are general guidelines, which should govern courtship. However, the specifics should be left up to the parents, couple, and church. Those specifics will flex from family to family, community to community, and age to age. To say, "This is how courtship must be done" is to go further than Scripture.

While how a couple courted was left vague, who they courted was not. There were two issues. First, who could they legally and biblically marry. There were "conditions, experiences, or relationships past or present [that] disqualified [certain parties] from courtship and marriage." It was forbidden for certain people to marry certain other people and some cases people could not get married at all. This idea is explored at length in later chapters of the book.

Second, a potential spouse's moral, physical, and socio-economic status were to be evaluated.  Christians were expected to think through these factors before pursuing marriage. A potential spouse's moral character was most important when determining whether or not to marry. A person with moral failings, such as laziness, a bad reputation, or sexual immorality should not be pursued. Someone of a different class should not be pursued either. An educated man should not pursue an uneducated woman. A rich woman should not consent to marry a poor man. The elders at Geneva would not have necessarily forbidden such a marriage, but they would have strongly counselled against it. They felt marrying in the same class would give the couple the greatest chance of success. Reformers were especially wary of young men marrying rich widows. All of this backs up what Steven Ozment says about the Reformation approach to marriage.

While moral and class issues played a large role in courtship, Calvin did not ignore the physical side of it either.

Physical beauty was thus properly part of the natural calculus of courtship and marriage, Calvin believed. It was not 'wrong for women to look at men." Nor was it ' wrong for men to regard beauty in their choice of wives'...It was thus essential to Calvin that couples spend some time together before considering marriage...If there was no natural and mutual attraction, there was no use for a couple to go forward toward marriage. Accordingly, Calvin opposed the late medieval tradition of arranged or child marriages, sight unseen.

The authors conclude the chapter with this,

A strong pro-marriage ethic and culture was the new norm of Reformation Geneva...One key to a strong marriage, Calvin insisted, was picking the right mate-a person of ample piety, modesty, and virtue especially, of comparable social, economic, and educational status as well. A mate's physical beauty could play a part...but spiritual beauty was the salient issue.

There is one funny anecdote in the chapter. Calvin was a bachelor for quite some time. In fact, he had all but given up getting married when someone suggested an Anabaptist widow named Idellette, whom he eventually married. Calvin's good friend Farel wrote to him saying that she was an excellent wife, filled with all godly virtue and to his surprise she was pretty as well. Was Farel surprised that such a godly woman could be so pretty? Or was he surprised that a man like Calvin could land such a pretty woman? I am betting on the latter, but unfortunately we do not know.

Execution and Banishment: The Key to a Small Prison Population

It in interesting to note that Geneva's prison

Did not house any long-term prisoners. Imprisonment for long periods of time was simply not a punishment used in sixteenth-century Geneva. Even people sentenced to life in prison as the result of criminal trial were usually released within a few months, often paroled to the custody of relatives. Most prison sentences lasted only a few days (Witte and Kingdon, p. 69).

There were several reasons for this, but two of the major ones were:

Geneva executed for a lot more crimes than we do. Witte and Kingdon note that

Criminal punishments would involve...to a degree we would find appalling, capital punishment by a town executioner hired by the city for the purpose. There were a number of rather gruesome ways in which capital punishment was administered. Traitors might be beheaded, thieves hanged, notorious adulteresses drowned, heretics or witches burned. Every city of the period maintained an execution ground, usually with several rotting corpses of executed criminals on display, to let visitors know that this community maintained law and order. 

It is important to note that the Consistory, which I discussed in an earlier blog post, did not have the power of the sword. They could only recommend the civil court look into something and the civil court would decide the appropriate punishment. The Consistory could neither decide someone should be executed nor carry it out, although there was interaction between the civil courts and the pastors of Geneva. 

Also Geneva banished serious offenders from the city. Throughout the book Witte and Kingdon note that often those who would not receive instruction or committed serious sins or crimes were to get out of the city or be whipped and some cases executed. One example they cite is a man and wife who ran a brothel. They were given seven days to get out of Geneva. If they ever came back they would be whipped and then driven out again. 

The prison population was small and the terms short because serious crimes were dealt with by execution or banishment. 

The Power of the Consistory in John Calvin's Geneva

In 1538 John Calvin was exiled from Geneva. For the next few years he lived in Strasbourg where he learned from Martin Bucer and preached. In 1541 the city of Geneva asked him to return. One of the demands he made if they wanted him back was the creation of a institution to oversee the Christian discipline of the population of Geneva. Calvin's request led to the creation of the Consistory, a church court that oversaw the discipline of the citizens of Geneva. The Consistory became the primary ecclesiastical tool to deal with the sins of the people.

The Consistory was made up of around 2 dozen men, which included pastors, elected officials, and Calvin,the moderator. It met every week on Thursday with sessions that could last for several hours. The Consistory had spiritual authority, but no civil authority. It could and often did recommend that the civil authorities look into a situation.

John Witte and Robert Kingdon note that before Geneva "most early Protestant regimes...refused to give their churches a general power of excommunication." Calvin and other pastors fought for this right and eventually obtained it. Here is the authors' comment on the power of the Consistory:

A crucial new weapon won in this political battle was the Consistory's unequivocal power to enforce its spiritual discipline by using either the ban (temporary preclusion from communion) or excommunication (exclusion from the church altogether, which often also entailed banishment from the city as well). An important statute of 1560 confirmed victory by urging the use of admonition and simple bans in routine cases, and the use of excommunication in serious cases. The ban became a regular tool of discipline hereafter, but excommunication remained rare. Between 1560 and 1564 the Consistory banned nearly forty persons for every one it excommunicated. The Consistory had no further spiritual powers-and no formal legal power. If it decided that a case needed further investigation and further punishment, it had to refer it to the Small Council [a civil court]. 

Being banned from the Lord's Supper does not sound serious to 21st century Christians. However:

If the Consistory found someone guilty of particularly offensive behavior or particularly stubborn in resisting correction, it could ban the accused sinner from communion in the next one of the four communion services offered to the entire population each year. The ban from communion was a far more serious punishment then than it is now. People saw it as preventing them from receiving a sacrament that was sign of God's grace and formerly, in Catholic times, a necessity for salvation. It was also a social humiliation that could interrupt normal social routines and business. Banned sinners could not act as godparents, an important honor, or marry, or be assured of poor relief and access to the hospital. (Witte and Kingdon, p. 67)

Here are a couple of other notes from Witte and Kingdon on the Consistory. When a person came before the Consistory they,

Were not allowed to bring a lawyer or adviser, but had to handle questions entirely on their own. Sometimes they submitted affidavits, petitions, contracts, certificates, or other documents for the Consistory's review. The Consistory often questioned the parties about these documents, and summoned witnesses to validate their authenticity. The Consistory also had wide subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear. 

You could get in trouble for failing to appear when called. The most common "punishment" the Consistory gave was an "admonition," which was an exhortation to the person to stop sinning. Besides addressing more grievous sins, such as adultery, they would exhort former Catholics to stop praying to Mary, encourage a man to attend the sermon, order someone to pay an agreed upon price for marriage, or tell someone to stop gambling. The Consistory would often set a date for the individual to check back in. They would also work to bring reconciliation between two estranged parties, such as husband and wife who were fighting or two business partners who were at odds. This could lead to a private "ceremony of reconciliation" and if the case had "achieved general notoriety, a public ceremony of reconciliation might be held in a parish church." (This book is a chronicle of Consistory's records from 1542-1544.)

The Consistory could also order individuals to perform a public reparation. People so sentenced had to appear at a main Sunday sermon, get down on their knees, confess the errors of their ways, and beg for forgiveness. 

The Consistory was a remarkably intrusive institution. Six to seven percent of the entire adult population was called before it every year. The Consistory was also a remarkably effective institution. The combination of scoldings, public reparations, bans, excommunications, and referrals to the legal system seems to have worked. John Knox remarked that while they had found true doctrine rightly preached in other communities, they had never before found Christian life so rightly lived as in Geneva. If people did not like this lifestyle or the Consistory's presence or pressure, they could always leave Geneva.

Finally,

The Consistory did not limit itself to sex, marriage, and family life. In its early years, it spent a good deal of time trying to root out surviving Catholic religious practices. In later years years it spent time in trying to root out sharp business practices and disrespect for the leaders of government and church. But a clear majority of the Consistory's cases involved sexual and marital issues (emphasis mine). 

Some things never change.

Engagement, Marriage, and Consent in Calvin's Geneva

Coerced marriages were a big problem in John Calvin's Geneva. The laws in Geneva were designed to make sure both parties consented freely to the marriage. Here were the rules Geneva set down to make sure engagements were not coerced.

First, all engagements were to be initiated by a "sober proposal" from the man in front of at least two witnesses of "good reputation." "Engagements made in secret, qualified with onerous conditions, or procured by coercion were automatically annulled." "Engagements procured through trickery, 'surprise,' or made frivolously, as when merely touching glasses when drinking together, could be annulled on petition by either party."  They took this so seriously that if a man promised to rescue a woman from a bad situation if she married him, such as an abusive father or being in Roman Catholic city,  she could have that promise annulled because it was coerced.

Second, the consent of the parents or guardians was needed or desired. Men under twenty and women under eighteen had to have their parents' consent. Adult children could proceed without the parents' consent, but, "it would be more fitting for them to let themselves always be governed by the advice of their fathers."

Third, though the parents' consent was important it was not a substitute for the consent of the children. "Parents could not, on the pain of imprisonment, coerce their children into unwanted engagements or marriages, or withhold consent or payment of dowry until the child chose a favorite partner...Children confronting a negligent or excessively strict father, could have him compelled to give a dowry in support of their marriage.

Fourth, "the consent of the broader state and church community also played a part." Here is how that worked. When a couple got engaged they went to the magistrate and got a "banns" which was a public announcement of the couple's intention to marry. Their pastor would then announce this impending marriage from the pulpit for three consecutive Sundays.

Such widespread notice was an open invitation for fellow parishioners and citizens alike to approve the match or voice their objections.  Any objections to the engagement could be raised at this point. But all such objections had to be voiced privately to the Consistory, and only by citizens or by persons of good reputation...those who objected in an untimely or improper manner could be sued for defamation by the couple or their parents. 

What can we learn from this particular arrangement in Calvin's Geneva? Is this just a relic of an older age that cannot speak to the 21st century? We cannot imitate Calvin's Geneva. But we can learn from it.

First, the interaction between the different parties involved is commendable. The state and the church expected the individuals, their families, their friends, their fellow citizens, and their fellow church members to all have a hand in approving or disapproving the marriage. This is in sharp contrast to today's culture where most engagements are made with little outside consultation. Marriages are not private affairs. They impact all the parties involved to greater and lesser degrees. Therefore all parties should have some say. These laws support the notion put forward by Steven Ozment that men were primarily seen in their social relationships during the Middle Ages and Reformation.

Second, though these groups were involved none of them had final say. All parties were subject to certain rules that guided whether or not the marriage could take place.  There was a recognition of the need for checks and balances. No person or group should function as a tyrant over another.

Third, only those of "good reputation" could have a say. Notice that when a couple got engaged or when a complaint was brought before the Consistory only those of good reputation could be witnesses. A man who was known liar, cheat, adulterer, or traitor could not have a voice in the couple's choice. This was one way the couple was protected from vengeful attacks upon their character. (The other way the couple was protected was that all accusations were to be brought privately and if they were found to be false those bearing false witness could be imprisoned or pay a fine.) This law also provided incentive for men to keep their reputations clean if they wanted to have any say in who their friends or family members married.

Finally, all of this consent may seem like a lot of trouble. But that is only because our culture easily breaks promises. In Geneva, "the strong presumption was that engagement contracts, once properly made, could not be broken." Once a man promised to marry a lady and she promised to marry him it was set. Therefore everyone involved was to make every effort to be honest and to bring out into the open any potential problems. In our culture not only are engagements broken with regularity but marriage vows are as well. When promises are so easily broken it is not surprising that they are not made "reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God." (Book of Common Prayer)

Pulling the Lion's Skin From the Asses

I am finally getting back to Kingdon and Witte's book Courtship, Engagement and Marriage in Calvin's Geneva. I took a break to look into some other matters.

This post looked at the basic foundations for marriage law in the church at the time of the Reformation. Some of the ideas taught were retained by the reformers, some were modified, and some were rejected all together. The first chapter focuses on the general changes that the Reformation in Geneva brought about to the law. The core change the reformers made was to reject marriage as a sacrament. Here is a short summary of Calvin's views on marriage.

For Calvin

Marriage is a "good and holy ordinance of God just like farming, building, cobbling, and barbering." Marriage serves to procreate children, to remedy continence, and to promote "love between husband and wife." Its morals and mores are subject to the laws of God that are written on the conscience, rewritten in the pages of Scripture, and distilled in the Ten Commandments. Marriage, however, is not a sacrament of the heavenly kingdom. Though it symbolizes the bond between Christ and his Church, Yahweh and his chosen people, marriage confirms no divine promise and confers no sanctifying grace, as do true sacraments. Though it is a righteous mode of Christian living in the earthly kingdom, it has no bearing on one's salvation or eternal standing. 

For the church to subordinate marriage to celibacy is to commit spiritual "arrogance" of supplanting God's ordinance with human tradition.

For the church to impose new laws on its own members is to obstruct the simple law and liberty of the Gospel. 

One would think that rejecting marriage as a sacrament would lead to a rejection of marriage in general. In other words, it is odd that by saying marriage is a normal part of human and Christian life marriage was elevated. But that is exactly what happened.  The Middle Age theology of marriage had made marriage into something it wasn't. Whenever man does this he ultimately destroys the thing. In this case marriage was not elevated by making it a sacrament. It was denigrated. By returning to the Scriptures the reformers restored marriage to its proper place and it became glorious again.

Here are a couple of other lines from Calvin's attack on marriage as a sacrament from Institutes. 

But having graced marriage with the title of sacrament, to call it afterward uncleanness and pollution and carnal filth-what giddy levity is this? How absurd it is to bar priests from this sacrament! If they say they do not debar them from the sacrament, but from the lust of copulation, they will not give me the slip. For they teach that copulation itself is part of the sacrament...There is also another absurdity in their grand offices.  They affirm that in the sacrament the grace of the Holy Spirit is conferred; they teach copulation to be a sacrament; and they deny that the Holy Spirit is ever present in copulation. Not to have mocked the church simply in one thing, what a long train of errors, lies, frauds and misdeeds have they attached to this one  error...At length, we must extricate ourselves from their mire, in which our discourse has already stuck longer than I should have liked. Still, I believe that I have accomplished something in that I have partly pulled the lion's skin from these asses. [1536 version of Calvin's Institutes, p. 236-40]

The attack on marriage as a sacrament was the key battle line in the war over marriage with the Roman Catholics. When this domino fell the reformers felt that a lot of unbiblical and unwise traditions would fall with it.

The Death of the Cloister

Steven Ozment on how the Reformers went about destroying the idea that a nun was superior to a housewife.

In challenging the celibate ideal, the Protestant critics were particularly concerned to expose the repressive nature of the nunnery, to free nuns from the cloisters, and allow them to rejoin society.

Unlike many modern takes on nunneries, the Reformers viewed them as detrimental to what women were called to do by God and by nature: be wives and mothers.

Also going to the convent did not help women escape male rule. Ozment describes how the monks would often descend upon the nunneries and require the women to do their laundry, cook them food, etc. He noted that most nunneries were run by monks on some level.

Not only did the nunnery offer no safe escape from male rule, it imposed sexual self-denial an created guilt among the unsuccessful, burdens no honorable wife was forced to bear.

One nun, "recalled having watched with horror as sisters in the cloister died uncertain of God's mercy and in fear of his judgment, having failed to find consolation in their vows and religious works."

No propaganda proved more effective in exposing the cloister than the testimony of former nuns, whom the reformers encouraged to write and publish accounts of their lives under vows.

By the end of the Reformation age, "both experience and belief had set Protestants unalterably against the celibate life. To them it contradicted both the Bible and human nature, and created more personal and social problems than it solved; as an alternative vocation to homemaking, the cloister was deemed inhumane and antisocial."

A Most Fearsome Specter

More from Steven Ozment:

It is a great, self-serving myth of the modern world that the children in former times were raised as near slaves by domineering, loveless fathers who owed them nothing, the home a training ground for the docile subjects of absolute rulers. To the contrary, from prenatal care to their indoctrination in schools, there is every evidence that children were considered special and were loved by their parents and teachers, their nurture the highest of human vocations, their proper moral and vocational training humankind's best hope. Parenthood was a conditional trust, not an absolute right, and the home was a model of benevolent and just rule for the "state" to emulate.

In the sixteenth century children were raised and educated above all to be social beings; in this sense they had more duties toward their parents and society than they had rights independent of them. This did not mean that the family lacked an internal identity or that loving relationships failed to develop between spouses, between parents and children, and among siblings. Privacy and social extension were not perceived contradictory. The great fear was not that children would be abused by adult authority but that children might grow up to place their own individual rights above society's common good. To the people of Reformation Europe no specter was more fearsome than a society in which the desires of individuals eclipsed their sense of social duty. The prevention of just that possibility became the common duty of every Christian parent, teacher, and magistrate. 

How striking this last paragraph is when compared to modern rhetoric about rights.  Almost every child in this country is raised to think about themselves, their needs, their wants, and their desires. The fundamental question they ask is, "What can you do for me?" They come not to serve or do their duty to family, state, and community. Rather they come to be served. Service to their fellow man is the least of their concerns. Their own rights their greatest concern. In that way children of today are raised to have a fundamentally different orientation that children of the previous generations. The blame for our children turning out this way is to be found in Ozment's last sentence. Parents, teachers, and magistrates fail to teach selfless duty and fail to model it.

Marriage in Medieval Canon Law

In an earlier post I mentioned some general findings from the book Courtship, Engagement and Marriage in Geneva. Now I want to pursue some specifics, working through the different chapters of the book. I find these studies fascinating for two main reasons: it puts the Reformation in context and it forces me to go back to the Scriptures to evaluate why I believe what I believe.

In the first chapter, the authors give an introduction to Roman Catholic theology of marriage and then use Geneva's Marriage Ordinance of 1546 to show how Geneva changed prevailing theology and practice. This post will look at the general contours of Roman Catholic views on marriage.

The Marriage Tradition at the Time of the Reformation
Here are some of the key ideas which dominated Roman Catholic marital theology and practice of the time. As we move along we will see that some of these ideas carried over into the Reformation, some were modified, and some rejected altogether.

Marriage was inferior to celibacy. Here is a longer quote from the book, which elaborates on this point.

Free consent was absolutely essential. Marriage brought about "by force, fear, or fraud, or through inducement of parents, masters, or feudal or manorial lords were thus not binding."

Marriage was a sacrament. Thus is "caused and conferred grace upon those who put no obstacle in its way." This view led to some very practical consequences, such a properly consummated marriages could never be broken just like a proper baptism could never be undone.

"A private voluntary exchange of promises between a fit man and fit woman of the age of consent was a valid and enforceable marriage." This area was one of the great changes that occurred in Geneva. Private vows of marriage were not valid. Witnesses had to be present.

There were numerous impediments recognized by Roman Catholics that could prevent a marriage. These were to be brought up during the engagement period. These included: being below the age of consent, being promised or already married to someone else, incest, disease or deformity that impacted the person's ability for intercourse, physical desertion, failure of a condition that went to the essence of marriage,  expiration of agreed upon date to get married, cruelty, bodily fornication, spiritual fornication, entry of the man into the clergy, enter of either party into religious orders, and the mutual consent of both parties to dissolve the engagement.

There were also ways to get an already consummated marriage annulled.  This involved other impediments including incest, rape of the engaged woman, the man had killed his former wife, the person was a former nun or monk and numerous others. These, if brought to the attention of the authorities, could annul an existing marriage. Why annul and not divorce? Because "absolute divorce, with a subsequent right to remarry, was not permitted by canon law." A ruling of annulment meant the marriage never really happened. This created a loophole of sorts to get out of a marriage. The reformers often mocked this particular set up, though they still annulled marriages for various reasons

In canon law, there was no absolute divorce, but there was separation. A man and woman could go to court to sue for separation. The court could then rule that the man and woman would live separately and often they would make rulings on children and alimony as well. But neither party was free to remarry. That was bigamy, a mortal sin and capital crime. "Even remarriage of widows and widowers was frown upon; many medieval canonists regarded it as serial polygamy."

Summary
These basic ideas sum up Roman Catholic marriage theology at the time of the Reformation. If marriage is a sacrament it is treated as indissoluble, thus creating numerous downstream consequences, such as no divorce for any reason. One can also see that many of the general ideas, such as impediments, were carried over by the Reformers, but with modifications, in some cases drastic. Free consent remained a cornerstone of marriage theology for the Reformers, as it did for the Catholics. Engagements were more easily broken in Roman Catholic theology and annulments were more easily obtained than they were in Reformed theology. The exaltation of celibacy was a major stream of Catholic thought. Perhaps no other idea had such practical consequences on the average Christian as this one.