The Form of
Solemnization of Matrimony

A. The solemnization of matrimony.] Τhe all solemn leagues, and federal pacts, even ethnic theology hath always interested and engaged religion: upon this account, amongst them they were no less solemnly firmed by oaths?, than by seals affixed; and were made between one king, aud one commonwealth and another; the counterparts were usually deposited in the temples of their gods. What contract, what confederacy can be imagined more noble, more sacrosanct, than that between man and wife? Other leagues are the products of reason of state, self, and earthly interest. That which constitutes this, is a congenial disposition, and harmony of hearts: wherein nature’s grand intention of specifical propagation is limited, knit, and restrained to one, by an indissoluble tie of love.

But what can be said more in honour of it than this? that though it be not a Sacrament in the most proper sense, it is yet made by the Apostle the relative parallel of that μέγα μυστήριον, “great mystery,” Ephes. v. 32, and superlative Sacrament of Christ’s union with His Church. If then this ordinance be a league so supereminent; if all purposes of high consequence are to be blessed by the word of God and prayer; how can they answer it at the bar of reason, which did proscribe from matrimony (the paramount of all earthly concernments) divine invocation, and sacerdotal benediction; without which never was any initiation into that honourable state thought duly performed? Upon this very account, the place where it was celebrated amongst the Jews was styled beth-hillulah, “the house of praise;’’ and amongst the heathen there were προτέλειαι εὐχαὶ, “prayers preparatory to marriage.” The very score it was upon which our Saviour was bidden to the marriage in Cana, if Epiphanius deceives us not: πῶς οὐκ ἔσται τίμιος ὁ γάμος, ὁπότε κέκληται ὁ Σ᾽ ωτὴρ ἵνα εὐλογήσῃ γάμον; “how honourable is wedlock, when our Saviour was invited to a marriage-feast to bless the married couple?” And as He did really bless marriage διὰ τῆς ἀποκυήσεως, “with a fruitful womb,” as the same father conceiveth; so did He all nuptials to come, by honouring with His presence, and shewing His first of miracles in Cana of Galilee at a wedding-feast. This opinion of Epiphanius will be the more passable, if it be considered, that blessing, being one of the choicest ministerial acts, was always dispensed by the chief of ministers, or persons of the most eminent note for sanctity. So Melchisedech, the priest of the most high God, blessed Abraham, Gen. xiv. 19. Upon the same account the typified Melchisedech, Christ, was desired to bless little children, Matt. xix. 18, as the famous Grotius supposed.

And upon the same account, in the primitive times, the bishop, and, if present, none but he, was to bless the people in public assemblies: who, as he was for that very cause principal in the administration of matrimonial benediction, so was he also most concerned in the approbation, πρέπει τοῖς γαμοῦσι καὶ ταῖς γωμουμέναις, μετὰ γνώμης τοῦ ἐπισκόπον τὴν ἕνωσιν ποιεῖσθαι, saith Ignatius, “it is fit that the married couple betroth themselves with the advice of a bishop.” So a virgin in Tertullian is said, petere maritum ab episcopo, “to ask a husband of the bishop.” Indeed as the condition of the times then was, it could not in prudence be otherwise. The inconveniences of an unequal yoke, or marrying of a Christian with an infidel, were innumerable; the society and conversation could not be so mutual between them; the Christian woman could not keep those correspondences which were of the interest of her religion; and possibly the secret meetings, which with much ado were then contrived, might thereby be betrayed, or unhappily discovered, to the ruin and destruction of the professors of Christianity.

Seeing then no avoidance, the solemnization of this ordinance must be granted to have been performed by such a consecration; it is also next in order to be supposed, that in this consecration set forms were used, considering withal that they were assigned to undergraduate concernments; and considering that such forms are still extant some, and others are presumable to have been so by collateral implication. Under the law, in the story of Ruth, two forms occur. First, “The Lord grant thee rest in the house of thy husband,” ch. i. 9, and iii. 1. Secondly, all the people and elders said, “The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house, like Rachel and like Lea, which two did build the house of Israel; and do thou worthily in Ephrata, and be famous in Bethlehem, and let thy house be like the house of Pharez, (whom Tamar bare unto Judah,) of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman,” ch. iv. 11, 12. The people and elders could not certainly conspire so exactly in every syllable of this benediction, had it not been a known and usual form amongst them. Under the Gospel, in the primitive times I mean, told we are that such forms were, though not what they were. In the council of Milevis, decreed it is, ut preces, vel orationes seu misse, que probate fuerint in concilio, sive prefationes, sive commendationes, sive manuum impositiones, ab omnibus celebrentur; “that those forms of prayers or masses, be they prefaces, or offices for interments, or of imposition of hands, which have been allowed of by the council, shall be celebrated by all.” Where imposition of hands must undoubtedly denote all sacerdotal benediction; whether in ordaining of priests, or in absolving of penitents, or in confirming of persons new baptized, or in the solemnization of matrimony, or whatever else was performed, that ceremony applied.

First, holy Church instructs us in the ends of Matrimony, which are three.

1. The procreation of children.
2. A remedy against sin.
3. A mutual help to each other.

B. At the day appointed, &c.] The appointment of the day is left to the election of the persons to be married, provided it be not from Advent Sunday until eight days after the Epiphany; from Septuagesima Sunday until eight days after Easter; from Rogation Sunday until Trinity Sunday: these times being prohibited. By what authority? Not by the Common Prayer, not by the calendar, not by any homily, not by any article, not by any canon of our Church since the Reformation. And therefore if there be any popery, as is pretended by Mr. Prynne, in this restraint, our reformed Church is not to bear the blame. By what law then? By a canon certainly, and of some general council of this nation; for else all manuals, and Lindwood, our famous canonist, would not have agreed so punctually in all the days prefixed. True it is this canon is not, to my reading, extant; but before the Reformation it was undoubtedly. And this is the reason why our prohibition exceeds that of the council of Trent, in the last clause, viz., from Rogation Sunday until Trinity Sunday, that council being confirmed by Pius IV. far up into the state of reformation. But were not former: canons all made null upon our Reformation? No, in the statute 25 Hen. VIII. chap. 19, it is expressly provided, “that such canons as were made before that act, which be not contrariant, nor repugnant to the king’s prerogative, the laws, statutes, and customs of the realm, should be still used and executed, as they were before the making of the acti.”

Now of these canons, this I take it was one; but whereas it is charged with popery, I confess I apprehend not where that popery is resident. Is it as the restraint relates to times of solemn humiliation? Then the fathers of the council of Laodicea, a council to which popery is post-dated above three hundred years, stands guilty of popery as well as we, for that council interdicted marriages for the whole time of Lent, as hath been shewed before. Nay more, the Directory itself is guilty of popery too, for this excepts from this ordinance days of public humiliation. Is it as it relates to festivals? Mr. Prynne indeed saith!, “marriage is a festival and joyful thing, and so most seasonable and suitable for festival and joyful times and seasons.” But the Directory ‘says nay, and therefore interdicts the celebration of it upon all holy-days of the year, in these words; “And we advise that marriage be not solemnized on the Lord’s day;” and the Lord’s day is the only festival enjoined by that Directory. The result of all is this, that the assembly of divines are, in Mr. Prynne’s judgment, as guilty of popery in these particulars as Dr. Cozens.

C. Shall come into the body of the church, &c.] The former mode was this; the couple who were to enter that holy state were placed at the church door, where the priest did both join their hands, and despatch the greatest part of the matrimonial office. There, by the ancient law of this land, the husband, or his parents, were to endow the woman, his intended wife, with the portion of land precontracted for, provided it exceeded not a third of his estate, which was therefore called, dos ad ostium ecclesia, “dower assigned at the church door.” And though this usage was laid aside long before the Reformation, yet did the rubric relating to it remain long after in some churches of this kingdom; for in the manual after the usage of York, after these words, “with this ring I wed thee, and with this gold and silver I honour thee, and with this gift I honour thee;” presently is subjoined, “the priest shall ask the dowry of the woman.” But this custom expiring so long ago, our Reformers discreetly ordered this whole office to be performed within the church, where the fuller congregation might afford more numerous witnesses of the fact.

Then the Priest requires the parties to be married, by the terror of the dreadful judgment day, to declare, if they know any impediment, why they may not be lawfully married? which is as much care and caution as can be used by those that are not able to discern the secrets of the heart.

Then follows the Contract in the future tense, whereby these persons mutually promise to the Priest, Gods Minister, before the Congregation, to enter into that holy state of Wedlock, and strictly to keep those sacred laws of marriage which Almighty God hath ordained. This is that, as I conceive, which S. August. de Gen. ad lit. l. 11. c. 4. calls Votorum solennitatem, [the solemnities of vows and promises,], which was in his time and formerly an usual ceremony of marriage: And of very good use is this solemnity; for by this have the persons bound themselves to their duty, by all the obligations that a sacred solemn vow or promise can lay upon the soul.

D. Wilt thou have this woman, &c.] This, with its parallel place, admits of a two-fold construction. First, it is an enquiry into the voluntary and unconstrained consent of both parties, for ὁσάκις γάμος ἔννομος γίνεται, ἀνωγκαία ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ συναίνεσις τῶν μελλόντων συζευγθῆναι, κἂν ὑπεξούσιοι ὦσι, κἀν αὐτεξούσιοι, “whensoever marriage is performed as it ought to be, of necessity the consent of the parties to be joined must be had, be they free, or under the power of others.” So Rebecca’s mother and brother demanded her consent, Gen. xxiv. 58. Secondly, it is a pattern of the ancient form of espousals, which regularly did antecede the nuptials. After these espousals the woman, in some places, presently cohabited with the man, as did Rebecca, but continued untouched until the marriage day. Sponsalia, “espousals,” they were called; a spondendo, “from promising;” nam moris fuit veteribus stipulari et spondere sibi uxores futuras, “for it was the manner anciently for men to stipulate and contract a promise of the wives they were to marry.” So also the canonists; Ρμνηστεία, ἐπαγγελία τῶν μελλόντων γάμων, “espousals are the promises of future marriages.” And though these espousals were but promises, being made in the future tense, “I will take,” yet did they anciently so far oblige, as neither part could, the consent of the other obligee not first obtained, recede from that promise without the undergoing a severe penalty.

E. Who giveth this woman, &c.] This custom of giving the woman to the man hath been universal, always done by the father, or, in want of him, by the next of kin, or some other friend who representeth the father’s person. Whence is that constant form of speech, so frequent in Holy Scripture, of parents giving their daughters in marriage. So Hermione answered Orestes, νυμφευμάτων μέν τῶν ἐμῶν πατὴρ ἐμὸς Μερίμναν ἕξει, κ᾿ οὐκ ἐμὸν κρίνειν ταδὲ, “of my nuptials my father hath the sole governance, of such things I take no cognizance.” So St. Paul is very express; “He that giveth his daughter in marriage doth well,” 1 Cor. vii. 38. This was done upon three considerations especially; first, as a recognition of parental authority in their disposal. Secondly, as a submission of that weaker sex to the direction and guidance of the stronger. Lastly, as an argument of maiden modesty, for, non est virginalis pudoris eligere maritum, “it sorteth not with the bashfulness of a virgin to choose her husband.”

F. The minister receiving the woman, &c.] The admirable both wisdom and piety of our Church! What I said but now of the fathers giving the woman to the man, dictum nollem, “I must now recant;” to speak properly, the woman, according to this rule of our Church, is not given by man to man, but by man to God, that is, to His minister, who is deputed by Him to receive her; and by the same minister God bestoweth her upon the man; so that to the demand, “Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?” the answer is ready, “God.” The same God who gave Eve to Adam in paradise; He who was the first νυμφαγωγὸς, who led the first bride, doth by this order of our Church lead all who are conformable to it, yea, who will conform to the primitive institution. And as is the practice, so is the reason the same, viz., to instruct us to a sursum corda, to lift up our both hearts and eyes thither, “whence every good and perfect gift proceedeth,” especially this noble donative, “a good wife,” which, Solomon saith, “is from the Lord.”

G. By the right hand.] The right hand, saith Servius, was dedicated by Numa Pompilius to faith; en dextra fidesquet, “here is my right hand, and with that my faith;” so the poet: the orator alike; dextre fidei testes esse eibanke, “right hands were wont to be the great evidences of fidelity.”

After the marriage it self [The man puts a Ring upon the womans finger.] The Ring hath been alwayes used as an especial pledge of faith and fidelity. Nothing more fit to serve as a token of our purposed endless continuance in that which we never ought to revoke; and therefore fitly used in marriage, which is a contract not to be dissolved but by death. Aurum nulla nor at praeter uno digito, quem sponsus oppigner asset pronubo annulo. No woman was permitted to wear gold, save only upon one finger, which the husband had fastned to himself with a wedding Ring. This he puts upon the fourth finger of the left hand, because there is a vein that goes from thence to the heart; by which is signified that the love should be hearty: say some Rituals.

Then follows [With my body I thee worship, &c.]

For the better understanding of this phrase, we must know that anciently there were two sorts of wives; One whereof was called the primary or lawful wife; the other was called the half wife or Concubine. The difference betwixt these two, was only in the differing purpose of the man, betaking himself to the one or the other: If his purpose was only fellowship, there grew to the woman by this means no worship at all; but rather the contrary. In professing that his intent was to add by his person, honour and worship unto hers, he took her plainly and clearly to be his Wife, not his Concubine. This is it which the Civil Law doth mean, when it makes a Wife to differ from a Concubine in dignity. The worship that grew unto her, being taken with declaration of this intent, was, that her children became by this means free and legitimate, heirs to their father: Gen. 25. 5, 6. her self was made a mother over his family: Lastly, she received such advancement of state, as things annexed to his person might augment her with. Yea, a right of participation was thereby given her both in him, and even in all things which were his; and therefore he saies not only [With my body I thee worship,] but also, with all my worldly goods; thee endow. The former branch having granted the principal, the later granteth that which is annexed thereto, Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 73.

The Jews anciently used the same phrase [Godwin Jew. Customs.] Be unto me a wife, and I according to the word of God, will worship, honour and maintain thee, according to the manner of husbands amongst the Iews, who worship, honour and maintain their wives. And that no man quarrel at this harmless phrase, let him take notice, that to worship here signifies, to make worshipful or honourable, as you may see, 1 Sam. 2. 30. For where our last Translation reads it, Him that honours me, I will honour; in the old Translation, which our Common-Prayer book uses, it is, Him that worships me, I will worship; that is, I will make worshipful, for that way only can God be said to worship man.

H. The man shall give unto the woman a ring.] The giving of the ring may seem here to be misplaced, for anciently it did rather belong to the contract than to the perficient and ultimate act of marriage; for the old mode of espousals, as of all other contracts, was by subarrhation, or giving of earnest betwixt the parties contracting, by which consideration and assumpsit, each party was obliged to all the particulars of the bargain; this arrha, or pledge, in sponsal leagues, was from the man to the woman aring. This is evident by what is cited out of Hostiensis; annulo suo subarravit me dominus meus; “my husband, when he espoused me, betrothed himself to me by this ring.” Conformably Tertullian; aurum nullum norat preter unico digito, quem sponsus oppignorasset pronubo annulo; “in those days no woman was acquainted with more gold than what she wore upon one finger in a ring, wherewith her husband plighted his troth to her when he espoused her.” Now though according to the ancient manner the ring were more proper at the espousals, yet considering that the espousals and marriages are united in the office of our Church, and made as one continued act, the ring is pertinently enough disposed here.

But here incidentally two questions encounter me, neither of which I may decline. First, why is not the subarrhation, the giving of earnest, reciprocal and mutual? Why doth not the woman give somewhat to the man by way of ἀντίδοσις and exchange, as he the ring to her? To which Mr. Selden lends me this answer: that this is a relic of that very ancient custom whereby the man was wont to buy the woman, laying down as the price of her a certain piece of money, which piece of money might be supplied by any other thing equivalent to it; and therefore when the use of the ring was introduced, solemn enquiry was made whether or not it did answer the value of that money, without which the marriage proceeded not. Though this answer may seem to some very retrograde and far fetched, yet may it pass for default of a better.

Secondly, it is enquired, why a ring rather than any other thing is given in marriage? The general account which ritualists render us, is to signify the continuity of affection, and that true love hath no termination: but Clemens Alexandrinus assigneth another reason far more probable; εἰς τὸ ἀποσημαίνεσθαι τὰ οἴκοι φυλακῆς ἄξια, διὰ τὴν ἐπιμέλιαν τῆς οἰκουρίας; “to seal up within doors such things as being more precious required strict custody, the woman having the chief charge of household affairs.” Whereby it not only appeareth that anciently these rings were, as well as others, formed with impressions, but that they served as instead of keys; which probably might be the reason why Solon enacted by law, δακτυλιογλύφῳ μὴ ἐξεῖναι σφραγῖδα φυλάττειν τοῦ πραθέντος δακτυλίου, “that an engraver should not keep by him the impression of any seal-ring he sold;” because, I conceive, else he might cut another by it, to the prejudice of the first buyer.

I. Laying the same upon the book.] The judgment of learned Bucer is much in favour of this order: admodum commodus hic ritus esse videtur, quod annulus, et cetera dona, quibus sponsus sponsam ornare vult, prius in librum sacrorum deponuntur, et a ministro sponso rursus traduntur tribuenda ab eo sponse; significans, oportere nos nostra omnia priusquam illis utamur offerre Deo, cujus sunt, et consecrare, et illa tanquam ex ipsius manu accipere ad illius gloriam usurpanda: “this is a very becoming rite, that the ring and other gifts” (for his censure was upon the first liturgy) “wherewith the husband intends to adorn his bride, are first laid upon the book, then delivered back by the minister to the man, to be bestowed upon the woman, intimating that it is our duty to offer up all is ours to God, as to the true proprietary, before we use them ourselves, and to receive them as from His hand, to be employed towards His glory.”

K. Shall put it upon the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand.] Why election is made of this hand, the left, and of this finger of that hand, the fourth, rather than any other, the rubric of the sponsal order in the Romish Church (and ritualists from thence) assigneth this reason, guia in illo digito est quedam vena procedens usque ad cor, “because from that finger there is a vein which leadeth to the heart.” But seeing that Church hath not yet pretended to an infallibility in anatomy, as well as in faith, we may be the bolder to question the truth of this assertion, and the rather, because the learned and most ingenious enquirer into vulgar errors¢ hath evidently demonstrated the vanity of this fiction, and that in truth no one finger hath any vein differing, in either number or origination, from another. And that Macrobius’s opinion is most probable, viz., that it was disposed there upon principle of frugality, the better to preserve it from attrition or wearing; to which I may add, to secure it also from slipping off, being guarded on every side with others.

After the Priest hath prayed for grace and Gods assistence, for the married persons, to enable them to keep their solemn vow and contract...

... then does he as it were seal that bond and contract, by which they have mutually tied themselves, with Gods seal, viz. Those whom God hath joyned together, let no man put asunder.

The persons having consented together in wedlock, and witnessed the same before God and the Church, and plighted their troth each to other, and declared the same by giving and taking of a Ring, and joyning of hands; and the Priest having sealed and ratified all, as it were, with Gods seal, which no man must break, he pronounces them man and wife, in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. Which Proclamation, or pronouncing of the married persons to be man and wife, thus in the Church by the Priest, was one of those laws and rites of marriage, which the Church received of the Apostles. Euar. ep. ad Epis. Aphric. Anno 110.

Then the Priest blesses them solemnly according to the old rules, Conc. Carth. 4. c. 13. Of the efficacy of which blessings hath been said formerly.

M. And the minister shall add this blessing.] This blessing should regularly be pronounced, the rite of imposition of hands applied, so was the ancient mode. Clemens Alexandrinus, reproving such women as wore false hair, demands, τίνι ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐπιτίθησι χεῖρα; τίνα εὐλογήσει; οὐ τὴν γυναῖκα τὴν κεκοσμημένην ἀλλὰ τὰς ἀλλοτρίας τρίχας'; whom shall the presbyter in that case lay his hands? Whom shall he bless? not the woman in the peruke, but another’s head of hair.”

After this follows the 128 Psalm which was the Epithalamium or marriage-song used by the Jews at Nuptials, says Muscul. in loc.

Then pious and devout prayers for the married persons, and lastly the COMMUNION. Such religious solemnities as these, or some of these, were used by the Jews at marriages: For, their rites and ceremonies of their marriage were publickly performed with blessings and thanksgivings; whence the house was called the House of Praise, and their marriage song Hillulim, praises; the Bridegrooms intimate friends sung the marriage-song, who are called children of the Bride-chamber, S. Matth. 9. 15. [Godwin of Jews mar.]

The Primitive Christians had all these which we have. The persons to be married were contracted by the Priest, the marriage was solemnly pronounced in the Church, the married couple were blessed by the Priest, prayers and thanksgivings were used, and the holy Communion administred to them. And these religious rites, the Church received from the Apostles, saies Euarist. Ep. ad Epis. Aphr. And doubtless highly Christian and useful these solemnities are: For first, they beget and nourish in the minds of men, a reverend esteem of this holy mystery, Ephes. 5. 32. and draw them to a greater conscience of wedlock, and to esteem the bond thereof, a thing which cannot without impiety be dissolved. Then, are they great helps to the performance of those duties which God Almighty hath required in married persons; which are so many, and those so weighty, that whosoever duly considers them, and makes a conscience of performing them, must think it needful to make use of all those means of grace, which God Almighty hath appointed. For if we duly consider the great love and charity that this holy state requires, even to the laying down of life, Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, Ephes. 5. 25. of the weighty charge of the education of children, which if well performed procures a blessing, and an advantage to salvation, 1 Tim. 2. 15. She shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charity, &c. so if it be carelesly perform'd, it procures a most heavy curse, 1 Sam. 2. 29, 31. &c. Or lastly, the chastity and holiness necessary to that state of marriage, heightned now up to the representation of the mystical union of Christ with his Church, Eph. 5. 32. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church; to which holy conjunction, our marriage and all our works and affections in the same, should correspond and be conformable. I say, if we consider all these duly, can we think we may spare any of those divine helps to performance; whether they be vows and holy promises to bind us, or our Fathers and Mothers, Gods and the Churches blessings, or holy prayers for Gods assistance; or lastly, the holy Communion that great strengthener of the soul? If mens vices and licentiousness have made this holy service seem unseasonable at this time, reason would that they should labour to reform their lives, and study to be capable of this holy service, and not that the Church should take off her command for the receiving of the holy Communion for their unspeakable good. For would men observe Gods and the Churches commands, and enter into this holy state; not like beasts or heathens at the best, but like Christians with these religious solemnities, the happiness would be greater than can easily be exprest. I know not which way I should be able to shew the happiness of that wedlock, the knot whereof the Church doth fasten and the Sacrament of the Church confirm, saith Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor.

N. Must receive the Communion.] And reason good, if then solemnity be, as it ought to be, a love-feast. Such was the primitive custom, appeareth by Tertullian, unde sufficiam ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod conciliat Ecclesia, et confirmat oblatio ? “how shall I be able to declare the happiness of that marriage, whose knot the Church doth tie, and the blessed Eucharist doth confirm?” Whence the order of marriage benediction, whereof the Communion bare its part, is called in Novella Leonis 112, συναρμοστικὴ τελετὴ, “the connubial initiation.” In order to this Communion I conceive it is that the office is restrained to the forenoon, which in ancient times was performed in the evening, for which service, lights and torches were part of the solemnity, as learned Grotius hath noted. Confess I do, that between the customary excess of riot and licentious dissoluteness, frequently attending nuptial solemnities, and this most dreadful mystery, there seems to be impar congressus, “a misbecoming greeting,” that they are of very different complexions, and suit not well together. Yet why should the Church in her most solemn and decent establishment, give place to, or be justled out by accessary abuses? Why not rather the abuses themselves reformed, so far as they stand separate from the rules of sobriety and religion ? Such I am certain was the discipline of the ancient fathers. Οὐ δεῖ χριστιανοὺς εἰς γάμους ἀπερχομένους Bardifew ἤ ὀρχεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ σεμνῶς δειπνεῖν, ἢ ἀριστᾶν, ὡς πρέπει χριστιανοῖς: “it is not fit that Christians at weddings should use balls and dancing, but to dine or sup temperately as becometh Christians.”