The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony

I. Rubric I. Banns, what the word signifies. Why, and how often to be published. BEFORE any can be lawfully married together, the Banns are directed to be published in the Church, i.e. public proclamation (for so the word signifies) must be made to the congregation, concerning the design of the parties that intend to come together. This care of the Church to prevent clandestine marriage is, as far as we can find, as old as Christianity itself. For Tertullian tells us, that in his time all marriages were accounted clandestine, that were not published beforehand in the Church, and were in danger of being judged adultery and fornication. And by several ancient constitutions of our own Church, it was ordered, that none should be married before notice should be given of it in the public congregation on three several Sundays or holydays. And so it was also ordered by the rubric prefixed to the form of Solemnization of Matrimony in the book of Common Prayer, viz. that the banns of all that are to be married together be published in the church three several Sundays or holy-days, in time of divine service; unto which was added at the last review, immediately before the sentences for the offertory; but it is ordered by a late act of parliament,* that all banns of matrimony shall be published upon three Sundays preceding the solemnization of marriage, immediately after the second Lesson.

§.2. The poverty of the parties, or their not being settled in the place where they are asked, no reason for prohibiting the banns. The design of the Church in publishing these banns, is to be satisfied whether there be any just cause or impediment why the parties, so asked, should not be joined together in matrimony. What are allowed for lawful impediments, I shall have occasion to shew in the next section. In the mean while I shall here observe, that the Curate is not to stop his proceeding, because any peevish or pragmatical person, without just reason or authority, pretends to forbid him; as is the case sometimes, when the church-wardens, or other officers of the parish, presume to forbid the publication of the banns because the parties are poor, and so like to create a charge to the parish; or because the man is not perhaps an inhabitant, according to the laws made for the settlement of the poor. But poverty is no more an impediment of marriage than wealth; and the kingdom can as little subsist without the poor, as it can without the rich. And as to the pretence of the man’s not being an inhabitant of the parish, it is certain, that by the canon law a traveller is a parishioner of every church he comes to. The Minister where he is, is to visit him if sick, to perform the offices to him while living, and to bury him when dead: and no other Clergyman can regularly perform any divine office to such a person, so long as he continues within the said parish. In short, he is a parishioner in all respects, except that he is not liable to be kept by the parish, if he falls into poverty. Nor does the bidding of banns alter his condition in that respect: for in that, it is not considered where the person has a legal settlement, but where he dwells or lives at present. And the spiritual courts acted by this rule (if by any) when they grant, ed a licence to a man to be married, that had not been four and twenty hours within their jurisdiction; and write him in the licence, seaman of that port or parish where he landed last, or where perhaps he lodged the night before.

§.3. The penalty of a Minister who marries without license or banns. The penalty incurred for marrying any persons (without a faculty or licence) before the banns have been thus duly published, is, by the canons of our Church, declared to be suspension for three years. Nor is there any exemption allowed to any churches or chapels, under colour of any peculiar liberty or privilege. The prohibition is the same in one place as in another. Marry where they will, the canons inflict the same penalty upon the Minister; who, by an act of parliament made in the tenth year of queen Anne, shall, besides his suspension, forfeit one hundred pounds for every offence; or if he be a prisoner in any private gaol, he shall be removed to the county gaol, charged in execution with the aforesaid penalty, and with all the causes of his former imprisonment. And whatever gaoler shall permit such marriages to be solemnized in his prison, shall, for every such offence, forfeit also the sum of one hundred pounds. And by the Act 26 George II. before mentioned, the person who shall solemnize matrimony in any other place than a church or public chapel, or without publication of banns, or licence, is deemed guilty of felony, and is to be transported for fourteen years, and the marriage declared to be null and void.

§.4. Marriage at no time prohibited. The ecclesiastical courts would have us to believe, that a licence is necessary, even after the banns have been duly published, to empower us to marry during such times as are said to be prohibited; and this they found upon an old popish canon law, which they pretend was established among other popish canons and decretals, by a statute 25 Henry VIII. But now it is certain that the times prohibited by the pope’s canon law are not the same that are pretended to be prohibited here in England; or if they were, the statute declares, that the popish canons and decretals are of force only so far forth as they have been received by sufferance, consent, or custom. Now there is no canon nor custom of this realm, that prohibits marriages to be solemnized at any time: but on the contrary, our rubric, which is confirmed by act of parliament, (and which is therefore as much a law of this realm as any can be,) requires no more than that the banns be published in the church three several Sundays in the time of divine service; and then, if no impediment be alleged, gives the parties, so asked, leave to be married, without so much as intimating that they must wait till marriage comes in. As to the authority of Lyndwood and some other such pleas offered by the gentlemen of the spiritual courts, the reader, that desires further satisfaction, may consult two learned authors upon this point, who plainly enough shew, that the chief motive of their insisting upon licences as necessary within these pretended prohibited times, is because marrying by banns is a hinderance to their fees.

Though not devent at some seasons. It is true indeed, it hath been an ancient custom of the primitive Church to prohibit persons from entering upon their nuptials in solemn times, which are set apart for fasting and prayer, and other exercises of extraordinary devotion. Thus the Council of Laodicea forbids all marriages in the time of Lent, and several other canons add other times, in which matrimony was not to be solemnized: which seems to be grounded upon the command of God, the counsel of Saint Paul, and the practice of the sober part of mankind. For even those who have wives ought, at such times, to be as those who have none; and therefore those who have none ought not then to change their condition. Besides, there is so great a contrariety between the seriousness that ought to attend the days of solemn religion, and the mirth that is expected at a marriage-feast, that it is not convenient they should meet together, lest we either violate religion, or disoblige our friends. This consideration so far prevailed even with the ancient Romans, that they would not permit those days that were dedicated to acts of religion, to be hindered or violated by nuptial celebrations. And Christians, one would think, should not be less observers of decency, than infidels or heathens. For which reason it would not be amiss, I humbly presume, if a prohibition was made, that no persons should be married during the more solemn seasons, either by licence or banns. But to prohibit marriage by banns, and admit of it by licence, seems not to be calculated for the increase of religion, but purely for the sake of enhancing the fees.

II. Rubric 2. The marriage to be solemnized in one of the churches where the banns were published. If the persons that are to be married dwell in diverse parishes, the banns must be asked in both parishes, and the Curate of the one parish is not to solemnize matrimony betwixt them, without a certificate of the banns being thrice asked from the Curate of the other parish. This seems to suppose what both the ancient and modem canons enjoin, viz. that marriage shall always be solemnized in the church or chapel where one of the parties dwelleth. And by our own canons, whatever Minister marries them any where else, incurs the same penalty as for a clandestine marriage. Nor is even a licence allowed to dispense with him for doing it. And the late act for preventing clandestine marriages expressly requires, that, in all cases where banns have been published, the marriage be solemnized in one of the churches where such publication had been made, and in no other place whatsoever; and that no licence shall be granted to solemnize any marriage in any other church than that which belongeth to the pariah, within which one of the parties to be married hath dwelt for four weeks immediately preceding. Formerly it was a custom, that marriage should be performed in no other church but that to which the woman belonged as a parishioner: and the ecclesiastical law allowed a fee due to the Curate of that church, whether she was married there or not; which was generally reserved for him in the words of the licence: but those words have been omitted in licences granted since the Act 26 George II took place, which gives no preference to the woman’s parish.

The canonical hours of celebrating of matrimony. FOR better security against clandestine marriages, the Church orders that all marriages be celebrated in the day-time: for those that mean honourably need not fly the light. By the sixty-second canon they are ordered to be performed in time of divine service; but that practice is now almost, by universal consent, laid aside and discontinued: and the rubric only mentions the day and time appointed, which the aforesaid canon expressly requires to be between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon: and though even a licence be granted, these hours are not dispensed with; * for it is supposed that persons will be serious in the morning. And indeed formerly it for it is supposed that persons will be serious in the morning. And indeed formerly it was required that the bridegroom and bride should be fasting when they made their matrimonial vow; by which means they were secured from being made incapable by drink, of acting decently and discreetly in so weighty an affair.

§.2. In what part of the church the marriage is to be solemnized. At the day and time appointed, the persons to be married are directed to come into the body of the church. The custom formerly was for the couple, who were to enter upon this holy state, to be placed at the church-door, where the Priest was used to join their hands, and perform the greatest part of the matrimonial office. It was here the husband endowed his wife with the portion or dowry before contracted for, which was therefore called Dos ad ostium ecclesicæ, The dowry at the church-door. But at the Reformation the rubric was altered, and the whole office ordered to be performed within the church, where the congregation might afford more witnesses of the fact.

And since God himself doth join those that are lawfully married, certainly the house of God is the fittest place wherein to make this religious covenant. And therefore, by the ancient canons of this Church, the celebration of matrimony in taverns, or other unhallowed places, is expressly forbidden: and the office is commanded to be performed in the church, not only to prevent all clandestine marriages, but also that the sacredness of the place may strike the greater reverence into the minds of the married couple, while they remember they make this holy vow in the place of God’s peculiar presence.

§.3. Who to be present at the solemnization. Paranymphs, or Bridemen, their antiquity. The persons to be married (saith the rubric) are to come into the church with their friends and neighbours, i.e. their relations and acquaintance, who ought to attend on this solemnity, to testify their consent to it, and to join with the minister in prayers for a blessing on it. Though it may not be improbable, but that by the friends here mentioned may be understood such as the ancients used to call paranymphs, or bridemen: some traces of which custom we find to be as old as the days of Samson, whose wife is said to have been delivered to his companion, who in the Septuagint version is called Νυμφαγωγὸς, or brideman. And that bridemen were in use among the Jews in our Saviour’s time, is clear from St. John 3:29. From the Jews the custom was received by the Christians, who used it at first rather as a civil custom, and something that added to the solemnity of the occasion, than as a religious rite; though it was afterwards countenanced so far as to be made a necessary part of the sacred solemnity. An account of this custom as it prevailed here in the time of king Henry VIII. may be seen in Polydore Virgil. Some remains of it are still left among us; but as to countenancing or discountenancing it, our Church has left it (as in itself) a thing indifferent.

§.4. The position of the two parties. The remaining part of this rubric (which was added to the foregoing part at the Restoration) is concerning the position of the parties, whom it orders to stand, the man on the right hand, and the woman on the left, i.e. the man on the right hand of the woman, and the woman on the left hand of the man, as it is worded in the Salisbury Manual. The reason that is there given for it is a very weak one, viz. because the rib out of which the woman was formed was taken out of the left side of Adam. The true reason to be sure is, because the right hand is the most honourable place; which is therefore both by the Latin and Greek, and all Christian Churches, assigned to the man, as being the head of the wife. The Jews are the only persons that I ever heard acted otherwise, who place the woman on the right hand of her husband, in allusion to that expression in the forty-fifth Psalm, At thy right hand did stand the queen in a vesture of gold, &c.

The preface, or general exhortation. TO prevent the vain and loose mirth which is too frequent at these solemnities, the office is begun with a grave and awful preface, which represents the action we are about, to be of so divine an original, of so high a nature, and of such infinite concernment to all mankind, that they are not only vain and imprudent, but even void of shame, who will not lay aside their levity, and be composed upon so serious and solemn an occasion. And to prevent any misfortune which the two parties might rashly or perhaps inconsiderately run into by means of their marriage, the Minister charges the congregation, If they know any just cause why they may not he lawfully joined together, that they do now declare it, before this holy bond be tied, since afterwards their discovering of it will tend perhaps more to the prejudice than to the relief of the parties.

II. The charge. But though others are first called upon to discover the impediments (if any such be known) as being most likely to reveal them; yet the parties themselves are charged, in the next place, as being most concerned, to declare them. Since, should there afterwards appear any just impediment to their marriage, they must either necessarily live together in a perpetual sin, or be separated for ever by an eternal divorce. Besides which, by a provincial canon of our Church under archbishop Stratford, in the year 1342, (the sixteenth of Edward III) if the parties that marry are conscious of any impediment, they incur excommunication ipso facto.

III. The impediments to matrimony. The impediments which they are solemnly charged to reveal, are those, I suppose, which are specified in the hundred and second canon of our Church; viz. 1. a preceeding marriage or contract, or any controversy or suit depending upon the same; 2. consanguinity or affinity: and, 3. want of the consent of their parents or guardians.

1. A preceding marriage or contract. The first is a preceeding marriage or contract: for God made but one wife for Adam, and rather connived at polygamy in after-ages than allowed it Under the Gospel dispensation it is absolutely forbidden. And this, I think, on one side, is generally allowed. Nobody contends that the same woman may have plurality of husbands, and the New Testament is expressly against it: but then we have libertines enough (though libertines, by the way, that often think one wife too many) who pretend that there is no prohibition against several; and yet the New Testament, if we duly attend to it, is as full and as clear against this as the former. Our Saviour himself has expressly declared, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. If then it be adultery for a man to marry a second woman, after he has put away the first, would it be ever the less adultery to marry a second whilst he retains the first? Again, when St. Paul enjoins every man, for the avoiding fornication, to have his own wife, or (as the words ought to be translated) a wife of his own, he also enjoins that every woman have her own husband, or (as these words ought also to be rendered) a husband peculiar to herself. * So that polygamy is no more allowed to the husband than to the wife. And therefore if either of the parties that offer themselves to be married have a husband or wife living, this latter marriage is null and void, and they live in as manifest adultery as they would have done, though they had not been joined. Nay, if either of them be but contracted to another, the impediment is the same. For though such a contract be not properly marriage, yet it is so effective and binding, that unless they voluntarily release each other, it is adultery for either of them to marry any body else. Hence by the Levitical law it was death for any one to defile another man’s spouse; and the holy Virgin is called Joseph’s wife, though she was only contracted to him. Upon this account, marriages that have been made after any such contract have always been judged null and void. In our own land indeed, in king Henry the Eighth’s time, an Act of Parliament was made, that marriages, when solemnized and afterwards consummated, should stand good notwithstanding any former precontract that had not been consummated. But this was only done to gratify the king; and therefore, as soon as king Edward VI succeeded him, the aforesaid Act was repealed, and the ecclesiastical judges were again empowered to give sentence in favour of such precontract, and to require that matrimony should be solemnized and consummated between the persons so contracted, notwithstanding that one of them might have been actually married to, and have had issue by, another person. But it hath been again enacted by statute 26 George II, that for the future no suit shall be had in any ecclesiastical court to compel a celebration of marriage in facie ecclesicæ, by reason of any contract of matrimony whatsoever.

§.2. 2. Consanguinity or affinity. What degrees are expressly forbid. And what, by parity of reason implied. The second impediment, which the canon specifies, is consanguinity or affinity, i.e. when the parties are related to each other within the degrees prohibited as to marriage by the laws of God, and expressed in a table drawn up by Archbishop Parker, and set forth by authority in the year of our Lord 1563. This table is now very frequently printed at the end of Common Prayer Books, and therefore I need not enumerate the degrees within which marriage is forbid. But however, it may not be amiss to observe, that several degrees are expressed in the table, which are not mentioned particularly in the eighteenth of Leviticus, which is the place upon which the table is founded. But then they may be inferred from it by parity of reason. For that passage in Leviticus only mentions those relations evidently ana expressly, which may help us to discover the like differences and degrees. So that for the right understanding of the eighteenth of Leviticus, and to bring it to an agreement with the table in our Common Prayer Books, we must observe two particular rules for our direction: viz. 1. That the same prohibitions that are made to one sex are undoubtedly understood and implied as to the other; and, 2. That a man and his wife are accounted one flesh: (so that whoever is related to one of them by means of consanguinity is in the same degree related to the other by means of affinity: insomuch that the husband is so much forbid to marry with his wife’s relations, and the wife with her husband’s, within the degrees prohibited, as either of them are to marry with their own.) Thus, for instance; though marrying a wife’s sister be not expressly forbid in the eighteenth of Leviticus, yet by parity of reason it is virtually implied. For when God there commands that a man shall not marry his brother’s wife, which is the same as forbidding the woman to be married to her husband’s brother: it follows of course, that a man is also forbid to marry his wife’s sister. For between one man and two sisters, and one woman and two brothers, is the same analogy and proportion. Accordingly, this was always forbid under severe penalties by the primitive Church, and has been declared unlawful by our own. Thus again, though we are not forbid in terms to marry the daughter of a wife’s sister; yet, by the like parity of reason, the same is implied in the prohibition of marrying one’s father’s brother’s wife, which is the same as to forbid the being married to a husband’s brother’s son. For between a man and his wife’s niece is the same relation as between a woman and her husband’s nephew; and therefore these also have been declared incapable of marrying by our courts of judicature. And if this be granted, it can much less be doubted, whether the like rule, from parity of reason, doth not forbid the uncle to marry his niece; which, though not expressly forbidden, is to be sure virtually prohibited in the precept that forbids the nephew to marry his aunt. Nor is it of any moment to allege, that the first is a more favourable case, because the natural superiority is preserved; since the parity of degree (which is the proper rule of judging) is the very same in both.

The case the same in unlawful conjunctions, as lawful marriages. Nor do these rules hold only in lawful marriages, but are equally binding in unlawful conjunctions: for by the same law that a man may not marry his father’s wife, he ought not to take his father’s concubine: and as the woman may not be married to her daughter’s husband, so neither may she be married to one by whom her daughter has been abused. Nor are bastard children any more at liberty to marry within the degrees of the Levitical law, than those that are legitimate. In this case legitimacy or illegitimacy makes no difference; for if it did, a mother might marry her bastard son, which is shocking to think of.

The reasons of prohibition. Such marriages why called incestuous. The reasons why these prohibitions are made are easily to be accounted for: for, first, the marriage of parents or grandfathers with their children or grandchildren (setting aside the disproportion in time of age) is directly repugnant to the order of nature, which hath assigned several duties and offices essential to each relation, that would thereby be inverted and overthrown. To which we may add the inconsistency, absurdity, and monstrousness of the relations to be begotten, if such prohibition were not absolute and unlimited. Much the same may be said in the next place, as to the marriage of uncles and aunts with their nephews and nieces. And, lastly, as to the marriage of brothers with sisters; the natural familiarities between equal relations, so suitable in years and temper, would produce intolerable effects in those who always converse together, if they were not prohibited matrimonial union. Upon these accounts, even among heathens, these marriages were accounted unlawful and forbidden, and were condemned under the name and title of incest, which signifies an inauspicious conjunction, made sine cesto Veneris, without the cest or girdle of Venus. For that goddess being not supposed to be present at such unchaste and dishonest marriages, the bride was not bound with her girdle as was usual, and therefore the marriage was called incestuous. And by the ninety. sixth canon of our own Church, such marriages are also to be judged incestuous and unlawful, and consequently are to be dissolved as void from the beginning, and the parties so married are to be separated by course of Law.

No cousins prohibited marriage. From an observation of the above-mentioned passage in Scripture, as well as from the table at the end of our Common Prayer Books, we may perceive that it is only a vulgar mistake, which some have entertained, that second cousins may not marry, though first cousins may; it plainly appearing that no cousins whatsoever, whether in the first, or second, or third descent, are prohibited marriage, either by the laws of God or of the land. The more ancient prohibition indeed of the Canon Law was to the seventh generation: and the same was formerly the law of the Church of England, as appears by the canons of two different Councils. But in the fourth Council of Lateran, which was held A.D. 1215, the prohibition was reduced to the fourth degree, as appears not only by a statute in the thirty-second of Henry VIII, but also by the frequent dispensations for the fourth degree, (and no further,) which we meet with in our ecclesiastical records, as granted by special authority from Rome. But now this was only for the increase and augmentation of the Pope’s revenue, who always took care to be well paid for his licence or dispensation. And therefore, at the Reformation, when we got free from our bondage and subjection to him, no marriages were prohibited but within the third degree, which are expressly prohibited by the laws of God, as well as by the dictates of right reason, and which therefore no power or authority can dispense with. But now none that we call cousins are within the third degree of kindred; even first cousins, or cousin-germans, are four removes distant. For to know their relation we must reckon through the grandfather, the common parent, from whence both parties are descended. Now reckoning thus between the children of two brothers, or of two sisters, or of a brother and sister, we must necessarily measure four degrees. For from a man to his fether or mother is one degree; to his grandfather two; then down to his uncle or aunt three; and, lastly, to the daughter of his uncle or aunt, who is his cousin-german, four. This is exemplified in the margin, where A is the grandfather, B and C the children, and D and E the grandchildren or first cousins, who are disposed to marry. Now from D to B is one remove, to A a second, to C a third, and to E a fourth. And I have already observed, that there is no instance in the eighteenth of Leviticus of any prohibition in the fourth degree. It is to be noted indeed, as Archbishop Parker tells us, that marriages in the direct line, i.e. between children and their grandfathers, though ever so distant, are prohibited and forbid. For a father has a paternal right over ten generations, could he live to see them in a direct line, (his old age requiring respect and reverence, as often increased as the name of father comes between him and them.) And so uncles and aunts, since they are quasi parentes, in the place of fathers and mothers, must have the greater respect, by how much the name of uncle and aunt comes between them and their nephews and nieces. So that it would seem more absurd for a great uncle to marry his niece, than for an immediate uncle to marry his. Though we are told, that where the case in the spiritual court was, that one had married the wife of his great uncle, (which, by the foregoing rule, that makes the case the same in affinity as consanguinity, is as near a relation as a great aunt by blood,) it was declared hot to be within the Levitical degrees, and therefore a prohibition was granted to the process.

§.3. 3. Want of Parents' or Guardians' consent. The third impediment to the solemnization of marriage between the parties that offer themselves, is the want of the consent of their parents or guardians. But this by the hundredth canon seems only to be an impediment, when the persons to be married are under the age of twenty-one years complete, whom, by the sixty-second canon, no Minister is to marry, whether by banns or licence, before their parents or governors have signified their consent, though persons in widowhood are by the hundred and fourth canon particularly excepted. The holy Scriptures, in several instances, inform us of this paternal right. And the usual phrases of giving a daughter in marriage, and taking a wife to a son, plainly imply, that the consent of the parents is necessary in the marriage of their children. If we inquire into the practice of the heathens, we shall find them so severe upon the violation of this right, as to declare the marriage to be null, and the children to be bastards. And the ancient canon-law of the Greek Church accounts all children that marry without their parents’ consent, whilst they are under their power, to be no better than fornicators. The Church of England hath ever taken all imaginable care beforehand to prevent such marriages, by requiring the oaths of sufficient witnesses, in case of a licence, that such consent was obtained; and by the Act 26 George II it is declared that all marriages solemnized by licence, where either of the parties, not being a widower or widow, shall be under the age of twenty-one years, which shall be had without die consent of parents or guardians, shall be absolutely null and void. And where there is no licence, the Church orders the publication of the banns, as has already been shewed, that so the parents may have notice and time to forbid it; and now finally charges the parties themselves, in the most serious and solemn manner that is possible, that they confess it is an impediment, if they want their superiors’ consent.

IV. Rubric after the charge. If any of the impediments above mentioned are alleged, and the person that declares it will be bound and sufficient sureties with him to the parties, or else put in a caution (to the full value of such charges as the persons to be married do thereby sustain) to prove his allegation; then the solemnization must be deferred until such time as the truth be tried. But if no impediment be alleged, the Curate is to proceed in manner and form as the next section will declare.

I. The asking their mutual consent. THE solemnization of matrimony being a formal compact, it is requisite, in the first place, that the mutual consent of the parties be asked, which is so essentially necessary, that the marriage is not good without it. And therefore we find that Rebekah’s friends asked her consent before they sent her away to Isaac. And in the firmest kind of marriage among the Romans, which they called coemption, the parties themselves mutually asked this of each other. This therefore being so momentous a custom, is for that reason taken into the Christian offices: only among Christians the question is proposed by the Priest, that so the declaration may be the more solemn, as being made in the immediate presence of God, and to his deputed Minister.

Then the Priest asks [Who gives this woman to be married to this man?] This was the old custome, that the Bride should be given by the Father or friend, Aug. de Gen. ad lit. 11. c. 41. to which S. Paul may be thought to allude, 2 Cor. 11. 2. I have espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. And Psal. 45. 13. The Queen the Spouse, shall be brought to the King. The reason of this saith Learned Mr. Hooker l. 5. Eccl. Pol. Sect. 73. was, That in ancient times all women which had not Husbands or Fathers to govern them, had their Tutors, without whose authority, there was no act, which they did warrantable; and for this cause they were in marriage delivered unto their husbands by others. Which custom retained, hath still this use, that it puts women in mind of a duty, whereto the very imbecillity of their sex doth bind them, namely, to be always directed and guided by others. Whether this were the very cause of this custom, I will not determine, nor what else was: but whatsoever was the first cause of it, this is certain, that it is a decent custom. For it cannot be thought fit, that a woman, whose chiefest ornament is modesty and shamefacedness, should offer her self before the Congregation to marriage to any person, but should rather be led by the hand of another, and given by him.

II. Joining of right hands an ancient ceremony. Accordingly the Minister, who has now the disposal of her, delivers her into the possession of the man, as he afterwards does the man into the possession of the woman, by causing each of them to take the other by the right hand. The joining of hands naturally signifies contracting a friendship, and making a covenant: and the right hand especially was esteemed so sacred, that Cicero calls it the witness of our faith; and therefore the joining of these being used in all covenants, no wonder it should be observed in the solemn one of marriage. Accordingly we find it has been used, upon this occasion, by Heathens, Jews, and Christians in all ages.

III. The mutual stipulation. The Minister therefore having thus joined their right hands, causes them, in the next place, to give their troth, by a mutual stipulation. And as our lawyers tell us, that in a deed of conveyance four things are necessary, viz. 1. The Premises, containing the names of the person, and of the thing to be conveyed; 2. The Habendum and Tenendum; 3. The Limitations; and, 4. The Seeding: so here the compact seems to be drawn up exactly answerable to these four rules. For, first, each party name themselves, and specifying the other, as the individual person whom they have chose, declare the end for which they take, viz. to be wedded husband and wife. Secondly, The manner of taking is expressed in those ancient words, to have and to hold, which are words (saith Littleton) of such importance, that no conveyance can be made without them: and therefore they ought not to be omitted here, because the man and the woman are now to put themselves into the power and possession of each other: insomuch that after this stipulation the wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Thirdly, the time of entering upon, and the time of enjoying, the possession conveyed, is here expressly declared. It is to begin immediately from the nuptial day, and to continue during their mutual lives. From this day forward — till death us do part. And lest any inconveniences appearing afterwards should be alleged for the breaking this sacred contract, here is added a protestation, that the obligation shall continue in full force, notwithstanding any future unexpected changes. They are to have and to hold for better for worse, in respect of their mind and manners; for richer for poorer, in respect of their estate; and whether in sickness or in health, in respect of their body. Now all these are added to prevent the scandalous liberties of divorce, which was practised upon every trifling occasion among Jews and Romans: insomuch that one of their rabbles had impiously affirmed it to be sufficient for divorce, if another woman was better liked by the man. But this being so contrary to the nature of marriage, it is necessary it should be removed from all Christian societies: which cannot be more effectually done than by a particular recital at the time of marriage, of all the cases which may be pretended as the causes of a future dislike. And to prevent any objection, I suppose, that might afterwards be imagined &om either party’s declining in their comeliness or beauty, the York Manual, that was used in the northern parts of England before the Reformation, had an addition of the words, for fairer for fouler, (for it must be observed, that this mutual stipulation was always in English amongst our English papists, even when all the office besides was in Latin,) which Mr. Selden translates, sive pulchrior fueris, sive inventistior: i.e. whether thou shalt be more or less handsome or comely. In all these conditions the engagement is the same, viz. the man is to love and to cherish his wife, and the woman to love, cherish, and to obey her husband; i.e. each of them must have the same regard for the other, and pay those duties which I have already shewed to be necessary and indispensable, whatsoever accidental varieties may happen. In the old Salisbury Manual, (that was used in the southern parts of England in the times of popery, as I have observed the York Manual was in the northern,) instead of the woman’s stipulating to love, cherish, and to obey her husband, she engaged to be bonair and buxum in bedde and at borde: and so in the York Manual the Minister, in asking the woman’s consent, instead of demanding of her, whether she would serve and obey her husband, asked her, whether she would be buxum to him. From whence we may observe, that whatever meaning those words have been perverted to since, they originally signified no more than to be meek and obedient. Accordingly, meek and obedient are added in the margin of the Manual, to explain them; and so they are interpreted in the Saxon dictionaries, agreeably to which they are translated by Mr. Selden, Ero officiosa ac obediens. But to return to our present form: the next particular is the rule by which the compact is made, viz. according to God’s holy ordinance. The words before the Reformation were, if holy Church it woll ordaine, i.e. I suppose, if there be no ecclesiastical law to the contrary. But I think the modern words are better: which may either be referred to every part of the present stipulation, so as to imply that all the branches thereof are agreeable to the divine institution; or else they may be peculiarly applied to the two last clauses, that each of the parties will love and cherish, &c. the other till death part them; which, I have shewed, is according to the ordinance of God. Lastly, here is the ratification of all the former particulars in the ancient form, and thereto I plight, (as the man says;) or, (as the woman,) I give thee my troth: i.e. for the performance of all that has been said, each of them lays their faith or truth to pledge: as much as if they had said, If I perform not the covenant I have made, let me forfeit my credit, and never be counted just, or honest, or faithful more.

VIII. The blessing. With a blessing from whom, this part of the office is in the next place concluded. For the covenant being made by the authority of God, the institution being his, the method his, and he being the author, witness, and ratifier of this contract; what could be added more properly at the conclusion, than a solemn benediction from that holy, blessed, and undivided Trinity, who is so many ways engaged to bless it?

Why go to the Lord's Table. THE marriage-covenant being now completed, the Minister and clerks (of whom I have taken occasion to speak before) are to go to the Lord’s table. For by all the Common Prayer Books till the last review, the new-married persons were obliged to receive the holy Communion the same day of their marriage. Our present rubric indeed does not insist upon this; for what reason it does not, I shall shew by and by. But it still declares it is convenient they should do so; and therefore, that they may not omit it for want of being reminded, they are ordered to accompany the Minister and the clerks to the Lords table.

§.2. A psalm, why to be said whilst going to the Lord's Table. And whilst they are going, either the Minister or clerks are to say or sing a proper psalm, which was appointed, I suppose, instead of the introit, which, I have already shewed, was a psalm some way or other proper to the day, and said or sung whilst the Priest was going to the altar.

§.3. How proper to the solemnity. And it is certain that psalms are very fit to attend a marriage solemnity, which was ever reputed a time of joy, and generally attended with songs and music. Solomon’s spouse was brought to him with joy and gladness; and in the nuptials of the Gentiles, nothing was more usual than minstrels and musical instruments, songs to Hymen, Epithalamiums, and Fescennine verses. But these being expressions of a looser mirth than becometh Christians, the Church hath hallowed our joy, by choosing holy psalms for the exercise and expression of it, in obedience to the precept of the Apostle St. James, who, when we are merry, bids us sing psalms.

§.4. Psalm 128. There are two appointed in this place for variety: but the first is generally used, as being more proper for the occasion, being thought by some to have been drawn up for an Epithalamium or marriage song, and for that reason taken into the marriage office by all Christians in the world.

§.5. The other is proper to be used sometimes, when the age of the parties perhaps, not giving a prospect of the blessings mentioned in the foregoing psalm, renders that not so suitable to the occasion.

I. The Lord's Prayer and responses. THE Minister being got into the choir, and the man and the woman kneeling before the Lord’s table, the Priest, before he proceeds to the office for the Communion, (which I have already hinted was the design of their coming hither,) offers up some further prayers and supplications for a blessing upon the parties. These are introduced with the ancient form, Lord have mercy upon us, ...

To which is immediately subjoined the Lord’s Prayer, which sanctifies and makes way for all the rest.

... And being thus prepared, we proceed to some supplications chosen out of the Psalms, and put into the form of versicles and responses, that all the company may shew their love and affection to their friends, by publicly joining in these short petitions for them.

II. The three prayers. After these follow three prayers to be used by the Minister alone; the first being a prayer for spiritual blessings;* the second for the temporal blessing of children, which is the chief end of marriage, and which is the blessing that God pronounced at first to Adam and Eve, and which all mankind hath ever since wished to new-married persons, † and which is therefore always to be asked at the solemnization of a marriage, except the advanced age of the persons makes our prayers unlikely to prevail, in which case our rubric has therefore ordered it to be omitted. The last prayer is made for the accomplishing of those duties which are aptly signified and implied by marriage.

The Communion Service to begin here. IN all the old Common Prayer Books (i.e. till the last review) the rubric before this Exhortation was worded thus:

Then [shall begin the Communion, And*] after the Gospel shall be said a Sermon, wherein ordinarily (so oft as there is any marriage) the office of a man and wife shall be declared, according to holy Scripture; or, if there be no Sermon, the Minister shall read this that followeth.

Why the rubric was altered, shall be shewn in the next section. In the mean while I shall observe, that if the married persons are disposed to communicate, the office for the Communion must still begin immediately after the forementioned blessing. And after the Gospel and Nicene Creed, if there be no Sermon declaring the duties of man and wife, the Exhortation here appointed is to be read instead of it.

§.2. The design of the Exhortation. For the married persons having mutually engaged to live together according to God’s holy ordinance, i.e. according to those laws which he has ordained in his word; it is very necessary they should hear and know what those laws are which they have engaged to perform. It was God’s own command, that the kings of Israel should have a copy of the law delivered to them at their coronation; and there is the same reason to give this abstract to those that have taken upon themselves the state of matrimony. For which reason, instead of the Epistle and Gospel used in the offices of the Greek and Roman Churches, here is a full collection of the duties of both parties, drawn from the Epistles of two great Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, in imitation of the practice of the primitive Church, which, always after the celebration of a marriage, exhorted the parties to keep their matrimonial vow inviolate.

How this rubric was worded formerly. AT the end of the whole office is added a rubric, declaring, that it is convenient that the new-married persons should receive the holy Communion at the lime of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage. In all the former Common Prayer Books this rubric was more positive, fixing and appointing the day of marriage for the time of communicating. The new-married persons, the same day of their marriage, must receive the holy Communion. And it was upon this account, as I have already observed, that the latter part of the office was ordered to be performed at the Lord’s table, and that the Communion should be begun immediately after the blessing.

The occasion of the alteration was an exception that was made against this rubric by the Dissenting Ministers, at the Conference at the Savoy. They objected, that “this either enforced all such, as were unfit for the Sacrament, to forbear marriage, contrary to Scripture, which approves the marriage of all men; or else compelled all that should marry to come to the Lord’s table, though never so unprepared. And for this reason, they desired the rubrics relating to the Communion might be omitted; and the rather, because that marriagefestivals are too often accompanied with such divertisements, as are unsuitable to those Christian duties, which ought to be before, and follow after, the receiving of that holy Sacrament.” To this the Episcopal Ministers answered, “That this rubric enforced none to forbear marriage, but presumed (as well it might) that all persons marriageable ought to be also fit to receive the holy Sacrament. And marriage being so solemn a covenant of God, they that undertook it in the fear of God, would not stick to seal it by receiving the holy Communion, and accordingly prepare themselves for it; and therefore it would have been more Christian to have desired that those licentious festivities might be suppressed, and the Communion more generally used by those that married, of which the happiness would be greater than could easily be expressed.” For which they quote that passage in Tertullian, Unde sufficiam ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus Matrimonii, quod Ecclesia conciliate et conformat Oblatio?

This was an answer which the Presbyterians knew not how to get over; and therefore, as usual, they only return an unmannerly reply. However, to oblige them, the rubric is altered, and persons are not now expressly required to communicate at their marriage, but only reminded that it is convenient so to do.

The advantage of communicating on the day of marriage. But no serious person surely will think the Communion less proper or requisite, because the Church has left it more to their discretion. As to the objection of these Puritans, that “marriage-festivals are too often accompanied with such divertisements as are unsuitable to the Sacrament;” a sober man would be apt to think, that this should rather be a reason why the Sacrament should be joined to this office, viz. that the reverence of this holy institution might banish those vain and wicked revels from Christian marriages. And certainly since one must be spared, it is much better to part with a licentious custom, than a religious duty. The passage of Tertullian, cited above, shews what opinion the primitive Church had of a marriage so decently solemnized; and no office, I believe, but the Geneva Order, ever forbad, nor no Christians, I believe, but the English Puritans, ever found fault with, the administering of the Eucharist upon the wedding-day: and neither of these, I dare say, will influence the good dispositions of considerate men. The sober and serious will still believe, that when this holy Sacrament attends the Nuptials, the office will be esteemed more sacred and venerable, the persons will act more considerately and gravely, and the marriage-vow receive new strength from its being confirmed by so solemn an engagement.