Chapter VII (1)

RISE OF ECCLESIASTICAL MARRIAGE: THE CHURCH ACCEPTS THE LAY CONTRACT AND CEREMONIAL

[BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE VII.--For the original Christian usage
the writings of the early Fathers are of primary interest, and
an English version of them is available in _The Ante-Nicene
Fathers_ (Buffalo, 1885-87), edited by Roberts and Donaldson
and revised by A. C. Coxe. An indispensable handbook and
bibliographical guide for the study of this subject, as well
as for a multitude of questions connected with the first
eight centuries of Christian history, is Smith and Cheetham's
_Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_ (London, 1875-80),
particularly Meyrick's article, "Marriage," and Ludlow's clear
and thoroughly critical discussions of the "Benediction,"
"Betrothal," and "Arrhae." Important sources for this chapter
are also the _Corpus juris civilis_ (Berlin, 1872), edited
by Krüger and Mommsen; Richter and Friedberg's _Corpus juris
canonici_ (Leipzig, 1881-); Haddan and Stubbs's _Councils
and Ecclesiastical Documents_ (Oxford, 1869-78); Wilkins's
_Concilia_ (London, 1736-37); Gee and Hardy's _Documents_
(London 1896); Glanville's _Tractatus_, in Vol. II of Phillips's
_Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte_ (Berlin, 1827-28); and with
these may be used to advantage Johnson's _Collection of the
Laws and Canons of the Church of England_ (London, 1850). On
marriage at the church door, _The Old English Homilies_ (London,
1868); Gregory's _Pastoral Care_ (London, 1871); Hengham's
_Summa parva_ (London, 1737); Home's _Mirror of Justices_ (ed.
Whittaker, London, 1895); Fitzherbert's _New Natura Brevium_
(Dublin, 1793); as well as Fleta, Britton, and Bracton, have
furnished illustrative passages.

The evolution and character of the celebration are best seen in
the marriage rituals themselves. For the European practice in
general, including the English rites, consult the second book
of Selden, _Uxor ebraica_ (Frankfort on the Oder, 1673); or the
same in Vol. II (III, as bound) of his _Opera omnia_ (London,
1726); and the first book of Martene, _De antiquis ecclesiae
ritibus_ (Antwerp, 1763-64), in both of which works a large
number of rituals, with a mass of other useful materials, will
be found. Some portions of Martene are extracted by Michelet
in chap. ii of his _Origines du droit français_ (Paris,
1857); and many rituals, both of the East, and the West, are
epitomized in Palmer, _Origines liturgicae_ (3d ed., Oxford,
1839), the use of which is facilitated by Beal, _Analysis of
Palmer's Orig. Lit._ (Cambridge, 1856). Some of the earliest
Christian _sacramentaria_, the eleventh-century ritual of
Rennes, and various other mediæval _ordines_ are republished
by Dieckhoff, _Die kirchliche Trauung_ (Rostock, 1878). Sohm,
_Eheschliessung_, gives the Rennes service above named, as well
as those mentioned in Bibliographical Note VI; and the principal
parts of the twelfth century "Pontifical ou rituel de lire" are
quoted by Léon Gautier in his fascinating book _La chevalerie_
(Paris, 1884), where may be found the best and most detailed
account existing of the rites and social usages connected with a
mediæval French marriage. Most important of all for the present
purpose, however, are the ancient English liturgies. That of
Sarum (Salisbury) is published by Maskell, _Monumenta ritualia
ecclesiae anglicanae_ (Oxford, 1882), with the essential
clauses of the York service in the margin; while the rituals of
Salisbury, York, and Hereford, together with extracts from ten
other marriage services, ranging all the way from the eighth
to the fifteenth century, are contained in Vol. LXIII of the
Surtees Society _Publications_ (London, 1875). With these may
be compared the Catholic forms in the _Rituale romanorum Pauli
Quinti_ (Rome, 1816); and those of the Reformation in the
_Liturgies of Edward VI._ (Cambridge, 1844); and the _Liturgies
of Elizabeth_ (Cambridge, 1847), both in the publications of
the Parker Society. The earlier of these may also be found
in the "First" _Book of Common Prayer_, 1549 (exact reprint,
black letter, London, 1844); or in the "Second" _Book of Common
Prayer_, reprinted in the same style at London in the same year.
With these collections will be found useful Lathbury, _History
of the Book of Common Prayer_ (2d ed., Oxford and London, 1859);
and Daniel, _The Prayer Book_ (London, 1877). The marriage
rituals of the modern Greek, Roman, and English churches are
given in Bingham (J. F.), _The Christian Marriage Ceremony_ (New
York, 1871); and the English service, with discussion, may also
be found in Tegg, _The Knot Tied_ (London, 1877); and Moore,
_How to Be Married_ (London, 1890).

The principal sources for the study of the Council of Trent
are Richter-Schulte, _Canones et decreti concilii tridentini_
(Leipzig, 1853); Theiner, _Acta genuina concilii tridentini_
(Zagrabrae, Croatiae, 1874); Father Sarpi (Pietro Soave Polano),
_Historie of the Council of Trent_ (London, 1620), opposing the
action of the Council; and his antagonist Pallavicino, _Istoria
del Concilio di Trento_ (Rome, 1833); or the Latin version of
the same by Giattino (Antwerp, 1670). A convenient collection on
this subject is Waterworth, _Canons and Decrees of the Council
of Trent_ (New York, 1848); while valuable monographs are Salis,
_Die Publikation des tridentinischen Rechts der Eheschliessung_
(Basel, 1888); Leinz, _Die Ehevorschrift des Concils von Trient_
(Freiburg, 1888); Fleiner, _Die tridentinische Ehevorschrift_
(Leipzig, 1892); and Meurer, "Die rechtliche Natur des trid.
Matrimonial-Decrets," in _ZKR._, XXII (Freiburg, 1889). The
action of the Council is treated in Esmein, _Le mariage en
droit canonique_ (Paris, 1891); Madan, _Thelyphthora_ (London,
1781); Bohn, _Political Cyclopædia_ (London, 1860); as also by
Sohm and Friedberg. Froude's _Lectures on the Council of Trent_
(New York, 1896) are too general to be of value for the present
subject.

For the great case of Regina _v._ Millis, historically so
surprising, the _Report of the Cases of Regina v. Millis et
Regina v. Carroll in the Queen's Bench, Ireland_ (Dublin, 1842);
and 10 Clark and Finnelly, _Reports of Cases Decided in the
House of Lords_, are indispensable. In connection therewith read
Sir John Stoddart, _Observations on the Opinion_ (London, 1844);
his _Letter to Lord Brougham_ (London, 1844); and Elphinstone's
paper in the _Law Quarterly Review_, V (London, 1889). To
supplement these may be consulted the Jesuit Sanchez's treatise,
_Disputationum de matrimonii sacramento_ (Venice, 1625); the
older handbook of Lyndwood, _Provinciale_ (n. p., 1505; or
Oxford, 1779); and, in general, Bishop, _Marriage, Divorce, and
Separation_ (Chicago, 1891); Stephens, _Laws of the Clergy_
(London, 1848); Reeves, _History of the English Common Law_, IV;
Bright, _Husband and Wife_ (New York, 1850); the concise and
accurate discussion of Pollock and Maitland, _History of the
English Law_, II; and the masterly investigation of Friedberg
in his _Eheschliessung_. For the more celebrated earlier cases
with which the judgments in the Queen _v._ Millis are not
in harmony see 1 Roll, _Abridgement_, 353 (Foxcroft's case,
_ca._ 1282); Year Book 34 Edward I. (Delheith's case, 1305); 2
Haggard, _Consistory Reports_, 54-137 (Dalrymple v. Dalrymple,
1811); 2 Coke's _Reports_, 355-59 (Bunting _v._ Lepingwell);
especially the numerous decisions in Hale's unique _Precedents
and Proceedings in Criminal Causes, 1475-1640_ (London, 1847);
and compare the later case of Beamish _v._ Beamish, 1859-61,
in Clark, 9 _House of Lords Cases_ (Boston, 1871), which
follows the precedent in Queen _v._ Millis, giving a history
of matrimonial laws from Anglo-Saxon times. On this decision
there is a very instructive passage in Pollock, _First Book
of Jurisprudence_ (London, 1896). On Dalrymple _v._ Dalrymple
consult Dodson's _Report of the Judgment of Sir William Scott_
(London, 1811). See further the note at the close of this
chapter.

At the head of all scientific historical writers on the rise
of ecclesiastical marriage is Sohm whose main thesis, that
the early canon law of the marriage contract rests on the
principles of German custom, has fairly withstood the test of
criticism. His principal work on this subject, _Eheschliessung_,
elsewhere mentioned, is supplemented by the _Zur Trauungsfrage_
(Heilbronn, 1879), and the _Obligatorische Civilehe_ (Weimar,
1880); and in these he has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the _legal_ participation of the church in the nuptial
celebration is of late origin. Agreeing with Sohm in his main
conclusion, but differing on some questions, is Schubert,
_Die evangelische Trauung_ (Berlin, 1890); and he is in part
anticipated by Biener in the much earlier "Beiträge zu der
Geschichte der Civilehe," in _Zeitschrift für deutsches Recht
und Rechtswissenschaft_, XX, 119-44 (Tübingen, 1861). He is
stoutly opposed on all the main points in Sehling's able
monograph, _Die Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse im kanonischen
Recht_ (Leipzig, 1887); and also, especially regarding the late
origin of the legal ecclesiastical celebration, by Dieckhoff
in the work already mentioned, as also in his _Civilehe und
kirchliche Trauung_ (Rostock, 1880); Moy, _Eherecht der
Christen_ (Regensburg, 1833), had already taken the same view;
Scheurl holds a medial position in "Consensus facit nuptias,"
_ZKR._, XXII, 269-86 (Freiburg, 1889); which paper was preceded
by his _Entwicklung des kirchlichen Eheschliessungsrechts_
(Erlangen, 1877), and the "Zur Geschichte des kirch.
Eheschliessungsrechts," _ZKR._, XV (Freiburg and Tübingen,
1880). The last-named article is criticised by Bierling, "Kleine
Beiträge," _ibid._, XVI, 288-316 (1881). In this connection
read also Hasse, _Das Güterrecht der Ehegattin_ (Berlin,
1824), who anticipates Sohm on the nature of the Roman nuptial
celebration; Cremer, _Die kirchliche Trauung_ (Berlin, 1875);
_idem_, "Bürgerliche Eheschliessung und kirchliche Trauung,"
in _Evangel. Kirchenzeitung_ (1876), Nos. 32-35; Lindner, "Die
Heiligung der Ehe und die Trauung," _ibid._, Nos. 18-23; Buchka,
"Die Bedeutung der kirch. Trauung," _ZKR._, XVII (Freiburg and
Tübingen, 1882); Kahl, "Civilehe und kirch. Gewissen," _ibid._,
XVIII, 295-367 (1883); Freisen, _Geschichte des canonischen
Eherechts_ (Tübingen, 1888).

Friedberg's _Eheschliessung_, supplemented by the _Zur
Geschichte der Eheschliessung_, the _Lehrbuch des katholischen
und evangelischen Kirchenrechts_ (2d ed. Leipzig, 1884), and
the _Geschichte der Civilehe_ (Berlin, 1877), is a mine of
information at every point; and his conclusions as to the
validity of clandestine contracts _de praesenti_ have been
accepted by Pollock and Maitland in their _History of English
Law_ (Cambridge, 1895). Makower's _Constitutional History and
Constitution of the Church of England_ (London, 1895) is by far
the best work on his subject, the extracts from the sources
and the full bibliographical apparatus being of the greatest
assistance to the investigator.

In spite of its notorious inaccuracy, Bingham's _Origines
ecclesiasticae_ (London, n. d.) is still of service.
Conservative discussions may also be found in Göschl,
_Darstellung der kirch.-christ. Ehegesetze_ (Aschaffenburg,
1832); Hildebrand, _De nuptiis veterum christianorum_
(Helmstadt, 1701); Moy, _Eherecht der Christen_ mentioned above;
and Phillips, _Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts_ (3d ed., Regensburg,
1881). Zhishman's _Das Eherecht der orientalischen Kirche_
(Vienna, 1864) is the standard treatise on the subject.

In general, besides the works of Beauchet, Loening, Spirgatis,
Méril, Lingard, Schmid, Thorpe, Liebermann, and others
already mentioned in Bibliographical Note VI, some useful
matter for the present chapter may be found in Parker, _De
antiquitate britannicae ecclesiae_ (London, 1729); Klein,
_Das Eheverlöbniss_ (Strassburg, 1881); Riedler, _Bedingte
Eheschliessung_ (Kempten, 1892); Freisen, _Geschichte des
canonischen Eherechts_ (Tübingen, 1888); _idem_, in _Archiv für
katholisches Kirchenrecht_, LIII, 369 ff.]

I. THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN BENEDICTION, THE BRIDE-MASS, AND THE CELEBRATION _AD OSTIUM ECCLESIAE_

It is a noteworthy fact that the early church accepted and sanctioned the existing temporal forms of marriage. Her energy was directed mainly to the task of enforcing her own rules relating to marriage disabilities, such as those arising in affinity or nearness of kin; to devising restraints upon the freedom of divorce and second marriage; and to administering matrimonial judicature.[937] But the existing legal character and the popular forms of betrothal and nuptials were not disturbed. During the period preceding the Teutonic invasion, speaking broadly, the church adhered to the Roman law and custom; thereafter those of the Germans, even when the marriage consisted in the formal sale and tradition of the bride, were accepted.[938] The betrothal of the early canon law is, therefore, the Roman betrothal. It is a _consensus sponsalitius_, or free agreement between the man and the woman. Legally it is a _pactum de contrahendo_, or promise for future joining in marriage, which may be dissolved at the pleasure of either party.[939] It creates no obligation which can give rise to action for damage or fulfilment.[940] It does not constitute even the initiation of marriage. The marriage begins with the nuptials or actual wedded life, which gives expression to the _consensus nuptialis_, or mutual will of the parties to be husband and wife;[941] though, doubtless, the church demands parental consent, without making it absolutely essential.[942] On the other hand, it has been demonstrated by Sohm, contrary to the view previously accepted, that the two betrothals of the mediæval canon law are based on the German betrothal.[943] If not the marriage itself, it is nevertheless, as already seen, an act for joining in marriage which is not easily dissolved.

[937] LINGARD, _Hist. of Anglo-Saxon Church_, II,
5-7; FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 7; SOHM,
_Eheschliessung_, 107, and chap. iv; SCHEURL, _Das
gemeine deutsche Eherecht_, 14, 15.

[938] SOHM, _op. cit._, 108 ff. That the church
adopted the Roman marriage forms is the generally accepted
view: see SEHLING, _Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse_,
24 ff.; SCHUBERT, _Die evangel. Trauung_, 4 ff.;
SCHEURL, _Entwicklung des kirch. Eheschliessungsrechts_,
8 ff.; _idem_, "Consensus facit nuptias," _ZKR._, XXII,
269 ff.; BIENER, "Beiträge," _ibid._, XX, 119,
120; RICHTER-DOVE-KAHL, _Lehrbuch_, 1029, 1030;
LOENING, _Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts_, II,
569 ff.; DIECKHOFF, _Kirchliche Trauung_, 12 ff.;
MOY, _Eherecht der Christen_, 94 ff., 215 ff., 372 ff.

On the other hand, FREISEN, in _Archiv für kath.
Kirchenrecht_, LIII, 369 ff., holds that the early Christians
followed mainly Jewish custom. _Cf. idem_, _Geschichte des
canon. Eherechts_, 120 ff.

[939] _Dig._, xxiii, tit. i, 1: "Sponsalia sunt mentio et
repromissio nuptiarum futurarum."--_Corpus juris civ._, I, 294.
_Cf._ SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 109, 110; KLEIN,
_Das Eheverlöbniss_, 122 ff.

[940] By the older Roman law the betrothal was in form a contract
by _stipulatio_, and there was an action for damage in case
of nonfulfilment: GELLIUS, _Noctes atticae_, iv, 4;
SMITH, _Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities_, II,
139, 140. The later law gave no such action: _Dig._, xxiii,
tit. i, 10: _Corpus juris civ._, I, 291; _Codex_, V, 5; though
to enter into two betrothals at once was held to constitute
_infamia_, the same as two marriages: _Dig._, iii, tit. ii, 1:
_Corpus juris civ._, I, 36. _Cf._ LUDLOW, in _Dict.
Christ. Antiq._, I, 203; KLEIN, _Das Eheverlöbniss_,
22 ff., 125, 126; RIEDLER, _Bedingte Eheschliessung_,
11, 12; SCHEURL, _Entwicklung_, 9-11; LOENING,
_Geschichte des deutsch. Kirchenrechts_, II, 569, 570, who
shows that after the third century the betrothal became more
important in Roman law; SEHLING, _Unterscheidung_, 20,
21, notes; REIN, _Das röm. Privatrecht_, 188, 189;
BRISSONIUS, _De ritu nuptiarum_ (Paris, 1654), 1 ff.;
BEAUCHET, _Étude_, 11 ff.; SCHUBERT, _Die
evangel. Trauung_, 11, notes.

[941] But SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 110, who was preceded
by GLÜCK, _Güterrecht_, 1, 97 ff., contends, against the
common interpretation of the maxim _consensus facit nuptias_,
that a merely "formless" _consensus_ not followed by actual
wedded life is not sufficient to constitute a Roman marriage.
That would be practically a _consensus sponsalitius_ or Roman
betrothal. On the other hand, SEHLING, _Unterscheidung
der Verlöbnisse_, 7 ff., 138 ff., 157 ff., insists that by
the Roman law a formless nuptial contract, whether followed
by cohabitation or not, constitutes a binding marriage. Such
also is the view of DIECKHOFF, _Kirch. Trauung_, 15;
SCHUBERT, _Die evangel. Trauung_, 4 ff., 11; and
SCHEURL, _Entwicklung_, 11. But SCHEURL,
"Consensus facit nuptias," _ZKR._, XXII, 269 ff., agrees with
Sohm, in effect, though not avowedly. For, while he says that
marriage by _confarreatio_, for example, would be a valid
marriage, even if the parties never lived together, yet the Roman
law, he points out, does not reveal the evils of clandestine
unions, because the formless nuptial promise implied the common
wedded life. _Cf._ also BIERLING, "Kleine Beiträge,"
_ZKR._, XVI, 288 ff., who criticises Scheurl; FREISEN,
_Geschichte des can. Eherechts_, 101 ff.; and REIN, _Das
röm. Privatrecht_ (1836), 188, 189.

[942] "For even on earth children do not rightfully and lawfully
wed without their father's consent."--TERTULLIAN,
_To His Wife_, Book II, c. viii: _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, IV,
48. According to ULPIAN, in _Dig._, 1, tit. xvii,
1. 30, "Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit." But
PAULUS, _ibid._, xxiii, tit. ii, 1. 2, shows that the
consensus "must be at once that of the parties themselves, and of
those in whose potestas they are." See the excellent article of
LUDLOW, in _Dict. Christ. Antiq._, I, 433-36.

[943] SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 107-52; _idem_,
_Trauung und Verlobung_, 58-109. In opposition to Sohm's view,
SEHLING, _Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse_, 138 ff.,
165 ff., contends that the _sponsalia_ (betrothal and nuptial
promises) of the mediæval canon law are derived from the law of
Rome. Such also is the position of ZOEPFL, _Deutsche
Rechtsgeschichte_ (4th ed.), III, §§ 81 ff.; SCHULTE,
_Handbuch des kath. Eherechts_ (1855), 37, 278; WALTER,
_Kirchenrecht_ (14th ed.), § 298; and LOENING, _Gesch.
des deutsch. Kirchenrechts_, II, 601, following Sohm in the main.
SCHUBERT, _Die evangel. Trauung_, 37, takes a medial
position: "die Kirche bildete ihr eigenes Recht in Anlehnung an
das deutsche Recht aus." SCHEURL, _Entwicklung_, 93,
94, 95 ff., _passim_; _idem_, _Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht_,
14, 15, reviews and criticises Sohm on various points.
FRIEDBERG, _Verlobung und Trauung_, 25, contrary to the
position taken in _Eheschliessung_, 6, 202, accepts Sohm's view,
but with reservations. See also his _Lehrbuch_, 339 ff.

The only innovation effected by the primitive church was of a purely religious character. Though she might content herself with the Roman or the Germanic forms of marriage, there remained an "ethical mission" peculiarly her own. "In order at the very outset to fill the wedded life with the blessing and spirit of the Christian life, the church, without reference to the matrimonial law in force, demanded of her members that the very beginning of marriage should be placed under the word of God and be hallowed by its power."[944] Hence, from the first century onward, we find evidence of a priestly benediction usually in connection with the betrothal and probably with the nuptials.[945] Thus Ignatius declares that it "becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop," that it may be according to God.[946] Tertullian speaks of marriage being "requested" of bishops, presbyters, or deacons;[947] and he shows in another place that publicity was an important motive for encouraging unions "in presence of the church."[948] In a somewhat obscure passage of the treatise addressed to his wife, which is much relied upon by sacerdotal writers, he exclaims: "How should we be sufficient to set forth the bliss of that marriage which the church brings about, and the oblation confirms, and the benediction seals, angels proclaim, the Father ratifies?"[949] But here a legal importance is given to the benediction which it does not seem to have gained until centuries later.[950] A similar doubt attaches to the words of Ambrose, who, writing against mixed marriages, says: "For since marriage itself should be sanctified by the priestly veil and by benediction, how can that be called a marriage where there is no agreement of faith?"[951] But, "as Selden has observed, the like benedictions were often claimed in behalf of many other kinds of contract besides that of marriage--a sale, for instance."[952] In the eastern church likewise the letters of Gregory Nazienzen and the silence of Chrysostom show that the benediction was without legal significance.[953] By the Roman law no betrothal or nuptial ceremonial is prescribed. The solemnities were determined by local custom; and these the early Christians were willing to accept. For centuries a marriage liturgy was not adopted either in the East or in the West.[954] According to Tertullian, no "breath of idolatry" attaches even to the heathen ceremonies connected with espousals,[955] among which he mentions the ring, the kiss, the veil, and the joining of hands.[956] The ring came more and more under German influence to be used as an _arrha_.[957] Witnesses were required; and in connection with the nuptials we hear also of the "pomp" or procession to the bridegroom's home, and the "crowning" of the bride or the wedded pair, usually with flowers.[958]

[944] SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 107, 108. _Cf. idem_, _Ob.
Civilehe_, 25; and SCHUBERT, _Die evangel. Trauung_,
5 ff., who agrees with Sohm. The conservative view of the
religious character of early Christian marriage is represented by
KLEIN, _Eheverlöbniss_, 95 ff.; DIECKHOFF, _Die
kirch. Trauung_, 20 ff., _passim_.

[945] The custom of benediction may have been influenced
by Jewish practice. The Hebrew benediction was given "not
necessarily by a priest, but by the eldest friend or relative
present": MEYRICK, in _Dict. Christ. Antiq._, II,
1107, who gives the benediction in abridged form. _Cf._
SELDEN, _Uxor ebraica_, II, 12.

On the teachings of the Christian fathers as to the form of
marriage see MARTENE, _De ritibus_, II, lib. I, c.
ix, 120-44; SELDEN, _Uxor ebraica_, 179-84, 665-69,
_passim_; SCHUBERT, _Die evangel. Trauung_, 4 ff.;
LOENING, _Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts_, II,
573 ff.; DIECKHOFF, _Die kirch. Trauung_, 20 ff.;
FRIEDBERG, _Lehrbuch_, 337 ff.; PHILLIPS,
_Lehrbuch_, 612 ff.; BIENER, "Beiträge," _ZKR._, XX,
119-27.

[946] IGNATIUS, _Epistle to Polycarp_, IV: _Ante-Nicene
Fathers_, I, 95.

[947] TERTULLIAN, _On Monogamy_, xi: _Ante-Nicene
Fathers_, IV, 67.

[948] TERTULLIAN, _On Modesty_, v: _Ante-Nicene
Fathers_, IV, 77. _Cf._ MEYRICK, art. "Marriage," in
_Dict. Christ. Antiq._, II, 1106, who thinks, aside from the
religious motive, members might thus avoid the violation of laws
of the state with which they were unacquainted.

[949] LUDLOW, on "Benediction," in _Dict. Christ.
Antiq._, I, 193; _cf._ the reading in _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, IV,
48.

[950] LUDLOW, _loc. cit._

[951] AMBROSE, Book IX, ep. 70; LUDLOW, _loc.
cit._

[952] LUDLOW, _ibid._; SELDEN, _Uxor ebraica_,
Lib. II, cc. xxiv, xxv.

[953] LUDLOW, _op. cit._, I, 194.

[954] In both East and West, between the sixth and seventh
centuries: LUDLOW, _ibid._

[955] TERTULLIAN, _On Idolatry_, xvi: _Ante-Nicene
Fathers_, III, 71. _Cf._ LUDLOW, on "Betrothal," _op.
cit._, I, 203.

[956] TERTULLIAN, _loc. cit._; _idem_, _On the Veiling
of Virgins_, xi: _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, III, 71; IV, 34. On
the ring see _Dict. Christ. Antiq._, I, 248, 249, 202; II,
1105, 1807, 1808; for the kiss see _ibid._, II, 905, 906. By
the Theodosian Code, lib. v, tit. 3, leg. 16, one-half of
the bridegroom's gifts, after his death, were delivered to
his betrothed in case the betrothal were sealed by a kiss;
otherwise all was given to his relatives: _ibid._, II, 1110. In
England, and elsewhere, the kiss was a characteristic of public
spousals; and when these were recognized by the church the kiss
was sanctified by the priest: JEAFFRESON, _Brides and
Bridals_, I, 65-67; BRAND, _Pop. Antiq._, II, 139-41.
_Cf._ also MÉRIL, _Des formes et des usages_, 37, 38;
SPIRGATIS, _Verlobung und Vermählung_, 16, 17. The veil
was originally used at the betrothal, from the time of which
ceremony onward in early days it was worn habitually by the
betrothed as well as by the married woman: MEYRICK, in
_Dict. Christ. Antiq._, II, 1108, 1109.

[957] LUDLOW, on "Arrhae," in _Dict. Christ. Antiq._, I,
142-44: MEYRICK, _ibid._, II, 1105.

[958] For the crowning in the eastern church see
ZHISHMAN, _Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche_, 135, 156,
692 ff.; _cf._ MARTENE, _De ritibus_, I, 125. The crown
was made of flowers, often of olive or myrtle, and sometimes of
silver or gold. The custom appears in the West, but it became
at length so important in the East that the "whole marriage was
called the crowning, as in the West it was called the veiling":
MEYRICK, in _Dict. Christ. Antiq._, II, 1108, 1109;
_cf. ibid._, I, 511. The pomp is, of course, the Greek _pompa_:
FUSTEL DE COULANGES, _Ancient City_ (Boston, 1896),
55 ff., corresponding to the Roman _traductio_ and the German
_Brautlauf_.

It seems probable, then, that during the first three or four centuries Christian marriages were not as a rule celebrated in church.[959] The betrothal or nuptial benediction was not essential to a valid marriage, however important it may have been regarded from a religious point of view.[960] Gradually it became an established custom for the newly wedded pair, after solemnization of the nuptials, to attend religious services in the church and partake of the sacrament, at the close of which the priest invoked a blessing upon the future married life. But at first the church service was the ordinary service; only after a considerable interval were phrases introduced into the prayers especially applicable to the wedded pair.[961]

[959] Pope Nicholas (A. D. 860), in his replies to the
Bulgarians, who had asked his counsel concerning marriage rites,
says concerning the nuptials: "First of all they are placed in
the church with oblations, which they have to make to God by the
hands of the priest, and so at last they receive the benediction
and the heavenly veil." On this letter see SELDEN,
_Uxor ebraica_, Lib. II, c. xxv, 179; MARTENE, _De
ritibus_, I, 124, 125; DIECKHOFF, _Die kirch. Trauung_,
47 ff.; BEAUCHET, _Étude_, 34. From this letter and the
statements of the Fathers concerning the benediction, already
mentioned, MEYRICK, in _Dict. Christ. Antiq._, II,
1106, 1107, concludes, "There is no reasonable doubt that the
place in which Christians were ordinarily married was a church,
so soon as it became safe and customary for them to meet in
churches for religious purposes, and that the way in which they
were ordinarily married was by a religious ceremony," though
especially in the East (CHRYSOSTOM, _Hom. xlviii, in
Gen._, c. 24) the religious ceremony often took place in houses.
But so far as western Christendom is concerned, the sources show
that marriage in church was of slow growth. JEAFFRESON,
_Brides and Bridals_, I, 48, 49, doubts whether the Anglo-Saxons
always celebrated marriage in their homes.

[960] SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 153 ff., insists that the
priestly benediction, unless here and there by local custom,
was connected with the nuptials (_Trauung_) and not with the
betrothal, which he regards as the essential element in marriage.
But DIECKHOFF, _Die kirch. Trauung_, 20 ff., 30 ff.,
47 ff., 65 ff., claims that from the earliest period among
the Christians it was customary for the priest to bless the
betrothal; and that at least from the fourth century the same
is true of the nuptials. In his _Zur Trauungsfrage_, 17, note,
SOHM seems to accept Dieckhoff's view, while denying
anything but religious meaning to the benediction in either case.

SIRICIUS, _Epist. ad Himer._, § 4, mentions a
"benediction of the priest at betrothal, of so solemn a nature
as to make it sacrilege in the betrothed woman to marry another
man;" but this epistle may be spurious: MEYRICK, in
_Dict. Christ. Antiq._, II, 1106. _Cf._ SCHEURL,
_Entwicklung_, 24, 25; SEHLING, _Unterscheidung_, 25,
notes, 110; LOENING, _op. cit._, II, 573; and, for the
eastern church, ZHISHMAN, _Das Eherecht der orient.
Kirche_, 126, 135, 156, 672, 289 ff., _passim_.

[961] SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 157. This stage of the
bride-mass is disclosed by the oldest _sacramentaria_, of about
the fifth century; and the same ritual was in use in the Frankish
church in the ninth century.

Thus stood the custom in the period immediately following the conversion of the Teutonic nations. The nuptials consisted of two distinct acts. The first was the _gifta_, or traditional ceremony in the usual form. Thereafter, often on the day following the bridal night,[962] the newly wedded couple celebrated the bride-mass (_Brautmesse_) and received the benediction of the priest. But this religious act had no legal significance. No doubt it was performed by all good Christians as a religious duty. The benediction was invoked on the married life, a fact of such immense ethical importance, just as it was invoked on all important undertakings. It was observed as a fitting solemnity for a believer and not as a part of the marriage. Therefore in the case of second marriages it was omitted.[963] Broadly stated, the canon law maintained the validity of all proper marriages solemnized without the priestly benediction, though spiritual punishment might be imposed for neglect of religious duty. Such is the view of Sohm, and it has been generally accepted.[964] Dieckhoff,[965] however, contests it at every point. He holds that from early days the priestly benediction, whether of betrothal or of nuptials, was an essential part of the Christian marriage celebration. In support of the theory, that originally the church really undertook to join persons in wedlock, he presents three services from Roman _sacramentaria_ of the age of Charles the Great.[966] But it is by no means certain that the words of the text relied upon for proof are not of too recent origin to be convincing as to early usage; and if they really belong to the time assigned, they cannot, in face of other evidence, be accepted as showing the general custom of the West, but rather, like the often-cited Capitulary,[967] of 802, as merely revealing the aim and desire of the church.

[962] FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 78-93, where numerous
proofs from the mediæval poets and other sources are given; but
sometimes marriage in church appears. _Cf._ SOHM, _op.
cit._, 159 n. 16.

[963] In all the early rituals the benediction is not allowed
in case of a second marriage, at any rate unless the first
marriage of one or both of the parties had not been blessed by
the priest; and long paragraphs of the service are devoted to
explaining the alleged reasons for this, and to the still harder
task of showing how a second marriage can be a sacrament and yet
less holy than a first marriage. This dilemma led to curious
compromises, as in the service used at the marriage of King
Ethelwulf with Judith, his father's widow, in the year 856; see
the service in PERTZ, _Monumenta, leg._, I, 420; and
DIECKHOFF, _Die kirch. Trauung_, 73, 74. On this topic
compare the York, Sarum, and Hereford rituals in Surtees Society
_Publications_, LXIII, 35-37, Appendix, 23, 24, 117, 118; and
the Sarum (Salisbury) ritual in MASKELL, _Monumenta
ritualia_, I, 71-74; also _Rituale romanum Pauli Quinti_,
198; MARTENE, _De ritibus_, II, 121, 122; _Excerp.
Ecgberti_, 91: in Thorpe, II, 110; AELFRIC'S _Canons_,
9; _ibid._, II, 347; FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 36;
SCHMID, _Gesetze_, 562; BOHN, _Pol. Cyc._, III,
319. SELDEN, _Uxor ebraica_, II, c. 30, maintains that
the practice of celebrating nuptials before a priest was not
general among primitive Christians. This is declared an error by
BINGHAM, _Origines_, VII, 328 ff., who, like Dieckhoff
and most ecclesiastical writers, holds that the custom was
general and obligatory.

[964] SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 107 ff., 153 ff.;
_idem_, _Zur Trauungsfrage_, 10 ff.; _idem_, _Obligat.
Civilehe_, 25 ff. In substantial agreement with Sohm are
LOENING, _Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts_, II,
569-606: FRIEDBERG, "Zur Geschichte," _ZKR._, I,
374 ff.; BIENER, "Beiträge," _ibid._, XX, 119-47;
SCHEURL, _Entwicklung_, 110 ff. _Cf._ BEAUCHET,
_Étude_, 30 ff.; SPIRGATIS, _Verlobung und Trauung_,
4 ff.; SCHUBERT, _Die evangel. Trauung_, 14 ff.;
KLIEFOTH, _Liturgische Abhandlungen_ (2d ed., 1869), I,
136 ff.

[965] DIECKHOFF, _Die kirch. Trauung_, 29 ff., 45, 46
ff., 65 ff.; _idem_, _Civilehe und kirch. Trauung_, 14 ff. Much
earlier, MOY, _Eherecht der Christen_, 216, 217, had
taken the same view.

[966] DIECKHOFF, _Die kirch. Trauung_, 35 ff.:
_sacramentaria_ of Popes Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory I. These,
he thinks, show not merely a "divine benediction of the
marriage already concluded, but essentially a divine joining in
marriage." These services are also contained in DANIEL,
_Codex liturgicus_, I, 257 ff.; and that of Gelasius in
MARTENE, _De ritibus_, II, 127.

[967] Charles the Great in the Capitulary of 802, c. 35,
WALTER, _Corpus juris germ._, II, 167, prescribes the
benediction of the nuptials by a priest; but this is thought
to have had little effect. The benediction is also required by
several false capitularies: FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_,
58, 59. On this decree of 802 see also SCHUBERT, _Die
evangel. Trauung_, 19; BEAUCHET, _Étude_, 30, 31.

The introduction of the bride-mass constitutes the second stage in the history of clerical marriage. In English history it is represented by several spousal services which have been published by the Surtees Society.[968] They cover the period from the eighth to the eleventh century, beginning with the Pontifical of Egbert, archbishop of York (732-66) and ending with the _Rede Boke_ of Darbye (_ca._ 1050), now in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. These services consist wholly of prayers and benedictions. There is no mention of the mass, though doubtless the husband and wife have already partaken of the communion before the service. Apparently the function of the priest is purely religious. It is merely an invocation of the divine blessing upon the life of the newly wedded pair, and has no legal significance. The nuptials have already been solemnized, whether in the presence of the priest or not the formularies do not explain.

[968] Surtees Society _Publications_, LXIII, Appendix, 157 ff.
In the _Ordo_ of Archbishop Egbert, for instance, a blessing is
invoked upon the parties, the bridal chamber, and the marriage
bed; and the other _Ordines_ there printed are of the same
general character.

But already in the tenth century we reach the beginning of a third stage in the rise of the ecclesiastical ceremony.[969] The nuptials still consist of two distinct acts. The first is the _gifta_ proper, according to the usual temporal forms. It is no longer a strictly private transaction,[970] but it takes place before the church door--_ante ostium ecclesiae_[971]--in the presence of the priest, who participates in the ceremony and closes it with his blessing. The second act consists in the entrance into the church and the celebration of the bride-mass, followed by a second benediction. But the _gifta_, even in this stage, is temporal and not ecclesiastical. It occurs "before and not within the church," the motive usually assigned being to induce an immediate attendance upon communion on the very day of the nuptials instead of after an interval. In reality, however, the custom is but a recognition of the temporal nature of wedlock, which ought therefore to be celebrated before and not within the consecrated building.[972] That such was the prevailing custom throughout the western church during the Middle Ages is established by a mass of evidence of the most convincing character. Besides the testimony of chroniclers, historians, and literary men, we have that of the law-books and legal writers, lay and ecclesiastical, which make frequent mention of the assignment of the wife's dower at the church door during the nuptial celebration.[973] Moreover, many of the ancient rituals themselves have been preserved. All these "are unanimous," says Léon Gautier, following Martene, "in placing the principal act of the marriage celebration, that is to say the consent of the parties, at the entrance or in the porch of the church;"[974] and what is thus affirmed for the rituals of France is equally true for those of Germany[975] and England. "In the first place," runs the opening rubric of the Sarum _Ordo ad faciendum sponsalia_, "let the man and the woman stand before the church door in the presence of God, the priest, and the people, the man on the right of the woman, and the woman on the left of the man." Here the bride and groom remain during the nuptial celebration, the assignment of the dower, and the closing benediction. Thereupon, as the rubric directs, "let them enter the church as far as the steps of the altar," where, after a psalm, they are to prostrate themselves while a prayer is said in their behalf.[976] The usage of Sarum in this regard is typical, differing only in words and arrangement from that of York, Hereford, or the other churches. Indeed, marriage continues to be celebrated at the church door until the sixteenth century, the liturgies of Edward VI. and Elizabeth first requiring as a general observance the ceremony to be performed in the body of the church.[977]

[969] It need not surprise us that these phases of evolution
chronologically overlap each other; for social development is
seldom uniform.

[970] _Haustrauung_: SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 158.

[971] Also _ad valvas ecclesiae, in facie ecclesiae, in conspectu
ecclesiae, ad fores ecclesiae_, etc.

[972] "By performing the civil rite outside the walls of the
church they declared the fundamental nature of the matrimonial
contract, and asserted the doctrine of the common law of the
land respecting its meaning and purpose."--JEAFFRESON,
_Brides and Bridals_, I, 53. This view is of course rejected by
DIECKHOFF, _Die kirch. Trauung_, 76, note, 79 ff., who
regards the ecclesiastical transaction as a real ecclesiastical
celebration necessary to the marriage in the eyes of the church.
_Cf._ BIERLING, "Kleine Beiträge," _ZKR._, XVI, 288
ff., who criticises DIECKHOFF (_Civilehe und kirch.
Trauung_), and agrees with SOHM (_Zur Trauungsfrage_,
10) that the ecclesiastical transaction must not be confused with
ecclesiastical marriage.

[973] GLANVILLE, _Tractatus_, lib. vi, c. 1:
PHILLIPS, II, 381. "The term dower is used in two
senses. Dower in the sense in which it is commonly used means
that which any free man at the time of his being affianced
(tempore desponsationis) gives to his bride at the church
door": GLANVILLE, vi, c. 1, as translated by JOHN
BEAMES (London, 1812). _Cf._ also SELDEN, _Fleta_,
lib. v, c. 23, pp. 340, 341; BRACTON, _De legibus_,
lib. ii, c. 39 (fol. 92), Vol. II, 48; HORNE, _The
Mirror of Justices_ (ed. WHITTAKER, London, 1895), 11;
FITZHERBERT, _New Natura Brevium_ (Dublin, 1793), 352
(150); HENGHAM, _Summa parva_, c. ii: "Brevia de dote ad
ostium ecclesiae;" SELDEN, _Uxor ebraica_, 198, or in
_Opera_, III, 680.

That the _gifta_, or celebration as a temporal act, should take
place before the church door is thoroughly in harmony with the
early view that there purification or preparation should be made
for the rites or service within the sanctuary. The _atrium_
sometimes seems to be regarded as the medial ground between
the world on the one hand and the sacred temple of God on the
other; see, for example, _Old Eng. Homilies_, I, 72, 73: children
are to be baptized in holy church, "and their godfathers and
godmothers are to answer for them at the church-door, and enter
into pledges (covenants) at the font-stone, that they should
be believing (faithful) men." This passage is referred to in
MÄTZNER, _Altenglisch. Sprachproben_ (Berlin, 1878),
II, 578, at "chirchedure." GREGORY, in his _Pastoral
Care_, 104, 105, referring to the brazen basins before the Temple
supported by twelve oxen, says the bishops when they "descend
to wash the sins of their neighbors, when they confess, they
support, as it were, the basin before the church-door." According
to the _Capitula et fragmenta Theodori_, THORPE,
_Ancient Laws_ (folio), 313, "Si in atrio ecclesiae quislibet
injuriaverit aliquem presbyterum, vel ibidem aliquod sacrilegium
perpetraverit, altari et Domino componatur." With this
compare ÆTHELRED, _Laws_, VII, 13: THORPE,
_Ancient Laws_ (folio), 142; GRIMM, _Wörterbuch_,
_s. v._ "Kirchthor;" MURRAY, _New Eng. Dict._, Part
V, 406, at "church-door;" _Ormulum_, I, 43, ll. 1326, 1327;
CHAUCER, _Prolog._, 460: "Housbondes at chirche dore she
hadde fyve." See also WARNKÖNIG AND STEIN, _Französische
Verfassungsgeschichte_, II, 257; WEINHOLD, _Deutsche
Frauen_, I, 377, 378; WHITGIFT, _Works_, II, 461-64;
BRAND, _Pop. Ant._, II, 133-35; JEAFFRESON,
_Brides and Bridals_, I, 46-59; SPIRGATIS, _Verlobung
und Trauung_, 20, 21; SCHUBERT, _Die evangel. Trauung_,
20.

[974] LÉON GAUTIER, _La chevalerie_, 424 n. 3: _ap._
MARTENE, _De ritibus_, who says: "Nuptiae communiter
solent celebrari _ad valvas ecclesiae_;" and places before us
abundant proof in the sixteen _ordines_ which he publishes,
_ibid._, II, 127-44. Gautier cites also ÉTIENNE DE
BOURBON, ed. of LECOY DE LA MARCHE, 366: "Cum
duceretur ... ad parrochiam ... _et esset sub porticu ecclesiae
ut sponsa sua ei consentiret_ et matrimonium ratificaretur per
verba de praesenti, ut moris est, et sic in ecclesia matrimonium
solempnizaretur in misse celebratione et aliis." The same writer
makes a thorough examination of the "Pontifical ou rituel de
lire" (published by MARTENE, II, coll. 356-59, who
assigns it to the twelfth century), comparing it with other
rituals, with illustrations and proofs from many sources. In
chaps. ix to xi inclusive, entitled "Le mariage du chevalier"
(_op. cit._, 341-450), Gautier gives a learned and most
interesting discussion of mediæval marriage rites and customs.
Compare DANIEL, _Codex liturgicus_; and the summaries in
PALMER, _Origines liturgicae_, I, 106 ff.

[975] See SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 153-63; and
FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 37, 38, who reach
this conclusion from an examination of the various English
and continental rituals; especially the ritual of Rennes,
_ca._ eleventh century, in MARTENE, II, 127; also
SOHM, _op. cit._, 159, 160; DIECKHOFF, _Die
kirch. Trauung_, 77, 78.

[976] "Manual ad usum Sarum," in Surtees Society _Publications_,
LXIII, Appendix, 17-20; also in MASKELL, _Monumenta
ritualia_, I, 50-77. Compare the rituals of York, Hereford, and
the others contained in Surtees Society _Publications_, LXIII,
24 ff., 115 ff., 160 ff.; also the "Rituel de lire" in LÉON
GAUTIER, _La chevalerie_, 424-31, as summarized in capitals
in the margin; and the ritual of Rennes in MARTENE, _De
ritibus_, II, 127; or in SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 159,
160: "In primis veniat sacerdos ante ostium ecclesiae indutus
alba atque stola cum benedicta aqua; qua aspersa, interroget eos
sapienter, utrum legaliter copulari velint, et quaerat quomodo
parentes non sint, et doceat quomodo simul in lege Domini vivere
debeant. Deinde _faciat parentes secuti mos est dare eam_, atque
sponsum dotalitium dividere, cunctisque audientibus legere,
ipsumque suae sponsae libenter dare.... Qua finita, _intrando in
ecclesiam, missam incipiat_," etc.

[977] _Liturgy of Edward VI._ (Parker Society), 127; _Liturgy
of Elizabeth_ (Parker Society), 217. Compare WHITGIFT,
_Defence of the Answer_, II, 462, where he defends the
requirement of the "book," that "persons to be married shall come
into the body of the church, with their friends and neighbours,
there to be married," against THOMAS CARTWRIGHT in his
_Reply to the Answer_, 105, sec. 2, who ridicules the prescribed
ceremonial. "Likewise for marriage," says Cartwright, "he (the
priest) cometh back again into the body of the church, and for
baptism unto the church-door: what comeliness, what decency, what
edifying in this? Decency (I say) in running and trudging from
place to place: edifying in standing in that place, and after
that sort, where he can worst be heard and understanded."

One of the very earliest references to the presence of the priest at the nuptials is contained in the last two sections of the old English ritual of the tenth century already quoted in part,[978] and this ritual may be regarded as marking the transition to the period under consideration.

[978] This is next to the oldest mention, after the Germanic
conquest, of the priestly benediction; the first is the marriage
of Judith to the Saxon king Æthelwulf, 856, elsewhere mentioned.

"8. At the nuptials there shall be a mass-priest by law; who shall with God's blessing bind their union to all prosperity.

"9. Well is it also to be looked to, that it be known, that they, through kinship, be not too nearly allied; lest that be afterwards divided, which before was wrongly joined."[979]

[979] SCHMID, Anhang VI, 392, 393: THORPE, I,
255, 257.

It is evident, as Friedberg has remarked, that the office of mass-priest in this ritual is of no legal significance. The invocation of a divine blessing is merely a religious act after the marriage is complete.[980] It is no more a part of the _gifta_ than is the caution, in the last section, against marriage within the degrees of relationship forbidden by the canons. It is plain that in this formulary the betrothal and not the nuptials absorbs well-nigh the whole attention of the lawgiver. It is manifestly the thing of deepest concern; and in this the priest has no part.[981]

[980] FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 35; compare
LINGARD, _History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon
Church_, II, 7-11, who gives the form of benediction.

[981] SOHM, _Eheschliessung_, 100 n. 60. This view is of
course opposed by DIECKHOFF, _Die kirch. Trauung_, 69 ff.

According to Lingard, "there is no trace of any form of marriage contract in ancient English sacramentaries previously to the close of the twelfth century; and the earliest mention of it appears in the constitutions of two English prelates, Richard Poere, bishop of Sarum, and Richard de Marisco, bishop of Durham, who ordered the parish priests to teach the bridegroom this form, 'I take thee N. for my wife,' and the bride a similar form, 'I take thee N. for my husband.'"[982] This statement, however, may now require some modification. Judging from its brevity and its condensed, almost crude, diction, the ritual published by the Surtees Society from a pontifical in the library of Magdalen College, Oxford, may have originated at an earlier date in the twelfth century;[983] and this seems all the more probable, for French rituals, in which the priest takes a leading part in directing the spousal contract, are preserved from a still earlier period.[984] However this may be, the rituals of Sarum, York, and Hereford are among the most ancient, the most elaborate, and the most instructive which have anywhere been preserved, those of Sarum and York having been in force from about the end of the twelfth century until 1549. They contain a rich store of material for the student of the marriage contract, carrying him back to the cradle of the English race in the Saxon forests. Beneath the ecclesiastical covering, the adventitious mass of prayers, psalms, and benedictions, is a kernel of primitive Teutonic custom which he will at once recognize.

[982] LINGARD, _op. cit._, II, 10, note; _ap._
WILKINS, _Conc._, I, 582.

[983] Surtees Society _Publications_, LXIII, Appendix, 160, 161.
See also the "Benedictio annuli, sponsi et sponsae" from the Ely
Pontifical, Cambridge University library, of the twelfth century,
_ibid._, 161, 162, in which the priest leads in blessing the
ring, assigning the dower, and directing the "giving" of the
woman. It is probably a part of a very early ritual.

[984] See the rituals of Rennes, _ca._ eleventh century, and _de
lire_, twelfth century, already referred to.

The York service may be taken as a type, for it does not differ in any important particular from the other two. In it the advance of the clergy is very marked. The priest directs or participates in the whole procedure. The ceremony takes place before the church door, as the rubric directs, the man standing "on the right of the woman and the woman on the left of the man."[985] Then the priest is to ask the banns in the mother-tongue, following the Latin formula prescribed in the ritual, first addressing the people:

"Lo, bretheren, we are comen here before God and his angels and all his halowes, in the face and presence of our moder holy Chyrche, for to couple and to knyt these two bodyes togyder, that is to saye, of this man and of this woman, that they be from this tyme forthe, but one body and two soules in the fayth and lawe of God and holy Chyrche, for to deserue everlastynge lyfe what someuer that they have done here before."

[985] "Statuantur vir et mulier ante ostium ecclesiae coram
Deo et sacerdote et populo, vir a dextris mulieris et mulier a
sinistris viri": York manual, in Surtees Society _Publications_,
LXIII, 24. _Cf._ the Sarum, Hereford, and Welsh rituals,
_ibid._, Appendix, 17, 115, 167; also the Sarum ritual in
MASKELL, I, 50. All these place the man on the right
of the woman; but in "one MS. Manual of Sarum Use (early XVth
century)," the woman "stands on the _right_ hand of the man":
HENDERSON, in preface to Surtees Society _Publications_,
LXIII, xviii, xix.

"I charge you on Goddes behalfe and holy Chirche, that if there be any of you that can say any thynge why these two may not lawfully be wedded togyder at this tyme, say it nowe outher pryuely or appertly, in helpynge of your soules and theirs bothe."

Secondly, addressing the man and the woman:

"Also I charge you both and eyther be your selfe, as ye wyll answer before God at the day of dome, that yf there be thynge done pryuely or openly, betwene yourselfe, or that ye knowe any lawfull lettyng why that ye may nat be wedded togyder at thys tyme, say it nowe or we do any more to this mater."[986]

[986] Compare the similar provisions, in more archaic words, in
the Salisbury manual in the British Museum: MASKELL,
_Monumenta ritualia_, I, 52-54, margin; and the Latin form there
given in the text.

If no objection to the marriage is made, the priest, in several long paragraphs of the service, explains the canons relating to publication of banns, the times when the ecclesiastical celebration is forbidden, and the evils growing out of clandestine unions, with the penalty of three years' suspension from office for the priest who fails to prohibit such marriages in his parish. Then follows the essential act, the celebration of the _sponsalia_. This, as already mentioned, is in two distinct parts. The first part is the repetition of the betrothal _per verba de futuro_, the priest putting the vows in the form of a question to each party. He says to the man:

"_N._, wylt thou haue this woman to thy wyfe and loue her [and wirschipe hir[987]] and keep her, in sykenes and in helthe, and in all other degrese be to her as a husbande sholde be to his wyfe, and all other forsake for her, and holde the only to her to thy lyues ende."

[987] The words in the brackets in the formulæ for both parties
are added in the Cambridge MS. of the York ritual.

The man is to answer: "I wyll." The priest then says to the woman:

"_N._, wylt thou haue this man to thy husbande, and to be buxum to hym [luf hym, obeye to him, and wirschipe[988] hym], serue hym and kepe hym in sykenes and in helthe: and in all other degrese be unto him as a wyfe shulde be to her husbande, and all other to forsake for hym, and holde the only to hym to thy lyues ende."

[988] It will be noted that in the Cambridge MS. both the
man and the woman promise to "worship." The same is true
of the manuscript Salisbury ritual in the British Museum:
MASKELL, _op. cit._, I, 53.

The woman is to say: "I wyll."

This closes the first part. The second part is the _gifta_, or marriage properly so called, _per verba de praesenti_. The priest says: "Who gyues me this wyfe?" "Then," runs the Latin rubric, "shall the woman be given away by her father or by a friend; if a maid, she shall have her hand bare; if a widow, she shall have it covered."[989] The man shall receive her to keep in God's faith and his own, as he has vowed before the priest; and holding her by the right hand with his right hand, he shall plight the woman his troth in words of the present tense, saying after the priest:

"Here I take thee _N._ to my wedded wyfe, to haue and to holde, at bedde and at borde, for fayrer for fouler, for better for warse, in sekeness and in hele, tyl dethe us departe, and thereto I plyght the my trouthe;" and the woman makes the same vow in the same words.

[989] This provision is found in all these early rituals. _Cf._
LÉON GAUTIER, _La chevalerie_, 427, note.

"Then shall the man place gold, silver, and a ring upon a shield or a book. And the priest shall enquire whether the ring has already been blessed." If not, the priest is to bless it in prescribed form, and sprinkle it with holy water. Then follows a curious ceremony. The bridegroom "takes the ring with his three principal fingers, and says after the priest, beginning with the thumb of the bride, '_In nomine Patris_;' at the second finger, '_et Filii_;' at the third finger, '_et Spiritus Sancti_;' at the fourth or middle finger, '_Amen_;'[990] and there he leaves the ring, because according to the Decree ... 'in the middle finger there is a certain vein extending to the heart.'"[991]

[990] This formula is common to the early rituals. It is omitted
in the modern service of the English church, but retained in the
present Roman ritual: BINGHAM _The Christian Marriage
Ceremony_, 180.

[991] "Et ibi dimittat annulum secundum decretum xxx. quaestione
v. Feminae, ad finem: quia in medico est quaedam vena procedens
usque ad cor": p. 27. _Cf._ GRATIAN'S _Decretum_, in
RICHTER-FRIEDBERG, _Corpus jur. can._, I. The "vein
extending to the heart" is likewise mentioned in the rituals of
Hereford and Sarum, and in the Welsh ritual of the fifteenth
century. The Sarum ritual adds: "et in sonoritate argenti
designatur interna dilectio, quae semper inter eos debet esse
recens": Surtees Society _Publications_, LXIII, Appendix, 20.

After this delicious bit of popular superstition, handed down to our own days from remote antiquity, the bridegroom, holding his bride by the hand, says after the priest: "With this rynge I wedde the, and with this golde and siluer I honoure the, and with this gyft I dowe thee."

The priest next "asks the dower of the woman." If "land is given her in the dower," the bride "prostrates herself at the feet of the bridegroom;" but the York ritual does not go so far as one manuscript of the Sarum manual, in requiring that the woman shall "kiss the right foot" of her spouse.[992]

[992] Thus a "MS. Manual of Sarum Use" provides, "whether
there is land in the doury or not": "Tunc procidat sponsa ante
pedes ejus, et deosculetur pedem ejus dextrum; tunc erigat eam
sponsus": Surtees Society _Publications_, LXIII, 20, note; and
HENDERSON, _ibid._, xix. On the York and Sarum rituals
see SELDEN, _Uxor ebraica_, 193 ff.; and the points
discussed are all illustrated in the _Ordines_ published in
MARTENE.

The ceremony ends with prayer and benediction, followed by the entrance into the church for celebration of the bridal mass.[993]

[993] This ritual also provides a form for the priestly blessing
of the bridal chamber (_benedictio thalami_) and the nuptial
couch: "Nocte vero sequenti cum sponsus et sponsa ad lectum
pervenerint, accedat Sacerdos et benedicat thalamum;" the
blessing concluding with the direction: "Tunc secundum morem
antiquum thurificentur torus et thalamus": 39, 40. Similar
forms are given in the Hereford, Sarum, and Bangor rituals:
Surtees Society _Publications_, LXIII, Appendix, 25, 26, 120;
MASKELL, I, 76, 77 n. 47.