The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1883-03-15
ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.
Some Historical Fact. Of General Interest-
An Inquiry Answered.

me through the columns Of the Day, when mar
rage was first solemBized by the church. From
inquiries on the subject, am under the impress
sion that comparatively little is known about it,
and explar alton would, | believe, be both
interesting and edifying. / am inquiring for
/ many subscribers Of the Day, who have recent
I ly been discussing the subject. BENEDICT.
! The question propounded by Benedict is not
easily answered satisfactorily. A representa-
! tive Of the Dag made thorough research of the
subject in the Peabody and John Hopkins IL
braries, and the result Of his investig CATION is
/ appended:
I Though English marriage was one of the earli-
est achievements Of civilization, it is not so
| old that not look beyond it TO period
1 in which no wedlOck worthy of the name of
| matrimony existed. In following its strictly
national uses to their sources, the epoch is
/ reached in the history of woman kind, when
every mans title to his conjusal partner rested
on barblroHs violence, and society cOnntenanced
no matrimonial rites, save those that license
: authorized and physical strength performed.
This earliest system of wrdlock, by which a
( man obtained wife by the exercise of his
! OgnZed right to capture her, was not properly
! extinguished till a much later period than the
/ sixth century. For at this time, though the
sOrdid practices of marriage by purchase had
! become general, Ethelbert framed a law which
( recognized, in a significant manner, the privi-
leges of the Older methOd-capture. "If
Z man, - the student reads, carried off maid by
/ force he should pay fifty shillings to her own.
/ er. and afterward buy her from him"-the hus-
/ bands title TO his wife resting thus capture.
/ In searching for some of the rites incidental
/ to marriage by capture, clerical interference is
nowhere observable BIT it is not without in
terest TO note in passing, that there some
/ writers who maintain that matrimonial
{ usages abound with the traces of violence All
/ GENTLY employed for the capture of brides. In
deed, there is scarcely thing employed OF a
custom observed in solemnization of matrimony
which they do not conStrne as a vestige of the
/ obsolete use Of force. The .'hest man is moth
/ ing but the warrior who fought the pursuers of
| the captured damsel The ring is symbolic of
! the letters lameuiable act,-with which the
! ancient capior bound his struggling victim.
! The shoe, thrown after the brides carriage, is
commemorative of the missiles hurled in futile
rage by out>tTipped relatives mt the retreatng
] bridegroom The ill-feeling that sometimes is
| said to arise between husbands and their moth
eT-In-law is declared TO he relic of the old
! frud between the husband and his wife's family.
However true these aGalOgies may be. in
many parts of Wales, Ireland aud the north of
Scotland, the customs of marriage by capture
were preserved With remarkable fidelity to
former universal practice. Writing late as
lc02, Sampson says of tine matrimonial fash
ions of the Irish: However suitable the match,
il is but 4 lame exploit, and even affront, if
the groom does not first run away with the
bride"
Going back to the time of the early Roman
Church, and before Christianity had spread To
church as a doubtful good-the relative merit
of marriage and abstinence being matter of
warm discussion. The holiness and necessity of
absolute purity favoritc n theme with
leading clergy OF the church, and formed so
prominent n portion of daily sermons and eX-
hOTiations that the popular mind could but be
deeply impressed with its Importance. The
members Of the church almost universally
caught up the impression that marriage stands
in the way of the cultivation of piety and Bish-
I pG,S KXl n baDnp In hp iel
as more holy than their brethren. This feeling
continued to gain strength, and from it sprang
that vast system Of mOnasticsm which spread
throughout Christianity with such wonderful
Rapidly, in the fourth century. Consequently
we,ilock being at such discount, and having
risen out of secular law, and receiving social
sanction, continued to be regarded as a civil
contract. However, when the church recog-
niZed the value to itself of sacertiotal interfer
ence in marriage. such interference was easily
ushered in, because the transition from the pa
gan to the Christian life was snftened by the
substitution of Christian ceremonies and saints
for the festivals and dyinities of the pagan.
This accomplished, Christianity taught, rs a
religions dogma that all forms of intercourse of
the sexes. other than lifelong unions, were
criminal BY the flexible teaching of this dog
matsT, the purely civil marriage of the later
pagan empire was gradually replaced by relI.-
ions marriages There is manifest propriety in
invoking a divine henedction upon an act
which forms 50 important an epoch in life and
mingling of a religious ceremony impresses a
deeper sense of the soiemnity of the contract
The essentially re igiuns aud even mystical
character Impaired by Christianity marriage,
rendered the conservation peculiarly natural.
Had not Christ. the acknowledged head of the
church, the bridegroom of the church,
verified water iutOwine at the marriage in Cana.
in Galilcr! He taught that He approved If
wedicck. There also an important con
tIiiiun to be obtained by theologanS, in order
I" rcaliz. their ideal type of marriage. 1t was
"a prevent I'll. members of the church from in-
tcrInarTying with those whose religious opinions
differed from their own. But the growth of
the right Of ecclesiastical marriage To be n
tom of the church was hut slow. 1t was long
dispensed with III the marriage Of slaves, and
. even in the case Of freemen, Though generally
performed. At last, Innocent Ill, Pope, ll9S-
l2l6 4. D., 10y far the most remarkable of the
Popcs who have governed under that name and
who extended the dominion of the Church over
alunSf The entire civilized world, was the frs;
" he ordained the celebration of marriage in u
church. Thus it with Rome.
Christianity reached the AuglO-SaXOns at a
time when marriage by purciIas, had becnrne
general. when woman regarded a mere
thing" aud could be- boHsht and s,ld a. any
other kind of chattel. This was ~ has been
shown. in the sixth century. And when the
church, in the discharge of her Salutary fame
tiuus toward domestic interest, undertook the
rgIatInl Of marriage : Il department of sDcial
life clearly lying within the province of
,iotal duty. marriage under the clergy oaiy
gradually To he looked upon as absolutely
necessary. For historians declare that the Gus
tom of Joining lovers in wedlOek at the porch
or door of the church arose in the Norman peri
od of English history, abnut five hundred years
after the introduction Of Christianity by Angus
tine, A. ID. ~, and that marriages were not
celebrated in the chnTch before the last year of
the twelfth century, when the SYNOD of West
minister ordered that marriages should be inva-
riahly celebrated in the church. But while
marriage at the porch of the church may not
have been customary, until after the Normans
came TO England, the later Anglo-Saxons eele-
brated their marriages with appropriate dis
play. and werr careful to secure for brides and
groOms the benefits Of sacrriOtal benelictiOn.
There was the ceremony of hand fasting,
cnmpanietl with the exchange of solemn words
Not Seldom also. the ease-cloth held over
the joyful couple. whilst the priest pronounced
blessing on their union. This last fact indi-
Gates undue jealousy of sacerdotal inteTfeT-
with secular contract. The action of the
Anglo-SaNnn church in regulating betrnthals
and locking after the interests of married wo
mrn shows, even more forcibly, that soiial opin-
i0n was disposed To regard matTmony falling
within :he province Of clerical influence. Tn
der the circumstances, it seems probable that
the customs of the porch which existed in Nor
man England may have bcea general, if not
universal, before the conquest.
After prevailing for centuries, this ancient
usage Of marrying before the perch was actin
ally abolished by the ecclesiastical re.ormers of
Edward Wis reign, whu ordained that the per-
formancc Of the binding ceremony should take
place in the body Of the chnrch. Under Mary il
was. of course, universally resumed together
with other religions practices forbidden by
Professionalism. 1t fell into disuse in her reign,
and was never more revived in England. In
France. however, il prevailed much later, as is
shown by Charles Is marriage (by proxy with
Henrietta Maria ut the door of Notre Dame. By
the ancient common law Of England, mere con
sent was enough to constitute marriage. And,
though the clergy did their utmost TO divert at
tentiOn from the proofs of the secular origin of
marriage, they never succeeded in making the
intelligent laymen forget that matrimony was
an institution that had risen ont of common
law, long before Pope and prslate took it under
their protection. The secular legislation for the
suppression of uncanoncal matrimony began
with the enactment of William aud Mary, A. ID.
1884, entitled, AN &c; for granting several du-
ties. etc, towards carrying on the war with
France" By this means, money was to be
raised, by illegalizing all other marriage save
that performed by the established church. By
Lord HarlNick's act. in 1857, cermOny in an
established chnrch made necessary, and
this continued until 1S:s6, when the dissenters
succeeded in removing the exclusiveuess.-Bdi-
fimor6 Dag.