# Weddings and the RPW



## chbrooking (Jun 19, 2009)

Does anyone know the scriptural warrant for the inclusion of weddings or "the selemnization of marriage" in the Directory of Publick Worship?

Potentially answering my own question ... Or, are we not to understand the three sections (marriage, visitation and burials) as matters of public worship -- in which case, why are they included in the directory at all?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 19, 2009)

As far as I understand Weddings do not fall under the RPW because they are not stated worship services.


----------



## chbrooking (Jun 19, 2009)

That certainly makes sense. But why is it in the DPW?


----------



## Confessor (Jun 20, 2009)

Well, it is a _religious_ service. Is the DPW using "worship" in a broader sense?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jun 20, 2009)

While there are differences, there are many cases of vows that are included in the temple worship from what we can see. Could it be that marriage vows, while different, are treated like any other vow to the Lord?


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 20, 2009)

Speaking in reference to the Directory for Public Worship:


> The order for the Solemnization of Marriage was produced only after a prolonged dispute between the Independents and the Scottish Presbyterians. Goodwin and his fellow-Independents held marriage to be merely a civil contract in which the Minister acted only as the delegate of the magistrate. The Presbyterians, represented by Rutherford, made a distinction between marriage, of which the essence is consent, and solemnization which is concerned with the making of vows. The same party further maintained that marriage is a command of God and is therefore worthy of religious solemnization. The Presbyterians gained their point. The service consists of the following parts: a prayer of confession and petition for God's blessing on the couple; an exhortation, based upon Scripture, reminding them of their duties to one another and to God; then the man and woman in turn promise faithfulness to one another; the Minister pronounces them man and wife and concludes with a prayer of blessing.
> 
> The passages of Scripture upon which the Minister bases his exhortation are unspecified. The opening exhortations in both the Book of Common Prayer and the _Forme of Prayers_ are founded upon the fifth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. The omission of a reference to this chapter in the Directory calls for explanation. It seems most probably that the Puritans feared that this passage might lend colour to the view that marriage is a sacrament. The other notable omission is that of the ring. This was one of the noxious ceremonies without Scriptural warrant, which the Puritans had objected to in the Book of Common Prayer.
> 
> The directions for the Burial of the Dead were also hotly disputed in the Committee and in the Assembly. The Independents, it might be imagined, had even more reason to regard burial as a civil concern than marriage. This time, however, they were joined by some of the Presbyterians. Rutherford, for one, saw no more occasion for an act of worship at a man's leaving the wrold than at his entering it. The result of these protests was that only the briefest and simplest offices were permitted. Praying, singing and reading on the way to or at the grave are expressly prohibited. The Assembly, however, allowed the Minister to put the mourners 'in remembrance of their duty'. Lightfoot implies that the Assembly would allow more than this however. He maintains that Dr Temple, who moved that some such formula of intermen as 'We commit the body to the ground...' might be allowed, won the approval of the Assembly. Funeral sermons, according to Lightfoot, were also permitted by the Assembly. This suggestion was vehemently opposed by Baillie in the words: 'it is nothing but ane abuse of preaching to serve the humours of rich people only for a reward'. The Scottish feeling was so averse to funeral orations that they refused to attend Pym's funeral on account of thesermon that they knew would be preached on that occasion. The Puritans, it will be remembered, disapproved of the wearing of funeral garments. Their offices to the dead were equally unadorned.


The Worship of the English Puritans, Horton Davies, p.138-139.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 20, 2009)

Maybe this is too simple, but Christian marriage weddings often take place in a church and are intended to be a sacred ceremony (with vows and exhortation from God's Word). Presbyterians are particularly careful about who would presume to teach God's Word so those called as elders would ordinarily lead the ceremony also.

This is not necessarily true when non-Christians marry, and some people have separate civil and religious ceremonies.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 20, 2009)

Several of the references that I checked included such phrases as "preferably not on the Lord's day."

In our church we endeavor to avoid (wherever possible) to not schedule farewells, birthday celebrations, etc. on the Lord's day. Such diversions tend to draw our focus away from Him to whom the day belongs. Certainly, in keeping with works of necessity etc., there could arise a *necessity* for marrying a couple on the Lord's day (war, natural calamities, sickness, etc.) But where there is no necessity I believe we have an obligation to plan weddings on the other six days.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 20, 2009)

This post by Andrew may be of help to read previous discussions on this issue.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-21-5-22-wedding-worship-service-37457/#post465147


----------

