[Footnote 593: ADAMS, _op. cit._, 26 ff. The following scarce works are in the Harvard library: JONATHAN EDWARDS, _Thoughts concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England_ (London, 1745); CHAUNCEY, _A Letter from a Gentleman to Mr. George Wishart ... concerning the State of Religion in New England_ (Edinburgh, 1742), criticising Tennant and Whitefield; _The State of Religion in New England_ (Glasgow, 1742); and especially the _Letter from New England_ (1742), 4, describing the symptoms of "conversion."]
[Footnote 595: The church confessions of married couples and single persons continued long after confession ceased to be made in court. In Groton the "seven months rule" was put in force in 1765 and not abrogated until 1803. Under its operation "the records of the Groton church show that out of two hundred persons owning the baptismal covenant in that church during the fourteen years between 1761 and 1775 no less than sixty-six confessed to fornication before marriage. The entries recording these cases are very singular. At first the full name of the person, or persons in the case of husband and wife, is written, followed by the words 'confessed and restored' in full. Somewhat later, about the year 1763, the record becomes regularly 'Confessed Fornication' which two years later is reduced to 'Con. For.;' which is subsequently still further abbreviated into merely 'C. F.' During the three years 1789, 1790, and 1791 sixteen couples were admitted to full communion; and of these nine had the letters 'C. F.' inscribed after their names in the church records." The practice existed at Dedham, Roxbury, and probably throughout Massachusetts: ADAMS, _op. cit._, 20-23, citing BUTLER, _History of Groton_, 174, 178, 181; WORTHINGTON, _History of Dedham_, 108, 109; and _Report of Boston Record Commission_, vi, 93, _passim_.]
[Footnote 596: ADAMS, _op. cit._, 31 ff., 34. JUDD, _History of Hadley_ (Northampton, 1863), 247, note, mentions Jonathan Edwards's sermon against bundling.]
Finally it is not without interest to note that the higher legal significance of the "contraction," as compared with that of the English _sponsalia_, is due mainly to the influence of the Jewish law. The code of Moses mentions no fixed ceremonies for concluding marriage.[597] But precisely the same relation as by the Puritans is fixed between marriage and betrothal. For criminal assault upon the betrothed "damsel that is a virgin" and for adultery the death penalty is prescribed.[598] Later, however, the rabbinical law establishes "certain legal formalities for the act of concluding marriage. The act consisted of two distinct parts, intervened by the lapse of a certain time, the betrothment and the nuptials."[599] To constitute a legal betrothment the mere consent of the parties did not suffice. The performance of a solemn act was required. This consisted in the man's giving to his chosen bride in the presence of two witnesses either a written instrument, _sh'tar_, or a piece of money, _kaseph_, and saying: "Be thou consecrated (wedded) to me."[600] The contract thus made is not a "mere promise to marry," with civil consequences for non-fulfilment. "It is the very initiation of marriage. The betrothed parties are in some respects regarded as married, though not yet entitled to the marital rights nor bound to fulfil any of the mutual duties of conjugal life.... The betrothment could be dissolved only through death or a formal bill of divorce."[601]