The bulk of matrimonial business in this period was concerned with marriage formation, including party and party suits over disputed marriage contracts and disciplinary prosecutions for irregular or ‘clandestine’ marriages. Historians have often been critical of the church courts' work in this sphere, on the grounds that the ecclesiastical law of marriage was complex, confusing and riddled with anomalies; but such judgements are largely unjust. It is true that the church's law on marriage formation did include complex and ambiguous elements; but it would be wrong to exaggerate their importance, and the canons of 1604 went some way towards clarifying matters. Moreover, study of what ecclesiastical lawyers actually did within the confines of existing law reveals that the courts worked fairly consistently to minimise popular uncertainties about marriage entry and to stress the necessity of the properly publicised solemnisation of marriage in church. At the same time, they carefully balanced the conflicting claims of individual and family interests in marriage, conforming with the widely accepted principle that the ideal union was based on the multilateral consent of all the parties involved. In this light the work of the courts appears eminently sensible and in accord with the values of the wider society.

Traditionally the most prominent type of matrimonial business was marriage contract litigation. Such cases were, at least in theory, of great social significance, since what was generally at issue was not mere breach of promise, but whether or not the couple was actually man and wife.