[138] The following is the form of the iuramentum de reconciliatione coniugatorum taken by Geffcken (op. cit., 79) from cc. 241, 242, of Regino's book: The man shall swear: "Ab isto die in antea istam tuam coniugem, nomine illam, quam iniuste dimiseras, ita tenebis, sicut per rectum maritus suam debet habere coniugem in dilectione et debita disciplina, nec eam per ullum malum ingenium a te separabis, nec ea vivente aliam accipies. Sic te Deus adiuvet." The oath of the woman runs: "A modo in antea istum tuum maritum, quem iniuste dimiseras, ita tenebis et amplexaberis, et ei in servitio, in amore et in timore ita eris subiecta et obediens, sicut per rectum uxor suo debet subiecta esse marito, nec unquam ab eo te separabis, nec illo vivente alteri viro te sociabis in coniugio aut adulterio. Sic te Deus adiuvet."
[139] See Wunderlich's excellent edition of Tancredi summa de matrimonio, especially 16 ff., on the impediments, and 70 ff., on causes of separation.
[140] Thus, for example, Gratian accounts for the liberty of divorce and remarriage accorded in the letter of Gregory II. (confusing him with Gregory I.) by assuming that it was in consequence of a papal dispensation in favor of the English (Decret. Grat., dictum to c. 18, C. XXXII, qu. 7), although elsewhere he more sensibly rejects Gregory's action as unorthodox. Peter Lombard makes no mention of Gregory's letter and with Gratian rejects as false the passage of pseudo-Ambrose allowing separation and remarriage for adultery (Esmein, op. cit., II, 76); while others get out of the difficulty through the gratuitous assumption that pseudo-Ambrose refers, not to simple adultery, but to a case of incest committed by a woman with a relative of her husband, affinitas superveniens. Gratian will not accept this explanation, on the ground that, according to the theory of affinitas superveniens, husband and wife are treated alike. Yet, with delicious inconsequence, he proceeds to explain why pseudo-Ambrose had given the man alone the right to remarry in case of the wife's adultery, without granting the woman the reciprocal privilege. In the text of Ambrose, he says, the words vir and mulier are not employed in their proper sense, but figuratively. Each is used for man irrespective of sex. Vir is from virtus, and means man as a strong being resisting temptation; mulier is from mollities (softness), and it is used to denote the weak-minded man guilty of sin (Dec. Grat., dictum to c. 18, C. XXXII, qu. 7. Cf. Esmein, op. cit., II, 76; Freisen, op. cit., 582, 805). Ivo of Chartres, bent on sustaining the rigid theory of indissolubility, cites cc. 5 and 9 of the decree of Verberie in its favor, deliberately suppressing the clauses allowing the man to remarry (see his Decretum, X, 169; VIII, 189; also his Panormia, VI, 91: Geffcken, op. cit., 82); and Gratian, by adopting Ivo's text for c. 9 instead of the original, gets around a similar difficulty (Freisen, op. cit., 803). Celestin III. and Urban III. allowed the faithful spouse divorce and remarriage when the other becomes an infidel or a heretic; but the later canonists evaded this authority by claiming that these popes spoke merely as "simple doctors" (Esmein, op. cit., II, 80).
On the wide use of "metaphor" in the history of the church see Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, II, 217; and especially his Hist. of European Morals, II, 326, 327, 356-58.
[141] For once at least we can almost pardon Milton for using strong language. Selden's work, Of the Law of Nature and of Nations, he holds more useful than anything which "pontifical clerks have doted on, ever since that unfortunate mother famously sinned thrice, and died impenitent of her bringing into the world those two misbegotten infants, and for ever infants, Lombard and Gratian, him the compiler of canon iniquity, the other the Tubalcain of scholastic sophistry, whose over-spreading barbarism hath not only infused their own bastardy upon the fruitfullest part of human learning, not only dissipated and dejected the clear light of nature in us, and of nations, but hath tainted also the fountains of divine doctrine, and rendered the pure and solid law of God unbeneficial to us by their calumnious dunceries."—"Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce," Prose Works, III, 269.
[142] Cf. especially Decretum Gratiani, cc. 1-24, causa xxxii, qu. 7: Richter-Friedberg, Corpus Juris Can., I; Peter Lombard, Sententiae, IV, D. xxvii ff.
[143] Esmein, op. cit., II, 79, 80. The early canonists are discussed by Geffcken, op. cit., 58-62, 75-82; Cigoi, Unauflösbarkeit, 93 ff.; but for the most minute examination of them all see Freisen, op. cit., 793-847; also the very clear account of Esmein, op. cit., II, 71 ff. On the formation of the canon law see Tissot, Le mariage, 111 ff.
[144] Esmein, op. cit., II, 73, 85-89, who gives a brief account of the evolution of the uses of the term divortium. Originally, among the canonists, there was but one kind of divorce, i. e., any judicial separation between man and wife, whether or not with the right to remarry. This led to confusion; and so the distinction between divorce a vinculo or quoad vinculum and a mensa et toro or quoad mensam et torum was differentiated. Beginning with Bernard of Pavia, the first compiler of the Decretals, the term divortium appears regularly as a rubric in the later collections of the canon law.
[145] For the exceptions see Esmein, op. cit., II, 91, 92; Freisen, op. cit., 833-36; Scheurl, Das gem. deut. Eherecht, 288, 289.
[146] More exactly speaking fornicatio spiritualis "as opposed to fornicatio carnalis," the first cause mentioned.
[147] Crimes against nature, idolatry, etc.: Esmein, op. cit., II, 90 n. 1.
[148] Such as forcing a spouse to idolatry or to some heinous crime. This case is regarded as an enlargement of the conception of fornicatio spiritualis: Esmein, op. cit., II, 90 n. 4, 92 nn. 8, 9. Cf. Freisen, op. cit., 836.
[149] Esmein, op. cit., II, 93, 94. Earlier divorce a mensa et thoro was not granted on this ground unless there was real danger to the life of one of the parties; but at last it was decided that nimia saevitia would suffice, but the term is not defined: idem, loc. cit. In general on this species of divorce see Freisen, op. cit., 830-47; Geary, Marriage and Family Relations, 238, 239, 350; Scheurl, Das gem. deut. Eherecht, 286-91.
[150] Decret. Grat., II, caus. xviii, qu. 2, C. 2; and Decretals IV, 19, de divortiis, c. 7: see Richter-Friedberg, Corpus juris can., I.
[151] This is Freisen's argument, op. cit., 825-27, 817 ff. See also Scheurl, Das gem. deut. Eherecht, 276-78. The canon law maintains the validity of a marriage between two infidels contracted before conversion. According to Peter Lombard, the believer may, indeed, put away his unconverted consort, but may not remarry. Only when the infidel is the active party, the Christian being the passive, is the latter released from the marriage bond: Sententiae, IV., D. 39, § G; Freisen, op. cit., 814. This privilege is much discussed in modern theological literature: see the references in Freisen, op. cit., 826 n. 27. In general compare Woolsey, Divorce, 74 ff., 125; Esmein, op. cit., I, 220-32; II, 268 ff., 307; Scheurl, op. cit., 276, 277.
[152] Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of Eng. Law, II, 391, 392: citing for the first case Tovey, Anglia Judaica, 84; Co. Lit., 31b, 32a; and for the second, Calend. Geneal., II, 563.
[153] So in India: Pollock and Maitland, op. cit., II, 391 n. 2: citing Maine's speech on the "Remarriage of Native Converts," in Memoir and Speeches and Minutes (London, 1892), 130. Cf. especially Esmein, op. cit., II, 268 ff., who discusses some of the "curious problems" growing out of this rule.
[154] For the evils arising in clandestine marriage de praesenti, the complexity of the law of forbidden degrees, and the conflicting jurisdiction of the temporal and spiritual courts, see chap. viii above.
[155] Freisen, op. cit., 826 ff., 212 ff., shows that the dispensatio summi pontificis a matrimonio rato nondum consummato originated with the reforms of Alexander III.; and argues rightly that these two kinds of dissolution—dispensation and orders—are in harmony with the rule of indissolubility according to the doctrine of Gratian, but not according to the existing theory. Thus, of the old eight causes which were sufficient of themselves to dissolve matrimonium initiatum—identical with the later sponsalia de praesenti—holy orders alone remains; the papal dispensation has taken the place of the other seven: ibid., 827, 829; cf. on these exceptions Scheurl, Das gem. deut. Eherecht, 278-86.
[156] See chaps. vii and viii, above.
[157] Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, II, 299 ff., conjectures that during the Middle Ages there must have been many irregular self-divorces; and he cites the famous case of William Paynel and Margaret his wife who, in 1302, "petitioned the king for the dower that was due to her as widow of her first husband John de Camoys," who with her consent had "openly and before witnesses 'given, granted, released, and quit-claimed' the said Margaret to 'her chivalric knight,'" the said William. The court refused the dower on the ground of desertion and adultery. Cf. on this case Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of Eng. Law, II, 393, 394.
[158] Jeaffreson, op. cit., II, 306-9.
[159] Pollock and Maitland, op. cit., II, 391 n. 1. Read the interesting remarks of Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, II, 193-96, who cites, as illustrative of the policy of the Roman church, the divorce case of Napoleon and Josephine. See also Law Review (English), I, 353-56.
[160] Before Innocent III., 1215, who reduced the number to four: Woolsey, Divorce, 121.
[161] Thwing, The Family, 83. Cf. Woolsey, op. cit., 118 ff.
[162] It is interesting to find Wolsey writing in Henry VIII.'s name "to remind her of the 'divine ordinance of inseparable matrimony first instituted in paradise,' protesting against 'the shameless sentence sent from Rome'": Tait, in Dict. of Nat. Biog., XXXVI, 155.
[163] Henry Stuart (Stewart) was made Lord Methven by Margaret's son, James V. She "attempted to get rid of that nobleman by a sentence of the ecclesiastical court, on the ground that before the marriage she had been (as the record expresses it) carnaliter cognita by her husband's fourth cousin, the earl of Angus."—Riddell, Scots' Peerage Law, 187; Law Review, I, 354. On Margaret's marriages and divorces compare Thwing, The Family, 83; Woolsey, Divorce, 169, who says she "got from Rome a separation from her second husband, the Earl of Angus, on the pretext of a pre-contract between him and another lady;" and especially the very accurate account of Tait, in Dict. of Nat. Biog., XXXVI, 150-57.
[164] Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, II, 310, who quotes the following verses entitled "A Poem on the Times of Edward II." from the Percy Society Publication:
[165] Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, II, 194. For other examples see Huth, Marriage of Near Kin, 118-20.
[166] 32 H. VIII., c. 38: Statutes at Large (London, 1763), II, 298.
The facility with which dispensations could be secured is illustrated by a Scotch case in 1426-28. On April 11, 1426, Pope Martin V. granted a dispensation to Alexander of Hume and Marion of Lander to marry, though of double fourth degree of consanguinity. Curiously enough, perhaps because this dispensation had not yet been received, on Oct. 6, 1427, Hume appeared before the rector sitting as judge and proposed that his marriage could not stand of right because of consanguinity. The marriage was therefore pronounced null and void, and the parties were given license to marry whom they pleased. On the fourth day of the following January Hume and his former wife presented a petition to the papal see, announcing that, aware of their consanguinity, they had contracted marriage per verba de praesenti and begotten children; that when their ordinary heard of the consanguinity he rightly celebrated a divorce, which they obeyed; but they feared scandal, and for this and other reasons they desired to be joined in marriage. The pope therefore granted another dispensation and declared their offspring legitimate: Hist. Manuscripts Commission, XII. Report, App. VIII, 122, 123. In another case, 1459, the earl of Rothes declares on oath that he had within the last year obtained certain knowledge of the impediment of consanguinity as set forth in his libel, and that formerly, for the space of thirteen years after birth of the last of his living children, he was altogether ignorant of it: ibid., IV. Report, 507.
[167] In general see Cigoi, Unauflösbarkeit, 149 ff.; Perrone, De mat. christ., III, 376 ff., 389 ff., 398 ff.; Godolphin, Repartorium canonicum, 61, 62, 492-512; Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique, II, 295 ff., 308 ff.; Schulte, Lehrbuch, 359-61; Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, II, 193, 196, 197; Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 216, 217; Scheurl, Das gem. deut. Eherecht, 275, 276, where the canons adopted at the twenty-fourth session are given.
[168] By the bishop of Barcelona, who proposed the word separatio for divorce quoad torum: Esmein, op. cit., II, 309. On the misleading names for the two kinds of separation see Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of Eng. Law, II, 392 n. 5. However, a "modern distinction of some Catholic writers between anullatio and separatio removes all ambiguity."—Woolsey, Divorce, 124.
[169] "viii. Si quis dixerit ... vel Ecclesiam errare, dum ob alias causas, praeter adulterium, facit divortium quoad thorum seu cohabitationem, ad tempus vel perpetuo: anathema sit."—Theiner, Acta, II, 313: Esmein, op. cit., II, 309 n. 1.
[170] Distinction is made between dispensatio super matrimonio, that is, for dissolving an unconsummate marriage; and dispensatio matrimonialis, that is, to remove an impediment which otherwise would invalidate a proposed contract. In all cases of dispensation careful judicial inquiry as to the grounds of application is made: Geary, Marriage and Family Relations, 510-14. Cf. Woolsey, op. cit., 122, 123; and especially the convenient manual of Pompen, De dispensationibus, 122-68. For a full discussion of the intricate law and custom as to dispensation see Esmein, op. cit., II, 315-68; Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 891-906; Scheurl, Das gem. deut. Eherecht, 281 ff. In the oriental church dispensation from the forbidden degrees is in general not allowed, Zhishman: Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche, 709-17.
[171] The writings of Luther, Milton, and other Reformation and Puritan writers abound in examples of such charges. "For no cause, honest or necessary," says Martin Bucer, "will they permit a final divorce: in the meanwhile, whoredoms and adulteries, and worse things than these, not only tolerating in themselves and others, but cherishing and throwing men headlong into these evils. For although they also disjoin married persons from board and bed, that is, from all conjugal society and communion, and this not only for adultery, but for ill usage, and matrimonial duties denied; yet they forbid those thus parted to join in wedlock with others: but, as I said before, any dishonest associating they permit."—"The Judgment of Martin Bucer," in Milton's Prose Works, III, 292.
[172] Goeschen, Doctrina de mat., 60; also Mejer, "Zur Geschichte des ält. prot. Eherechts," in ZKR., XVI, 47; Hubrich, Das Recht der Ehescheidung, 139 ff.
[173] Cf. Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique, II, 308, 309. Throughout his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, as elsewhere in his writings, Milton insists that a real marriage implies a full spiritual as well as conjugal companionship, with which the theory of separation without dissolution is inconsistent; and this is the common Puritan view.
[174] For example, see Milton's specious argument, following the allegorical method of some of the early theologians, to show the scope of the term "fornication" as used by Jesus and Moses: "Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce," Prose Works, III, 251-58, 394-401.
[175] See Milton's summary of their views: "Tetrachordon," loc. cit., 423-33.
[176] Richter, Beiträge zur Gesch. des Ehescheidungsrechts in der evang. Kirche, 11 ff., 15 ff., 56 ff.; idem, Kirchenrecht, 1177.
[177] Adultery and desertion are the only grounds of full divorce recognized by Brenz, Wie yn Ehesachen ... zu Handeln, in Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 152-57, and idem, Corpus juris mat., 183 ff.; with which may be compared the passages from the writings of Brenz quoted by Richter, Beiträge, 19-23; Bugenhagen, Vom Ehebruch und Weglauffen: in Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 138-51; or Corpus juris mat., 171-84; Chemnitz, Examen conc. trid., II, 430; Calvin, in Richter, op. cit., 25, 26; Beza, Tract. de repud. et divort. (Geneva, 1569), 228 ff., 275 ff.; Kling, Tract. mat. causarum (Frankfort, 1577), 89 ff.; Beust, Tract. de jure connub.; idem, Tract. de spons. et mat., 147 ff.; Schneidewin, Com. in inst.; idem, De nupt., lib. primi com. (Jena, 1585), §§ 7 ff.
These and other writers are discussed by Richter, Kirchenrecht, 1175 ff.; idem, Beiträge, 15 ff.; Mejer, Zum Kirchenrechte der Reformat., 147 ff.; Hauber, Ehescheid. im Reformat., II, 209 ff. In general, compare Greve, Ehescheidung, 225 ff.; Popp, Ehescheidung, 80 ff.; Strippelmann, Das Ehescheidungsrecht, 54 ff., 128 ff.; Stölzel, Ehescheidungsrecht, 9 ff.; Glasson, Le mar. civ. et le divorce, 224, 225, 329, 330; Scheurl, Das gem. deut. Eherecht, 291 ff.; Buchka, Das meckl. Ehescheidungsrecht, 20 ff.; Hubrich, Das Recht der Ehescheidung, 43 ff.; Friedberg, Lehrbuch, 366-78; idem, "Beiträge," ZKR., VII, 56-127; and Schulte, Lehrbuch, 414-28.
[178] Chemnitz, Examen conc. trid. (Frankfort, 1615), II, 430 says: "We have, then, two cases in Scripture where the bond of matrimony is dissolved—not as by men, but by God himself. 1. On account of adultery a man lawfully, rightfully, and without sin, can repudiate his wife." 2. Desertion of the believer by the unbeliever, according to 1 Cor., 7. Cf. Woolsey, Divorce, 131; Richter, Beiträge, 27, 28. On the adoption of these two general causes at the Reformation see Hubrich, Das Recht der Ehescheidung, 44 ff.
[179] 1 Cor. 7:15.
[180] As early as 1520 in his Von dem bab. Gefängniss der Kirche (Strampff, 349, 350, 381, 382) Luther admits the two grounds of divorce, adultery and desertion; the latter when either spouse abandons the other "über zehen Jahr oder nimmer wiederkommen." Two years later, in his Vom ehelichen Leben, he appears to regard refusal of conjugal duty as equivalent to desertion. "We may find an obstinate woman," he says, "who stiffens her neck, and if her husband should fall ten times into unchastity, cares nothing about it. Here it is time for a man to say, 'if you won't, another can be found that will. If the wife will not, let the maid come.' Yet let it be so that the husband give her two or three warnings beforehand, and let the matter come before other people, so that her obstinacy may be known and rebuked before the congregation. If she will not, let her be gone, and procure an Esther for yourself and let Vashti be off, as Ahasuerus did."—As rendered by Woolsey, Divorce, 130, 131. For the original see Strampff, 350, 351, 394, 395; Luther's Kleinere Schriften, II, 26-31; and Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 137, 138. Cf. Richter, Beiträge, 16; Scheurl, Das gem. deut. Eherecht, 300 ff. In Luther's Von Ehesachen (1530) the refusal of conjugal duty is not mentioned; but it is doubtless included under malicious desertion; and besides in 1531 he commends the book of Brenz in which this position is taken. Cf. Richter, op. cit., 18, 19; Strampff, 394. In the Tischreden flight on account of theft is regarded as desertion: Richter, loc. cit. On the use made of "definition" by the Protestants see Hubrich, Das Recht der Ehescheidung, 51.
[181] Quasi malitiosa desertio comprehends not only refusal of conjugal duty, but also applies to the case of a defendant who abandoned a consort, but who does not necessarily, as in malicious desertion, remain in a place unknown or one beyond the reach of judicial process: Strippelmann, Ehescheidungsrecht, 146 ff. Cf. Dietrich, Evang. Ehescheidungsrecht, 25 ff.; Hubrich, Das Recht der Ehescheidung, 80, 88 ff. See especially Luther, Vom ehel. Leben; Strampff, 394, 395, who says the "weltliche Ubirkeit das Weib zwingen oder umbbringen" soll.
[182] Luther does not allow absolute divorce on account of anger or incompatibility, insidiae, or attempts upon life, exile, sickness, incurable disease, misfortune to an innocent spouse, or similar grounds: see his Von Ehesachen, in Strampff, 398, 399; Vom ehel. Leben: ibid., 400; Predigt von dem Ehestande (1525): ibid., 400; and Auslegung des 17. Cap. 1 Cor. (1523): ibid., 397, 398, where only temporary separation is allowed, unless one of the parties refuses reconciliation and the other "kunnt nicht halten;" but in this case the "separation has the refusal of conjugal duty as a consequence, or it has become malicious desertion": Strampff, 396, 351, 352, 382 ff. Cf. Brenz, Wie yn Ehesachen ... zu Handeln: in Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 155 ff.; Dietrich, Evang. Ehescheidungsrecht, 31 ff.; Hauber, Ehescheid. im Reformat., II, 242 ff.
[183] Richter, Beiträge, 14, who points out that, through reaction against the papal system the theologians for the most part were in favor of the Roman law, while the majority of the jurists were opposed to it. The Protestant leaders are thus divided on the question whether the canon law should be accepted as binding: Hubrich, Das Recht der Ehescheidung, 45. On the admission of other grounds of divorce see Strippelmann, Ehescheidungsrecht, 151 ff.; Schulte, Lehrbuch, 416.
[184] Erasmus, Annot. in Nov. Test. (Basel, 1515); quoted by Richter, Beiträge, 8-10.
[185] Richter, op. cit., 6 ff.; Bullinger, Der christ. Ehestand (ed. 1579), lf. 102.
[186] Woolsey, Divorce, 132; also Thwing, The Family, 84. For the ordinance see Richter, op. cit., 6, 7. Similar causes are approved by Bullinger, Der christ. Ehestand, 102, appealing to the laws of the "holy Constantine, Theodosius, Valentinian, Anastasius, and Justinian."
[187] Lambert of Avignon, De sacro conjugio (Strassburg, 1524): cited by Richter, op. cit., 31, 32.
[188] See his De regno Christi (1557), II, 25 ff.; and the elaborate dissertation entitled Etlicher gelerten Theologi bedencken von der Ehescheidung: in Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 161 ff.; also ibid., Corpus juris mat., 196 ff., which Richter, op. cit., 34 ff., ascribes to Bucer; though Mejer, Zum Kirchenrecht, 183, doubts the correctness of this view. On Bucer's doctrines see the discussion of Milton below.
[189] Melanchthon, "De conjugio," Opera Omnia (Erlangen, 1828), I, pars II, 236 ff.; or in Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 159 ff.; or ibid., Corpus juris mat., 190 ff. Cf. also Richter, Beiträge, 32-34; and especially Mejer, Zum Kirchenrecht, 179-82, who compares the view of Melanchthon with that of Luther, showing that the former goes back to the Theodosian code.
[190] Monner, Tract. de mat. et clandes. conjugiis (Jena, 1561): ap. Richter, Beiträge, 40, 41. Representatives of the more liberal tendency in the sixteenth century are Chyträus, Hunnius, Wigand, Osiander, and the Danish theologian Hemming: Richter, op. cit., 42, 43, 28.
[191] Of course, after regular process was somewhat developed, as will presently be shown, the toleramus or permission of the magistrate concluding the decree was requisite to the remarriage even of the innocent person.
[192] The Renovatio ecc. Nord. (1525): Richter, Kirchenordnungen, I, 20, tolerates the second marriage of a person whose spouse has committed adultery. The Prussian Landesordnung of the same year expressly sanctions the divorce and remarriage of the injured spouse whose partner has committed the same offense: Richter, op. cit., I, 32. In 1531 the church ordinance of Goslar and that of Lübeck, drafted by Bugenhagen, recognize malicious desertion as a second ground for dissolving wedlock: Richter, op. cit., I, 156, 148; and a similar provision appears in the Pommer ordinance of 1535, also drafted by Bugenhagen: Richter, op. cit., 250. Compare Schulte, Lehrbuch, 414-28, who gives an account of the provisions of the many ordinances regarding divorce and remarriage.
[193] "Wenn der Ehebruch bey dem halse gestraffet würde, so bedürffte man hie nicht viel fragens": Bugenhagen, Vom Ehebruch und Weglauffen: in Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 138.
[194] Richter, op. cit., 31, 45; citing Lambert of Avignon, De sacra conjugio, who recommends excommunication in case the magistrate does not execute the criminal.
[195] On Beust, Beza, and Brenz see Richter, op. cit., 45, 46. Compare Beust, Tract. de spons. et mat., 140, where he declares that the penalty for adultery is death; and Brenz, Wie yn Ehesachen ... zu Handeln: in Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 152, where he leaves the offender to the temporal magistrate, urging rigorous punishment; and in cases of negligence advising excommunication by the parish priest.
[196] Melanchthon, "De conjugio," Opera Omnia, I, pars II, 238: "Respondeo: magistratus politicus adulteria punire debet: ideo persona condemnata, si non punitur durius, pellenda est ex iis locis, ubi vivit persona innocens: cui altera, videlicet condemnata, velut mortua existimanda est; et haec severitas ad politicum magistratum pertinet."
[197] Woolsey, Divorce, 138, 139. See Luther, Vom ehel. Leben: in Strampff, 363, 364; or in Sarcerius, op. cit., 137. On Calvin see Strippelmann, Ehescheidungsrecht, 69, 70. The same view is expressed by Hooper, Early Writings, 383; and by Bucer: Milton's Prose Works, III, 299.
[198] Richter, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts.
In many Protestant lands these ecclesiastical statutes or provisions, with the sanction of the civil authority, took the place of the old canon law. For a discussion of their contents see especially the monographs of Goeschen, Doctrina de mat., 59 ff.; idem, in Herzog's Encyclopädie, III, 702 ff.; Dietrich, Evang. Ehescheidungsrecht; and compare Hauber, Ehescheid. im Reformat., II, 219 ff.; Richter, Beiträge, 51 ff.; idem, Kirchenrecht, 1177, 1178; Strippelmann, Das Ehescheidungsrecht, 78 ff.; Greve, Ehescheidung, 298 ff.; Thwing, The Family, 84, 85; Woolsey, Divorce, 136-38.
[199] For example, by the Renovatio ecc. nord. (1525): Richter, Kirchenordnungen, I, 20; the Würtemberg ordinance of 1537: ibid., I, 280; the ordinance of the "Niederländer in London": ibid., II, 115; that of the foreign "Gemeinde zu Frankfurt": ibid., 157.
[200] Goeschen, Doctrina de mat., 61, 62, notes.
[201] As by the Prussian ordinance of 1584: Richter, op. cit., II, 468.