Chapter 31

[1224]Friedberg,op. cit., 160-75.

[1225]Ibid., 166. SeeTyndale,Answer to More, 29 n. 4: "More saith in hisConf.(p. ccliiii), 'Syth the marriage (of a priest) is no marriage, it is but whoredom itself. And I am sure also that it defileth the priest more than double and treble whoredom.'" Tyndale accuses the pope of opposing God's law in denying marriage to priests and by dispensations licensing concubinage for money, "as through Dutchland every priest, paying a gildren unto the archdeacon, shall freely and quietly have his whore, ... as they do in Wales, in Ireland, Scotland, France, and Spain;" and in "England, thereto, they be not few which have" such licenses. When the parishes go to law to make them put away their concubines, "the bishop's officers mock them, poll them, and make them spend their thrifts and the priests keep their whores still."—Ibid., 40, 41 n. 4, and the documents there quoted.Cf.Coverdale,Remains, 484;Tyndale,Doc. Treatise, 232;Hutchinson,Works, 202; and especiallyJewell'scontroversy with Harding in "Defence of the Apology,"Works, IV, 629 ff., 640 ff. On the prevalence of concubinage in England during the Middle Ages seeStubbs,Const. Hist., III, 372;Makower,Const. Hist. Eng. Church, 217-20, notes, who declares that from the close of the twelfth century onward a priest was punished less severely for fornication than for marrying. "Loss of office is the penalty only for a breach of the prohibition to marry," not for fornication, unless very notorious:op. cit., 217. CompareJohnson,Canons, II, 26, 33, 40, 80, 81, 114, 132; and 2 and 3 Ed. VI.:Gee and Hardy,Documents, 367, for complaints of this evil. See the literature on the evils of celibacy cited in chap. viii.

[1226]Friedberg,Eheschliessung, 166. For Germany compareKawerau,Die Reformation und die Ehe, 1-40.

[1227]Luther, "Bedenken und Unterricht von den Klöstern" (1522),Kleinere Schriften, II, 45-73;idem,An die herrn deutschs Ordens(1523); andBugenhagen,De conjugio episcoporum et diaconorum(1525).

[1228]Friedberg,op. cit., 175.

[1229]Friedberg,Eheschliessung, 173, 175. He finds traces of the idea of a Christian state in the writings of Huss and Tauler:ibid., 173 n. 8.

[1230]For example seeBullinger,Der christ. Ehestand, lvs. 3 ff.;Melanchthon, "De conjugio,"Opera, I, pars ii, 221, 222;Mentzer,De conjugio tr., 1 ff.;Forster,De nuptiis, 1 ff.;Sarcerius,Vom heil. Ehestande, foll. 1-12;idem,Corpus juris mat., foll. 1-11. Compare the sentiments ofErasmus,De matrimonio christiano, 2 ff.,passim.

[1231]Richter,Beiträge zur Gesch. des Ehescheidungsrechts, 46 ff.;Forster,De nuptiis, 44.

[1232]See the "Bedencken" and the other documents in the case inArcuarius,Betrachtung, 210 ff., 220 ff. ConsultGottlieb Warmund(Johann Lyser?),Gewissenhaffte Gedancken vom Ehestande, first six pages; and the literature mentioned in Bibliographical Note IX.

[1233]Scheurl, "Zur Lehre von dem Ehehindernisse der Verwandtschaft,"ZKR., XVI, 1-34, giving a clear account of the Protestant doctrine and its relation to the canon law. Compare hisDas gemeine deutsche Eherecht, 183 ff., 195 ff.For Luther's views on impediments, including the forbidden degrees, consult the collection of writings inStrampff, 215 ff., 228 ff.; and compareErasmus,De mat. christ., 94 ff., 100 ff.;Melanchthon, "De conjugio,"Opera, I, pars ii, 223 ff.;idem, "De arbore consang.," inSarcerius,Vom heil. Ehestande, foll. 12 ff.;Bullinger,Der christ. Ehestand, lvs. 16 ff.; or the same inSarcerius,op. cit., foll. 44 ff.;Schneidewin,De nuptiis, tit. x, "De arbore affinitas," secs. 1-23;Beust,Tr. de spons. et mat., 23, 24, 225 ff.;Kling,Tr. mat. caus., 43-58;Bidembach,De causis mat. tr., 37 ff.;Mentzer,De conjugio tr., 60 ff., 70 ff.;Brouwer,De jure connub., 435 ff., 444 ff., 461 ff.

For Luther's views on impediments, including the forbidden degrees, consult the collection of writings inStrampff, 215 ff., 228 ff.; and compareErasmus,De mat. christ., 94 ff., 100 ff.;Melanchthon, "De conjugio,"Opera, I, pars ii, 223 ff.;idem, "De arbore consang.," inSarcerius,Vom heil. Ehestande, foll. 12 ff.;Bullinger,Der christ. Ehestand, lvs. 16 ff.; or the same inSarcerius,op. cit., foll. 44 ff.;Schneidewin,De nuptiis, tit. x, "De arbore affinitas," secs. 1-23;Beust,Tr. de spons. et mat., 23, 24, 225 ff.;Kling,Tr. mat. caus., 43-58;Bidembach,De causis mat. tr., 37 ff.;Mentzer,De conjugio tr., 60 ff., 70 ff.;Brouwer,De jure connub., 435 ff., 444 ff., 461 ff.

[1234]See the Dresden resolutions of 1653 inSchleusner, "Zu den Anfängen protest. Eherechts,"ZKG., VI, 411, 412; also inMejer, "Zur Gesch. des ält. protest. Eherechts,"ZKR., XVI, 36, 37;idem,Zum Kirchenrecht, 147-71.

[1235]Richter,Lehrbuch, 1089;Friedberg,Lehrbuch, 296-336;idem, "Beiträge zur Geschichte des brand.-preuss. Eherechts,"ZKR., VI, 90-135, particularly 129 ff.;idem, "Aus der protest. Eherechtspflege des 16. Jahrh.,"ibid., IV, 304-49, discussing the case of Zaschwitz and communicating important documents of Melanchthon which disclose his liberal views regarding affinity. The church ordinances regarding impediments are analyzed byGoeschen,Doctrina de mat., 9 ff., 30 ff. Compare his article "Ehe," inHerzog'sEncyclopaedie, III, 674-80.

[1236]Luther, however, was more tolerant, refusing to accept difference of religion as a proper hindrance to marriage: see the passages collected byStrampff, 282, 283. On the other hand,Melanchthon, "De conjugio,"Opera, I, pars ii, 235, 236, disapproved of such unions. CompareErasmus,De mat. christ., 108, 109. The law was gradually relaxed, especially in favor of intermarriage with Jews, and it is now abrogated under the imperial legislation:Richter,Lehrbuch, 1110, 1111;Scheurl,Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht, 218, 219;idem,Kirchenrecht. Abhandlungen, 521;Friedberg and Wasserschleben, "Zwei Gutachten,"ZKG., IX.

[1237]Thus, according toDes Herzogthums Wirtemberg erneuerte Ehe- und Ehe-Gerichts-Ordnung(1687), 96-99, mixed marriages are not absolutely prohibited; but the parties are to be "dehortirt;" the peril to their souls is to be pointed out; a special order procured for the nuptials; while the evangelical party is to be admonished to have the marriage celebrated in some evangelical place abroad, to frequent the orthodox services and sacraments, and to have the future children brought up in the orthodox religion.

[1238]Scheurl,Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht, 219-21;Richter,Lehrbuch, 1201 ff., 1207 ff., especially nn. 28, 30, 32, 45;Schott,Einleit. in das Eherecht, 123, 124.In general for the controversy regarding mixed marriages see the literature described in Bibliographical Note IX.

[1238]Scheurl,Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht, 219-21;Richter,Lehrbuch, 1201 ff., 1207 ff., especially nn. 28, 30, 32, 45;Schott,Einleit. in das Eherecht, 123, 124.

In general for the controversy regarding mixed marriages see the literature described in Bibliographical Note IX.

[1239]In Germany, at the Reformation, matrimonial jurisdiction fell partly into the hands of the parish clergy, partly into the hands of secular judges. The former in their decisions followed mainly the Roman law and the scriptural teachings under the guidance of Luther and other great theologians; while the lay judges were guided by thecorpus juris canonici. Confusion arose; the law was carelessly and ignorantly administered; and so a demand was made for special courts for matrimonial questions. This resulted, generally, in the relegation of matrimonial causes to the newly created consistories, composed partly of spiritual and partly of temporal judges, who in practice followed the principles of the canon law and constituted in fact ecclesiastical courts. Compare the very interesting decisions of the consistory court of Wittenberg, already quoted, beginning soon after its formation, inSchleusner,Anfänge des prot. Eherechts, 130-62. It can scarcely be said that the evils of matrimonial law and administration in Germany were very much lessened as a result of the Reformation during the first two centuries after Luther. See the minute investigation ofFriedberg,Eheschliessung, 177 ff., 186 ff.; and hisGeschichte der Civilehe. Compare the discussion of the rise of matrimonial jurisdiction in chap. xi.

[1240]See theWorks of the Fathers and Early Writers of the Reformed English Church, published by the Parker Society in a long series of volumes. There is an excellent index, six columns of which are devoted to "marriage."

[1241]Matrimony is no sacrament, except in the general sense of "mystery":Cranmer,Misc. Writings, 115, 116;Tyndale,Doctrinal Treatises, I, 254;idem,Answer to More, 175;Calfhill,An Answer to John Martiall's Treatise of the Cross, 235 ff.;Rogers,The Catholic Doc. of the Church of England, an Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, 260 ff.;Fulke,Answer, 229, 243;idem,Defence against Gregory Martin, 168, 492-96;Jewell,Works, II, 1125;Whitaker,Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, 197, 489.

[1242]Friedberg,Eheschliessung, 309 n. 1. "Henry the VIII. stood so far upon the ground of the canonical doctrine that before and after his breach with Leo X. he declared marriage to be a sacrament."—Ibid.

[1243]Fulke,Defence against Gregory Martin, 492.

[1244]Tyndale,Answer to More, 175.

[1245]Jewell,Works, II, 1128;Latimer,Sermons and Remains, 161, 162;Hutchinson,Works, 148;Becon,Prayers, 27, 611;Bullinger,Decades, I, 394, 397;Bradford,Writings, I, 167;Tyndale,Doctrinal Treatises, 254.

[1246]Bullinger,Decades, I, 397;Philpot,Examinations and Writings, 246;Sandys,Sermons, 317, 313-30 (marriage in general);Tyndale,Doc. Treatises, 254;idem,Answer to More, 153, 154.

[1247]Calfhill,Answer, 238-41;Bullinger,Decades, I, 394, 396;Hooper,Early Writings, 375;idem,Later Writings, 55;Jewell,Works, I, 158; II, 1128; IV, 803;Latimer,Sermons, I, 366, 393;idem,Sermons and Remains, 160, 162;Sandys,Sermons, 313, 314;Tyndale,Expositions, 125.

[1248]Authorized by 2 and 3 Ed. VI., c. 21, 1549, which was confirmed in 1552:Cranmer,Misc. Writings, p. x;Latimer,Sermons, 529 n. 3;Zürich Letters, II, 159;Statutes at Large, II, 283, 305, 306.

[1249]Latimer,Sermons and Remains, 77, 162;Hooper,Early Writings, 375;idem,Later Writings, 55, 56, 126;Bullinger,Decades, IV, 509.Cf.Rogers,Thirty-Nine Articles, 302-7;Becon,Prayers, 235 ff.;Coverdale,Remains, 483-85;Pilkington,Works, 564;Tyndale,Expositions, 29, 151, 155, 156;idem,Doc. Treatises, 230;Jewell,Works, II, 882; III, 406;Cranmer,Misc. Writings, 393 n. 5, also pp. viii, x. For many other references see the Index to the Parker SocietyPublications, at "Marriage of Clergy."

[1250]Makower,Const. Hist. Eng. Church, 220-24, gives an excellent discussion, with quotations from the sources, of the laws relating to the marriage of priests from Henry VIII. to James I.

[1251]Wilkins,Concilia, I, 776. CompareMakower,op. cit., 220 n. 17.

[1252]There were "similar proclamations of 16th November, 1538 (Strype,Cranmer, ed. 1812, I, 98) and of 1539 (Wilkins, III, 847). The proclamations had the force of law, as can be seen from 31 Hen. VIII. (1539), c. 8."—Makower,op. cit., 221, note.Cf.Statutes at Large, II, 143.

[1253]This statute (31 Hen. VIII., c. 14) may be found inGee and Hardy,Documents, 303-19; an abstract inMakower,op. cit., 221 n. 19; and a summary inStatutes at Large, II, 149. Compare the comments on the act as showing matrimony "to have been a more grievous offence than concubinage," inNew Monthly Review, XXIX (1763), 270.

[1254]By 32 Hen. VIII., c. x:Makower,op. cit., 221 n. 20.

[1255]By 1 Ed. VI., c. 12 (1547):Statutes at Large, II, 256.

[1256]Makower,op. cit., 222;ap.Wilkins,Concilia, IV, 16.Cf.Gee and Hardy,Documents, 366.

[1257]Ibid., 367:Statutes at Large, II, 283. On the debates and controversial writings connected with this act seeBurnet,Hist. of Reformation, I, 354-58. By the Injunctions of 1548, in the visitations inquiry is to be made whether any "do condemn married priests, and for that they be married will not receive the communion or other sacraments at their hands."—Cardwell,Doc. Annals, I, 51.

[1258]Summary of the statute byMakower,op. cit., 222.Cf.Statutes at Large, II, 305;Burnet,Hist. of Reformation, I, 432.

[1259]See the "Articles of Queen Mary, 4th March, 1553," inCardwell,Doc. Ann., I, 112, 113; alsoMakower,op. cit., 222 n. 26. Such married priests, "after deprivation of their benefice, or ecclesiastical promotion," are to "be also divorced every one from his said woman, and due punishment otherwise taken for the offence therein." But the bishops are to "use more lenity and clemency with such as have married, whose wives be dead, than with others whose women do yet remain alive;" as also with those who, with their wife's consent, in the bishop's presence, promise to "abstain."Cf.Burnet,Hist. of Reformation, I, 490, who says "many were set to write against the marriage of the clergy."

[1260]See 1 Mary, stat. 2, c. 2, 1553:Gee and Hardy,Documents, 377-80.

[1261]Parker'sCorrespondence, 66.

[1262]Ibid.(Cecil to Parker, Aug. 12, 1561), 148. Parker replies: "I was in an horror to hear such words to come from her mild nature and christianly learned conscience, as she spoke concerning God's holy ordinance and institution of matrimony;" and he complains that she holds that the English clergy "alone of our time" are "openly brought in hatred, shamed and traduced before the malicious and ignorant people, as beasts without knowledge to Godward, in using this liberty of his word, as men of effrenate intemperancy.... Insomuch that the Queen's Highness expressed to me a repentance that we were thus appointed in office, wishing it had been otherwise."—Correspondence, 156, 157. Marriage of priests was defended byCox,ibid., 151.

[1263]Gee and Hardy,Documents, 431, 432;Prothero,Statutes and Documents, 184 ff.;Cardwell,Doc. Ann., I, 192, 193;Makower,op. cit., 223 n. 27;Burnet,Hist. of Reformation, I, 577. These regulations of marriage are mentioned byPercival WiburninZürich Letters, II, 359.Cf.ibid., II, 61 n. 129; I, 164, 179, 358. Compare the hostile "Articles of Visitation" of Bishop Bonner, 1554:Cardwell,op. cit., I, 125, 126; and compareibid., 153, 171, 172.

[1264]Makower,op. cit., 223 n. 28;Cardwell,Doc. Ann., I, 273.

[1265]See the extract from the thirty-second article inMakower,op. cit., 223 n. 29.

[1266]Makower,op. cit., 223, 71. TheMillenary Petitionis inGee and Hardy,Documents, 508-11;Prothero,Statutes and Documents, 413-16; according to Makower, inPerry,Hist. Eng. Church, II, 372, c. 22, notes and illustrations;Collier,Eccles. Hist., ed. 1852, VII, 273.

[1267]By 1 James I., c. 25, sec. 8:Prothero,Statutes and Documents, 255;Statutes at Large, II, 640.Cf.Makower,op. cit., 224.

[1268]"But when thou livest godly and honestly in single life, it is well and allowable afore God; yea, and better than marriage."—Latimer,Sermons, 393, 394.Cf.Fulke,Answers, 228, 383;idem,Defence, 492;Hutchinson,Works, 148; see alsoCartwright, inWhitgift'sWorks, III, 293. But see the curious passage inTyndale'sDoctrinal Treatises, 21, which should be compared with his argument against the doctrine that "widowhood and virginity exceed matrimony,"ibid., 313-15.

[1269]Bradford,Writings, I, 167.

[1270]Bullingerquotes in favor of marriage the views ofAntipater,In sermone de nuptiis, andHierocles,De nuptiis.

[1271]Bullinger,Decades, I, 394-410. The three reasons are also given bySandys,Sermons, 316 ff.; andJames I., "Basilikon Doron,"Workes(London, 1616), 171. On marriage as a "remedy"cf.alsoCranmer,Misc. Writings, 115, 116;Tyndale,Expositions, 125;Hooper,Early Writings, 381;Becon,Catechism, 103.

[1272]Friedberg,Eheschliessung, 192.

[1273]For the trothplights and clandestine contracts seeFurnivall,Child-Marriages, xliii-liii, lxii, lxiii, 56-71, 140, 141, 184-202.Chamberlain,The Child and Childhood in Folk-Thought, 224-33, has made good use of Furnivall's collection.

[1274]Furnivall,op. cit., xliii.

[1275]Ibid., 140, 141. Further light is thrown on the secret marriages by the cases of adultery and affiliation:ibid., 72-102, 202-204.

[1276]Ibid., xv-xliii, 1-55, 183, 184. In addition to these Chester casesFurnivall(xxi-xliii) presents very interesting material regarding child-marriages, some of which were before or after the age of Elizabeth. Two cases under Henry VII. and Henry VIII., respectively, are mentioned inReports of the Hist. Manuscripts Commission, III, 247. Sometimes such marriages were secured by abduction or conspiracy: seeibid., III, 55, 59, 61 (three cases in the reign of James I.).

[1277]Furnivall,op. cit., 25, 28.

[1278]In the light of these facts, some of the discussions of child-marriages in India, often intolerant or condescending, have a very curious interest; compare the sensible and instructive paper ofRees, "Meddling with Hindu Marriages,"Nineteenth Century, Oct., 1890, 660-76.

[1279]Furnivall,op. cit., "Forewords," xv, xvi.According toSwinburne,Of Spousals, 18 ff., both by civil and canon law, children are infants until they have completed the seventh year; and "Spousals contracted during Infancy are utterlyvoid, whether the Infants themselves, or their Parents for them, do make the Contract." After the close of that period such void contracts may be ratified by express words or by deeds. On the other hand, spousals contracted between infancy and the "ripe" years of twelve or fourteen are voidable by either spouse when that age is reached. To express dissent divorce proceedings are not necessary, although a divorce may be desirable to prevent future question. Either party may cancel the contract by simply marrying another person; just as a child-marriage may be ratified by words of consent or by simply living together as husband and wife: compareFurnivall,op. cit., xix-xxv; andThe Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights, 7, 52, 57.

[1279]Furnivall,op. cit., "Forewords," xv, xvi.

According toSwinburne,Of Spousals, 18 ff., both by civil and canon law, children are infants until they have completed the seventh year; and "Spousals contracted during Infancy are utterlyvoid, whether the Infants themselves, or their Parents for them, do make the Contract." After the close of that period such void contracts may be ratified by express words or by deeds. On the other hand, spousals contracted between infancy and the "ripe" years of twelve or fourteen are voidable by either spouse when that age is reached. To express dissent divorce proceedings are not necessary, although a divorce may be desirable to prevent future question. Either party may cancel the contract by simply marrying another person; just as a child-marriage may be ratified by words of consent or by simply living together as husband and wife: compareFurnivall,op. cit., xix-xxv; andThe Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights, 7, 52, 57.

[1280]Friedberg,Eheschliessung, 324;Weber,Geschichte d. akathol. Kirchen und Secten von Grossbrittanien(Leipzig, 1845), I, 1, 106 ff.;Richter,Geschichte der deutschen Kirchenverfass.(Leipzig, 1851), 175 ff.

[1281]Cf.Friedberg,Geschichte der Civilehe, 12;idem,Eheschliessung, 322-25;Ranke,Hist. Eng. in 17th Century, III, 89;Blackstone,Commentaries, I, 440.

[1282]By this act the civil-marriage form was permitted, but not made obligatory. Members of the established church might solemnize their marriages before their own clergy; but the Lutherans and Catholics were not allowed a similar liberty; they must put up with the lay ceremony or accept the offices of a Reformed minister. This law remained in force until 1795, when, under the Batavian Republic, obligatory civil marriage was instituted, which is still in force in the kingdom of Holland by the statutes of 1833: seeFriedberg,Geschichte der Civilehe, 10-12; and his more elaborate treatment of civil marriage in Holland,Eheschliessung, 478-99.

[1283]Sir William Brereton, who visited the Netherlands in 1634-35, gives an interesting notice of the religious wedding service. "Marriage," he notes, "likewise solemnized by the English and Dutch reformed churches, without the use of the ring or any ceremony, only an admonition precedes, directing how these married persons should demean themselves each to other, and for that end those Scriptures read hereunto most pertinent; as also a large discourse precedes, touching the institution of this sacred ordinance, and those texts hereunto pertinent also read." He mentions the marriage of a couple "who used the ring, and it was as long in solemnizing as our marriages, but I saw no other ceremony used but the ring and joining hands; after this concluded, all the bride's kindred, friends and acquaintances that are present, or meet with her, kiss her, even in the Church, when groom leaves her, and her own friends bring her near his house, when he meets, salutes her, and receives her. Among the Lutherans I observed that they bowed always at the name of Jesus, so often as it was used in the solemnity of their marriage, which was very often."—"Travels in Holland, etc., 1634-5,"Chetham Society Publications, I, 63, 64. It is noticeable that Sir William says nothing of the civil-marriage ceremony, permitted in some provinces at this time. Between 1580 and 1656, in many cities, the Lutherans had gained the right to solemnize marriage according to their own rites:Friedberg,Eheschliessung, 484.

[1284]SeeCampbell,The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, I, 485 ff.

[1285]Admonition, the Ninth:Whitgift, "Defence of the Answer,"Works, III, 335.

[1286]Bucer,Script. anglic. basil., 1577, Censur. in ordinat. eccles., c. xx, 488, 489:Whitgift,Works, III, 353, 354, note. Bucer is the great Protestant authority on the question of marriage and divorce. Milton calls him the "pastor of nations" (Works, III, 285), and congratulates himself on having independently reached similar conclusions (ibid., 282 ff.). See especiallyMilton's"Judgment of Martin Bucer concerning Divorce" (ibid., 274-314), being a partial translation of the second book ofBucer'sDe regno Christi, addressed to Edward VI.

[1287]Cartwright'sReply to the Answer, inWhitgift,Works, III, 354.

[1288]Thus in his "Defence of the Answer" (Works, III, 355)Whitgiftapologizes for the use of the ring, seeing the "church hath thought it convenient," and since it is likewise "void of all manner of superstition, necessity of salvation, opinion of worshipping, and all other circumstances, that should take away the lawfulness of using it."

[1289]Whitgift,op. cit., III, 355-57.

[1290]Cartwright'sReply to the Answer, p. 150, sec. 3, inWhitgift,Works, III, 267.

[1291]Whitgift, "Defence of the Answer,"Works, III, 267.

[1292]The Reformers charged that the throng of greedy place-hunters, attracted by fees and emoluments, corrupted the courts as well as the entire ecclesiastical administration of the bishops: see particularlyMilton's"Likeliest Means to remove Hirelings out of the Church,"Works, III, 1-41: Sir Henry Spelman, he says, "proves that fees exacted or demanded for sacraments, marriages, burials, and especially for interring, are wicked, accursed, simoniacal, and abominable" (loc. cit., 21). "Nor did other abuses imputed to these obnoxious jurisdictions fail to provoke censure, such as the unreasonable fees of their officers, and the usage of granting licenses and commuting penances for money. The ecclesiastical courts indeed have generally been reckoned more dilatory, vexatious, and expensive than those of the common law."—Hallam,Const. Hist., I, 115;cf.454."At Durham, at Lancaster, and at Ely, the Bishops sitting each as a Pope in his own dominions professed to exercise temporal as well as spiritual power, but they had in fact permitted gross abuses to corrupt and obstruct the fountain of justice."—Inderwick,The Interregnum, 184.

"At Durham, at Lancaster, and at Ely, the Bishops sitting each as a Pope in his own dominions professed to exercise temporal as well as spiritual power, but they had in fact permitted gross abuses to corrupt and obstruct the fountain of justice."—Inderwick,The Interregnum, 184.

[1293]Cartwright'sReply to the Answer, p. 151, sec. 1, inWhitgift,Works, III, 268.Whitgift(ibid., 269) rebukes Cartwright for his "slanderous and opprobrious speeches."Cf.the further discussion of the question of spiritual jurisdiction in matrimonial causes inWhitgift,loc. cit., 543-46, where Cartwright quotes Beza, Calvin, and Peter Martyr in his favor.In convocation, 1580, proposals were made to reform the ecclesiastical courts, but nothing was done. Again in 1594 a commission to inquire into abuses was appointed:Hallam,Const. Hist., I, 215 n. 1;Strype'sGrindal, 259, App., 97; andStrype'sWhitgift, 419.

In convocation, 1580, proposals were made to reform the ecclesiastical courts, but nothing was done. Again in 1594 a commission to inquire into abuses was appointed:Hallam,Const. Hist., I, 215 n. 1;Strype'sGrindal, 259, App., 97; andStrype'sWhitgift, 419.

[1294]See secs. xx-xxii of the commission of James I. to the High Commission, inProthero'sStatutes and Const. Docs., 431-33. The signers of the "Millenary Petition," 1603, likewise pray for the restraint of the "longsomeness of suits in ecclesiastical courts (which hang sometimes two, three, four, five, six, or seven years)":Prothero,op. cit., 415.

[1295]Ibid., 414, 415.

[1296]Unless the child be a soldier, mariner, merchant, or a merchant's apprentice or factor.

[1297]Prescribed by 3 and 4 James I.:Prothero,op. cit., 259;Statutes at Large, II, 653.

[1298]3 and 4 James I., c. v:Prothero,op. cit., 262-68;Statutes at Large, II, 656-62.

[1299]For a concise and accurate account of the law of marriage as it stood under Charles I. seeThe Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights(London, 1632), 51-115, 231 ff. Marriages on account ofdisparitas cultuswere prohibited. "Amongst the hinderances of marriage note this also, that by Constitution of holy Church, marriage is forbidden betwixt persons of divers Religions, as Jews and Christian" (59). It does not appear, however, that such unions were invalid; nor is anything said of "mixed" marriages. There was no action, as in Germany, to compel the fulfilment of thesponsalia(54).

Back to Index Next