A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3

by George Elliott Howard

[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.