1. Luther, M., The Estate of Marriage (1522) in 45 Luther's Works 36, 17 (Pelikan, J.et al. eds. 1955) [hereinafter Luther]Google Scholar.

2. See generally Ozment, S., When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe 1–49 (1983) [hereinafter Ozment]Google Scholar; Gottlieb, B., Getting Married in Pre-Reformation Europe (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia, 1974)Google Scholar; 2 Heimbucher, M., Die Orden und Kongregationen der Katholische Kirche 97ff. (3d ed. 1934)Google Scholar; Kawerau, W., Die Reformation und die Ehe 67ff. (1892)Google Scholar.

3. Martin Luther (1483-1546); Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560); Martin Bucer (14911551); Johannes Brenz (1498-1570); Andreas Oslander (1498-1552); Hieronymous Schürpf (1481-1554); Basilius Monner (c. 1501-1566); Melchior Kling (1504-1571); Konrad Lagus (d. 1546); Joachim von Beust (1522-1597); and Johannes Schneidewin (1519-1568). For biographical and bibliographic information on these and other Lutheran reformers discussed in the text, see Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (1875-1910). See also infra, note 45 for a list of some of their writings on marriage law.

4. Strauss, G., Luther's House of Learning: Indoctrination of the Young in the German Reformation 112 (1978) [hereinafter Strauss]Google Scholar. See infra note 23 and note 29 and accompanying text regarding the Lutheran concept of the family.

5. This article will not analyze the impact of the Lutheran Reformation on Germanic customary marriage law or on Romanist marital jurisprudence, nor will it treat the influence of the humanists on marriage doctrine and law. Responsible analysis of these intricate topics would require another article lengthier than this one.

6. See Noonan, J., Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists 119ff. (1965)Google Scholar; Huebner, R., A History of Germanic Private Law 584ff. (Philbrick, F. trans. 1918)Google Scholar; Martos, J., Doors to the Sacred: A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church 399–425 (1981) [hereinafter Martos]Google Scholar; Berman, H., Law and Revolution: the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition 226 (1983) [hereinafter Berman]Google Scholar.

7. This is the provocative thesis of Berman, supra note 6, at 226-230. Many important documents on marriage and marriage law in this period are collected in the following: Quellen zur Geschichte der Eheschliessung 10ff. (von Schwerin, C. ed. 1925)Google Scholar; The Teaching of the Catholic Church as Contained in her Documents 351ff. (Rahner, K. ed. 1957)Google Scholar; Weigand, R., Die Naturrechtslehre der Legisten und Dekretisten von Irnerius bis Accursius und von Gratian bis Johannes Teutonicus 283ff. (1967)Google Scholar; and Schroeder, H., Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary (1937) [hereinafter Schroeder]Google Scholar. See also 4 Lombardus, Petrus, Quatuor Libri Sententiarum, Dist. 26–42 (1916)Google Scholar, partly translated in Rogers, E., Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System 243ff. (repr. ed. 1976) [hereinafter Lombard]Google Scholar; 19 The Summa theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Part III (Supp.) QQ. 41–68 (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans. 1922) [hereinafter Aquinas]Google Scholar; Hugh of St. Victor, on the Sacraments of the Christian Faith Part 11 (Deferrari, R. trans. 1951)Google Scholar. Authoritative secondary accounts, in addition to Berman, include Duby, G., Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth Century France (1978)Google Scholar; Zeimentz, H., Ehe nach der Lehre der Frühscholastik (1973)Google Scholar; Schwab, D., Grundlagen und Gestalt der Staatlichen Ehegesetzgebung in der Neuzeit bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts 15–40 (1967) [hereinafter Schwab]Google Scholar; Ziegler, J., Die Ehelehre der Ponitentialsummen von 1200–1350 (1956)Google Scholar; Friesen, J., Geschichte des Kanonischen Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenliteratur (1963 repr. of 1893 ed.) [hereinafter Friesen]Google Scholar; Sohm, R., Das Recht Der Eheschliessung aus dem Deutschen und Kanonischen Recht Geschichtlich Entwickelt 107–186 (1966 repr. of 1875 ed.) [hereinafter Sohm]Google Scholar; Esmein, A., Le Mariage en Droit Canonique (1963 repr. of 1918 ed.)Google Scholar; Noonan, J., Power to Dissolve: Lawyers and Marriages in the Courts of the Roman Curia (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. There are three major groups of writings on marriage and marriage law in the period from the late thirteenth to the early sixteenth centuries.

(1) By far the most numerous are commentaries on Peter Lombard's discussion of the marriage sacrament in the Book of Sentences. “there are as many commentaries on the ‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombardus,” quipped Erasmus, “as there are theologians.” (Letter to Volzius in 1518; quoted in Rogers, supra note 7, at 77.) the most influential of these commentaries in Germany were those of John Duns Scotus (c. 1265-1308), William of Paris (d. 1314), Petrus Aureolus (d. 1322), William of Ockham (1280-1349), Thomas of Strasbourg (d. 1357), Gabriel Biel (1425-1495), and John Major (1469-1550). Biographical and bibliographical information on each of these authors is provided in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) and Dictionnaire De theologie Catholique (Vacant, et al. eds. 1909–1950)Google Scholar.

(2) A number of theologians and canonists also wrote separate tracts or treatises on marriage and marriage law and commentaries on Gratian's Decretum and subsequent decretal collections. the most influential of these treatises and commentaries in Germany were written by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Joannes Andreae (1270-1348), Johannes Gerson (1363-1429), Jacobus de Zocchis (d. 1457), Antonius de Rosellis (d. c. 1469), Jacobus Almainus (d. 1515), Johann von Breitenbach (d. 1507), and William Hay (c. 1470-1542). Biographical and bibliographical information on each of these authors is provided in 2 von Schulte, J., Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts (1956 repr. of 1875 ed.)Google Scholar; Weigand, R., Die Bedingte Eheschliessung im Kanonischen Recht 6ff. (1980) [hereinafter Weigand]Google Scholar; and 2 Coing, H., Handbuch Der Quellen und Literatur der Neueren Europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte Part I, 1011 ff. (1977) [hereinafter Coing]Google Scholar.

(3) the manuals for confessors of the period also include lengthy discussions of marriage and marriage law. the most popular and broadly distributed of these Summae Confessorum were the Summa Raymundi de Peniafort de Poenitential et Matrimonio (C. 1280), the Summa Confessorum Joannes Friburgensis (C. 1294), the Summa Pisana Casuum Conscientiae (c 1338), the Summa Baptiniana (C. 1483; after 1489 called the Summa Rosella), and the Summa Angelica de Casibus Conscientiae (1486) [hereinafter Angelus]. See von Stintzing, R., Geschichte der Populären Literatur des Römischen-kanonischen rechts in Deutschland am Ende des 15. und im Anfang des 16. Jahrhundert 514ff. (1867) [hereinafter Stintzing]Google Scholar; Weigand, supra at 17-21; Coing, supra at 1002-1008; and Trusen, , Forum internum und gelehrten Rechts im Spätmittelalter; Summae Confessorum und Traktate als Wegsbereiter der Rezeption, 57 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung (Kan. Ab.) 83 (1971)Google Scholar.

9. the phrase is from St. Augustine and is repeated in numerous Roman Catholic tracts on marriage.

10. Genesis 1:28. For discussions of the duty and remedy of marriage see Lombard, supra note 7, at Dist. 26.2; Aquinas, supra note 7, at Q. 41, Art. 1; Angelus, supra note 8, first page of the discussion on marriage (the ms. is unpaginated) (1486); Hay, W., Lectures On Marriage (1533-35) 19, 39–41 (Barry, J., trans. 1967) [hereinafter Hay]Google Scholar.

11. Lombard, supra note 7, at Dist. 26.3-4; Aquinas, supra note 7, at Q. 41, Art. 2; 7 Gerson, J., Oeuvres Complètés 416ff. (Glorieux, P. ed. 1966)Google Scholar, discussed in Ozment, supra note 2, at 9-10, 188. See discussion in Friesen, supra note 7, at 25ff. and Yost, , The Value of Married Life for the Social Order in the Early English Renaissance, 6 Societas 36 (1976)Google Scholar. Cf. the reaffirmation of this teaching by the Council of Trent (1563): “If any one saith that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.” 2 Schaff, P., The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes 97 (1882)Google Scholar.

12. Lombard, supra note 7, at Dist. 26.3. Lombard continues: “Now permission is received in various ways, as concession, as remission, as toleration. And there is toleration in the New Testament, for lesser good deeds and lesser evils; among the lesser good deeds is marriage, which does not deserve a palm, but is a remedy.” Id., Dist. 26.4.

13. See especially Aquinas, supra note 7, at Q. 41, Art. 2.

14. After the establishment of marriage as a sacrament in the twelfth century, Roman Catholic writers were divided on the question of whether this sacrament was already instituted in Paradise or had been first created by Christ. the latter position was taken by Lombard, in Lombard supra note 7, at Dist. 26.6; Aquinas, supra note 7, at Q. 42 and their many followers; the former position was taken by Hay, supra note 10, at 19 and many of his contemporaries. the debate turned on not only how to interpret Ephesians 5:32, but also how to order the sacraments. If the sacrament of marriage had been created before the Fall, it was the first and most important sacrament, and it was available to the Jews and subject to Mosaic law, as well as the new law of Christ and the church. the traditional Roman Catholic understanding that all sacraments were instruments of grace given by Christ to His church for its sanctification was thus at issue. For an analysis of this debate, see Pelikan, J., Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) 61ff. (1984)Google Scholar and Lawrence, R., The Sacramental Interpretation of Eph. 5:32 From Peter Lombard to the Council of Trent (1963)Google Scholar.

15. Hay, supra note 10, at 31. See Canon 51 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) in Schroeder supra note 7, at 280-281.

16. For a discussion of the Roman Catholic view of the purpose of sacraments, see Lombard, supra note 7, at Dist. 1; Aquinas, supra note 7, at Qq. 60-65. See 6 von Harnack, A., History of Dogma 200–26 (Gilchrist, W. trans. 1958)Google Scholar; Friesen, supra note 7, at 29-44; and Martos, supra note 6, at 63ff., 397ff.

17. The three perspectives of marriage are intimated by Aquinas: “Matrimony as directed to the begetting of children, which was necessary even where there was no sin, was instituted before sin; according as it affords a remedy for the wound of sin, it was instituted after sin at the time of the natural law; its institution belongs to the Mosaic law as regards personal disqualifications; and it was instituted in the New Law insofar as it represents the mystery of Christ's union with the Church, and in this respect it is a sacrament of the New Law. Regarding other advantages resulting from matrimony, such as the friendship and mutual services which husband and wife render one another, its institution belongs to the civil law. Since, however, a sacrament is essentially a sign and a remedy, it follows that the nature of sacrament applies to matrimony as regards the intermediate institution; that it is fittingly intended to fulfill an office of nature as regards the first institution; and, as regards the lastmentioned institution, that it is directed to fulfill an office of society.” Aquinas, supra note 7, at Q. 42, Art. 2. See discussion is Schwab, supra note 7, at 34-40.

18. John Noonan writes: “[C]onsent makes marriage—not any consent, not merely lustful consent to intercourse, not merely intellectual consent to a shared life, but consent informed with that special quality that Gratian, drawing on the Roman law, denominated ‘marital affection’, an emotion-colored assent to the other as huband or wife. Neither Church nor feudal lord nor family could supply that element. Where it was wanting, there was no marriage. On that cornerstone Gratian [and his numerous followers] rested [their] doctrine of marriage.” Noonan, , Power to Choose, 4 Viator 419, 425 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Noonan, , Marital Affection in the Canonists, 12 Studia Gratiana: Collectanea Stephan Kuttner 489 (1967)Google Scholar.

19. For a discussion of the origin of this three-fold doctrine of consent in the debates of the early canonists and theologians, see Donahue, , the Policy of Alexander the Third's Consent theory of Marriage, 5 Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, Series C: Subsidia 5, 251ff (1976)Google Scholar; Sohm, supra note 7, at 110-44; and Martos, supra note 6, at 425-433.

20. The following overview of the canon law of marriage is derived from Hay, supra note 10, at 47-355; Angelus, supra note 8, at 3-23 of the section on marriage; the summary of the Summa Confessorum Joannes Freiburgensis von Latein in Deutsch Gemacht Dvrch Berthold von Freiburg (1472) provided by Stanka, R., Die Summa Des Berthold von Freiburg: Eine Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchung 83–100 (1937)Google Scholar; the summary of Joh. Andreae Lectura Super Arboribus Consanquinitatis et Affinitatis, in Stintzing, supra note 8, at 15Iff.; Aquinas, supra note 7, at QQ. 50-68; Lombard, supra note 7, at Dist. 30-42; and Gratian, Decretum, Part Ii (Noonan trans, unpubl. 1978). An exhaustive summary of the discussion of marriage law among early Roman Catholic writers is provided in Friesen, supra note 7, at 227ff.

21. Berman, supra note 6, at 229-30.

22. Luther, supra note 1, at 17ff., Vol. 28, 9-15, Vol. 46, 265ff.; Melanchthon, P., De Coniurio (1551) in 21 Corpus Reformatorum 1072ff. (Bretschneider, C., et al. eds. 1843) [hereinafter Melancthon]Google Scholar. See the discussions of these writings as well as those of Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Melander, Brenz, Osiander, Corvinus, Kraft, Minther, von Beust, Kling, Apel, Lagus, Schürpf, Wesenbeck, Schneidewin and numerous other theologians and jurists in Dietrich, H., Das Protestantische Eherecht (1970) [hereinafter Dietrich]Google Scholar; Liermann, H., Evangelisches Kirchenrecht und staatliches Eherecht in Deutschland, Rechtsges-chichtliches-Gegenwartsprobleme, in Existenz und Ordnung: Festschrift für Erik Wolf 43ff. (1962) [hereinafter Liermann]Google Scholar; Friedberg, E., Das Eheschliessung in Seiner Geschichtlichen Entwicklung 153–240 (1865) [hereinafter Friedberg]Google Scholar; Köhler, , Luther als Eherichter, 47 Beitrage zur Sachsischen Kirchengeschichte 18 (1947)Google Scholar; Seeberg, , Luthers Anschauung von dem Geschlechtsleben und der Ehe ihre geschichtliche Stellung, 7 Luther-Jahrbuch 77 (1925) [hereinafter Seeberg]Google Scholar; Michealis, , Uber Luthers eherechtliche Anschauungen und deren Verhältnis zum mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Eherecht, in Festschrift für Erich Ruppel zum 65. Geburtstag 43 (1968) [hereinafter Michaelis]Google Scholar; and sources cited infra notes 23-35, 57-126 and accompanying text.

23. See 34 Martin, D.Luthers Werke Kritische Gesamtausgabe 73 (1883)Google Scholar, quoted and discussed in Althaus, P., The Ethics of Martin Luther 86ff. (Schultz, R. trans. 1965) [hereinafter Althaus]Google Scholar; The Book of Concord 393 (Tappert, T.et al. trans, and eds. 1959)Google Scholar. Gerald Strauss' discussion and collection of quotations from Luther's writings amplifies this understanding of the purpose of marriage: “God's world is governed by three estates or offices, of which matrimony is the first, the other two being the preaching and the secular power. Foolish ‘philosophers and other worldywise (Weltkluge)’ men have misrepresented the matrimonial office as the least of the three estates. On the contrary, matrimony is ‘the mother of all other orders [and ordinances]’ … More ancient in the order of creation than spiritual and secular government, ‘matrimony is the source in which all other estates have their origin’. Its priority as the first institution given by God to men sanctifies it.” Strauss, supra note 4 at 115 (footnotes from Luther's works omitted). For further information, see the discussion in Bainton, R., Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther 221–37 (1955, 1963)Google Scholar.

An even broader perspective on the worldly orders, and their origin in the creation and counsels of God, is expressed by Melanchthon in Loci communes (1555), in Melanchthon On Christian Doctrine 323–24 (Manschreck, C.L., trans, and ed. 1965)Google Scholar: “The physical life has orders [Stände] and works [Werke] which serve to keep the human race, and are ordained by God, within certain limits and means. By this order we should know that this human nature is not created without the distinct counsel of God, and that God in this way lets his goodness shine on us to sustain and provide for us. Matrimony is first, for God does not want human nature simply to run its course as cattle do. therefore, God has ordained marriage, Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 and I Corinthians 7, as an eternal inseparable fellowship of one husband and one wife. … [M]atrimony is a very lovely, beautiful fellowship and church of God, if two people in true faith and obedience toward God live together, together invoke God, and rear children in the knowledge of God and virtue …. Still more orders and works are decreed for the protection and maintenance of this life; namely, authority, justice, punishment, just wars, division of property, fair exchange in buying and selling, borrowing and paying; and also many useful arts, numbers, measures, distinctions of time with the course of the sun, which make our year, agriculture, medicine, and so on. If these beautiful orders were everywhere maintained, if all rulers sought God's glory and the improvement and protection of the people, if judgments were true and just, if no falsehood were used in buying and selling, we could hardly complain about these useful, wholesome orders and works. [In earlier passages, Melanchthon also described the church as a separate order in the earthly kingdom. Id., 255ff.]. … Diligently consider that these orders unite all human groups and that they are arranged for the knowledge of God, good custom, peace and unity, law, judgment, and punishment. Persons such as lords and officeholders should maintain such laws, judgment, and punishment; and subjects, who by their obedience exercise morality, should not shatter the peace. This is called politico societas, or politics.”

24. Luther, supra note 1, at 18-22, Vol. 28, 9-12, 27-31. See the discussion of views of other theologians in Dietrich, supra note 22, at 78-80.

25. Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 28, 10. A further collection of epigrams by Luther to the same effect are assembled in Seeberg, supra note 22, at 94ff. See also the long diatribe against clerical celibacy in The Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows in Luther, supra note 1, Vol. 44, 251-400, as well as The Apology of the Augsburg Confession in Concordia Triglotta. Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae 363–81 (1921)—a document drafted chiefly by Phillip Melanchthon, Luther's greatest protege in WittenbergGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of the breadth and intensity of the reformers' attack on celibacy and monasticism, and the Roman Catholic reaction, see Ozment, supra note 2, at 3-24; Strauss, supra note 4, at 11 Iff.; and Franzen, A., Zölibat und Priesterehe in der Auseinandersetzung der Reformationszeit und der Katholische Reform des 16. Jahrhundert (1969)Google Scholar.

26. Luther, supra note 1, at 47.

27. Luther, and many of his followers, distinguished between an earthly and a heavenly kingdom. the earthly kingdom embraces all the institutions, activities, and qualities that contribute to the preservation of the earthly life, including property, business, families, institutional churches, civil governments, and laws. All these institutions and activities were ordained by God and “instituted from the beginning of creation.” they are thus not themselves evil or the product of sin but rather divine blessings for the physical life to be used in the service of God. After the Fall, however, these institutions and activities became distorted by sin and took on negative functions: to harness sin and to check disorder and injustice. Furthermore, participation in them, though still a service to God, was no longer deserving of salvation. Salvation was by faith, not by works. the earthly kingdom is distinguished from the heavenly kingdom whose institutions and qualities of grace and faith contribute to the preservation of the spiritual life and to man's salvation. This is the perfect community of love, the pure invisible church, governed by the law of Scripture. in this time between the Fall and the Christian parousia, where the Christian man is both saint and sinner (simul iustus et peccatur), he is a citizen of both kingdoms and subject to both laws. This two kingdoms theory, developed by Luther early in his career, became one of the trademarks of the Lutheran Reformation. An understanding of this theory is essential to grasp the subtleties of Luther's concept of marriage. See Althaus, supra note 23, at 43-81; Bornkamm, H., Luther's Doctrine of the two Kingdoms in the Context of His Theology (Hertz, K., trans. 1966)Google Scholar; and Seeberg, supra note 22, at 88-92; see also supra note 23 and accompanying text on the orders of the earthly kingdom. For an important study of the development of the two kingdom theory in Luther's theology and political theory, see Thompson, W., The Political Thought of Martin Luther 36–61 (1984)Google Scholar; Heckel, J., Lex Charitas 31–52 (1953)Google Scholar.

28. Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 21, 93; Vol. 46 at 265; Vol. 63 at 111-12. Cf. Althaus, supra note 23, at 89 and Dietrich, supra note 22, at 34ff. This view was shared by several other Lutheran theologians, particularly Philip Melanchthon and Martin Bucer. See Bucer, M., De Regno Christi Chap. 15 (Pauck, W. ed. 1969)Google Scholar [hereinafter Bucer] and Melanchthon, supra note 22, at 1073; cf. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 80ff. and 2 Köhler, W., Das Ehe- und Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium 427ff. (1942) [hereinafter Köhler]Google Scholar.

29. For a discussion of the Lutheran doctrine of the uses of the law see Cranz, F., An Essay on the Development of Luther's Thought on Justice, Law, and Society 94–112 (1959)Google Scholar and Alexander, , Validity and Function of Law: the Reformation Doctrine of Usus Legis, 31 Mercer L. Rev. 509 (1980)Google Scholar. the reformers themselves never spoke of the “uses of marriage,” but there is remarkable unanimity in their description of the functions of marriage and of the uses of law. See, especially, Luther, supra note 1, at 38-49 and the discussion of the writings of Bugenhagen, Colerus, Brenz, and other Lutheran writers in Ozment, supra note 2, at 8-9 and in Dietrich, supra note 22, at 81-82.

30. Luther sets out his doctrine of the sacraments in two major tracts: The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), in Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 36, 11ff. and The Smalcald Articles (1537) in the Book of Concord, supra note 23, at 310ff. (Other reformers, in addition to Luther, helped to draft these articles.) For a comparison of the sacramental doctrine in these two works and in the works of other Lutheran writers, see Pelikan, J., Scripture Versus Structure: Luther and the Institutions of the Church 17–31, 113–138 (1968)Google Scholar.

31. Luther, M., Selections from his Writings 326 (Dillenberger, J. ed. 1961) [hereinafter Selections]Google Scholar.

32. Id., 331. Early in his career Luther tentatively accepted penance as a third sacrament, but later rejected this position.

33. Throughout his life, Luther rejected the suggestions of many writers that, by placing marriage in the earthly kingdom, he and his followers had totally secularized marriage, i.e., removed it from the pale of God's authority and law. “It is sheer folly,” Luther opined, to treat marriage as “nothing more than a purely human and secular state, with which God has nothing to do.” Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 21, 95. This misunderstanding of Luther's doctrine of marriage—still much in evidence today—stems from a failure to view it in the context of his two kingdoms theory and a failure to recognize his multiple definitions of the terms ‘wordly’, ‘earthly’, and ‘secular’. Paul Althaus' comments are helpful: “Luther uses the [terms] world and secular in the same broad sense that the New Testament does. When he speaks of ‘living in the world’ he frequently refers to people who live in this age of the world or who live ‘on earth’, [i.e., are part of the earthly kingdom]. in this sense the Christian is a 'citizen of this world'. Luther explicitly says that this secular life and the stations that constitute it are given and instituted by God. …

“On the other hand, Luther, like the New Testament, frequently uses the word world to designate those men who have closed their hearts to God's word and live in enmity with him or to describe that area in which sin, Satan, and ‘the children of Satan’ have power. …

“Given this breadth of usage, it can happen that Luther, like the New Testament, combines the various meanings of the words world and secular in such a way that both meanings are expressed at once. But that is not always the case. At times the meanings must be clearly differentiated. Luthers says one thing when he says that marriage is ‘an external, worldly matter’ and something quite different when he says that the princes who persecute the gospel are ‘wordly, secular princes’ and live up to their name and title according to the standards of this world.” Althaus, supra note 22, at 49-50; see Dietrich, supra note 22, at 32 who stresses the importance of the two kingdoms theory for understanding Luther's marriage doctrine.

34. See id., 44ff., 81ff., and the many primary and secondary sources quoted therein, and Seeberg, supra note 22, at 93ff.

35. See id., 47, 86; Kirstein, R., Die Entwicklung der Sponsalienlehre und der Lehre vom Eheschluss in der Deutschen Protestantischen Eherechtslehre bis Zu J.H. Böhmer 39ff. (1966)Google Scholar; Köhler, W., Die Anfänge des protestantischen Eherechtes, 74 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung (Kan. Ab.) 271, 278ff. (1941) [hereinafter Köhler]Google Scholar.

36. On ecclesiastical courts and their procedure in general, see Weigand, supra note 8, at 48-54, 64-67; Helmholtz, R., Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (1974)Google Scholar; Safley, T., Let No Man Put Asunder: the Control of Marriage in the German Southwest: A Comparative Study. 1550-1600 41ff. (1984) [hereinafter Safley]Google Scholar; Hashagen, , Zur characteristik der geistlichen Gerichtsbarkeit vornehmlich im späterem Mittelalter, 6 Zeitschrft Der Savigny-Stiftung (Kan. Ab.) 205 (1916)Google Scholar; and Harvey, J., The Influence of the Reformation on Nuremberg Marriage Laws 74–90 (Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972) [hereinafter Harvey]Google Scholar.

37. See generally Dietrich, supra note 22, at 150-52 and Köhler, supra note 35, at 272-75. For separate treatments of the development of the procedure and law of marriage courts in various territories and cities of Germany, see Seebaas, W., Das Reformatorische Werk Des Andreas Osiander 184ff. (1967) [hereinafter Seebaas]Google Scholar; Harvey, supra note 36, at 90114; Koch, K., Studium Pietatis: Martin Bucer als Ethiker 135ff. (1962) [hereinafter Koch]Google Scholar; Wendel, F., Le Mariage à Strasbourg à l'époque de la Reforme 1520-1692 77ff. (1928)Google Scholar; Köhler, supra note 28, at 33ff. Vogt, P., Kirchen- Und Eherecht der Katholischen und Evangelischen in Der Königl. Preussischen Staaten 147ff. (1857)Google Scholar; Hauber, F., Württembergisches Eherecht des Evangelischen (1856) [hereinafter Hauber]Google Scholar; Gesschen, B., Zur Ältesten Geschichte und Ehegerichtslichen Praxis Des Leipziger Konsistoriums (1894) [hereinafter Gesschen]Google Scholar.

Many of the Church Ordinances (Kirchenordnungen) and Policy Ordinances (Polizeiordnungen) which established these courts and defined their jurisdiction, procedure, and membership are collected and discussed in Sehling, E., Die Evangelischen Kirchenordnungen Des XVI. Jahrhunderts Vols. 1-16 (1902–1978) [hereinafter Sehling]Google Scholar; Richter, A., Die Evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des Sechszehnten Jahrhunderts (1967 repr. of 1846 ed.) [hereinafter Richter]Google Scholar; 2 Quellen zur Neuerenprivatrecht-Sgeschichte Part 2 (Kunkel, W., et al., eds. 1938)Google Scholar [hereinafter Kunkel] and Schmelzeisen, G., Polizeiordnungen und Privatrecht 21–67 (1955) [hereinafter Schmelzeisen]Google Scholar.

38. See Köhler, supra note 35, at 277ff. for a discussion of civil marital jurisdiction in Ulm and in a number of other German cities and territories in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. See also the marriage provisions in the Nürnberg Reformation (1479), Arts. 12-13, and the Freiburg Reformation (1520), Art. 3 in Kunkel, supra note 37 at 6ff. and 265ff. these latter provisions, however, are extremely cryptic and deal only with discrete problems such as the age of consent or the timing of parental consent.

39. See a translation of the Peace of Augsburg, Arts. 2, 3, 7, 10 in Ehler, S. and Morrall, J., Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries 164ff. (1954)Google Scholar.

40. See Seebaas, supra note 37, at 194; Harvey, supra note 36, at 98-100; Koch, supra note 37, at 136.

41. See the Constitution of the Wittenberg Consistory (1542) and the Wittenberg Church Ordinance (1545) in Sehling, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, Part 1, 200ff. See also the similar adjudictory structure in Württemberg and several southern German cities as described in Hauber, supra note 37, at 31-41 and Safley, supra note 36, at 41-180. the development of such a “mixed marriage court” in Wittenberg embittered Luther to no end. Many of his later caustic tirades against lawyers and jurists stemmed from his frustration over their desire to retain for ecclesiastics a prominent place in marital adjudication. See Köhler, K., Luther und die Juristen 3–4, 39–49 (1873)Google Scholar; Müther, T., Aus dem Universitäts- und Gelehrtensleben im Zeitalter der Reformation 206–16 (1866)Google Scholar and Liermann, , Der unjuristisches Luther, 24 Luther-Jahrbuch 69 (1957)Google Scholar.

42. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 151ff. See the statutes of Schwabisch-Hall (1526), Hamburg (1529), Lübeck (1531), Hannover (1536), Mecklenberg (1573), and Prussia (1584) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 40ff., 127ff., 149ff., 154ff., 273ff., and Sehling, supra note 37, at Vol. 5, 233ff., Vol. 4, 30ff. Hans Dietrich shows that, in general, “the princely territories left marital decisions to the ecclesiastics, while the independent imperial cities (where the city council was the highest civil power) accorded greatest importance to the [decisions] of council members.” Dietrich, H., Evangelisches Ehescheidungsrecht nach den Bestimmungen der Deutschen Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts 43ff. (1892)Google Scholar.

43. On the “established” territorial church system in Germany, see generally Holl, K., Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment, in 1 Holl, Karl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte 279ff. (1921)Google Scholar and Sehling, E., Kirchenrecht 29–45 (1908)Google Scholar. Sehling describes how the consistories of Ausbuch, Bayreuth and other cities answered to the consistory of Munich which, in turn, was supervised by the consistory of Rheims. the latter consistory was under the control of the prince's council and the territorial courts.

44. See Dietrich, supra note 22, at 44.

45. Among the most important of these writings on marriage law by Wittenberg reformers as well as others are the following: Luther, A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519) in Luther supra note 1, at Vol. 44, 5; id., the Order of Marriage for Common Pastors (1529) in Vol. 53, 111; id., On Marriage Matters (1530) in Vol. 46, 265; Melanchthon, supra note 22; Id., De Arbore Consanguinitatis Et Affinitatis (1541); Bugenhagen, Vom Ehebruch und Weglauffen (1539) in Sacerius, Corpus Juris Matrimonia folio 171 (1569)Google Scholar; Brenz, , Wie in Eheachen (1529)Google Scholar in Id., folio 184; Apel, J., Defensio Johannis Apelli Ad Episcopum Herbipolensem Pro Suo Conjugio (1523, 1524)Google Scholar (a defense of his marriage to a nun against the bishop who had imprisoned him for the same); Kling, M., Tractatus Matrimonialium Causarum, Methodico Ordine Scriptus (1553)Google Scholar (a collection of a number of early tracts by Kling); Sarcerius, B., Sacerius, Buch vom Heiligen Ehestand (1556)Google Scholar (an anthology of essays by Sacerius and others); Monner, B., Tractatus de Matrimonio in Genere, de Clandestina Conjugiis et Explicatis Quaestionis (1561)Google Scholar (a collection of a number of early tracts by Monner); Id., De Clandestine Coniugio Libellus (1594); Schneidewin, J., in Institutionum Imperalium Titulum X, De Nuptiis Primi Commentarii (1571)Google Scholar; Hemming, N., Libellus de Conjugio (1578)Google Scholar; Wigand, J., Doctrina de Conjugio (1578)Google Scholar; Mauser, K., Explicatio Erudita et Utilis X. Tituli Instituti de Nuptiis (1569)Google Scholar; von Beust, J., Tractatus Connubiorum Praestantis (1617)Google Scholar; Althusius, J., De Matrimonio Contrahendo et Dissolvendo (1593)Google Scholar. Several tracts on marriage by jurists from Wittenberg and other cities in Germany were collected in Tractatus Connubiorum Praestantis, Jurisconsultorum (1618, 1742).

46. On the Aktenversendung process in general, see Dawson, J., The Oracles of the Law 198–213, 240–41 (1968)Google Scholar; and Ebel, W., Studie über ein Goslarer Ratsurteilsbuch des 16. Jahrhunderts 530ff. (1961)Google Scholar.

47. See Harvey, supra note 36, at 96-112 (on Nürnberg); Koch supra note 37, at 139Jt. (on Strassbourg); Haalk, , Die Rostocker Juristenfakultät als Spruchskollegium, 3 Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock 401, 414ff. (1958) (on Rostock)Google Scholar; Ebel supra note 46, at 37ff, 53ff. (on Goslar). Cf. also the function of Schöppenstuhle in marital adjudication as described briefly by Stolzel, A., Der Brandenburger Schöppenstuhl 388ff. (1901)Google Scholar.

48. A list of the most important consilia by German jurists is provided in Kisch, G., Consilia: Eine Bibliographie der Juristischen Konsiliensammlungen (1970)Google Scholar. On the history of the consilia practice in Europe see generally Gehrke, , Die privatrechtliche Entscheidungsliteratur Deutschlands Charakteristik und Bibliographie der Rechtssprechungs- und Konsiliensammlungen vom 16. bis 19. Jahrhundert, 3 Ius Commune 25 (1974)Google Scholar; Wieacker, F., Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit 80ff. (rev. ed. 1967)Google Scholar; Stintzing, supra note 8, at 527ff.; von Stintzing, R., Geschichte Der Deutschen Rechtswissenschaft 16ff. (Erste Ab. 1880)Google Scholar.

49. See Müther, supra note 41, at 186-89. Schürp's consilia on marriage are collected in Consilia Seu Responsa (1556), and are discussed in Mejer, , Zur Geschichte des ältesten protestantischen Eherechts, inbesondere der Ehescheidungsfrage, 16 Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht 35 (1881)Google Scholar. Schürpf's involvement in the Lutheran Reformation is particularly fascinating. He was a close friend of Luther, Melanchthon and other theologians and served as the “best man” at Luther's wedding. He rediscovered with Luther the important doctrine of justification by faith alone, stood by when Luther burnt the canon law books in 1520, accompanied Luther to the Diet of Worms in 1525 and spoke on his behalf, and remained an eloquent spokesman in Germany for the new Lutheran theology. It was Schürpf's example most of all, Luther wrote later in his life, “that inspired me [in 1517] to write of the great error of the Catholic Church.” See Müther, supra note 41, at 190-203 and Stintzing, supra note 48, at 267-68, as well as Melanchthon's panegyric, Oratio de vita clarissimiviri Hieronymi Schurffi, in 12 Corpus Reformatorum 86 (Bretschneider, G. ed. 1843)Google Scholar. For a thorough biography on Schürpf, see Schaich-Klose, W., Schürpf, D. Hieronymous: Leben und Werk des Wittenberger Reformationsjuristen, 1481–1554 (1967)Google Scholar.

50. Sehling, supra note 37, at ix and Sprengler-Ruppenthal, , Zur Rezeption des römischen Rechts in Eherecht der Reformation, 112 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung (Kan. Ab.) 363, 392ff. (1978) [hereinafter Sprengler-Ruppenthal]Google Scholar. On the contributions of these writers on Lutheran marriage law, see generally, Rautenberg, W., Johannes Bugenhagen, Beiträge zur Sienem 400. Todestag 60ff. (1958)Google Scholar; Brecht, , Anfänge refurmatorischen Kirchenordnungen bei Johannes Brenz, 96 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung (Kan. Ab.) 322 (1969)Google Scholar; Estes, J., Christian Magistrate and State Church-. the Reforming Career of Johannes Brenz (1984)Google Scholar; Kohls, , Martin Bucerss Anteil und Anleigen beider Auffassung der Ulmer Kirchenordnung in Jahre 1531, 15 Zeitscrift für Evangelischen Kirchenrecht 333 (1970)Google Scholar.

51. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 42-50, 82-84, 109; Sprengler-Ruppenthal, supra note 50, at 369-95; and Köhler, supra note 35, at 279-86.

52. See Kirstein, supra note 35, at 46-51 and Dietrich, supra note 22, at 116-20 and the primary sources cited therein. See also Friedberg, supra note 22, at 225; and Stintzing, supra note 48, at 261, 274ff.

53. See discussion of Franciscus Lambertus Avenionensis, de Sacro Conjugio (1524) in Köhler, supra note 35, at 276ff. and Muller, G., Franz Lambert von Avignon und die Reformation in Hessen (1958)Google Scholar; see Köhler, supra note 41, at 2-5, 39-49 on some of the other “radical” reformers. Though these reformed groups ultimately had little influence on the official marriage law of the German cities and territories, their “theonomic” ideals did manifest themselves strongly in many of their closely-knit communities in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and England. See generally Williams, G., The Radical Reformation 505–17 (1962) and sources cited thereinGoogle Scholar.

54. Sehling, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 292.

55. Id., at Vol. 2, 944.

56. Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 2, 40. See Sprengler-Ruppenthal, supra note 50, at 394-406 and Brecht, supra note 50, at 344ff.

57. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 54ff., 93ff., 122ff., 153ff.; Friedberg, supra note 22, at 212ff.; Köhler, supra note 28, at 375; and Klrstein, supra note 35, at 28ff., 57ff. See, e.g., the Consistory Ordinance of Brandenburg (1573) and of Prussia (1584) in Richter, supra note 37 at Vol. 2, 383ff., 466ff.

58. Luther, supra note 1, at 11ff., 274ff. See Sohm, supra note 7, at 138-39, 197-198; Friedberg supra note 22, at 203-07; and Kirstein supra note 35, at 28ff. the promises are ambiguous because the verbs will and sollst, though commonly understood to be in the present tense, could also be interpreted as future verbs.

59. Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 46, 205ff., and Id., Letters of Spiritual Counsel 263ff. (T. Tappert trans, and ed. 1955). See also discussion in Kirstein, supra note 35, at 3235 and Dietrich, supra note 22, at 54-59, 93-96.

60. Luther, supra note 1, at Voi. 46, 268ff. See discussion in Althaus, supra note 22, at

61. Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 53, 110ff. See discussion in Kirstein, supra note 35, at 734; Köhler, supra note 35, at 292. Most commentators conclude that Luther viewed church registration as mandatory for all, but church solemnization and celebration as mandatory only for church members. Luther is far from clear on the effects of failure to comply with these mandates. His repeated maxim that “it is as much a marriage after the public betrothal as after the church wedding” (Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 46, 294) suggests strongly that for Luther such failure is no ground for annulment, though it may result in civil and/or ecclesiastical penalty or punishment.

62. Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 46, 384. For further discussion of the Lutheran reformers' heavy emphasis on the requisite public character of marriage, and its relation to Lutheran theological beliefs, see Michaelis, supra note 22, at 51-56.

63. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 121.

64. Sohm, supra note 7, at 198; see also Friedberg, supra note 22, at 210.

65. See id., at 233ff. and the primary sources cited therein.

66. See the Church Ordinances of Zurich (1529), Brandenburg-Nürnberg (1533), Württemberg (1536), Kassell (1539), Schwabisch-Hall (1543), Cologne (1543), and Tecklenberg (1588) as well as the Consistory Ordinance of Brandenberg (1573) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 135ff., 209ff., 270ff., 304ff., and Vol. 2, 16ff., 47ff., 476ff., and 381ff.

67. See the Goslar Consistory Ordinance (1555) and the Declaration of the Synod of Em-den (1571) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 2, 166ff. and 340. See also the Opinions of the Wittenberg Court quoted in Sohm, supra note 7, at 199-200.

68. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 123-27 and the primary sources cited therein.

69. The Marriage Ordinance of Württemberg (1537) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 280. the Wittenberg marriage court apparently also took this rigid stance, though absolute parental consent is not prescribed in the Wittenberg statute; see Dietrich, supra note 22, at 156-57.

70. See, e.g., the Church Ordinances of Basel (1529) and Brandenburg (1573) and the Declarations of the Synod of Emden (1571) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 125 and Vol. 2, 376, 340. See also the Reformation Ordinance of Hessen (1526), Württemberg Ordinance (1553), and the Schauenburg Policy Ordinance (1615) in Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 33-34. the latter two statutes provide that “the divine order, the Kaiser's [Roman] law (cf. Inst. I. 10) as well as natural honor and equity provide that children must obey their parents and guardians and must not marry without their counsel, conscience and will [Rat, Wissen und Willen].” Id., 34.

71. See the Constitution of the Wittenberg Consistory Ordinance (1542), the Church Ordinance of Cellische (1545), the Marriage Ordinance of Dresden (1556), the Territorial Ordinance of Prussia (1577), the Marriage Ordinance of Kürpf (1582) and the Schauenburg Policy Ordinance (1615) in Sehling, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 20ff., 292ff., 343ff. and Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 36. See also Dietrich, supra note 22, at 155 and Ozment, supra note 2, at 24, 194.

72. See, e.g., the Church Ordinance of Goslar (1555) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 2, 165. the age of majority in that jurisdiction was 20 for men, 18 for women; in some jurisdictions, the age of majority was as high as 27 for men and 25 for women; see Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 35.

73. the Marriage Ordinance of Zurich (1525)—copied in several south German cities—was the first to declare void ab initio all unwitnessed marriages. See Köhler, supra note 28, at 74ff. the more typical early statutues are the Church Ordinance of Ulm (1531) and the Marriage Ordinance of Württemberg (1537) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 158, 280; see discussion in Köhler, supra note 35, at 291, Dietrich, supra note 22, at 122-23, 154, and Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 37-38.

74. Marriage Ordinance of Württemberg (1553) and Church Ordinance of Goslar (1555) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 2, 129, 165. See discussion in Köhler, supra note 35, at 292.

75. See, e.g., Church Ordinance of Ulm (1531) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 159 and discussion in Köhler, supra note 35, at 292.

76. See the Zurich Chorgericht Ordinance (1525), the Church Ordinances of Basel (1530), Kassel (1530), Ulm (1531), Strassburg (1534), and the numerous later statutes quoted and discussed in Friedberg, supra note 22, at 213-17 and Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 45-46.

77. See the Ordinances of Nürnberg (1537), Augsburg (1553), and Ulm (1557) described in Ozment, supra note 2, at 36; Harvey, supra note 36, at 221ff.; and Köhler, supra note 35, at 296ff.

78. The Marriage Ordinance of Württemberg (1553) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 2, 128 and the Church Ordinances of Geneva (1561) and Palatine on the Rhine (1563) described in Gottlieb, supra note 2, at 124ff.

79. See a brief discussion of the influence of these and other reforms in Glendon, M., State Law and Family: Family Law in Transition in the United States and Western Europe, 313ff. (1977)Google Scholar.

80. Decree Tametsi (1563) in Deuziger, H. and Schonmetzer, A., Enchiridion Symbolorium No. 1797, 415 (36th ed. 1976)Google Scholar. For an account of the effects of the Decree, see Conrad, , Das tridentinische Konzil und die Entwicklung des kirchlichen und weltlichen Eherecht, in Das Weltkonzil von Trent in Sein Werden und Wirken 297–324 (Schneider, G. ed. 1951)Google Scholar.

81. Luther set out the reformers' criticisms of this body of law in the most radical terms: the pope in his canon law has thought up eighteen distinct reasons for preventing or dissolving a marriage, nearly all of which I reject and condemn. Indeed, the pope himself does not adhere to them so strictly or firmly [for] one can rescind any of them with gold and silver. … Is not the invention of so many impediments, and the setting of so many traps, the reason that people do not marry; or if they are married why the marriage is annulled? Who gave this power to man? It may be that they were religious men, zealous and devout, yet by whose right does any man's saintli-ness put limits on my own liberty? Let anyone who is so minded be a saint and zealot to any extent he likes, but let him not harm anyone else in doing it, or steal my freedom.

Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 45, 22 and Selections, supra note 31, at 330-31.

82. Osiander, A., Gutachten über die Zeremonien 69 (1526)Google Scholar, quoted by Harvey, supra note 36, at 232; see also Seebass, supra note 37, at 191ff, for further discussion of Osiander's views.

83. Selections, supra note 31, at 330-31.

84. Id., 330. See also Luther, supra note 1, at 22-30; Bucer, supra note 28, at Chap. 17 and discussion of the views of other theologians in Dietrich, supra note 22, at 97-98.

85. Like other newly developed marriage laws in sixteenth century Germany, however, the civil laws of impediments were far from uniform. Again, the reason for this diversity lay not only in the independence of civil authorities but also in the failure of the jurists to agree on the sources of law. Luther looked almost exclusively to Scripture. Brenz, Bucer, and Bugenhagen stressed as well the Roman law of the Christian emperors. Melanchthon, Osiander and many other theologians looked also to natural law. Virtually all the early jurists accepted those canon law impediments grounded in Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers. See id., 61ff., 98ff., 132ff.

86. Id., 66, 102, 129-30. Luther concurred in this position only after 1530.

87. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 54ff., 93ff., 122ff., 153ff., Friedberg, supra note 22, at 212ff.; Köhler, supra note 28, at 375; and Kirstein, supra note 35, at 28ff., 57ff. See, e.g., the Consistory Ordinances of Brandenburg (1573) and Prussia (1584) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 2, 383ff., 466ff.

88. For the views of jurists and theologians, see Dietrich, supra note 22, at 65-66, 102, 128-29 and Köhler, , Gutachten der Juristen Nürnberg über die Ehesachen erstattet an Markgraf Georg zu Brandenberg, 11 Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 254, 266ff. (1914)Google Scholar, quoted in Harvey, supra note 36, at 154. the error of quality is cited as a ground for annulment in the Kurbrandenburg Church Ordinance (1540) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 323ff. Although the statutes of the sixteenth century make little mention of these impediments, studies of the case law of a number of cities show that these impediments protecting consent were enforced. See Dietrich supra note 22, at 157-58.

89. See Luther, supra note 1, at 28; Vol. 35, 138; Bucer, M., Commonplaces of Martin Bucer 406ff. (Wright, D. trans, and ed. 1971)Google Scholar; and discussion of other reformers' views in Dietrich, supra note 22, at 78ff., Hoff. the conservative jurists, such as Kling and Schürpf, however, rejected this impediment with great hesitation; Schürpf, in fact, by 1536, considered the children of clerics to be illegitimate and recommended that legacies and inheritances not be bequeathed to them. Id., 111.

90. Church Ordinances of Northeim (1539), Kurbrandenburg (1540), Braunschweigwolfenbuttel (1543) as well as the Consistory Ordinance of Wittenberg (1542) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 287ff., 323ff., 3671T., and Vol. 2, 56ff.

91. Selections, supra note 31, at 335. For the view of the early jurists, see Dietrich, supra note 22, at 128-29.

92. the early writers who adopted this position—Brenz, Kling, Clammer, Mauser, Monner, and, possibly also, Schneidewin—accepted the traditional doctrine as a restriction on marriage; they advocated annulment of consummated marriages only if the parties were related by blood to the second degree. to support their position, these early writers cited Scripture (Lev. 18:6-13) for the first degree; Roman law (D. 23, 2, 53, 68) and Scripture for the second; canon law and Germanic law for the third; and canon law for the fourth. See Dietrich, supra note 22, at 134-5.

It should be noted that strict enforcement of the impediment of consanguinity to the fourth degree eliminated for one person several hundred people as prospective marriage partners—an onerous restriction for those who lived in isolated, small communities.

93. Osiander's position, which accepted restrictions on blood relatives to the third degree, is neatly summarized by Harvey, supra note 36, at 250:

Osiander proposed four rules by which one could determine which degrees of relationship were forbidden: whatever wife is forbidden to me, the same woman's brother or spouse is forbidden to my sister; female and male sex makes no difference in the degrees of blood relationship; whatever is forbidden in the ascending line is also forbidden in the descending line; whatever man my wife cannot marry after my death because she has been my wife, the same man's wife is forbidden to me after his death.

See Dietrich, supra note 22, at 99 who discusses the other reformers' argument for restrictions only to the second degree. Impediments of consanguinity to the third degree were accepted by the Württemberg Marriage Ordinance (1537), the Cellisches Ehebedenken (1545), the Mecklenburg Church Ordinance (1557), the Hessen Reformation Ordinance (1572), the Mecklenburg Policy Ordinance (1572), the Lübeck Ordinance (1581) and others cited in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 280; Sehling, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 296 and Vol. 5, 212, and Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 50ff. Impediments of consanguinity to the second degree were accepted by the Saxon General Articles (1557) in Richter, at Vol. 2, 178ff.

94. Luther writes:

I will now list for you the persons whom God has forbidden, Leviticus 18, namely, my mother, my stepmother; my sister, my stepsister; my child's daughter or stepdaughter; my father's sister; my mother's sister.… From this it follows that first cousins may contract a godly and Christian marriage, and that I may marry my stepmother's sister, my fathers' stepsister, or my mother's stepsister. Further, I may marry the daughter of my brother or sister, just as Abraham married Sarah. None of these persons is forbidden by God, for God does not calculate according to degree as the jurists do, but enumerates directly specific persons.

Luther, supra note 1, at 23. See also Bucer, supra note 89, at 410. the Levitical law of impediments of consanguinity was adopted by later statutes, e.g., the Brandenburg Ordinance (1694) and the Prussian Cabinet Order (1740), discussed in Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 51-52.

95. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 135-36.

96. Id., 100, 161.

97. Id., 100, 136. Though most statutes silently ignore the spiritual impediments, a few statutes explicitly deny their validity, e.g., the Church Ordinance of Lower Saxony (1585) and the Braunschweiger Policy Ordinance (1618) in Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 53.

98. the legal impediment was retained by a few early reformers such as Kling, Schürpf and Brenz. Many later jurists who rejected the impediment still insisted that the adopted child be granted the full rights of protection and inheritance accorded the natural child. See id., at 101, 137 and the Württemberg Marriage Ordinance (1537) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 279ff.

99. See the Cellisches Ehebedenken (1545), the Consistory Ordinance of Goslar (1555), and the Marriage Ordinance of Dresden (1556) in Sehling, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 295; Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 2, 166 and Sehling, supra, at Vol. 1, 343. Cf. supra note 88 and accompanying text on the reformers' related position on the error of quality.

100. Dietrich, supra note 22, at 68, 102.

101. Luther, supra note 1, at 26. the story of David and Bathsheba is reported 2 Samuel 11:1-27.

102. these physical factors, however, were more frequently regarded by the reformers as grounds for divorce rather than for annulment. the distinction is discussed in the following sub-section.

103. The reformers often quoted Genesis. 2:24 in support of their view: “therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and the two become one flesh.” the reformers set forth their views on divorce and remarriage in a variety of tracts. See, e.g., Luther, supra note 1, Vol. 46, at 276ff.; Melanchthon, supra note 22; id., 7 Corpus Reformatorum 487 (C. Bretschneider ed. 1843); Bugenhagen, supra note 45, at folio 171ff.; Brenz, supra note 45, at folio 185ff.; Schneidewin, supra note 45, at 484ff.; Mauser, supra note 45, at 335ff.; Monner, supra note 45, at 203ff.; and sources cited infra notes 108, 111-12, 116-17. For general discussions, see Hesse, H., Evangelisches Ehescheidungsrecht in Deutschland (1960)Google Scholar; Albrecht, F., Verbrechen und Strafen als Ehescheidungsgrund Nach Evangelischen Kirchenrecht (1903)Google Scholar; Grabner, J., Ueber Desertion und Quasidesertion als Scheidungsgrund Nach dem Evangelischen Kirchenrecht (1882)Google Scholar; Richter, A., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Ehescheidungsrecht in der Evangelischen Kirche (1858)Google Scholar.

104. Bucer, , the Judgment of Martin Bucer touching Divorce taken out of the second book entitled, the Kingdom of Christ, in The Complete Prose Works of John Milton 465 (1643–1648; repr. ed. 1959)Google Scholar.

105. Bucer, supra note 84, at 416-7; Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 46, 275-281. See also Greve, J., Die Ehescheidung Nach der Lehre des Neuen Testaments 225ff. (1873)Google Scholar. the Roman Catholic interpretation of divorce, however, was also rooted in the teachings of the Church Fathers, whom the reformers also cited in support of their exegesis. See, e.g., Gratian, Decretum II. 32, 1–16Google Scholar who derives his interpretation of the term from a number of Church Fathers, especially Augustine.

106. Luther, supra note 1, at 30-31.

107. Bucer, quoted and discussed by Ozment, supra note 2, at 84.

108. Bucer's writings on divorce provide a particularly good example of such interwoven Scriptural and historical arguments; they are filled with loosely conjoined quotations from Scripture and the Church Fathers, Roman law and the Stoics. See Bucer, supra note 104, at 447ff. and supra note 89, at 407ff. For the historical arguments of other reformers, see Dietrich, supra note 22, at 103ff., 142ff.

109. Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-19.

110. Theodosian Code 3.16.1,2 (trans, and ed. C. Pharr 1959)Google Scholar; Justinian Code 5.17.8,9,10 in the Civil Law (Scott, S.P. trans, and ed. 1932)Google Scholar. Divorce by mutual consent, permitted by Emperor Anastasius in 497, was rejected some forty years later in Justinian's Novella 117. 8-14 in Id. For a discussion of the Roman law of divorce, see Corbett, P., The Roman Law of Marriage 218ff. (1930)Google Scholar. For a discussion of the influence of the early Christian church on the Roman laws of divorce, see Jonkers, E., Het Invloed van het Christendom op de Romanische Wetsgeving Betreffende het Concubinaat en de Echtscheiding (1938)Google Scholar.

111. Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 21, 94ff.; Bucer, supra note 89, at 411ff.; and the views of Brenz and Bugenhagen discussed by Ozment, supra note 1, at 89 and by Sprengler-Ruppenthal, supra note 50, at 395ff.

112. Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 21, 94. Brenz offers a similar perspective:

Because people who marry remain different and some totally lack the will to agree and cooperate, in time obstinancy and hatred overwhelm some marriages. For this reason, and in order to protect such couples from greater harm and unhappiness, Moses in the Old Testament favored their divorce, reasoning that while it did not accomplish anything positive, it at least prevented further and greater evil.

Brenz, J., Wie in Ehesachen (1531)Google Scholar, quoted by Ozment, supra note 2, at 89. Cf. also the sentiment of Bucer:

The Kingdom of the World … Christ entrusted to the laws of Moses and any other laws instituted for the common peace and probity, while himself he presented as the king of the kingdom of those who believe in him [laws that required] repentance and committed of themselves to the gracious will of God.… But even though the magistrate may personally keep in view the aim of inward integrity and blamelessness, nevertheless his commission extends only to the cognizance of outward conduct, and the goal assigned to him is the maintenance of public peace and quiet and wholesome decent behavior.

Bucer, supra note 89, at 411-12. See also the similar views of Melanchthon and Bugenhagen discussed in Richter, supra note 103, at 32ff. and Albrecht, supra note 103, at 12ff.

113. See the numerous church ordinances and other statutes quoted and discussed by Dietrich, supra note 22, at 12-14, 164; Hesse, supra note 103, at 31-33; and Albrecht, supra note 103, at 43-46. the Church Ordinance of Lübeck (1531) and Marriage Ordinance of Württemberg (1537), drafted by Brenz, as well as the Marriage Ordinance of Pfalz (1563) and Church Ordinance of Huttenberg (1555) cite Roman law prominently alongside Scripture in support of this ground for divorce. See Sehling, supra note 37, at Vol. 5, 356; Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 180 and Vol. 2, 257, 163. Melanchthon and Kling refer several times to earlier canonical and patristic writings in their discussions of adultery. Melanchthon, supra note 22 and 103 and Kling, supra note 45, folio 101v. See also Richter, supra note 103, at 29-30 for a discussion of Kling's views.

114. Luther, supra note 1, at 32; Ozment, supra note 2, at 85ff.; Hesse, supra note 103, at 32.

115. Bambergisches Halsgericht und rechtliche Ordnung, Art. 145 (1507)Google Scholar and Constitutio Criminalis Carolina, Art. 120 (1532)Google Scholar, quoted in Harvey, supra note 36, at 117-18. Both criminal statutes were drafted by the great criminal law reformer, Johann von Schwarzenberg, a friend and protege of Luther and other Lutheran reformers. On Schwarzenberg, see Berman, , Law and Belief in Three Revolutions, 18 Val. L. Rev. 569, 582–85 (1984)Google Scholar; Scheel, W., Johann Freiherr Zu Schwarzenberg (1905)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the marriage provisions in the Bambergensis and Carolina, see Schmidt, , Sinn und Bedeutung der Constitutio Criminalis Carolina als Ordnung des materiellen und prozessuallen Rechts, 83 Zeitschrift Der Savigny-Stiftung (Ger. Ab.) 239 (1966)Google Scholar and His, R., Geschichte der Deutschen Strafrechts bis zur Karolina 140ff. (1928)Google Scholar.

116. For the views of the reformers on capital punishment of adulterers, and the responses of civil authorities to these views, see Selections, supra note 31, at 32-33; Bucer, supra note 89, at 410-11; Dietrich, supra note 22, at 105ff.; Harvey, supra note 36, at 113ff.; Koch, supra note 37, at 141ff.; and Köhler, supra note 28, at 109ff. the Bambergensis and Carolina, however, ordered “death by the sword” as criminal punishment for adultery; these statutes further provided that innocent spouses who, on discovery of the philandering parties, immediately killed one or both of them, were not subject to penalty. Such provisions, which had been part of Germanic law for centuries, were only rarely enforced by the end of the sixteenth century. Even where the adulterer was spared, however, he or she was denied the right to remarry and was subject to severe penalty when prosecuted for subsequent acts of prostitution, homosexuality, and other sexual crimes. See Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 53-54.

117. This was the view of, e.g., Ambrosius Blarer and Johannes Oekolampadus, among theologians, and Schürpf, Schneidewin, Kling, and the draftsmen of the Church Ordinances of Schwabisch-Hall (1531) and of Lower Saxony (1585), among jurists. Johannes Brenz initially permitted divorce only on this ground, but later expanded the grounds for divorce. Even in this later period, however, Brenz permitted remarriage only to victims of adultery, and exacted ecclesiastical penalties against church members who divorced for reasons other than adultery. See Köhler, supra note 35, at 302; Hesse, supra note 103, at 32-33; Albrecht, supra note 103, at 14-16; and Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 61.

118. Among the numerous statutes quoted and discussed by Hesse, supra note 103, at 3335, Dietrich, supra note 42, at 17-25; Grabner, supra note 103, at 63ff.; and Schmelzeisen, supra note 37, at 60-61, see especially the Church Ordinances of Pommern (1535) and Lippische (1538), in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 250ff. and Vol. 2, 499ff. For a general historical overview of divorce based on desertion, see Hinschius, , Beiträge zur Geschichte des Desertionsprozesses, 2 Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht 28 (1861)Google Scholar.

119. See, e.g., the Church Ordinances of Goslar (1531) and Cellische (1545) and the Consistory Ordinance of Mecklenberg (1571) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 156; Sehling, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 295ff., and Vol. 5, 239ff.

120. Luther, supra note 1, at 33-34; Dietrich, supra note 22, at 105-106, 145; Dietrich, supra note 42, at 25-31.

121. Church Ordinances of Lippische (1538), Göttingen (1542), Mecklenberg (1552), the Württemberg Marriage Ordinance (1553) and the Consistory Ordinance of Prussia (1584) in Richter, supra note 37, at Vol. 1, 365, Vol. 2, 120, 130, 466, 499.

122. Ozment, supra note 2, at 93.

123. See the numerous statutory provisions listed in Dietrich, supra note 42, at 31ff.; Hesse, supra note 103, at 35ff. and Köhler, supra note 35, at 303ff.

124. See the Church Ordinances of Hannover (1536) and Huttenberg (1555), and the Marriage Ordinance of Pfalz (1563), quoted in Dietrich, supra note 42, at 31-32. A similar provision is recommended by Sacerius, supra note 45, at folio 216.

125. See, e.g., Luther, supra note 1, at Vol. 36, 102ff., Vol. 45, 30ff., and Vol. 46, 311ff.

126. Witness the conservative practices of the courts of Nürnberg, Zurich, and Basel as described in Harvey, supra note 36, at 153ff.; Ozment, supra note 2, at 93ff.; and Staehelin, A., Die Einführung der Ehescheidung in Basel zur Zeit der Reformation 101ff. (1957)Google Scholar.

127. For historical surveys of marriage law in these other countries, see Glendon, supra note 79, at 26ff., 189ff., 316ff.; Brissaud, J., A History of French Private Law 82ff. (Howell, R. trans. 2d ed. 1912)Google Scholar; Huebner, supra note 6, at 588ff.; Stone, L., The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1977)Google Scholar; Coing, H., Europäisches Privatrecht 224–260 (1985)Google Scholar.

128. Rogers, W., A Treatise on the Law of Domestic Relations 2 (1899)Google Scholar

129. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210-11 (1888); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165 (1878); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885).

130. See, e.g., Schouler, J., A Treatise on the Law of Marriage, Divorce, Separation and Domestic Relations (6th ed. 1921)Google Scholar; Radin, , Common Law of the Family, 6 Nat. L. Lib. Leg. Rel. 79 (1939)Google Scholar; Morland, J., Keezer On the Law of Marriage and Divorce (3d ed. 1946)Google Scholar.

131. See, e.g., Foster, , A “Basic Civil Right of Man”, 37 Ford. L. Rev. 51 (1968)Google Scholar; Comment, Marriage as Contract: Towards a Functional Redefinition of the Marriage Status, 9 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Prob. 607 (1973)Google Scholar; Weitzmann, , Legal Regulation of Marriage: Tradition and Change, A Proposal for Individual Contracts and Contracts in Lieu of Marriage, 62 Calif. L. Rev. 1169 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weitzmann, , The Marriage Contract (1981)Google Scholar; and Schulz, , Contractual Ordering of Marriage: A New Model for State Policy, 70 Calif. L. Rev. 204 (1982)Google Scholar [hereinafter Schulz].

132. An overview of marriage law developments in the past decade is provided in Weyrauch, W. & Katz, S., American Family Law in Transition (1983)Google Scholar [hereinafter Weyrauch & Katz] and literature cited therein. Note these penetrating observations of Glendon, supra note 79, at 1:

Beginning in the middle 1960s, there has been an unparalleled upheaval in the family law systems of Western industrial societies. Legal norms which had been relatively undisturbed for centuries have been discarded or radically altered in the areas of marriage law, divorce law, the legal effects of marriage and divorce, the legal relationship of parent and child and the status of illegitimate children. … The change equals and surpasses in magnitude that which occurred when family law matters passed from ecclesiastical to secular jurisdiction in most Western countries in the age that began with the Protestant Reformation. The change is characterized by progres-sive withdrawal of legal regulation of marriage formation, dissolution and the conduct of married life, on the one hand, and by increased regulation of the economic and child related consequences of formal or informal cohabitation on the other.

133. One of the leading cases, followed by many jurisdictions, is Posner v. Posner, 223 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1970). For a discussion of the recent case and statutory law, see Clark, , Antenuptial Contracts, 50 U. Colo. L. Rev. 141 (1979)Google Scholar; Haskell, , Premarital Estate Contract and Social Policy, 57 N.C.L. Rev. 415 (1979)Google Scholar; Schulz, supra note 131, at 280ff.; and Weyrauch & Katz, supra note 132, at 4-44.

134. The first such statute was passed in California [Cal. Civ. Code § 4506 (West., 1970)]; within a decade, similar statutes were passed in all but two states. See generally, Freed, & Foster, , Divorce in the Fifty States, 14 Fam. L.Q. 229 (1981)Google Scholar; Weitzmann, L., The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America 15–51 (1985)Google Scholar. For a comparative perspective, see Glendon, supra note 79, at 225-78.

135. See, e.g., New Jersey Welfare Rights Organ, v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619 (1973); United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973); King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). See interesting discussions of these and other cases in Noonan, , The Family and the Supreme Court, 23 Cath. U. of Am. L. Rev. 255 (1973)Google Scholar and Note, Developments in the Law—The Constitution and the Family, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1156 (1980)Google Scholar.

136. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976). See Noonan, J., A Private Choice: Abortion in America in the Seventies (1979)Google Scholar and Weyrauch & Katz, supra note 132, at 235-44.

137. See cases cited supra note 136, as well as Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977) and Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972).

138. For a discussion of recent American case and statutory law, see Schulz, supra note 131, at 280; Weyrauch & Katz, supra note 132, at 115-224; and O'Donnell, W. & Jones, D., The Law of Marriage and Marriage Alternatives (1982)Google Scholar. For a comparative perspective, see Glendon, supra note 79, at 78-112 and Agell, , The Swedish Legislation on Marriage and Cohabitation: A Journey Without a Destination, 29 J. Comp. L. 285 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139. Though homosexual couples do not, as yet, have the right to marry, there is a growing movement to secure for homosexual couples the same rights and privileges accorded to heterosexual married couples. Among the numerous writings, see Grey, T., The Legal Enforcement of Morality 67ff. (1983)Google Scholar; Homosexuality and the Law (Knutson, D., ed. 1980)Google Scholar; Karst, , The Freedom of Intimate Association, 89 Yale L.J. 624 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Comment, Homosexuals' Rights to Marry: A Constitutional Test and a Legislative Solution, 128 U. Pa. L. Rev. 193 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.