[Footnote 246: BUNNY, _Of Divorce for Adulterie, and Marrying againe: that there is no sufficient Warrant so to do_ (Oxford, 1610). This book had been written many years before. The preface is dated Dec. 13, 1595; and in it Bunny refers to the state of public opinion and to events, notably in Yorkshire, of a still earlier time. In "a Sermon," he says: "I breefly noted, that the libertie, that in these our daies many doe take, of divorcing their wiues for adulterie and marying of others, had not such warrant in the worde of God as they thought that it had." Just before delivering this discourse a gentleman who desired to put away his wife for adultery and marry again, "and having already gotten (into a little paper-book of his) the handes of sundrie of the Preachers of those parts," had come to him for similar support. He further notes that "a few yeeres" earlier not less than "fowre several persons" of one of the greatest families in "those parts" had married again after divorce; and in general his "Advertisement to the Reader" leaves the impression that the new doctrine was, on the whole, the prevailing one; although, according to law, "neither those second women were allowed any dowrie, nor their children to be legitimate."] [Footnote 247: WHITGIFT, "Defence of the Answer," _Works_, III, 267 ff. _Cf._ BULLINGER, _Decades_, IV (V), 511.] [Footnote 248: These ordinances are known as the "Ecclesiastical Constitutions" of 1597. Canon 105 urges greater care in matrimonial causes, especially in cases where marriage "is required to be _dissolved_ or _annulled_;" and it is strictly charged "that in all proceedings in _divorce_ and _nullities of marriage_, good circumspection and advice be used, and that the truth may, as far as possible, be sifted out by depositions of witnesses and other lawful proofs; and that credit be not given to the sole confession of the parties themselves, howsoever taken upon oath either within or without the court." The 107th canon requires a bond to be given in case of "sentences pronounced only for divorce and separation _à thoro et mensâ_," that "the parties so separated shall live chastely, and neither shall they, during each other's life, contract matrimony with other persons." From these canons it has been inferred with some plausibility that both "dissolving divorce" and "nullifying divorce" are contemplated as valid and customary; and that the requiring of a bond implies that the marriage which the bond is intended to prevent would have been valid: see _Law Review_ (Eng.), I, 359, 360, and the opinions there cited; also _Plea for an Alteration in the Divorce Laws_ (London, 1831), 3 ff.]