It is generally best, where the words are at all ambiguous, to give the reader the power of judging for himself. But I by no means pretend that Dr. Lingard is mistaken. On the contrary, the language of this passage leads to a strong suspicion that the rigour of popish persecution was intended to remain, especially as the writ de hæretico comburendo was in force by law, and there is no hint of taking it away. Yet it seems monstrous to conceive that the denial of predestination (which by the way is asserted in this collection, tit. de hæresibus, c. 22, with a shade more of Calvinism than in the articles) was to subject any one to be burned alive. And on the other hand, there is this difficulty, that Arianism, Pelagianism, popery, anabaptism, are all put on the same footing; so that, if we deny that the papist or free-willer was to be burned, we must deny the same of the anti-trinitarian, which contradicts the principle and practice of that age. Upon the whole, I cannot form a decided opinion as to this matter. Dr. Lingard does not hesitate to say, "Cranmer and his associates perished in the flames which they had prepared to kindle for the destruction of their opponents." Upon further consideration, I incline to suspect that the temporal punishment of heresy was intended to be fixed by act of parliament; and probably with various degrees, which will account for the indefinite word "puniendus." Before I quit these canons, one mistake of Dr. Lingard's may be corrected. He says that divorces were allowed by them not only for adultery, but cruelty, desertion, and _incompatibility of temper_. But the contrary may be clearly shown, from tit. de matrimonio, c. 11, and tit. de divortiis, c. 12. Divorce was allowed for something more than incompatibility of temper; namely, _capitales inimicitiæ_, meaning, as I conceive, attempts by one party on the other's life. In this respect, their scheme of a very important branch of social law seems far better than our own. Nothing can be more absurd than our modern _privilegia_, our acts of parliament to break the bond between an adulteress and her husband. Nor do I see how we can justify the denial of redress to women in every case of adultery and desertion. It does not follow that the marriage tie ought to be dissolved as easily as it is, at least by the rich, in the Lutheran states of Germany. [144] Strype, _passim_. Burnet, ii. 154; iii. Append. 200; Collier, 294, 303. [145] Strype, Burnet. The former is more accurate. [146] Burnet, 237, 246; 3 Strype, 10, 341. No part of England suffered so much in the persecution. [147] _Ambassades de Noailles_, v. ii. _passim_. 3 Strype, 100.