An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church

by Henry Charles Lea

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Amos ii. 7.—Deut. xxiii. 18.—Micah i. 7.—Herod. I. 199.—Cf. Kuenen, Religion of Israel, I. 92-3, 368.—Rawlinson’s Essay X. on Herod. I.—Luciani de Syria Dea vi.

[2] When the Church assumed that marriage was incompatible with the ministry of the altar, it was somewhat puzzled to reconcile the hereditary character of the high priesthood with the morning and evening sacrifice required of the high priest (Exod. XXX. 7-8). For ingenious special pleading to explain this away, see St. Augustin, Quæstt. in Pentateuch. III. lxxxii. and Retractt. II. lv. 2.

[3] Num. VI. 2-21.—Judges XIII-XVI.—I. Sam. I. 11.—Lament. IV. 7-8.—Amos II. 11-12.—I. Macc. III. 49.—Mishna, Tract. Nazir.

[4] Yasht-Kordah 10.—Bahram Yasht 46.—Sad-der, Porta C.—Philost. de Vit. Sophistt. I. 10.

[5] Justin. Historiar. X. ii.

[6] Kapila’s Aphorisms I. 1 (Ballantyne’s Translation).—Sankhya Karika XLV., LXVI., LXVIII. (Colebrook & Wilson’s Translation).—For the intercourse between India and the West, see A. Weber, “Die Verbindungen Indiens,” etc., in “Indische Skizzen.”

[7] Surangama Sutra (Beal’s Catena, pp. 348-9).—Davids and Oldenberg’s Vinaya Texts, Part I. p. 4.—Hodgson’s Essays on the Languages, etc., of Nepal and Tibet, pp. 63, 68-70.—Hardy’s Eastern Monachism, pp. 50 sqq.

[8] Manava Dharma Sastra IV. 257; VI. 1-81. Yet the Sutta Nipata, a Buddhist scripture of unquestioned antiquity, states that of old the Brahmans practised celibacy up to the forty-eighth year. (Sir M. C. Swamy’s Translation, p. 81.) Cf. Strabon. Lib. XV., and Clement. Alexand. Stromat. Lib. III.

[9] See Bisse’s edition of Palladius de Gentibus Indiæ.—Diog. Laert. Proœm.—Philost. de Vit. Apollon. Tyan.—Porphyr. de Abstinent. IV. 17.

[10] A. Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., pp. 163, 237-9.—Wilson’s Vishnu Purana, I. 164.—Garrett’s Class. Dict. India, p. 753.

[11] Rig Veda, VIII. VIII. 48 (Langlois’ Translation).—Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, IV. 160 sqq.—Harivansa Lect. XXXII.—Hitopadesa (Lancereau’s Translation, pp. 178-9, and note to p. 160). The same follies were common to Buddhism. See Fah-Hian (Beal’s Buddhist Pilgrims, pp. 101-2).—Eitel’s Handbook of Chinese Buddhism, pp. 33, 76.—Rogers’s Buddaghosha’s Parables, p. 59.—How nearly Christian extravagance reached these altitudes may be seen by reference to the Umbilicani or Quietist monks of Mt. Athos, in the fourteenth century, who became suffused with divine light after prolonged contemplation of their navels (Basnage, in Canisii Thes. Monument. Eccles. IV. 366, sqq.—Dupin, Bibl. des Auteurs Eccles. XI. 96.—Beal’s Catena, p. 151).

[12] A very good exposition of the Pharisaic revolution will be found in Cohen, Les Pharisiens, 2 vols. 8vo., Paris, 1877.

[13] Josephi Vit. 2.—Ejusd. Antiq. XV. x. 5; XVII. xiii. 3; XVIII. i. 5.—Ejusd. Bell. Jud. II. viii. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.—Euseb. H. E. II. 23, ex Hegesippo.—Hippol. Refut. Omn. Hæres. IX. xiii.-xxii.—Philastr. Lib. de Hæres. ix.—Matt. xix. 12.—Porphyr. de Abstinent. IV. 11-13.—Philo probably obtained from the Essenes the ideal which he embodied in his account of the supposititious Therapeutæ (Philon. Lib. de Vit. Contempl. pp. 690-1, Ed. 1613).

[14] Matt. xxxiii. 3.—Luc. xi. 46.—Matt. xi. 4-10.

[15] Acts ii. 44-6.—James ii. 10.—Matt. v. 17-19; xxiii. 15.—Cf. Galat. ii. 7.

[16] Irenæi contra Hæres. I. xxvi. 2.—Hippol. Refut. Omn. Hæres. VII. xxii.—Tertullii Præscript. xlvii.—Euseb. H. E. III. xxvii.—Epiphan. Panar. Hæres. XXX.—Hieron. Comment. in Matt. II. xii. 2.—It is possible that “them which say they are Jews and are not,” condemned in Rev. ii. 9; iii. 9, were Ebionites. The Talmud represents the Jewish doctors, after the destruction of Jerusalem, as consorting familiarly and disputing with the Ebionite Christians (Cohen, II. 238-9).

[17] Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 34.

[18] Gratiani Decret. P. I. Dist. XXXI. c. xi.

[19] Gratiani Comment. in Can. 13. Dist. LVI. See also Comment. in Dist. XXXI.

[20] Summa II. ii. Quæst. 186 Art. 4 § 3.

[21] Gemma Eccles. II. vi.

[22] Casar solien todos los clérigos antiguamiente en el comienzo de la nuestra ley, segunt lo facien en la ley vieja de los judios: mas despues deso los clérigos de occidente, que obedecieron siempre á la eglesia de Roma, accordaron de vevir en castidat.—Las Siete Partidas I. vi. 39.

[23] Dial. Sophiæ et Naturæ Act. 4.

[24] Non erravit ecclesia primitiva quæ sacerdotibus permisit uxores.—Ænei Sylvii Epist. CXXX. (ap. Zaccaria, Storia Polemica del Celibato Sacro, Roma, 1775, p. 354).

[25] Boussard’s tract “De continentia Sacerdotum sub hac quæstione nova. Utrum papa possit cum sacerdote dispensare ut nubat,” was several times reprinted. The edition before me is that of Nürnberg, 1510.

[26] Le Plat, Concil. Trident. Monument. VI. 337.

[27] Zaccaria, op. cit. p. 65. It is curious to observe how, in his anxiety to explain the neglect of the church for these assumed Apostolic commands, Zaccaria proceeds to show that the orders of the Apostles were never received as absolutely binding, as for instance in regard to the prohibition of eating blood and animals dead through strangulation (Ib. p. 116).

[28] Taillard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, Gnesen, 1842.

[29] 1. Cor. vii. 8-9, 38.—1. Tim. ii. 14-15.

[30] 1. Tim. iv. 3.

[31] Quid enim enumeremus infinitam multitudinem eorum qui ab incontinenti intemperataque vita abducti sunt quum hæc ipsa didicissent?—Just. Mart. Apol. II.

[32] “Si glorietur, perditur: et si videri velit plus Episcopo, corruptus est.”—Ad Polycarp. cap. v. (Cureton’s Corpus Ignat. p. 10.) This is the received Latin text, but the weight of authority seems to incline rather to the reading πλήν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου than πλέον (Cureton, p. 228—Petermann’s Ignatius, 274-5). The difference, however, is of little moment to our present purpose.

[33] Just. Mart. Apol. II.—Athenagor. pro Christianis Legat.—M. Minuc. Felicis Octavius.—Origenis Comment. in Matt. XIV. 24-5.

[34] So widely spread had these doctrines become by the end of the second century that Clement of Alexandria devotes the third book of his Stromata to their discussion and refutation. It is not worth while to examine their peculiarities minutely here. The curious reader can find all that he is likely to want concerning them in Irenæus, Hippolytus, Clement, Epiphanius, and Philastrius, without plunging further into the vast sea of controversial patristic theology.

[35] Apocalyps. II. 6, 14, 15, 20.—Irenæi contr. Hæres. I. xxvi.—Hippolyti Ref. omn. Hæres. IV. xxiv.—Clem. Alex. Stromat. Lib. III.—Epiphan. Hæres. XXV.—The injustice thus inflicted on the memory of the worthy Nicholas is recognized by the Apostolical Constitutions (Lib. IV. c. viii.). In 1679, E. P. Rothius published a dissertation (De Nicholaitis), in which a vast mass of curious learning is brought to the vindication of the apostolic deacon.

[36] Rufin. Hist. Eccles.—Euseb. IV. 23.

[37] Hieron. adv. Jovin. Lib. I. c. 42.

[38] Compare Beal’s “Romantic Legend of Sakhya Buddha from the Chinese Sanscrit,” pp. 33 sqq., with the Protevangelion, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Gospel of Nicodemus, etc.

Somewhat similar to the Buddhist legend is the assertion of the Jainas that their great Tirthankara, Mahavira, selected the womb of Brahamani Devanandi, wife of Rishabha Datta, as his place of birth; but Sakra, indignant that he should be born in the Brahman caste, caused him to be transferred to Trisala, wife of the Kshatriya Siddhartha (Kalpa Sutra, Bk. I. ch. i. Stevenson’s Translation, pp. 24, 38). Concerning the comparative priority of Jainism and Buddhism, see Thomas’s “Jainism, or the early Faith of Asoka,” London, 1877.

In this connection, it is perhaps worth while to note the Mazdean belief in Saoshyans, the future Messiah, who, as in Judaism, is to overcome the evil powers at the end of the world, and preside over the resurrection of mankind, and who is to be born of a virgin, Eredhat Fedri. (Vendidad, Fargard XIX. 18; Bundehesh XXX. XXXII. 8, 9; Haug’s Essays, Ed. 1878, pp. 313-14). The mode of his conception as related in the Bundehesh, may be compared with the less decent speculations of Sanchez as to that of Christ.

[39] Beal’s Buddhist Tripitaka, pp. 114-5.

[40] Marini, Missioni di Tumkino, Roma, 1663, pp. 125, 481, 490 sq.

[41] “Quare vel ut natus est unusquisque nostrum manet, vel nuptiis copulatus unicis, secundæ enim decorum quoddam adulterium sunt.” Athenag. pro Christ. Legat.—“Unius matrimonii vinculo libenter inhæremus, cupiditate procreandi aut unam scimus aut nullam.” M. Minuc. Felicis Octavius.—“Ut ii qui lege humana bis conjugium ineunt peccatores sunt apud præceptorem nostrum.” Justin. Mart. Apol. II.—I. Cor. vii. 39.

[42] Concil Neocæs. ann. 314 c. 7.—Concil. Laodicens. ann. 352 c. 1.—Gelasii PP. I. Epist. IX. Rubr. ad cap. xxii.—Cf. Hieron. Epist. XLVIII. apologeticus, c. 18.—Ejusd. Comment. in Jeremiam Prolog. Even in modern times the priest who pronounces a benediction on a second marriage commits an offence subjecting him to punishment (Rodriguez, Nuova Somma de’Casi di Coscienza, Venez. 1609. P. I. cap. ccxl. No. 4).

[43] Val. Max. II. i. 3.—Plut. Quæstt. Roman. 105.—Diod. Sicul. XII. 14.—Tertull. Lib. di Exhort. Castit. xiii.—Auli Gellii X. 15.

[44] Tertull. Lib. di Exhort. Castit. VII.; de Monogam. xi.—Concil. Eliberit. xxxviii.

[45] Hippol. Ref. omn. Hæres. IX. vii.—Hieron. Epist. LXIX. ad Oceanum.—Constit. Apostol. VI. 17.—Canon. Apostol. xvii., xviii., xix.

[46] I. Tim. iii. 2, 11, 12—Tit. i. 6.—Origenis Comment. in Matt. XIV. 23. The polygamy practised by the Jews from the earliest times was continued after the Dispersion. Justin Martyr taxes them with it (Dial. cum Tryphone), and Theodosius, in 393 endeavored to suppress it (Const. 7 Cod. Lib. II. Tit. ix.) by a law, the preservation of which by Justinian, after an interval of nearly a century and a half, shows that the necessity for the prohibition still existed. Even among some of the eastern Christians the precept was required, if we may believe some ancient Arabic canons, which pass under the name of the Council of Nicæa (Decret. ex quatuor Regum libris can. v. ap. Harduin. Concil. I. 511).

This explanation of St. Paul’s injunction is adopted by Theophylact (Comment. in I. Epist. ad Timoth.) and is expressed in the paraphrase “non plures habens uxores quam unam,” in a tract of uncertain date, attributed to St. Cyprian or St. Augustin (De XII. Abusionibus Seculæ cap. x. ap. Opp. S. Cypriani Mantissa p. 49, Oxon. 1682). This is likewise the view put forward by the Church of Geneva in 1563 when replying to certain queries of the Huguenot Synod of Lyons (Cap. XXI. Art. x. ap. Quick, Synodicon in Gall. Reform. I. 49). Origen’s discussion of the matter (Comment. in Matt. XIV. 23-4) shows how doubtful he considered it.

In fact, if the text is to be construed with rigorous exactness, it would exclude all unmarried men from the episcopate, and this seems to be the sense attributed to it in the Apostolic Constitutions (Lib. II. c. ii.), which in commenting upon it do not appear to contemplate bachelors as eligible.

[47] Levit. XXI. 13-14.—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. xxii. c. 1.—Epistt. Leon. PP. I. ap. Harduin. Concil. I. 1767, 1772, etc.

[48] Concil. Eliberit. can. 65.—Concil. Neocæsarens. c. 8.—Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 516. can. 9.—Boussardus de Continent. Sacerdot. Prop. 6., Nuremb., 1510.

[49] Constit. Apostol. VI. 17.—Canon. Apostol. VI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXVII.

[50] Porphyr. de Abstinent. II. 46, 61; IV. 20.—Cf. Jambl. de Mysteriis IV. xi.—Damasceni Vit. Isidori 311.

[51] For the influence of Buddhism on Neo-platonism, Gnosticism, and Manichæism, see A. Weber, Indische Skizzen, pp. 63, 91.

[52] Origenis Comment. in Matt. XV. 1-3.—Just. Martyr. Apolog. II.—Epiphan. Hæres. LVII.—Can. Apostol. XXII. XXIII. XXIV.—Concil. Nicæn. c. i.—Concil. Arelatens. II. ann. 452 c. vii., etc.—Sexti Philos. Sent. IX.—At the close of the twelfth century the canons were relaxed by Clement III. in favor of a priest of Ravenna whose ascetic ardor had led him to follow the example of Origen, and who was permitted to retain all the functions of the priesthood except the ministry of the altar (Can. iv. Extra, I. XX.). In the sixteenth century, Ambrosio Morales, a Dominican, took the same effectual means to extinguish his passions and was in consequence expelled from the Order, as required by the canons. He betook himself to literature and died in 1590 at the age of sixty, while professor of eloquence in the University of Alcalà (De Thou, Lib. XCIX.). The practice has perpetuated itself to the nineteenth century in a Russian sect, which Catherine II. and her successors endeavored in vain to repress. In 1818 Alexander II. ordered the enthusiasts banished to Siberia, but the ardor with which they courted martyrdom rendered their zeal dangerously contagious and they were left in obscurity, in the hope of their dying out (Pluquet, Dict. des Hérésies, s. v. Mutilés de Russie). This proved equally ineffectual, for a recent traveller describes them under the name of Skopsis as a large tribe inhabiting the Caucasus, where they flourish in spite of the most energetic measures of repression on the part of the government—imprisonment, banishment to Siberia, conscription, and even the death penalty being powerless to overcome their fanaticism (Brugsch, Reise der Preussischen Gesandschaft nach Persien, 1860-1, ap. London Reader, Jan. 3, 1863). Buffon (Hist. Nat. de l’Homme, ap. Helsen, Abus du Célibat des Prêtres, p. 52) states that he was acquainted with a priest who had adopted this mode as the only one to preserve his virtue.

[53] Cyprian, de Habit. Virgin.—That such laxity was indulged in by professed virgins is the more remarkable since promiscuous bathing was forbidden to every one by the Apostolic Constitutions, Lib. I. c. x.

[54] Tertull. de Virgin. veland. c. XV.

[55] Cyprian. Epist. IV. ad Pomponium.

[56] Concil. Antioch (Harduin. Concil. I. 198). Cf. Lactant. Divin. Instit. VI. XIX.—Extravagances of this kind long continued to be a favorite exercise with enthusiasts. In 450 the anchorites of Palestine are described as herding together without distinction of sex, and with no garments but a breech-clout; while others who frequented the cities exhibited their self-control by appearing in the public baths with women. (Niceph. Callist. H. E. XIV. 50.)

[57] Constit. Apost. II. i. ii.—Statut. Eccles. Antiq. CIV.

[58] Chronique de Tabari, Ed. Rothenberg, II. 90. It is curious to observe that Persian tradition represented Manes as a Chinese magician and an excellent painter, who constructed figures that were able to move, and thus deceived the people. After gaining the confidence of the monarch, he was vanquished in controversy with the chief Mobed, and was flayed alive. (Mohl’s Livre des Rois, V. 379-81.)

[59] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. v. l. 7.—Cf. Concil. Quinisext, c. 95.

Scythianus, the precursor of Manes, is said by Epiphanius (Hæres. LXVI.) to have visited India and to have brought from there certain books of magic, which must have been Buddhist, as Buddhism was at that period supreme in the Peninsula. His disciple, Terbinthus, the link between him and Manes, assumed the name of the Buddha.

[60] Ephræmi Syri Hymn. II. (Wegnern, Manichæorum Indulgentias, Lipsiæ 1827)—Thomas’s Sassanian Inscriptions, p. 65.—Mainyo-i-khard, West’s Ed. XVI. 16 sq. and West’s note p. 160; Glossary p. 64.—Haug’s Essays, Bombay Ed. p. 239.—Shayast la-Shayast XVII. 2 (West’s Pahlavi Texts, Pt. I. p. 382 and West’s note p. 284).—Dadistan-i Dinik, ch. XXVIII.-XXX. (Pahlavi Texts, II. 58 sqq.)—Plutarch de Isid. et Osirid. 46.—Justin. Mart. Apolog. II.

[61] Leon. PP. I. Serm. XLII. cap. 5.

[62] Epiphan. Hæres. LXVI.—The same doctrine was held by the Patricians, according to Philastrius, P. III. No. 15.

[63] Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 3.—Ejusd. Epist. ad Eustoch. c. 5.

[64] Augustin. Epist. LXXIV. ad Deuterium—Ejusd. contra Faustum Lib. XXX. c. iv.

[65] Cyprian. de Habit. Virgin.—Synod. II. S. Patric. c. 18.

[66] Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 2, 26.—Ejusd. Epistt. L. LI. LII.

[67] Augustin. de Concupisc. et de Nuptiis.—Ejusd. de Bono Conjugali c. x.—Panzini (Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 193) is not far wrong in suggesting that the learned doctors who thus decry marriage are guilty of the blasphemy of addressing their creator—“Vergognatevi di avere inventato un modo così turpe per darci l’esistenza!”

[68] Sulpic. Sever. Dial. II.

[69] In Mag. Bib. Pat. T. V. P. II. pp. 652, 658.

[70] Gregor. P.P. I. Regist. Lib. XI. Epist. lxiv. Respons. 10; Lib. III. Epist. lxv.

[71] Theodor. Penitent. Lib. I. c. xiv. 1, 2, 3. (Haddon & Stubbs’s Councils, III. 187.)

[72] Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. Cathol.

[73] Constit. Apostol. Lib. IV. c. 14; VI. 11, 14, 26, 27, 28; VIII. 30.

[74] Lactant. Instit. Divin. VI. xvi. xxiii.

[75] The fiftieth canon was omitted by Dionysius Exiguus, but was subsequently admitted by the church, notwithstanding that it proves in the clearest manner the full enjoyment of marriage by all grades of the clergy. The sixth canon (numbered fifth in the full collection) which prohibits the separation of ecclesiastics from their wives, was likewise accepted, although in the eighteenth century Cabassut stigmatizes it as heretical.

[76] Conc. Carthag. IV. c. 1.

[77] Thus Tibullus (Lib. I. El. I.)—

“Vos quoque abesse procul jubeo, discedite ab aris,

Queis tulit hesterna gaudia nocte Venus.

Casta placent Superis.”

Cf. Juvenal, VI. 534-5.—Ælii Lamprid. Alex. Sever. XXIX.—Porphyr. de Abstinent. II. 50; IV. 6, 7.—Arriani de Epictet. Disertt. Lib. III. c. xxi.—I. Cor. vii. 5.

[78] Diod. Sicul. I. 80.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. II. 13.—Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. 2.—Lucian. de Syria Dea XV.—Sil. Ital. Punicor. III. 21-8.—Cf. Virg. Æneid. VI. 661.—Pausan. VII. XXV. 8. Egyptian customs in this respect may perhaps be traced to the vow of continence made by Isis after the death of her husband-brother, Osiris (Diod. Sicul. I. 27). The Emperor Julian’s neo-platonic explanation of the Syrian asceticism (Orat V.) is not without analogy to some of the rhapsodies of the fathers in the praise of virginity.

[79] Juliani Imp. Orat. V.—Tertull. de Monogam. xvii.; ad Uxorem I. 6; de Exhort. Castit. xiii.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 26.—Pausan. IX. xxvii. 5.—Sueton. Octav. xxxviii.

[80] Concil. Eliberitan, can. 27, 33.—The 29th canon of the first council of Arles held in 314, if genuine, marks the extension of the movement eastward, but as it is contained in but one MS., Mansi supposes it probably to belong to some subsequent and forgotten synod. It is almost identical with Concil. Telensis ann. 386 can. 9; and, whatever be its date, its phraseology evidently indicates that it records the first introduction of the rule in its locality.

[81] Concil. Ancyran. ann. 314 can 9.—Concil. Neocæsar. ann. 314 can 1, 8.

[82] Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. I. ix.

[83] I give the version of Dionysius Exiguus: “Interdixit per omnia magna synodus, non episcopo, non presbytero, non diacono, nec alicui omnino qui in clero est, licere subintroductam habere mulierem; nisi forte matrem, aut sororem, aut amitam, vel eas tantum personas quæ suspiciones effugiunt.”

An Arabic version of the Nicene canons specially limits the prohibition to bishops, and to unmarried priests and deacons.—“Decernimus ut episcopi non habitent cum mulieribus.... Idem decernitur de omni sacerdote cœlibe, idemque de diaconis qui sine uxore sunt.” (Harduin. Concil. I. 463.)—This expresses nearly the discipline of the Greek church.

[84] Concil. Ancyrens. can. 18.

[85] Pudet dicere, proh nefas! triste sed verum est. Unde in ecclesias Agapetarum pestis introiit? unde sine nuptiis aliud nomen uxorum? immo unde novum concubinarum genus? Plus inferam. Unde meretrices univiræ? eadem domo, uno cubiculo sæpe tenentur et lectulo: et suspiciosos nos vocant si aliquid extimemus. Frater sororem virginem deserit, cœlibum spernit virgo germanum, fratrem quærit extraneum: et cum in eodem proposito esse se simulent, quærunt alienorum spiritale solatium, ut domi habeant carnale commercium. (Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. c. 5.) It should be observed that celibacy had become the rule of the church at the time when Jerome wrote thus.

[86] Accusant nimirum eos qui in ecclesia dilectas appellatas, aliunde introductas ac cohabitantes fœminas habent.—Panar. Hæres. LXIII.

[87] Hieron. Epist. ad Oceanum de Vit. Cleric.

[88] When, during the demoralization of the tenth century, the council of Augsburg made a spasmodic effort to revive the neglected rule of celibacy, it endeavored to include the lower orders of the clergy within its scope. Ratramnus of Corvey also does not fail to point out that such was the incontrovertible meaning of the Nicene canon, which in his time was universally considered to refer to marriage.

[89] Siricii Epist. 2.—Innocent. ad Victricium, ad Exuperium, &c.

[90] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 44.

[91] The learned and orthodox Zaccaria, concludes that the Nicene canon was only intended to forbid the irregular connexions with agapetæ, whence he ingeniously argues that as the Council of Nicæa did not in any way forbid priestly marriage, the origin of the rule of celibacy is to be assigned to the Apostles.—Storia Polemica, p. 90.

[92] Pseudo-Concil. Roman. sub. Silvest. can. xix. (Migne’s Patrol. VIII. 840.)

[93] Socrat. H. E. Lib. I. c. 11.—Sozomen. H. E. Lib. I. c. 22.

[94] Bernald. Altercat. de Incont. Sacerd.

[95] Monumenta Gregoriana (Migne’s Patrol T. CXLVIII. p. 1378).

[96] Verum quidem est, quod ob ministrorum Dei defectum in primitiva ecclesia conjugati admittebantur ad sacerdotium, ut ex canonibus apostolorum et Paphnutii responso liquet, et in Concilio Nicæno.—(Respons. Pii. IV. ap. Le Plat, Concil. Trident. Monument. VI. 337.)

[97] Sed præ cæteris omnibus Socrates et Sozomenus ac Theodoretus totius antiquitatis judicio celebrati sunt, qui ab iis temporibus exorsi, in quibus Eusebius scribendi finem fecerat, ad Theodosii junioris tempora opus suum perduxerunt.—H. Valesii Præfat.

[98] Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. c. 7.

So also Rufinus (Hist. Eccles. Lib. X. c 4): “Fuit præterea in illo concilio et Paphnutius homo Dei, episcopus Ægypti partibus, confessor, etc.,” but he makes no allusion to the incident related by Socrates and Sozomen.

[99] Act. Concil. Nicæn. II. xxxii. (Harduin. I. 438).—Hist. Tripart. II. 13.—Chr. Lupi Opp. I. 239 (Venet. 1724).

[100] Epist. ad Dracontium.

[101]

Οὐπω τοσουτον ἐκμεμετρηκας βιον,

Ὁσος διηλθε θυσιων ἐμοι χρονος.

Baronius labors hard to break the force of this assertion, but his arguments seem to me successfully controverted by Calixtus. (De Conjug. Cleric. Ed. 1783, pp. 261-74.) The chapter devoted to this question by Zaccaria (Storia Polem. Lib. I. cap. vii.) is an example of desperate special pleading.

[102] Concil. Laodicens. can. xi.

[103] Romans, XVI. 1. The number of women alluded to by St. Paul in this chapter shows how active they were in disseminating the faith. Junia he dignities with the title of Apostle.

[104] Atton. Vercell. Epist. viii.—Epiphanius (Hæres. LXXIX) denies that women had ever been permitted to rise beyond the diaconate, and asserts that their functions in that grade were simply to render to women such offices as decency forbade to men. In the West, the ordination of deaconesses was prohibited by Concil. Arausican. I. ann. 441 can. xxvi.; Concil. Epaonens. ann. 513 can. xxi., and Concil. Aurelianens. II. ann. 538 can. xviii., on account of disorders arising through the fragility of the sex, as was perhaps not unnatural, after the adoption of enforced celibacy. It was probably for the sake of order that St. Paul forbade women from teaching or asking questions in church (I Cor. xiv. 34, 35; I. Tim. ii. 11, 12).

[105] Declaratum est enim hos eosdem nuptias accusare et docere quod nullus in conjugali positus gradu spem habeat apud Deum.... In domibus conjugatorum nec orationes quidem debere celebrari, persuasisse in tantum ut easdem fieri vetent.... Presbyteros vero qui matrimonia contraxerunt sperni debere dicunt, nec sacramenta quæ ab eis conficiuntur, attingi.—Concil. Gangrens. Proœm.

So also Socrates—“Benedictionem presbyteri habentis uxorem, quam lege cum esset laicus duxisset, tanquam scelus declinandum præcepit.”—Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 33.

After the specific condemnation of this latter doctrine by the undoubtedly orthodox council of Gangra, it is somewhat remarkable to see it enunciated and erected into a law of the church by Gregory VII. in his internecine conflict with the married priests. Thus the heresy of one age becomes the received and adopted faith of another.

[106] Concil. Gangrens. c. 4.—Si quis decernit presbyterum conjugatum tanquam occasione nuptiarum quod offerre non debeat, et ab ejus oblatione ideo se abstinet, anathema sit.—I give the Isidorian version adopted by Gratian, Dist. XXVIII. c. 15, and by Burchard, Lib. III. 75. That of Dionysius Exiguus is somewhat different.

Can. 10.—Si quis propter Deum virginitatem professus in conjugio positos per arrogantiam vituperaverit, anathema sit.—Can. 1 and 9 are directed against those who condemn marriage, and teach that it affords no chance of heaven.

[107] Concil. Gangrens. Epilog.

[108] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 20.

[109] So great was the influx of wealth to the church from the pious legacies of the faithful that it became an evil of magnitude to the state, and in 370 a law of Valentinian pronounced null and void all such testamentary provisions made by those under priestly influence (Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 20)—a provision repeated in 390 (Ibid. l. 27) with such additional details as show its successful evasion during the interval. Godefroi, in his notes to these laws (T. VI. pp. 48-50, 60-64), has collected much curious matter bearing on the subject.

[110] Synod. Roman. ad Gallos Episc. Respons. c. 3.—The date of this synod is not certain, but the year mentioned in the text is the earliest to which it is assigned. By some authorities it has been attributed to 398, and Hardouin suggests that it may even have been held under Innocent I.

[111] “Certe idololatræ, ut impietates exerceant et dæmonibus immolent, imperant sibi continentiam muliebrem, et ab escis quoque se purgari volunt, et me interrogas si sacerdos Dei vivi spiritualia oblaturus sacrificia purgatus perpetuo debeat esse, an totus in carne carnis curam debeat facere?”

If all the postulates be granted, the reasoning is unanswerable, and as the precedents of the Old Testament have been relied upon in all arguments since the time of Siricius, it may be worth while to refer to the caution of Ahimelech before giving the shew-bread to David (I. Sam. 21) as one of the texts most constantly quoted, and to the residence of Zacharias in the Temple during his term of ministration (Luke I. 23), which was frequently instanced. These are certainly more germane to the matter than the linen breeches provided for Aaron and his sons (Exod. XXVIII. 42-3), by which the Venerable Bede assures us (De Tabernac. Lib. III. c. 9) “significatum esse sacerdotes Novi Testamenti aut virgines esse, aut contracta cum uxoribus fœdera dissolvisse.”

[112] Siricii Epist. I. c. 7.—It would seem from this decretal (cap. 8, 9, 10, 11) that even the rule excluding digami was wholly neglected. Siricius further (cap. 13) urges the admission of monks to holy orders, for the purpose of providing a priesthood vowed to chastity.

[113] Præterea, quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, suademus ut sacerdotes et levitæ cum uxoribus suis non coeant, quia in ministerio divino quotidianis necessitatibus occupantur.... Qua de re hortor, moneo, rogo, tollatur hoc opprobrium quod potest etiam jure gentilitas accusare.—Concil. Telensis. c. 9.

[114] Quod eo non præterii quia in plerisque abditioribus locis, cum ministerium gererent, vel etiam sacerdotium, filios susceperent, et id tanquam usu veteri defendunt, quando per intervallo dierum sacrificium deferebatur.—Ambros. de Officiis Lib. I. c. 50.

[115] Tertullian has no scruple in asserting—“Et Christum quidum virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum.” (De Monog. c. 8). This belief was founded on the words of Matthew (I. 25), “καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἔως ὁυ ἔτεκετον ὑιὸν ἀυτῆς τὸν πρωτοτόκον, καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὸ ὄνομα ἀυτοῦ ἰησοῦν.”—“And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name Jesus.” The restrictive “till” and the characterization of Jesus as the first-born of the Virgin (though the latter is omitted in the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.) are certainly not easily explicable on any other supposition; nor is the difficulty lessened by the various explanations concerning the family of Joseph, by which such expressions as ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί αὐτοῦ—fratres et mater ejus (Marc. III. xxxi.), or the enumeration of his brothers and sisters in Matt. XIII. 55-6, Mark VI. 3, or the phrase ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου—Jacobum fratrem Domini (Galat. I. 19)—are taken by commentators in a spiritual sense, or are eluded by transferring to the Greek a Hebrew idiom which confounds brothers with cousins. In the Constitutiones Apostolicæ occurs a passage—“Et ego Jacobus frater quidem Christi secundum carnem, servus autem tanquam Dei”—which seems to place it in an unmistakable light, if it be an extract from some forgotten Gospel, although it may only reflect the opinions of the third century when the collection was written or compiled.

The Bonosiacs were also sometimes called Helvidians.—S. Augustin. de Hæresibus § 84.—Isidor. Hispalens. Etymolog. Lib. VIII. c. v. § 57.

In an age which was accustomed to such arguments as “per mulierem culpa successit, per virginem salus evenit” (Rescript. Episcopp. ad Siricium), it is easy to appreciate the pious horror evoked by such blasphemous heresies.

St. Clement of Alexandria alludes to a belief current in his day that after the Nativity the Virgin had to submit to an inspection ab obstetrice to prove her purity (Stromat. Lib. vii.)—a story which continued to trouble the orthodox until the seventeenth century.

The Buddhists eluded all these troublesome questions by making Queen Maya die seven days after the birth of Sakyamuni, and asserting that this was the case with the mothers of all the Buddhas.—Rgya Tch’er Rol P (Ed. Fou-a aux, p. 100).

[116] Epist. Siric. ap. Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hungar. T. I. p. 210.

[117] Hieron. de Perpet. Virgin. B. Mariæ adv. Helvidium.

[118] Epist. XX.

[119] Concil. Arelatens. II. can. 17.—Concil. Aurelian. III. can. 31.

[120] Panar. Hæres. 78.—At the time of the Reformation the Bonosiac heresy naturally was revived. In 1523, at the Diet of Nuremberg, the Papal orator accused Osiander “quod prædicasset Beatam Virginem Mariam post Christi partum non mansisse Virginem” (Spalatini Annal. ann. 1523), but Osiander found few followers. At the Colloquy of Poissy, in 1561 the learned Claude d’Espense, doctor of Sorbonne, in arguing that there were many things the authority of which rested solely on tradition, and yet which were admitted as undoubted by all parties, instanced “que la Vierge Marie demoura vierge après l’enfantement, et plusieurs autres semblables par conséquent; ce qui a esté baillé de main en main par nos pères, ores qu’il ne soit escript, n’est pourtant moins certain et approuvé que s’il estoit temoigné par l’Escripture” (Pierre de la Place, Liv. VII.).

[121] Siricii PP. Epist. ii.

[122] Rescript. Episcopp. ad Siricium. (Harduin. Concil. I. 853.)

[123] Hieron. adv. Jovin.—Augustin. de Hæres. No. lxxxii.

[124] Augustin. Retractt. II. xxii. 1.

[125] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. V. l. 53. It is generally assumed from this law that Jovinian lived until 412. An expression of St. Jerome, however, (adv. Vigilant. cap. i.) would seem to show that he was already dead in 406, and critics have suggested either that there is an error in the date of the law or that another heresiarch is referred to.

[126] Exortus est subito Vigilantius, seu verius Dormitantius, qui immundo spiritu pugnat contra Christi spiritum, et martyrum neget sepulchra veneranda, dammandas dicat esse vigilias; nunquam nisi in Pascha alleluia cantandum; continentiam hæresim; pudicitiam libidinis seminarium. Et quomodo Euphorbus in Pythagora renatus esse perhibetur, sic in isto Joviniani mens prava surrexit; ut et in illo et in hoc diaboli respondere cogamur insidiis.—Hieron. adv. Vigilant. c. 1.

[127] Proh nefas! episcopos sui sceleris dicitur habere consortes: si tamen episcopi nominandi sunt qui non ordinant diaconos nisi prius uxores duxerint; nulli cœlibi credentes pudicitiam, immo ostendentes quam sancte vivant qui male de omnibus suspicantur; et nisi prægnantes uxores viderint clericorum, infantesque de ulnis matrum vagientes, Christi sacramenta non tribuant.... Hoc docuit Dormitantius, libidini fræna permittens, et naturalem carnis ardorem, qui in adolescentia plerumque fervescit, suis hortatibus duplicans, immo extinguens coitu fœminarum, ut nihil sit quo distemus a porcis, etc.—Hieron. adv. Vigilant. c. 2.

[128] Præterea quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, tenere ecclesia omnino debet, ut sacerdotes et levitæ cum uxoribus non misceantur.... Maxime ut vetus regula hoc habet ut quisquis corruptus baptizatus clericus esse voluisset, spondeat uxorem omnino non ducere.—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. ii. c. 9, 10.

[129] Ut incontinentes in officiis talibus positi, omni ecclesiastico honore priventur, nec admittantur ad tale ministerium, quod sola continentia oportet impleri.—As for those who could be proved to have seen the epistle of Siricius—“illi sunt modis omnibus submovendi.”—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. iii. c. 1.

[130] The observance of the rule and its effects are well illustrated in the story of Urbicus, Bishop of Clermont, and his unhappy wife, as naïvely related by Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. L. I. c. 44).

[131] Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Omnibus placet, ut episcopi, presbyteri et diaconi, vel qui sacramenta contrectant, pudicitiæ custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant.—Concil. Carthag. II. can. 2 (Cod. Eccles. African. can. 3).

[132] Aurelius episcopus dixit: Addimus fratres carissimi præterea, cum de quorundam clericorum, quamvis lectorum, erga uxores proprias incontinentia referretur, placuit, quod et in diversis conciliis firmatum est, ut subdiaconi, qui sacra mysteria contrectant, et diaconi et presbyteri, sed et episcopi, secundum priora statuta etiam ab uxoribus se contineant, ut tanquam non habentes videantur esse: quod nisi fecerint, ab ecclesiastico removeantur officio. Ceteros autem clericos ad hoc non cogi, nisi maturiori ætate. Ab universo concilio dictum est: Quæ vestra sanctitas est juste moderata, et sancta et Deo placita sunt, confirmamus.—Concil. Carthag. V. c. 3 (Cod. Eccles. Afric. c. 25).

The councils thus alluded to are probably the Roman Synods under Damasus and Siricius.

I give the version most favored by modern critics, but it should be observed that there is doubt concerning several important points. In the older collections of councils (e. g. Surius, Ed. 1567, T. I. p. 519-20) the canon indicates no compulsion for the orders beneath the diaconate, commencing “Placuit episcopos et presbyteros et diaconos” and ending “Cæteros autem clericos ad hoc non cogi sed secundum uniuscujusque ecclesiæ consuetudinem observari debere,” and this has probability in its favor, since the subdiaconate was not included in the restriction for nearly two centuries after this period, and the lower grades were never subjected to the rule.

The expression “secundum priora statuta” is probably the emendation of a copyist puzzled by the obscurity of “secundum propria statuta,” which latter is the reading given by Dionysius Exiguus. That it is the correct one is rendered almost certain by the Greek version, which is κατα τους ἰδιους ὁρους (Calixt. Conjug. Cleric, p. 350) which would seem to leave the matter very much to the preëxisting customs of the individual churches.

[133] De Adulterin. Conjug. Lib. II. c. 20.

[134] Faustinus episcopus ecclesiæ Potentinæ, provinciæ Piceni, legatus Romanæ ecclesiæ, dixit: Placet ut episcopus, presbyter et diaconus vel qui sacramenta contrectant pudicitiæ custodes ab uxoribus se abstineant. Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Placet ut in omnibus pudicitia custodiatur qui altari inserviunt (Cod. Eccles. African. can. iv.).

That strict rules were not enforced in the African church is rendered probable by another circumstance. Faustus the Manichæan, in defending the tenets of his sect on the subject of marriage and celibacy, enters into an elaborate comparison of their doctrines and practices with those of the Catholic church. In ridiculing the idea that the Manichæans prohibited marriage to their followers, he could not have omitted the argument and contrast derivable from prohibition of marriage by the Catholics, had such prohibition been enforced. His omission to do this is therefore a negative proof of great weight.—See Augustin. contra Faust. Manich. Lib. XXX. c. iv.

[135] Concil. Toletan. I. ann. 400 can. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 19.

[136] Hi autem qui contra interdictum sunt ordinati, vel in ministerio filios genuerunt, ne ad majores gradus ordinum permittantur synodi decrevit auctoritas.—Concil. Taurinens. c. 8.

[137] Concil. Arausic. I. c. 22, 23, 24.

[138] Leon. PP. I. Epist. clxvii. Inquis. iii.

[139] Catalogus Sanctt. Hibern. (Haddan & Stubbs II. 292)—Confessio S. Patricii (Ibid. 308, 310)—Epist. S. Patricii (Ibid. 317)—Synod. S. Patricii can. 6 (Ibid. 329). The date of all these documents is of course somewhat conjectural, but I have assumed it safe to follow the conclusions of the painstaking and lamented Mr. Haddan.

[140] Innocent. PP. I. Epist. v.

[141] Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. II. c. 1.

[142] Greg. Turon. de Glor. Confess. c. 76.

[143] Sunt alii (de mei ordinis hominibus loquor) qui ideo presbyteratum et diaconatum ambiunt ut mulieres licentius videant.—Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. cap. 28.

[144] Epist. CXXV. ad Rusticum, cap. 6.

[145] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 44.

[146] Concil. Andegav. ann. 453 c. 4.

[147] Nullus diaconus vel presbyter vel episcopus ad cellarii secretum intromittat puellam vel ingenuam vel ancillam.—Concil. Arelatens. II. c. 4.

[148] Epist. Lupi et Euphronii. (Harduin. II. 792.)

[149] Whatever interest there might be in exhibiting in detail the varying legislation and the expedients of lenity or severity by turns adopted, would scarcely repay the space which it would occupy or relieve the monotony of retracing the circle in which the unfortunate fathers of the church perpetually moved. I therefore content myself with simply indicating such canons of the period as bear upon the subject, for the benefit of any student who may desire to examine the matter more minutely.

Concil. Turon. I. (ann. 460) c. 2, 3.—Agathens. (506) c. 9.—Aurelianens. I. (511) c. 13.—Tarraconens. (516) c. 1.—Gerundens. (517) c. 6, 7.—Epaonens. (517) c. 2, 32.—Ilerdens. (523) c. 2, 5, 15.—Toletan. II. (531) c. 1, 3.—Aurelianens. II. (533) c. 8.—Arvernens. I. (535) c. 13, 16.—Aurelianens. III. (538) c. 2, 4, 7.—Aurelianens. IV. (541) c. 17.—Aurelianens. V. (549) c. 3, 4.—Bracarens. I. (563) c. 15.—Turonens. II. (567) c. 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20.—Bracarens. II. (572) c. 8, 32, 39.—Autissiodor. (578) c. 21.—Matiscon. I. (581) c. 1, 2, 3, 11.—Lugdunens. III. (583) c. 1.—Toletan. III. (589) c. 5.—Hispalens. I. (590) c. 3.—Cæsaraugustan. (592) c. 1.—Toletan. (597) c. 1.—Oscensis. (598) c. 2.—Egarens. (614) c. unic.—Concil. loc. incert. (a. 615) c. 8, 12.—Toletan. IV. (633) c. 42, 44, 52, 55.—Cabilonens (649) c. 3.—Toletan. VIII. (653) c. 4, 5, 6, 7.—Toletan. IX. (655) c. 10.—Toletan. XI. (675) c. 5.—Bracarens. III. (675) c. 4.—Augustodunens. (690) c. 10.

[150] Salvian. De Gubernat. Dei Lib. VI. VII.

[151] Expurgat. Sixti Papæ c. VI. (Harduin. Concil. II. 1742).—Pagi (ann. 433, No. 19) casts doubt on the authenticity of the proceedings of this trial, and modern criticism (see “Janus” The Pope and the Council, p. 124) assumes it to be a fabrication of the early part of the sixth century, made for the purpose of vindicating the immunity of the clergy from secular law.

[152] Concil. Chalcedon. Act. X. (Harduin. II. 518-9).

[153] The strictness with which the Nicene canon was enforced is shown by an epistle of St. Basil, about the middle of the fourth century, in which he sternly reproves a priest named Paregorius, who at the age of 70 had thought himself sufficiently protected against scandal to allow to his infirmities the comfort of a housekeeper. The unlucky female is ordered to be forthwith immured in a convent, and, until this is accomplished, Paregorius is forbidden to perform his priestly functions. The whole is based on the authority of the council of Nicæa.—“Nec primo nec soli (tibi Paregori) sancivimus, non debere mulierculas cohabitare viris. Lege canonem, a sanctis patribus nostris in Nicæna synodo constitutum: qui manifeste interdixit, ne quis mulierculam subintroductam habeat. Cœlibatus autem honestatem suam in eo habet, si quis a nexu mulieris secesserit.”

[154] Hæres. LIX. c. 4.

[155] Quid faciunt Orientis ecclesiæ? Quid Ægypti et sedis Apostolicæ, quæ aut virgines clericos accipiunt, aut continentes: aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desistunt.—Lib. adv. Vigilant. c. 2.

[156] Sextum, quod dimissa uxore sua cum ea rursus congressus est, filiosque ex ea procreasset.—Palladii Dial. de Vit. S. Joan. Chrysost. cap. xiii.

[157] Synesii Epist. cv.

[158] Ejusd. Epist. cviii.

[159] Et si placet, quanto etiam melior sit addam, quanto cœlum terra, quanto hominibus angeli.—Lib. de Virgin. c. x.

[160] Socrat. H. E. Lib. V. c. 21.

[161] S. Isidor. Pelusiot. Epist. Lib. III. No. 75.

[162] Constit. 45 Cod. I. 3. This law is preserved by Photius (Nomoc. Tit. IX. c. 29), but Balsamon (Schol. ad. loc.) says that it is omitted in the Basilica.

[163] “Nihil enim sic in sacris ordinationibus diligimus quam cum castitate viventes, aut cum uxoribus non cohabitantes, aut unius uxoris virum, qui vel fuerit vel sit, et ipsam castitatem eligentem.” The lector could, by forfeiting his prospects of promotion, marry a second time, if pressed by overmastering necessity, but he was not allowed, under any excuse, to take a third wife.—Novell. VI. c. 5.—These provisions were repeated the following year in Novell. XXII. c. 42.

[164] Novell. CXXIII. c. 12.

[165] Basilicon III. i. 26.

[166] Balsamon. Schol. ad Nomocanon. Tit. I. c. 23.

[167] Novell. CXXIII. c. 14.

[168] Const. 42 § 1. Cod. i. 3.—Basilicon III. i. 26.

[169] Novell. VI. c. 1.

[170] Novell. CXXXVII. c. 2.—Basilicon III. i. c. 8.—Balsamon. Schol. ad Nomocan. Tit. i. c. 23.

[171] Leonis. Novell. Constit. II.

[172] Quinisext. can. 3.

[173] Ibid. c. 6.

[174] Ibid. can. 12, 48.—“Hoc autem dicimus non ad ea abolenda et evertenda quæ Apostolice antea constituta sunt, sed ... ne status ecclesiasticus ullo probro efficiatur.”

[175] Quinisext. c. 13, 30.

[176] Quinisext. c. 33.—The Armenian church in the middle ages, was excessively severe as to the chastity of its ministers. A postulant for orders was obliged to confess, and if he had been guilty of a single lapse, he was rejected. So a priest in orders if yielding to the weakness of the flesh out of wedlock was expelled, though they were not obliged to part with their wives, and the Greek rule permitting marriage in the lower orders was maintained.—Concil. Armenor. ann. 1362 Art. 50, 53, 93 (Martene Ampl. Collect. VII. 366-7, 403).

[177] Leonis Novell. Constit. III.—It is not improbable that this custom resulted from the iconoclastic schism of Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus, which occupied nearly the whole of the eighth century. These emperors found their most unyielding enemies in the monks. In the savage persecutions which disgraced the struggle, Constantine endeavored to extirpate monachism altogether. The accounts which his adversaries have transmitted of the violence and cruelties which he perpetrated are doubtless exaggerated, but there is likelihood that his efforts to discountenance celibacy, as the foundation of the obnoxious institution, are correctly reported. “Publice defamavit et dehonestavit habitum monachorum in hippodromo, præcipiens unumquemque monachum manutenere mulierem, et taliter transire per hippodromum, sumptis injuriis ab omni populo cumulatis” (Baronii Annal. ann. 766, No. 1). He ejected the monks from the monasteries, which he turned into barracks; some of the monks were tortured, others fled to the mountains and deserts, where they suffered every extremity, while others again succumbed to threats and temptations, and were publicly married—“alii corporeis voluptatibus addicti, suas etiam uxores circumducere non erubescebant” (Ibid. No. 28, 29).

[178] Synod. Montis Libani ann. 1736 P. II. c. v. No. 16, 17, Tab. I. No. 11; P. III. c. i. No. 11; P. IV. c. ii. No. 16.—Synod. Ain-Traz ann. 1835 c. xii. (Concil. Collect. Lacens. II. 134, 138, 262, 263, 366, 367, 585).

[179] London “Academy,” Nov. 13th, 1869, p. 51.—See also “The Russian Clergy,” by Father Gagarin, London, 1872 (London Athenæum, No. 2334. p. 72-3).

[180] For these details from the collection of Asseman I am indebted to the Abate Zaccaria’s Nuova Giustificazione del Celibato Sacro, pp. 129-30.

[181] The strange similarity between some of the teachings of the Bhagavad-gita and Christianity, and the apparent identity of the name and of some of the story of Krishna with those of Christ, would seem to need some such explanation as the above. The problem however is too complicated for discussion here.—See Weber’s Indian Literature p. 238 and Monier Williams’s Indian Wisdom p. 136. For the question of St. Thomas’s Indian Apostolate see Hohlenberg’s learned tract, “De Originibus et Fatis Eccles. Christ. in India Orientali.” Havniæ 1822.

[182] Hi omnes Nestoriani ... cum Jacobinis longe plures esse dicuntur quam Latini et Græci.—Jac. de Vitriaco Hist. Hierosol. cap. lxxvi.

[183] Calixt. de Conjug. Cleric. p. 415.—Osorii de Rebus Emmanuelis Regis Lusit. Lib. IX. (Colon. 1574 p. 305a).

[184] Parkyns’s Life in Abyssinia, chap. xxxi.—Mr. Parkyns sums up about 260 fast days in the year, most of them much more rigid than those observed in the Catholic church.

[185] Davids & Oldenberg’s Vinaya Texts, Part I. pp. 4, 8, 14, 16, 32, 35-7, 42, 47, 56.—Cf. Beal’s Catena pp. 209-14.—Burnouf, Introduction à l’histoire du Buddhisme indien. 2e Éd. pp. 245-8.

[186] Beal’s Chinese Pilgrims pp. xxxviii., xl., 155-9.—Schlagintweit’s Buddhism in Tibet, pp. 164-5.—Wheeler’s Hist. of India, III. 270.—Proc. Roy. Geog. Society, in London “Reader” Nov. 17, 1866.

[187] I. Tim. v. 3-14. cf. Act. IX. 39-41. In the time of Tertullian these women were regularly ordained (Ad Uxor. Lib. I. c. 7). This was forbidden by the council of Nicæa (can. 19) and by that of Laodicea (can. 11) in 372. In 451, however, we see by the council of Chalcedon (can. 15) that the ancient practice had been revived. The authorities on the question will be found very fully given by Chr. Lupus (Scholion in Can. 15 Concil. Chalced.—Opp. II. 90 sqq.). Even as late as the middle of the ninth century stringent rules were promulgated to punish the marriage of deaconesses (Capitul. Add. III. Cap. 75.—Baluz. I. 1191).

[188] Volo ergo juniores [viduas] nubere, filios procreare, matresfamilias esse, nullam occasionem dare adversario—I. Tim. v. 14.

[189] See Leon. I. Epist. lxxxvii. cap. 2. (Harduin. I. 1775). This was not so in the earlier periods. Tertullian (De Præscription. iii.), in alluding to the various classes of ecclesiastics, places the widows immediately after the order of deacons, and before the virgins.

[190] Nothing is so illogical as the logic resorted to in order to prove foregone conclusions. Donato Calvi (apud Panzini, Pubblica Confessione di un Prigioneiro, Torino, 1865, p. 111) quotes the texts Matt. XIX. 12, Luke XIV. 33 and Matt. XIX. 21, 27, and then triumphantly concludes—“Ben lice conchiudere chiaramente da’sacri Vangeli raccogliersi fossero gli Apostoli veri religiosi coi tre voti della religione legati.”

[191] If further proof of this be required, beyond what has already been incidentally adduced, it is to be found in the 19th canon of the council of Ancyra, held about the year 314. By this, the vow of celibacy or virginity when broken only rendered the offender incapable of receiving holy orders. He was to be treated as a “digamus,” showing evidently that no punishment was inflicted, beyond the disability which attached to second marriages.

Even in the time of St. Augustin monks were frequently married, as we learn from his remarks concerning the heretics who styled themselves Apostolici and who gloried in their superior asceticism—“eo quod in suam communionem non reciperent utentes conjugibus et res proprias possidentes; quales habet Catholica [ecclesia] et monachos et clericos plurimos.”—Augustin. de Hæresib. No. XL.

Even Epiphanius, the ardent admirer of virginity, when controverting the errors of the same sect, declares that those who cannot persevere in their vows had better marry and reconcile themselves by penitence to the church rather than to sin in secret—“Melius est lapsum a cursu palam sibi uxorem sumere secundum legem et a virginitate multo tempore pœnitentiam agere et sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci, etc.”—Panar. Hæres. LXI.

We shall see hereafter how long it took to enforce the strict segregation of the cenobite from the world.

[192] St. Jerome vindicates for Paul the priority which was commonly ascribed to Antony, but he fully admits that the latter is entitled to the credit of popularizing the practice.—“Alii, autem, in quam opinionem vulgus omne consentit, asserunt Antonium hujus propositi caput, quod ex parte verum est: non enim tam ipse ante omnes fuit, quam ab eo omnium incitata sunt studia,” etc.—Hieron. Vit. Pauli cap. 1.—Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. cap. 36.

Jerome also asserts that monachism was unknown in Palestine and Syria until it was introduced there by Hilarion, a disciple of St. Antony.—Vit. Hilarion. cap. 14.

[193] Instit. Divin. Lib. VI. cap. 10.—Cf. c. 17.

[194] As early as the commencement of the fourth century, we find Faustus, in his “tu quoque” defence of Manichæism, asserting that in the Christian churches the number of professed virgins exceeded that of women not bound by vows.—Augustin, contra Faust. Manich. Lib. XXX. c. iv.

[195] Propter luxum vanitatemque præsumptam.—Concil. Cæsaraug. I. ann. 381 c. vi.—Disobedience to the prohibition is threatened with prolonged suspension from communion.

[196] Cassiod. Hist. Tripart. Lib. I. c. 9.

[197] See Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. ll. 9, 10, 11, 14, etc. This evil had become so great by the time of Valens that in 365 that emperor declares “Quidam ignaviæ sectatores desertis civitatum muneribus, captant solitudines ac secreta, et specie religionis cætibus monizonton congregantur.” The most vigorous measures were requisite, “erui e latebris consulta præceptione mandavimus,” and he orders the culprits to be subjected again to their municipal duties under pain of forfeiture of all their property (Lib. XII. Cod. Theod. Tit. i. l. 63). In 376 the same emperor endeavored to enforce the obligation of military service on the crowds of vigorous men who filled the monasteries, and on their resistance a persecution arose in which many were killed—Hieron. Euseb. Chron. ann. 378.

[198] The lamentations of St. Cyprian have already been alluded to. In 305 the council of Elvira found it necessary to denounce perpetual excommunication against the “virgines sacratæ” who abandoned themselves to a life of licentiousness, while those guilty only of a single lapse were allowed restoration to communion on the deathbed, if earned by continual penitence (Concil. Eliberit. c. 13).

[199] Piget dicere quot quotidie virgines ruant, quantas de suo gremio mater perdat ecclesia: super quæ sidera inimicus superbus ponat thronum suum; quot petras excavet et habitet coluber in foraminibus earum. Videas plerasque viduas antequam nuptas, infelicem conscientiam mutata tantum veste protegere. Quas nisi tumor uteri, et infantum prodiderit vagitus, sanctas et castas se esse gloriantur, et erecta cervice et ludentibus pedibus incedunt. Aliæ vero sterilitatem præbibunt, et necdum sati hominis homicidium faciunt. Nonnullæ cum se senserint concepisse de scelere, abortii venena meditantur, et frequenter etiam ipsæ commortuæ, trium criminum reæ, ad inferos producuntur, homicidæ suæ, Christi adulteræ, necdum nati filii parricidæ—Hieron. Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. c. 5.

[200] Concil. Carthag. I. c. 3.—Concil. Cæsaraugust. I. c. 8.

[201] Lib. IX. Cod. Theod. Tit. XXV. l. 2.

[202] Concil. Valent. I. ann. 374 can. ii.

[203] Postea vero in abruptum conscientiæ desperatione producti, de illicitis complexibus libere filios procreaverint, quod et publicæ leges et ecclesiastica jura condemnant.—Siricii Epist. I. c. 6.

[204] Regul. S. Pachom. c. 26, 79, 95.—The Rule which passes under the name of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, I believe is universally acknowledged to be spurious and therefore requires no special reference.

[205] Ibid. c. 29. This is in particularly striking contrast with mediæval monachism, which, as we shall see hereafter, considered the sacred precincts polluted by the foot of woman.

[206] Cassian. de Cænob. Instit. Lib. IV. c. 3, 4, 6, 6, 13.—Cassianus declares chastity to be the virtue by which men are rendered most like angels.

[207] De Monach. Decret. can. x. (Harduin. Concil. I. 498.)

[208] Nusquam missos, nusquam fixos, nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes. Alii membra martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant; alii fimbrias et phylacteria sua magnificant ... et omnes petunt, omnes exigunt, aut sumptus lucrosæ egestatis, aut simulatæ pretium sanctitatis etc.—Augustin. de Opere Monachor. cap. 28.

[209] Cassian. Lib. V. c. 27, 28. The extravagant lengths to which this implicit subjection was habitually carried are further illustrated by Cassianus in Lib. IV. c. 10.

The same spirit is shown in the story told of St. Francis of Assisi, who took with him into the garden two novices to assist him in planting cabbages. He commenced by setting out the vegetables with their heads in the earth and their roots in the air. One of the novices ventured to remonstrate—“Father, that is not the way to make cabbages grow”—“My son,” interrupted the Saint, “you are not fitted for our order,”—and he dismissed the incautious youth on the spot.

[210] Synod. Roman, ann. 384 c. 1, 2.

[211] Siricii Epist. 1, c. 6.—A rather curious episode in monastic discipline is a law promulgated in 390 by Theodosius the Great prohibiting nuns from shaving their heads under severe penalties. “Feminæ quæ crinem suum contra divinas humanasque leges instinctu persuasæ professionis absciderint ab ecclesiæ foribus arceantur,” and any bishop permitting them to enter a church is threatened with deposition—Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 27.

[212] De Bono Viduit. c. 10, 11.—It will be seen hereafter that in the twelfth century the church adopted as a rule of discipline the practices condemned by St. Augustin, and that in the sixteenth century the council of Trent elevated it into a point of faith.

[213] Innocent. Epist. ad Victricium. c. 12, 13.—The difficulty of the questions which arose in establishing the monastic system is shown in an epistle of Leo I. to the Mauritanian Bishops concerning some virgins professed who had suffered violence from the Barbarians. He decides that they had committed no sin, and could be admitted to communion if they persevered in a life of chastity and religious observance, but that they could not continue to be numbered with the holy maidens, while yet they were not to be degraded to the order of widows; and he further requires that they shall exhibit their sense of shame and humiliation. The problem evidently was one which transcended the acuteness even of Leo to solve—Leonis I. Epist. Episcop. per Cæsarien. Mauritan. cap. ii. V. (Harduin. I. 1775-6).

[214] Concil. Toletan. I. c. 16.

[215] Leo. Epist. ad Rusticum c. 12, 13, 14. So the second council of Arles, in 441 (can. 52), excommunicates the nun who marries until due penance shall have been performed, but does not indicate separation.

[216] Novell. Majorian. Tit. VI. This law continued in force for but five years, being abrogated in 463 by Severus.—Novell. Severi. Tit. I.

[217] For the ascetic extravagances which accompanied the development of monachism the reader is referred to the vigorous summary by Mr. Lecky in his History of European Morals.

[218] Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VII. c. 13, 14, 15.—Even before this, in the province of Africa, the political utility of such enthusiastic disciples had been recognized and acted on. At the council of Carthage, in 411 where the Donatists were condemned, the Imperial Commissioner, in pronouncing sentence, warned the Donatist bishops that they must restrain the turbulent monks within their dioceses—“Ii autem qui in præsidiis suis circumcellionum turbas se habere cognoscunt, sciant nisi eorum insolentiam omnimodis comprimere et refrenare gestierint, maxime ea loca fisco mox occupanda.”—Concil. Carthag. ana. 411 Cognit. III. cap. ult. (Harduin. I. 1190.)

[219] Concil. Chalced. c. 4, 7, 16. The most important of these, the fourth canon, was laid before the council by the Emperor in person.

[220] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. iii. 1.

[221] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. iii. 2.

[222] Const. 29 Cod. I. 3.

[223] Const. 53 § 1 Cod. I. 3.

[224] Novell. V. c. 4, 6.

[225] Novell. V. c. 8.

[226] Novell. CXXIII. c. 42.

[227] S. Theod. Studit. Testament. v. (Max. Bib. Pat. IX. I. 276).

[228] St. Benedict of Nursia, the real founder of Latin monachism, who quitted the world in 494 thus describes the wandering monks of his time: “Tertium vero monachorum teterrimum genus est Sarabaitarum ... qui bini aut terni, aut certe singuli sine pastore, non Dominicis sed suis inclusi ovilibus, pro lege eis est desideriorum voluptas; cum quidquid putaverint vel elegerint, hoc dicunt sanctum, et quod noluerint putant non licere. Quartum vero genus est monachorum quod nominatur gyrovagum, qui tota vita sua per diversas provincias ternis aut quaternis diebus per diversorum cellas hospitantur, semper vagi et nunquam stabiles, et propriis voluptatibus et gulæ illecebris servientes, et per omnia deteriores Sarabaitis: de quorum omnium miserrima conversatione melius est silere quam loqui.”—Regul. S. Benedicti c. 1.

[229] Cassiani de Cœnob. Instit. Lib. II. c. 8; Lib. V. c. 1, 15.

[230] Gelasii PP. I. Epist. IX. cap. xx., xxi.

[231] Symmachi PP. Epist. vi.

[232] Greg. Mag. Vit. S. Benedicti c. 2.—Juan Cirita, a Spanish saint of the twelfth century, was exposed to the same temptation as St. Benedict, the devil visiting him in the shape of a lovely woman who sought refuge from her pursuers in his cell. During a sleepless night, feeling his resolution giving way, he roused his fire and with a glowing brand burned his arm to the bone, whereupon the devil vanished, loading him with reproaches (Henriquez Vit. Joannis Cirita cap. ii.). Legends of this nature are not uncommon, nor are there wanting those of another class in which the immediate and visible agency of the Evil Spirit is not called into play. Thus the holy Godric, a Welsh saint of the twelfth century, endeavored to subdue his rebellious flesh in the manner which St. Benedict found so effectual, but without success. He then buried a cask in the earthen floor of his cell, filled it with water and fitted it with a cover, and in this receptacle he shut himself up whenever he felt the titillations of desire. In this manner, varied by occasionally passing the night up to his chin in a river of which he had broken the ice, he finally succeeded in mastering his fiery nature.—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. c. x.

[233] Regul. S. Benedicti c. 28, 29, 58.

[234] Tetrad. Regul. c. 1.

[235] Capit. Car. Mag. I. ann. 811 cap. xi. He also asks whether there were any monks in Gaul before the rule of St. Benedict was brought there, and is naturally not a little puzzled when told that St. Martin of Tours was a monk long anterior to the time of Benedict.—Capit. II. ann. 811 cap. xii. (Baluz. I. 331-2, Ed. Venet.).

[236]

Quinquaginta quinque millia quingenta quinque

Omnes canonizati a te sunt translati.

Est monachus sanctus. Caput vero Benedictus.—

(Birck de Monast. Campidonens. c. 25.)

Bishop Trithemius is more moderate, his estimate amounting to only 15,559. (Miræi Orig. Benedict.)

[237] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. I. Epist. 42. Six years later he had to repeat his commands in stronger terms. (Cf. Lib. VII. Epist. 35. Lib. II. Epist. 28. Lib. IV. Epist. 27. Lib. X. Epist. 8.) Yet when the offender was a man of rank and power, as in the case of Venantius, Patrician of Syracuse, Gregory could lay aside the tone of lofty command and condescend to tender entreaty and earnest exhortation (Lib. I. Epist. 34), without even a threat of excommunication, and remain for years on the friendliest terms with him (Lib. XI. Epistt. 30, 35, 36), showing that the rule was as yet by no means firmly established. In another case, however, nothing can be more indignant and peremptory than his commands (Lib. VIII. Epistt. 8, 9).

[238] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. IV. Epist. 42.

[239] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. X. Epistt. 22, 23.—He states “ut etiam monachis ibidem degentibus mulieribus se jungere sine metu sit licitum” which he characterizes as “res ... omnino detestabilis et nefanda.”

[240] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. XI. Epist. 50.

[241] Concil. Parisiens. V. ann. 615 c. xiii.—In the decree of Clotair II., confirming the acts of this council, we find—“Puellas et viduas religiosas, aut sanctimoniales, quæ se Deo voverunt, tam quæ in propriis domibus resident, quam quæ in monasteriis positæ sunt, nullus nec per præceptum nostrum competat, nec trahere nec sibi in conjugio sociare penitus præsumat etc.”—Edict. Chlot. II. ann. 615 c. xviii. (Baluze).

[242] S. Fructuosi Bracarens. Regul. Commun. cap. 1.

[243] De Ecclesiast. Offic. Lib. II. cap. xvi. § 7.

[244] Solutos atque oberrantes, sola turpis vita complectitur et vaga, ... quique dum, nullum metuentes, explendæ voluptatis suæ licentiam consectantur, quasi animalia bruta, libertate ac desiderio suo feruntur, habentes signum religionis, non religionis officium, hippocentauris similes, neque equi neque homines, ... quorum quidem sordida atque infami numerositate satis superque nostra pars occidua pollet.—Ibid. Lib. II. c. iii.

[245] Ludov. Pii de Reform. Eccles. cap. 100. (Goldast. Const. Imp. III. 199.)

[246] Smaragd. Comment. in Regul. Benedict. c. 1.

[247] De Mor. German. c. 18, 19. It is a little singular that Salvianus names the Alamanni as the only exception to the character for chastity which he bestows on the Barbarians in general.

[248] From such chance allusions as are made by Gregory of Tours, this would almost seem to be the general rule, and not the exception. Thus he mentions that Apollinaris obtained the see of Rhodez at the solicitation of his wife and sister (Hist. Franc. Lib. III. c. 2), and shortly afterwards the same episcopate is filled by the appointment of “Innocentius Gabalitanorum comes” (Ibid. Lib. VI. c. 38). Sulpitius, when nominated to that of Bourges, “ad clericatum deductus, episcopatum ... suscepit” (Ibid. Lib. VI. c. 39). Badegisilus, Clotair’s mayor of the palace, received the bishopric of Le Mans “qui tonsuratus, gradus quos clerici sortiuntur ascensus,” was duly installed (Ibid. Lib. VI. c. 9). Indeed, in his catalogue of the Bishops of Tours, Gregory specifies of Euphronius, the eighteenth bishop, that he was “ab ineunte ætate clericus,” showing how unusual it was to be regularly bred to the church.

[249] Hincmari Vit. S. Remigii c. 42, 43.

[250] Greg. Turon. de Glor. Confess. c. 78.

[251] Concil. Matiscon. I. c. 3.

[252] Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. IV. c. 4. At this period the church of Britanny was rather British than Frankish. See Haddan & Stubbs, II. 72 sqq.

[253] Concil. Turon. II. c. 19, 20.—A remark of Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. Lib. VIII. cap 19) has been assumed to indicate that priests could legitimately have commerce with their wives. By comparing it with the canons cited above, however, it evidently can at the most have reference to the lower orders of the clergy.

[254] Concil. Toletan. III. c. 5.

[255] L. Wisigoth. Lib. III. Tit. iv. l. 18. This law is preserved in the Fuero Juzgo, or mediæval Romance version of the code (Lib. III. Tit. iv. ley 18).

[256] L. Wisigoth. Lib. III. Tit. v. l. 2.

[257] Concil. Toletan VIII. ann. 653 can iv. v. vi.—These measures were as fruitless as the preceding. Cf. Concil. Toletan. IX. ann. 655 can. x.

[258] Rex Witiza se effrenate præcipitans per omne genus flagitii, legem nequissimam tulit; ut more sara(ce)norum cuilibet laico et clerico liceret, quotquot posset alere, uxores et concubinas impune domi suæ retinere.—Liutprandi Chron. No. 174 ann. 706.

[259] Liutprandi Chron. No. 181 ann. 709; No. 188 ann. 711. Without entering into the question of the correctness with which this chronicle has been attributed to Liutprand of Cremona, I may say that it has every appearance of being an authentic remnant of antiquity (Cf. Antonii Biblioth. Hispan. I. 585).

[260] Concil. Roman, sub Silvest. can. xix. (Migne’s Patrol. VIII. 840).

[261] Pelagii PP. II. Epist. xiv.

[262] Superstes uxor aut filii, per quos ecclesiastica solet periclitari substantia.—Pelagii PP. I. Cethego Patricio.

[263] L. Wisigoth. Lib. v. Tit. i. l. 2.

[264] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. XIII. Epist. 6.—This rule had come to be very generally neglected. The importance attached to it, however, by strict disciplinarians is well illustrated in the firmness displayed by John, Patriarch of Alexandria, a contemporary of Gregory, whose bountiful charity had earned for him the title of Eleemosynarius. In a time of extreme famine, a wealthy aspirant offered him 200,000 bushels of corn and 100 pounds of gold for the grade of deacon. He had unluckily been twice married, and John refused the dazzling bribe, although the episcopal treasury had been exhausted in relieving the necessities of the suffering people (Thomassin, Discip. de l’Église, Pt. II. Liv. 3, c. 15.)

[265] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. XIII. Epistt. 35, 36.

[266] Ibid. Lib. IV. Epist. 26; Lib. V. Epist. 3; Lib. VIII. Epist. 24.—Similar attempts had previously been made by sundry provincial councils. In the case of Andrew, Bishop of Tarentum, who was accused of maintaining relations with a former concubine, Gregory recognizing the impossibility of obtaining proof, leaves it to his own conscience. If he has had any commerce with her since his ordination, he is commanded at once to resign his position as the only mode of insuring his salvation (Ibid. Lib. III. Epistt. 45, 46).

[267] Ibid. Lib. I. Epist. 44; Lib. IV. Epistt. 5, 36.

[268] Ibid. Lib. XI. Epist. 69.

[269] Ibid. Lib. IX. Epist. 106.

[270] Udalric. Bamberg. Cod. Lib. II. Epist. 10.

[271] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. I. Epist. 52; Lib. IX. Epist. 60.

[272] Gregor. PP. I. Dial. Lib. IV. cap. xi.

[273] In 649 we find Amandus, Bishop of Maestricht, resigning his office on account of the impossibility of enforcing the canons among his priests and deacons. Martin I. endeavored to dissuade him from his purpose, and urged his proceeding with the utmost rigor against all transgressors (Hartzheim Concil. German. I. 28).

[274] Concil. Roman. ann. 721.

[275] Chron. Gradensis Supplement.

[276] Capitul. Arechis Benevent. cap. XII. (Canciani I. 262).

[277] Muratori Antiq. Med. Ævi Dissert. LXXIV.

[278] Gregor. PP. II. Epist. 14 cap. 12.

[279] Modo autem maxima ex parte episcopales sedes traditæ sunt laicis cupidis ad possidendum, vel adulteratis clericis, scortatoribus et publicanis sæculariter ad perfruendum.... Si invenero inter illos diaconos quos nominant, qui a pueritia sua semper in stupris, semper in adulteriis et in omnibus semper spurcitiis vitam ducentes, sub tali testimonio venerunt ad diaconatum, et modo in diaconatu concubinas quatuor vel quinque vel plures noctu in lecto habentes, evangelium tamen legere et diaconos se nominare non erubescunt, nec metuunt: et sic in talibus incestis ad ordinem presbyteratus venientes, in iisdem peccatis perdurantes, et peccata peccatis adjicientes, presbyteratus officio fungentes, dicunt se pro populo posse intercedere, et sacras oblationes offerre. Novissime, quod pejus est, sub talibus testimoniis per gradus singulos ascendentes, ordinantur et nominantur episcopi. Si usquam tales invenero inter illos, rogo ut habeam præceptum et conscriptum auctoritatis vestræ, quid de talibus diffiniatis, ut per responsum Apostolicum convincantur et arguantur peccatores.—Bonifacii Epist. 132.

[280] Milo quidam, tonsura clericus, moribus, habitu, et actu irreligiosus laicus, episcopia Remorum ac Trevirorum usurpans insimul, per multos annos pessumdederit.—Hincmar. Epist. xxx. c. 20.—Sola tonsura clerico, qui secum processerat ad bellum.—Flodoard. Hist. Remens. Lib. II. c. 12.—Nihilque in eo de clericali honore vel vita nisi sola tonsura enituit.—Hist. Trevirens. (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 212).

[281] Hist. Trevirens. (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 212).

[282] Bonifacii Epist. 142.

[283] Hist. Trevirens. loc. cit.

[284] Bonifacii loc. cit.

[285] Othlon. Vit. S. Bonifac. Lib. I. c. 44.

[286] Bonifacii Epist. 85.

[287] Flodoard. Hist. Remens. Lib. II. cap. 12.—Capit. Caroli Calvi Tit. XXVII. cap. 7 (Baluze).

[288] Et tam laicorum injusta concubinarum copula partim exhortante sancto viro separata est, quam etiam clericorum nefanda cum uxoribus conjunctio sejuncta ac separata.—Willibald. Vit. S. Bonifac. c. 9.

[289] Capit. Caroloman. ann. 742 c. 1, 3, 6.

[290] Bonifacii Epist. 137.

[291] Ibid. Epist. 132, 142.

[292] Capit. Caroloman. ann. 743 c. 1.

[293] Zachar. PP. Epist. 8, c. 11, 18.

[294] Pippini Capit. ann. 744 c. 4, 8, 9.

[295] Bonifac. Epistt. 135, 139 (Zachar. PP. Epist. 9).

[296] Othlon. Vit. S. Bonif. Lib. II. c. 11.

[297] Bonifacii Epist. 135.—S. Ludgeri Vit. S. Bonifacii.

[298] Bonifacii Epist. 140.

[299] Capit. Pippini ann. 755.

[300] Regul. S. Chrodegangi cap. 29, 56, 68, 70.

[301] Cod. Carolini Epist. lxiv. (Patrolog. T. 98 p. 319). Yet even in 772 we find that a council in Bavaria found it necessary to prohibit the marriage of nuns.—Concil. Dingolving. can. 2 (Hartzheim Concil. German. I. 129).

[302] Capit. Car. Mag. II. ann. 811 cap. iv. (Baluz. I. 329—Ed. Venet.).

[303] Ghaerbaldi Judicia Sacerdotalia de Criminibus c. 13 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 31).

[304] Ludov. Pii. Capit. Ingelenheim. c. 5.

[305] Capit. Aquisgran. ann. 817. Cf. Miræi Cod. Donat. Piar. c. 13.—This Capitulary regulating monastic life was generally adopted as a supplement to the rule of Benedict (Leo. Ostiens. Chron. Cassinens. Lib. I. c. 16).

[306] See ante, p. 123. Cf. Pseudo-Hormisdæ Epist. Encyc. (Migne’s Patrol. T. LXIII. p. 527).

[307] Quid enim est gravius carnale delictum admittere sine quo in multis pauci inveniuntur, an Dei filium timendo negare? in quo uno ipsum beatum Petrum apostolorum principem, ad cujus nunc corpus indigni sedemus, lapsum esse cognoscimus, sed post negationem pœnitentia secuta, et post pœnitentiam misericordia data.—Pseudo-Gregor. Epist. ad Secundinum.

Isidor Mercator also includes two canons from the sixth century forgery of the Roman Council said to have been held under Silvester I. (see p. 122). Of these, one prohibits bishops from celebrating the marriage of nuns under seventy years of age; the other forbids priests from marrying, under a penalty of ten year’s suspension, with a threat of perpetual deprivation for contumacy. (Constit. Pseudo-Silvestri cap. x. xix.) The adoption of these in the False Decretals would seem at least to be superfluous.

[308] Capit. Carol. Mag. I. ann. 802 c. 17.

[309] Concil. Aquisgran. ann. 836, de vit. et doc. infer. ordin. can. xii., xiv.—De monasteriis puellarum quæ in quibusdam locis lupanaria potius videntur esse quam monasteria.

[310] Capitul. add. IV. cap. clx. (Baluze, I. 1227).

[311] Bonifacii Epist. 19.

[312] Capit. Aquisgran. ann. 817, c. xi.—Chavard, Célibat des Prêtres, Genève, 1874, p. 35.

[313] Quia, instigante diabolo, etiam in illis scelus frequenter perpetratum invenitur, aut etiam in pedissequis earum. Nec igitur matrem, neque amitam, neque sororem permittimus ultra habitare in domo una cum sacerdote.—Theodulf. Aurelian. Capit. Secund. (Baluz. et Mansi II. 99.)

He had previously (Epist. c. 12) promulgated the prohibition, assigning for it the more decent reason, in imitation of St. Augustin, of the danger arising from female attendants. In this he was imitated, about 850, by Rodolf of Bourges (Capit. Rodulf. Bituricens. c. 16), and about 871 by Walter of Orleans (Capit. Walteri Aurelian. c. 3).

In 889, however, Riculfus of Soissons declares the lamentable truth without reserve: “Nos vero etiam a matribus, amitis, sororibus vel propinquis cavendum dicimus, ne forte illud eveniat quod in sancta scriptura legitur de Thamar sorore Absalon ... de Loth etiam ... Quod si aliquis vestrum matrem, sororem vel amitam ad convescendum vocaverit, expleto convivio ad domos suas vel ad hospitia a domo presbyteri remota, cum luce diei eas faciat remeare; periculosum quippe est ut vobiscum habitent.”—Riculfi Suess. Const. c. 14.

[314] Thus the council of Mainz in 888—“Quod multum dolendum est, sæpe audivimus per illam concessionem plurima scelera esse commissa, ita ut quidam sacerdotum, cum propriis sororibus concumbentes, filios ex eis generassent, et idcirco constituit hæc sancta synodus, ut nullus presbyter ullam feminam secum in domo propria permittat quatenus occasio malæ suspicionis vel facti iniqui penitus auferatur” (Concil. Mogunt. ann. 888 c. 10). In the same year the third canon of the council of Metz repeats the prohibition; while in 895 the council of Nantes declares—“Sed neque illas quas canones concedunt; quia instigante diabolo, etiam in illis scelus frequenter perpetratum reperitur, aut etiam in pedissequis illarum, scilicet matrem, amitam, sororem.”—Concil. Namnetens. ann. 895 c. 3.

It is true that some authorities, including the great name of Pagi, attribute to this council of Nantes the date of 660, but this is unimportant as regards the canon in question, for its necessity during the period under consideration is shown by its insertion in the Capitularies of Benedict the Levite (Lib. VII. c. 376), and in the collection of Regino of Pruhm (Lib. I. c. 104).

[315] Capit. Carol. Calvi Tit. III. cap. 4, 5.

[316] Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 151.

[317] Hincmari Epist. XXXII. c. 20.

[318] Hincmari Capit. Presbyteris data. cap. XXI.-XXV.

Hincmar repeats his instructions, with some amplifications, in another document, in which he declares them to be the received traditional rules—“a majoribus nostris accepimus” (De Presbyt. criminos. c. XI.-XVIII.). That they were generally practised is shown in their almost literal repetition by the council of Trosley in 909—with the exception that in some cases fourteen or twenty-one witnesses were required for conviction (Concil. Troslei. c. ix.).

[319] Martene Ampl. Collect. I. 151.

[320] Capit. Synod. Remens. ann. 874 c. 3.

[321] Nicholai I. Respons. ad Consult. Bulgar. c. 70.

[322] Efficitur ad hæc uxorius, liberos procreans, et ad suæ damnationis cumulum nil sibi clericale præter tonsuram præferens.—Folcuin. de Gest. Abbat. Laubiens. c. 12.

[323] Mantion. Episc. Catalaun. Epist. ad Fulc. Remens. (Migne’s Patrol. T. 131, p. 23.)

[324] Liutprand. Antapod. Lib. III. c. 43.

[325] Liutprand. Hist. Otton. c. 4, 10.—Chron. Benedict. S. Andreæ Monach. c. 35.

[326] Concil. Turon. ann. 925. (Martene Thesaur. IV. 73.)

[327] Ratherii de nuptu cujusdam illicito c. 4.

[328] Ratherii de contemptu canon. P. I. c. 4.

[329] Atton. Vercell. Epist. ix.

[330] Enarratio eorum quæ perverse gesta sunt, etc. (Muratori, Antiq. Med. Ævi Diss. LXII.).

[331] Institutes of Polity, Civil and Ecclesiastical, c. 19, 23 (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, &c. of England, II. 329, 337).

[332] Ratherii Itinerar. c. 5.

[333] Ratherii Synodica c. 15.

[334] Gunzo the Grammarian, in his learned treatise, makes use of the recognized celibacy of the clergy as a comparison. “Non enim una eademque res bona, licet æque omnibus conceditur. Siquidem nuptiæ, laicis concessæ, sacris ordinibus denegantur.”—Gunzonis Epist. ad Augienses.

[335] Leon. PP. VII. Epist. 15.

[336] Constit. Otton. ann. 940, c. 12.

[337] Quod si sacerdotes incontinenter propter ipsam continentiam primam quam sortitus est, separati a consortio cellæ, teneat uxorem; si vere aliam duxerit, excommunicetur.—Concil. Spalatens. ann. 925 c. 15.

The passage is evidently corrupt, but its intention is manifest. The reading suggested by Batthyani may be reasonably accepted. “Quod si sacerdotes incontinentes propter ipsam continentiam quam quis primam sortitus est, separati a consortio cellæ, teneant uxorem, tolerantur; si vero aliam duxerint, excommunicentur.” (Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hungar. I. 333-4.)

[338] Richeri Hist. Lib. II. c. 81. The canons of the council, however, as they have reached us, are silent on the subject.

[339] Concil. Augustan. ann. 952 c. 1, 4, 11.

[340] Cod. Bamberg. Lib. II. Epist. 10.

St. Ulric is noteworthy as the first subject of papal canonization, having been enrolled in the calendar by the council of Rome in 993. That priestly marriage should be advocated by so pious and venerable a father was of course not agreeable to the sacerdotal party, and his evidence against celibacy has not infrequently been ruled out of court by discrediting the authenticity of the epistle. The compiler of the collection containing it, made in 1125, prefixed the name of Nicholas as that of the pope to whom it was addressed, and as St. Ulric was about equidistant between Nicholas I. in the ninth and Nicholas II. in the eleventh century, it has been suggested that the epistle was addressed to the latter, on the occasion of his reforms in 1059 the use of St. Ulric’s name being assumed as a mistake of the compiler. That this is not so is shown by the fact that already in 1079 it was known as St. Ulric’s, being condemned as such in that year by Gregory VII.—“scriptum quod dicitur sancti Oudalrici ad papam Nicholaum, de nuptiis presbiterorum” (Bernald. Constant. Chron. ann. 1079). The authenticity of the document, I believe, is generally admitted by unprejudiced critics.

[341] Ratherii Discordia c. 1, 6.

[342] Ratherii Epist. XI., XII.—His letter to the Empress Adelaide, announcing his willingness to retire from the contest, and to seek the congenial shades of a monastery, is most uncourtly. (Epist. XIII.)

[343] Ruotgeri Vit. S. Brunonis c. 38.—Ratherius consoled himself epigrammatically by condensing his misfortunes in the Leonine verse—“Veronæ præsul, sed ter Ratherius exsul.”

[344] De Contempt. Canon. P. II. c. 2.—Præloquiorum Lib. V. c. 18.

The existing confusion is well exemplified by another remark—“Expertus sum talem qui ante ordinationem adulterium perpetravit, postea quasi continenter vixit; alterum qui post ordinationem uxorem duxit; et iste illum, ille istum carpebat.”—De Contempt. Canon. P. I. c. 11.

[345] Atton. Vercell. Epist. 9. In another epistle (No. 10) Atto congratulates himself on the reform of some of his clergy, and threatens the contumacious with degradation.

[346] Othloni Vit. S. Wolfkangi c. 15, 16, 17, 23.

[347] “Ad cumulum damnationis suæ, accepit mulierem, nomine Hildeburgam, in senectute, quæ, ingresso illo ad se, concepit et peperit filios et filias, &c.” The chronicler makes the end of this aged sinner an example of poetical justice such as may frequently be found in the monkish annals of those times—“Qui dum esset flebotomatus, nocte insecuta dormivit cum Episcopissa; qua de re vulnus cœpit intumescere, et dolor usque ad interiora cordis devenire.” Finding his end approaching, he assumed the monastic habit and took the vows, after which he immediately expired.—Act. Pontif. Cenoman. c. 29 (Dom Bouquet, X. 384-5).

Fulbert of Chartres has left us a lively sketch of the military bishops of the period.—“Tyrannos potius appellabo, qui bellicis occupati negotiis, multo stipati latus milite, solidarios pretio conducunt, ut nullos sæculi reges aut principes noverim adeo instructos bellorum legibus, totam armorum disciplinam in procinctu militiæ servare, digerere turmas, ordines componere, ad turbandam ecclesiæ pacem, et Christianorum, licet hostium, sanguinem, effundendum.”—Fulbert. Carnot. Epist. 112.

[348] Chron. S. Petri Vivi (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 470).

[349] This singular oath has been published by Muratori (Antiq. Ital. Diss. XX.).—“Ego Andrea presbiter promitto coram Deo et omnibus sanctis, et tibi Guarino episcopo, quod carnalem commistionem non faciam; et si fecero, et onoris mei et beneficio ecclesiæ perdam.”

[350] S. Petri Damiani Epist. Lib. IV. Epist. 8.—Leo Marsicanus (Chron. Cassinens. Lib. II. c. 16) asserts that in his youth he himself had seen and conversed with a priest who had been one of the eye-bearers.

[351] Abbon. Floriac. Epist. 14.

[352] Although Aimoin, who was an eye-witness, does not specially mention the cause that excited the monks to ungovernable fury, yet a casual allusion shows that women were responsible for it.—“Cæterum, tantæ cladis compilatores certissime agnoscentes beatum obiisse Abbonem, certatim cuncti in fugam vertuntur, ita ut, terris reddito die, ne mulieres quidam in universis forensibus ipsius villæ invenirentur domibus”—(Abbon. Floriac. Vit. c. 20)—and the day after his death “una ex his mulieribus quæ clamore suo seditionem concitaverant” became suddenly mad, and was struck with incurable leprosy—(Aimoin. Mirac. S. Abbonis c. 2).

[353] Damian. Carm. ccxxi.

[354] Aimoin. Vit. S. Abbonis c. 9.

[355] Episcopi sui temporis aliqui fastu superbiæ, aliqui simplicitate cordis, filios sæcularium sacerdotum ad sacros ordines admittere dedignabantur, nec ad clericatum eos recipere volentes; hic vero beatus, neminem despiciens, neminem spernens, passim cunctos recipiebat.—Constant. S. Symphor. Vit. Adalberon. II. c. 24.

[356] Dithmar. Merseberg. Lib. VI. c. 24.

[357] S. Heinrici Sentent. de Conjug. Cleric. (Patrologiæ T. 140 p. 231).

[358] A nullo scriptorum qui de illo sive de episcopio ejus locuti sunt, laudatus est. Palam memorant quod habitu non opere monachus fuerit.

Successit Hugo, legis Domini violator

Clara stirpe satus, sed Christi lumine cassus.

—Order. Vital. Lib. V. c. 10 § 41.

[359] About the year 990, for instance, we find Duke Richard reforming the celebrated Abbey of Fécamp and replacing with Benedictines the former occupants—canons whose secular mode of life outraged his pious sensibilities—“contigit Fiscannenses canonicos aliorum canonicorum mores imitari, latas perditionis vias ingredi, et rerum temporalium luxus et desidias voluptuose sectari.”—Anon. Fiscannens. c. 17.

[360] Nam conjugem nomine Herlevam, ut comes, habuit, ex qua tres filios, Richardum, Radulfum et Guillelmum genuit; quibus Ebroicensem comitatum et alios honores amplissimos secundum jus sæculi distribuit.—Orderic. Vital. Lib. V. c. 10 § 42.

So in the Normanniæ Nova Chronica, published by Chéruel in 1850, “Iste Robertus fuit uxoratus, et ex Herleva conjuge sua tres filios habuit, Richardum, Radulfum et Willelmum.”

[361] Bénoit, Chronique des Ducs de Normandie, v. 32427, 24912. We may fairly conclude from these expressions that Robert was educated for the priesthood.

[362] Voluptatibus carnis mundanisque curis indecenter inhæsit, filiumque nomine Michaelem probum militem et legitimum genuit, quem in Anglia jam senem rex Henricus honorat et diligit.—Orderic. Vital. Lib. V. c. 10 § 43.

[363] Concil. Ansan. ann. 990 c. 5.

[364] Concil. Pictaviens. c. ann. 1000 c. 3.

[365] Si clericus superioris gradus, qui uxorem habuit, et post confessionem vel honorem clericatus iterum earn cognoverit, sciat sibi adulterium commisisse, sicut superiore sententia unusquisque juxta ordine suo pœniteat [i. e. diaconus et monachi VII. (annos) III. ex his pane et aqua. Presbyter x. Episcopus XII., V. ex his pane et aqua.] ... Si quis clericus aut monachus postquam se devoverit ad sæcularem habitum iterum reversus fuerit aut uxorem duxerit, X. annos pœniteat, III. ex his in pane et aqua, nunquam postea in conjugium copuletur.—Judicium Pœnitentis ex Sacrament. Rhenaug.

[366] Gerberti Sermo de Informat. Episcopor.

[367] Gerberti Opp. p. 197 sqq. (Ed. Migne).

[368] “Taceo de me quem novo locutionis genere equum emissarium susurrant, uxorem et filios habentem, propter partem familiæ meæ de Francia recollectam.”—Gerberti Epist. Sect. I. No. XI.—Gerbert’s reputation for sanctity is not such as to render scandalous the suspicion that the family thus gathered around him might afford legitimate occasion for gossip, notwithstanding his abbacy and the fact that he had been bred in a convent.

[369] Ita ut clerici (quod non absque dolore cordis fateor) impudici, bilingues, ebrii, turpis lucri cupidi, habentes fidem, et ut verius dicam, infidelitatem, in conscientia impura, non probati in bona, sed in malo opere præsciti ministrantes, et innumera crimina habentes, sacro ministerio adsciscantur.—Gildæ de Excid. Britan. Pt. III. cap. 23—Cf. cap. 1, 2, 3.

[370] “Unius uxoris virum.” Quid ita apud nos quoque contemnitur, quasi non audiretur, vel idem dicere et virum uxorum?... Sed quid erit, ubi nec pater nec filius mali genitoris exemplo pravatus conspicitur castus?—Gildæ loc. cit.

[371] Modern criticism has raised doubts as to the existence of St. Patrick. Whether they are well-grounded or not is a matter of little importance here, as we are concerned only with the institutions bearing his name, which institutions undoubtedly did exist. Meanwhile I may add that few remote events appear to rest on better authority than the conversion of the Gaeidhil, about the year 438, by a person known to his contemporaries as Patraic, or Patricius; and the name of Cain Patraic applied to the secular code attributed to him, dates from a very high antiquity.—See Senchus Mor, Hancock’s Ed. Vol. I. Dublin, 1865.

[372] Synod. S. Patricii c. 9, 17 (Haddan & Stubbs II. 328-9)—Synod. II. S. Patricii c. 17, 21 (Ibid. 335-6).

[373] Præfat. Gildæ de Pœnitent. cap. 1 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 7).

[374] Lib. de Remed. Peccat. cap. de Fornicat. (Martene IV. 23).—Cf. Synod. Aquilon. Britan. cap. 1 (Ibid. p. 9).

[375] In this long course of penance, three months were to be spent in solitary confinement, with bread and water at night; then eighteen months in fasting on bread and water; then bread and water three days in the week for five years and three months; then bread and water on Fridays for the remaining three years.—Gratian. Dist. LXXXII. c. 5.

[376] Arbedoc et Haelhucar Lib. XXXVIII. cap. 7 (D’Achery I. 500).

[377] Haddan & Stubbs, Councils of Great Britain, I. 112.

[378] Bernardi Vit. S. Malachiæ cap. vi.

[379] S. Columbani Regul. cap. vi.

[380] Reliquit (Columbanus) successores magna continentia ac divino amore regularique institutione insignes ... pietatis et castitatis opera diligenter observantes (Bedæ Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. c. 4, cf. also c. 26). Bede’s orthodoxy on the subject is unquestionable: “Sacerdotibus ut semper altari queant assistere, semper ab uxoribus continendum, semper castitas observanda præcipitur” (In Lucæ Evang. Exposit. Lib. I. cap. 1).—“Quanta sunt maledictione digni qui prohibent nubere et dispositionem cœlestis decreti quasi a diabolo repertam condemnant? ... sed magis honoranda, majore est digna benedictione virginitas.” (Hexæmeron. Lib. I. sub tit. Benedixitque illis.) See also De Tabernac. Lib. III. c. 9, already referred to (p. 65).

[381] See, for instance, the proceedings of the synod of Whitby in 664, where the differences between the Scottish and Roman observances were fully discussed (Spelman. Concil. I. 145). So when, in 633, Honorius I. addressed the Scottish clergy, reproving their false computation of Easter and their Pelagianism, he made no allusion to any want of clerical purity (Bedæ Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 19).

[382] “Opto enim doceri an clerici continere non valentes, possint contrahere; et si contraxerint, an debeant ad sæculum redire”—to which Gregory responds with a long exhortation as to the duties of the “clerici extra sacros ordines constituti”—Gregor. I. Regist. Lib. XI. Epist. lxiv. Respons. 2.

[383] Si episcopi filius sit, sit dimidium hoc (Leg. Inæ c. LXXVI.). The rubric of the law is “De occidente filiolum vel patrinum alicujus” (Thorpe, Ancient Laws of England, II. 472).

[384] Denique promulgatur decretum ... de abdicandis sacerdotum uxoribus.—Spelman. Concil. I. 216.

[385] Cave, Script. Eccles. Hist. pp. 424-5 (Ed. 1705).

[386] Theodori Pœnitent. I. ix. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10; II. ii. 12 (Haddan & Stubbs, III. 184-5, 192).

[387] See, for instance, St. Aldhelm’ rhapsodies, “De laudibus virginitatis,” and “De laudibus virginum.” The orthodoxy of Bede on this question has already been alluded to.

According to the legend, St. Aldhelm tried his virtue by the same crucial experiments as those resorted to by some of the ardent devotees of the third century, concealing his motive in order that his humility might enjoy the benefit of undeserved reprobation. “Sancti Aldelmi Malmesburiensis, qui inter duas puellas, unam ab uno latere, alteram ab altero, singulis noctibus ut ab hominibus diffamaretur, a Deo vero cui nota fuerat conscientia ipsius et continentia copiosius in futurum remuneraretur, jacuisse describitur.”—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. cap. xv.

[388] Ecgberti Pœnitent. I. II. 3; IV. 2, 7, 8; V. 1-22.—Ejusd. Dialog, v. (Haddan & Stubbs, III. 406, 419-23).

[389] Epist. ad Geruntium.—Aldhelmi Opp. p. 83 (Ed. Oxon. 1844).

[390] Johan. PP. IV. Epist. iii.

[391] Bedæ Epist. II.

[392] Bonifacii Epist. 105.

[393] Can. 20 directs greater strictness with regard to visitors, “unde non sint sanctimonialium domicilia turpium confabulationum, commessationum, ebrietatum, luxuriantiumque cubilia.” Can. 28 orders that nuns after taking the veil shall not wear lay garments; and can. 29 that clerks, monks, and nuns shall not live with the laity. (Spelman. Concil. I. 250-4.—Haddan & Stubbs, III. 369, 374.)

This demoralization of the nunneries is not to be wondered at when Boniface, in reproving Ethelbald, King of Mercia, for his evil courses, could say, “Et adhuc, quod pejus est, qui nobis narrant adjiciunt: quod hoc scelus maxime cum sanctis monialibus et sacratis Deo virginibus per monasteria commissum sit.” This sacrilegious licentiousness, indeed, would seem almost to have been habitual with the Anglo-Saxon reguli for Boniface instances the fate of Ethelbald’s predecessor Ceolred and of Osred of Northumbria who had both came to an untimely end in consequence of indulgence in similar evil courses.—Bonifacii Epist. 19.

[394] Concil. Calchuth. can. 15, 16 (Haddan & Stubbs, III. 455-6).

[395] Haddan & Stubbs, Councils, etc., III. 493.

[396] Propter fornicationem fugiendam unusquisque laicus suam uxorem legitimam habeat.—Concil. Calchuth. can. 16.

[397] Concil. Celicyth. ann. 816 can. 4 8 (Haddan & Stubbs, III. 580-3).

[398] Goscelini Vit. S. Swithuni c. 1, 2.

[399] Leg. Aluredi c. 8, 18.—Constit. Odon. Cantuar. c. 7.

[400] Leg. Edwardi et Guthrun. c. 3.—Leg. Eadmund. Eccles. c. 1.

[401] Bridfrit. Vit. S. Dunstan. c. 5, 7. Bridfrith was a disciple of St. Dunstan, and composed his biography but a few years after the death of his patron. He does not state what was the position of Dunstan at the time of his betrothal; but Osbern, a hundred years later, asserts that he had acquired the lower orders only, and that he received the priesthood and took the monastic vows simultaneously.—Osberni Vit. S. Dunstan. c. 8, 12.

[402] Osbern. Vit. S. Dunstan. c. 35.—Florent. Wigorn. ann. 964, 973.—Matt. Westmonast. ann. 963.

[403] Vit. S. Æthelwoldi c. 14.

[404] Si ista solerti scrutinio curassetis, non tam horrenda et abominanda ad aures nostras de clericis pervenissent ... dicam dolens quo modo diffluant in commessationibus, in ebrietatibus, in cubilibus et impudicitiis, ut jam domus clericorum putentur prostibula meretricum, conciliabulum histrionum.... Ad hoc ergo exhauserunt patres nostri thesauros suos? ad hoc fiscus regius, detractis redditibus multis elargitus est? ad hoc ecclesiis Christi agros et possessiones regalis munificentia contulit, ut deliciis clericorum meretrices ornentur? luxuriosæ convivæ præparentur? canes ac aves et talia ludicra comparentur? Hoc milites clamant, plebs submurmurat, mimi cantant et saltant, et vos negligitis, vos parcitis, vos dissimulatis.—Oratio Edgari ann. 969 (Spelman. Concil. I. 477).

[405] Vit. S. Æthelwold. c. 12.

[406] “Gif preorst ewenan forlæte and oðre nime, anaþema sit” (Leg. Presbyt. Northumbriens. c. 35). Spelman’s translation of this “Si presbyter concubinam suam dimiserit et aliam acceperit anathema sit” (Concil. I. 498) is perhaps hardly correct. Cwene can be interpreted in either a good or a bad sense, as a wife or a mistress; and the terms of the law show that the connection was a recognized one, the sin consisting in disregarding it. If the priest’s companion were only a concubine, his guilt would not be measurably increased by merely changing his unlawful consort.

[407] Chron. de Abbat. Abbendoniæ (Chron. Abingdon. II. 279).

[408] Osberni Vit. S. Dunstan. c. 36.

[409] Chron. de. Abbat. Abbendon. loc. cit.

[410] Vit. S. Æthelwold. c. 14, 15.

[411] Johannis PP. XIII. Epist. xxii.

[412] Concil. sub Dunstano (Spelman. I. 480).

[413] Ædgari Charta de Oswalde’s Law (Spelman. I. 433).

[414] Anglo-Saxon Chron. ann. 964.

[415] Monach. Hydens. Leg. c. 8, 9 (Spelman. I. 438).

[416] Canon. sub Edgaro—Mod. imponend. Pœnitent. c. 28, 29 (Thorpe, II. 273).

[417] Oratio Edgari (Spelman. I. 476).

[418] Spelman. I. 479.

[419] Guillel. Malmesbur. Lib. II. c. 8.

[420] Florent. Wigorn. ann. 975.—Matt. Westmonast. Lib. III. c. 18.—Chron. Winton. (Spelman. I. 490-2).

[421] Matt. Westmonast. Lib. III. c. 18. Henry of Huntingdon, however (Lib. V. ann. 978), who, as a secular priest and the son of a priest, did not look upon the labors of St. Dunstan with much favor, insinuates that the accident was intended to foreshow that the assembled wisdom and power of England were about to fall similarly from the grace of God.

[422] Haddan & Stubbs I. 286.

[423] Privileg. Reg. Ethelredi (Spelman. I. 504).

[424] Ælfrici Canon. c. i.-viii. (Thorpe, II. 345). “Quasi periculosum non esset sacerdotem vivere more conjugati. Sed dicetis eum haud posse carere muliebribus servitiis. Respondeo, quonam pacto vitam transegerunt sancti olim viri absque femina vel uxore,” &c. (Spelman I. 573).—Spelman’s MS. was defective; that in Thorpe is perfect.

[425] Ælfric’s Pastoral Epistle, c. 32, 33 (Thorpe, II. 377).

[426] Omnes ministros Dei, præsertim sacerdotes, obsecramus et docemus, ut Deo obedientes, castitatem colant, et contra iram Domini se hoc modo muniant et tueantur. Certius enim norint quod non habeant debite ob aliquam coitus causam uxoris consortium. In more tamen est, ut quidam duas, quidam plures habeat; et nonnullus quamvis eam dimiserit quam nuper habuit, aliam tamen, ipsa vivente, accipit, quod nulla Christianorum lege est permissum. Dimittens autem et castitatem recolens, e cœlo assequetur misericordiam, in mundo etiam venerationem, adeo ut juribus et tributis habeatur Thaini dignus cum in vita tum in funere. Qui autem ordinis sui regulam abdicaverit, omni cum apud Deum tum apud homines gratia exuatur.—Concil. Ænham. c. 2. (Spelman. I. 514-5).

I give the translation of Spelman, as being more faithful in spirit, although less literal than that of Thorpe; for though the expression “wifes gemanan” may not be especially limited to wifely relations, yet the whole tenor of the passage shows that the women concerned were not merely concubines, but were entitled to the consideration of legal wives.

The thane-right promised to those who should reform their lives was one of the recognized privileges of the church. In a list of wer-gilds, anterior to the period under consideration by about a century, the wer-gild for the priest—“mæsse-þegnes” is the same as that for the secular noble—“woruld-þegnes” (Thorpe, I. 187).

[427] “Munecas and mynecena canonicas and nunnan” (Concil. Ænham. c. 1). Spelman thinks that the mynecena were perhaps the wives or concubines of monks (Concil. I. 530). Mynecen is merely the feminine of munuc, a monk; Thorpe translates it as “mynchens,” and suggests that the “mynecena” were merely the younger nuns, not quite so strictly governed as the elder “nunnan.” To this opinion Bosworth (Dictionary, s. v. nunne) seems to incline. It would appear to be so from chapter XV. (be Mynecenan) of the “Institutes of Polity” (Thorpe, II. 322).

[428] Cnutes Domas c. VI. (Thorpe, I. 364).

[429] Cnutes Domas c. v. (Thorpe, I. 362). To appreciate the full weight of the privileges thus distributed, we should bear in mind how completely, in those times, the various classes of society were distinguished by the facilities afforded them of acquittal in cases of accusation, and by the graduated scale of fines established for injuries inflicted on them. These were most substantial advantages when the wer-gild, or blood-money, was the only safeguard guaranteed by law for life and limb, and were most important privileges of the aristocracy. This constitutes the thane-right alluded to in the council of Enham, and retained by the laws of Cnut, as attaching to priests who preserve their chastity. Thus “sacramentum presbyteri regulariter viventis tantumdem valeat sicut liberalis hominis” (Cnuti Leg. Sæcul. c. 128—ed. Kolderup-Rosenvinge)—the expression “liberalis homo” being, in this version, used for the “taynus” or thane of the other texts.

[430] Cnuti Leg. Eccles. c. 8, 9. (Kolderup-Rosenvinge, Hauniæ, 1826, p. 12).

[431] Institutes of Polity, &c., c. 16, 19, 23 (Thorpe, II. 325, 329, 337). It is observable that the words wif and cwene are used interchangeably to denote the consorts of priests.

[432] Lives of Edward the Confessor, pp. 60-1 (Chron. & Memor. of Gr. Brit.). In the same curious collection there is another life of Edward by a follower of Queen Edith and dedicated to her, the writer of which freely attributes the worst motives to the intrigues of the Norman monks in separating her from the king. See, for instance, his account of her immurement in the abbey of Wilton (Op. cit. p. 403).

Edward’s virginity is likewise attested by the MS. Monast. Ramesiens. (Spelman. I. 637)—“Cœlibem pudicitiæ florem, quem inter regni delicias et inter amplexus conjugales ... conservarat, virtutemque perpetuo floribus immiscuit paradisi.” In this, however, Edward only imitated the asceticism ascribed to the Emperor St. Henry II. and his Empress St. Cunegunda, half a century earlier.

[433] Chron. Centulens. Lib. IV. c. xxii. (D’Achery II. 345).

[434] Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. iv. c. 10.—The testimony of William of Malmesbury (De Gest. Regum Lib. III.) is equally emphatic.

[435] Lives of Edward the Confessor, p. 432.

[436] Burchardi Decret. Lib. III. c. 108-116.

[437] Synod. Ticinens. ann. 1022 c. 1, 2, 3, 4.

[438] Respons Imperatoris in Synod. Ticinens.

[439] Concil. Bituricens. ann. 1031 c. 5, 6, 8, 10.

[440] Quoniam infelicem habuit introitum, infeliciorem persensit exitum. Horrendum quippe referri turpitudo illius conversationis et vitæ.—Rad. Glabri Lib. V. c. 5.

[441] Johann. Chron. Angliæ, c. 47 (Ludewig Rel. Msctorum. XII. 145). Semper enim luxuriæ et carnalibus illecebris deditus fuit.

[442] P. Damiani Opusc. VI. c. 18.

[443] Annal. Barenses, ann. 1035.—Shortly after this, we hear of two bishops killed in battle (Ibid. ann. 1041).

[444] P. Damiani, loc. cit.

[445] Desiderii Dialog. de Mirac. S. Benedict. Lib. III. (Script. Rer. Italicor. V. 396).

[446] John, a disciple of St. Peter Damiani, in alluding to the prevailing twin vices of simony and marriage, says: “Quæ videlicet pestes tam perniciosa consuetudine prævaluerant, tamque impune totam ferme ecclesiam in omni Romano orbe fædaverant, ut vix jam reprehensorem, tamquam licite, formidarent.”—Vit. S. P. Damiani c. 16.

[447] Cosmæ Pragens. Chron. Boem. Lib. III. (Mencken. Script. Rer. German. III. p. 1782).

[448] Batthyani Leg. Eccles. Hung. I. 335.

[449] Adam. Bremens. Gest. Pontif. Hammaburg. Schol. ad cap. 29 Lib. III.

[450] Perhaps as suggestive an illustration of the morals and manners of the age as can well be given is afforded by a deed executed in 1055 by a noble count of Catalonia on the occasion of his marriage. He pledges himself not to cast off his bride, except for infidelity—such infidelity not being plotted for by him—and to secure the performance of this promise he places in the hands of his father-in-law four castles, to be held in pledge, subject to forfeiture in case of his violating the agreement. (Baluz. Capit. Francor. Append. Actor. Vet. No. 148.)

[451] Atton. Vit. S. Johannis Gualbert. c. 31.

[452] The popular feelings which greeted his interposition are well conveyed in the jingling verse addressed to him by a holy hermit—

Una Sunamitis nupsit tribus maritis;

Rex Henrice, Omnipotentis vice,

Solve connubium, triforme, dubium.

(Annalista Saxo, ann. 1046.)

The invitation to interfere, however, was not needed. Henry’s prerogative as the representative of Charlemagne and Otho the Great was sufficient warrant, and his religious ardor an ample motive, without any special reference to his tribunal.

[453] Anon. de Episcop. Eichstett. c. 34 (Patrolog. T. 146, pp. 1021-2).

[454] It would be a work of supererogation to quote the innumerable evidences of this which crowd the pages of contemporary writers. The generalizing remark of Glaber will suffice—“Omnes quippe gradus ecclesiastici a maximo pontifice usque ad hostianum opprimuntur per suæ damnationis precium, ac juxta vocem Dominicam in cunctis grassatur spiritale latrocinium.”—Glab. Rodolph. Hist. Lib. V. c. 5.

[455] Damiani Lib. VIII. Epist. 3.

[456] Johannis Vit. B. P. Damiani c. 1.

[457] Alex. II. Epist. 15.

[458] Learning, on his death-bed, that he was not to be buried as a pope, he requested the prelates around him to place his coffin at the church-door securely fastened, and if the portals opened without human hands, it would be a sign that he should receive papal honors. It was done, when a gust of wind burst open the door and lifted the coffin from the bier (Martin. Fuldens. Chron. ann. 1046).

[459] Martin. Fuldens. ann. 1050.

[460] Damiani Opusc. VII. (Liber Gomorrhianus).—Some ten or twelve years later, Alexander II. obtained the manuscript from Damiani, under pretence of having it copied, but prudently locked it up and refused to return it. The saintly author complained bitterly of the deception thus practised upon him, which he unceremoniously characterized as a fraud (Damiani Lib. II. Epist. 6).

[461] The world can never know the long and silent suffering endured in the terrible self-combat of ardent natures in the solitude of the cloister. If many succumb, the indignation which Damiani and his class so freely bestow on the victims should be transferred rather to the system which produces them. A monk of the period has left us a vivid and curious picture of his own tortures in the endless struggle with the tempter; and the mental torments to which his fellow-unfortunates were exposed are aptly condensed in the simple tale of the Abbess Sarah, who for thirteen long years maintained her ground without shrinking from the ceaseless assaults of the enemy by continually invoking the aid of God—“Da mihi fortitudinem Deus!” (Othlon. de Tentat. suis P. I.). The hagiology of the church is full of legends, more or less veritable, of the sufferings of these martyrs and of their triumphs over the flesh, from the time of St. Ammonius, who, when less decisive measures failed, bored his flesh in many places with red-hot iron, and thus vanquished passion by suffering. A collection of these stories, more curious than decent, may be found admiringly detailed by Giraldus Cambrensis in his Gemma Ecclesiastica, Dist. II.

[462] Batthyani Leg. Eccles. Hung. I. 401.

[463] Adami Bremens. Gest. Pontif. Hammaburg. Lib. III. c. 29.—Annalista Saxo, ann. 1048.

[464] Adam. Bremens. loc. cit.

[465] Tunc quippe in Neustria, post adventum Normannorum, in tantum dissoluta erat castitas clericorum, ut non solum presbyteri sed etiam præsules libere uterentur toris concubinarum, et palam superbirent multiplici propagine filiorum ac filiarum ... Tandem ... Leo Papa ... in Gallias A. D. 1049 venit ... Tunc ibidem (Remis) generale concilium tenuit, et inter reliqua ecclesiæ commoda quæ instituit, presbyteris arma ferre et conjuges habere prohibuit. Arma quidem ferre presbyteri jam gratanter desiere, sed a pellicibus adhuc nolunt abstinere, nec pudicitiæ inhærere.—Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. V. c. 15.—This portion of the work of Ordericus was written about the year 1125.

Ibi vero simoniaci, tam populares quam clerici, presbyterique uxorati, persuasione sancti Hugonis, a catholicorum communione et ab ecclesiis eliminati sunt.—Alberic. Trium Fontium Chron. ann. 1049.

[466] Damiani Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 7.—It was probably some vague recollection of this provision, combined with the regulations adopted at Pavia in 1022 (p. 178) that led Dr. Martin, one of the commissioners who presided at the trial of Archbishop Cranmer, to declare to that unhappy culprit that “his children were bondmen to the see of Canterbury.”—Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book III. chap. 27.

[467] Herman. Contract. Chron. ann. 1051.

[468] Muratori Annali, ann. 1053.

[469] S. Leonis PP. IX. Mirac. (Migne’s Patrolog. CXLIII. 525 sqq.)

[470] Humberti Card. contra Nicetam XXV. XXVI.

[471] Lambert. Schaffnab. ann. 1054.—Martin. Polon. ann. 1057.

[472] Leo. Marsic. Chron. Casinens. Lib. II. c. 97.

[473] Damiani Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 6.

[474] Ibid.

[475] Ut nullus missam audiat presbyteri quem scit concubinam indubitanter habere aut subintroductam mulierem.—Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 3.

Singularly enough, this clause is omitted in the synodical epistle addressed to the Gallic clergy, as given by Hugh of Flavigny, Chron. Lib. II. ann. 1059.

[476] How utterly this was opposed to the received dogmas and practice of the church can be seen from the decision of Nicholas I. on the same question—“Sciscitantibus vobis, si a sacerdote, qui sive comprehensus est in adulterio, sive de hoc fama sola respersus est, debeatis communionem suscipere, necne, respondemus: Non potest aliquis quantumcumque pollutus sit, sacramenta divina polluere, quæ purgatoria cunctarum remedia contagionum existunt.... Sumite, igitur, intrepide ab omni sacerdote Christi mysteria, quoniam omnia in fide purgantur” (Nicolai I. Epist. XCVII. c. 71). See also a similar decision in 727 by Gregory II. (Bonifacii Epist. CXXVI.).

The only adverse authority of this period that I have met with is the Penitential of Theodore of Canterbury, already referred to, prescribing rebaptism for those baptized by priests of known unchastity (Lib. II. cap. ii. § 12.—Haddan & Stubbs’s Councils, III. 192).

Damiani saw the danger to which a practice such as this exposed the church, and lifted up his voice to prevent the evil results—

Audite etiam, laici,

Qui Christo famulamini;

Pro ullo unquam crimine,

Pastores non despicite.

(Carmen ccxxii.)

and when, about the year 1060, the Florentines refused the ministrations of their bishop, whom they were determined from other causes to eject, he reproved them warmly, adducing the only reasonable view of the question, “quod Spiritus Sanctus per improbi ministerium dare potest sua charismata” (Opusc. XXX. c. 2).

Simoniacal priests as well as concubinary ones were included in the ban, and when, in 1049, Leo IX. commenced his vigorous persecution of simony, there arose a belief that ordination received at hands tainted with that sin was null and void. This was promptly stigmatized as a heresy, and Damiani’s untiring pen was employed in combating it. He argued the question very thoroughly and keenly when it was under debate by a synod, and succeeded in procuring its condemnation (Opusc. VI. c. 12).

The prohibition, first proclaimed by Nicholas II. and finally enforced by Gregory VII., caused no little trouble in the church. Towards the close of the century, Urban II. found himself obliged to discuss the question, and in an epistle to Lucius, provost of the church of St. Juventius at Pavia, he admits that the sacraments administered by guilty priests are uncorrupted, yet he approves of their rejection in order to stimulate the clergy to virtue, and even declares that those who receive them, except under instant and pressing necessity, are guilty of idolatry (“nisi forte sola morte interveniente, utpote ne sine baptismate vel communione quilibet humanis rebus excedat; eis, inquam, in tantum obsunt, ut veri idolatræ sint”—Urbani II. Epist. 273)—a decision the logic of which is not readily apprehended. St. Anselm of Canterbury assents to the doctrine, but places it in a more reasonable and practical shape—“non quo quis ea quæ tractent contemnenda, sed tractantes execrandos existimet” (Epist. VIII.). The consequences of such a system, however, if strictly carried out, would have been most disastrous to the church, and when the zeal of Hildebrand became forgotten his injunctions were overruled. The century was scarcely out before Honorius of Autun maintained most positively that Christ operates through the hands of the vilest as well as of the most holy ministers, provided only they are orthodox in faith (Eucharistion c. vi.—Pez, Thesaur. II. i. 355). About 1150, however, Geroch of Reichersperg declares that he considered Gregory’s commands as still in force, and that he paid no more attention to the masses of concubinary priests than if they were so many Pagans (Gerhohi Dial. de Differentia Cleri—Pez, Thesaur. II. ii. 463). Yet before the end of the twelfth century, Lucius III. had returned to the policy of Nicholas I.—“Sumite ergo ab omni sacerdote intrepide Christi mysteria, quia omnia in fide Christi purgantur” (Post Lateran. Concil. P. L. c. 38), the positiveness of which was not much affected by the subtle distinctions which he endeavored to draw between crimes notorious and tolerated. Yet St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, affirmed that it was a mortal sin to assist at the Mass celebrated by a priest who was notoriously unchaste (Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience II. 1445). The church, however, gradually returned to the old doctrine and practice. The policy of Gregory was condemned as a heresy when adopted by the followers of Arnold of Brescia (Bonacursi Vit. Hæreticorum—D’Achery I. 214) and an austere priest, Albero of Mercke, near Cologne, who taught it was promptly silenced (Anon. adv. Alberonis errores—Martene Ampl. Coll. IX. 1251). In 1292 the council of Aschaffenburg anathematized those who “præsumptione dampnabili” taught the heresy that priests in mortal sin could not perform the sacred mysteries, and it decided “licite ergo a quocumque sacerdote ab ecclesia tolerato, divina mysteria audiantur et alia recipiantur ecclesiastica sacramenta” (Concil. Schafnaburg. ann. 1292 can. i.—Hartzheim IV. 7). And when Wickliffe and Huss undertook to carry out the dicta of Nicholas II. and Gregory VII. to their legitimate conclusions, the policy was at once recognized as a heresy of the worst character and most destructive consequence. Thus in 1491 a Synod of Bamberg condemns as heretics those who refuse to receive the ministrations of sinful priests.—Synod. Bamberg. ann. 1491 Tit. xliv. (Ludewig. Script. Rer. German. I. 1241-2).

[477] Quicumque sacerdotum, diaconorum, subdiaconorum ... concubinam palam duxerit vel ductam non reliquerit, ... præcipimus et omnino contradicimus, ut missam non cantet, neque evangelium vel epistolam ac missam legat, neque in presbyterio ad divina officia cum iis qui præfatæ constitutioni obedientes fuerint, maneat; neque partem ab ecclesia suscipiat.—Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 3.

It is evident here that the opprobrious epithet “concubine” is applied to those who were as legally wives as it was possible to make them. Damiani, indeed, admits it, and even intimates that concubine was too honorable a word to be applied to the wives of priests—“Illorum vero clericorum feminas, qui matrimonia nequeunt legali jure contrahere, non conjuges sed concubinas potius, sive prostibula congrue possumus appellare” (Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 2). After this period it will be found that the wives of priests were rarely dignified with the title of “uxores,” although ordination was not yet an impediment destructive of marriage.

It is as well to observe here that at this period and for some time later the position of the concubine had not the odium attaching to it by modern manners, and this should be borne in mind when reviewing the morals of the Middle Ages. The connection was a recognized and almost a legal one, following the traditions of the Roman law, by which it was legitimate and permanent, so long as the parties respectively remained unmarried. A man could not have a wife and concubine at the same time (Pauli Sentent. II. 20), nor could he legally have two concubines together (Novel. XVIII. c. 5). Not only were such regulations thus promulgated by Christian emperors, but the relationship was duly recognized by the Christian church. The first council of Toledo, in 398, enjoined upon the faithful “tantum aut unius mulieris, aut uxoris aut concubinæ, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione contentus” (Concil. Toletan. I. c. 17), showing that either connection apparently was legitimate, and this is quoted at the commencement of the tenth century, as still in force, by Regino (De Discip. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 100). A half century later, about 450, Leo I. was actually appealed to to decide whether a man who quitted a concubine and took a wife committed bigamy—which Leo reasonably enough answered in the negative (Leon. Epist. XC. c. 5). The principle of the Roman law was still the rule of the church in the 9th century, for a Roman synod held by Eugenius II. in 826 declared “Ut non liceat uno tempore duas habere uxores, uxoremve et concubinam. De illo vero qui cum uxore concubinam habet, præcipit, ut si admonitus eam a se abjicere noluerit, communione privetur.” (Pertz, Legum T. II. P. ii. p. 12.) The view entertained of the matter at the time under consideration may be gathered from a canon of the councils of Rome, in 1052 and 1063, suspending from communion the layman who had a wife and concubine at the same time (Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 12: ann. 1063 c. 10)—whence we may deduce that a concubine alone was hardly considered irregular. During the latter part of the succeeding century we find the concubine a recognized institution in Scotland, for the laws of William the Lion, after stating that the wife was not bound to reveal the crimes of her husband, adds “De concubina vero et de familia domus non est ita; quia ipsi tenentur revelare maleficia magistri sui, aut debent a servitio suo recedere” (Statut. Willelmi c. XIX. § 9). In England, late in the thirteenth century, Bracton speaks of the “concubina legitima” as entitled to certain rights and consideration (Lib. III. Tract. ii. c. 28 § 1, and Lib. IV. Tract. vi. c. 8 § 4). In Spain, at the same period, the son of an unmarried noble by a concubine, was noble (Juan Perez de Lara, in Arch. Seld. 130, Bib. Bodl.), and in the Danish code of Waldemar II., which was in force from 1280 to 1683, there is a provision that a concubine kept openly for three years shall be held to be a legitimate and legal wife (Leg. Cimbric. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. Ed. Ancher); while the elaborate provisions for the division of estates between legitimate and illegitimate children, contained in the code compiled by Andreas Archbishop of Lunden, in the 13th century, show that certain legal rights were recognized in the latter (Legg. Scan. Provin. Ed. Thorsen pp. 110-2). Indeed, in the Norwegian law of that period, when the king left no legitimate sons the crown descended to illegitimates (Jarnsida, Kristendoms-Balkr, c. III.). In Bigorre, concubines, under the name of Massipia, were recognized by law, and formal notarial contracts were drawn up, as late as the close of the fifteenth century, specifying the price to be paid and the duration of the connection; and when the man was already married he sometimes engaged to marry the massipia in case of his wife’s death during the term (Lagrèze, Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p. 377). We must therefore bear in mind that, until the rule of sacerdotal celibacy became rigorously enforced, the “concubina” of the canons generally means a wife, and that for some time afterwards the concubine was by no means necessarily the shameless woman implied under the modern acceptation of the term.

[478] Hujus autem constitutionis maxime fuit auctor Hildebrandus, tunc Romanæ ecclesiæ archidiaconus, hæreticis maxime infestus.—Bernaldi Chron. ann. 1061. Benzo declares, in his slashing way, stigmatizing Hildebrand as a Sarabite, or wandering monk, “De cetero pascebat suum Nicholaum Prandellus in Lateranensi palatio, quasi asinum in stabulo. Nullum erat opus Nicholaitæ, nisi per verbum Sarabaitæ” (Comment. de Reb. Henr. IV. Lib. VII. c. 2). The verses of Damiani on the influence of Hildebrand are too well known to quote.

[479]

... Hic [Nicholaus] ecclesiastica propter

Ad partes illas tractanda negotia venit;

Namque sacerdotes, levitæ, clericus omnis

Hac regione palam se conjugio sociabant.

Concilium celebrans ibi, Papa faventibus illi

Præsulibus centum jus ad synodale vocatis,

Ferre Sacerdotes monet, altarisque ministros

Arma pudicitiæ, vocat hos et præcipit esse

Ecclesiæ sponsos, quia non est jure sacerdos

Luxuriæ cultor: sic extirpavit ab illis

Partibus uxores omnino presbyterorum.

(Gulielmi Appuli de Normann. Lib. II.)

[480] Concil. Turon. ann. 1060 c. 6.

[481] Porro autem nos contra divina mandata, personarum acceptores, in minoribus quidam sacerdotibus luxuriæ inquinamenta persequimur; in episcopis autem, quod nimis absurdum est, per silentii tolerantiam veneramur.—Damiani Opusc. XVII. c. 1.

[482] Sanctis eorum femoribus volui seras apponere. Tentavi genitalibus sacerdotum (ut ita loquar) continentiæ fibulas adhibere.... Hujus autem capituli nudam saltem promissionem tremulis prolatam labiis difficilius extorquemus. Primo, quia fastigium castitatis attingere se posse desperant; deinde quia synodali se plectendos esse sententia propter luxuriæ vitium non formidant. ... Si enim malum hoc esset occultum, fuerat fortassis utcunque ferendum; sed, ah scelus! omni pudore postposito, pestis hæc in tantum prorupit audaciam, ut per ora populi volitent loca scortantium, nomina concubinarum, socerorum quoque vocabula simul et socruum ... postremo, ubi omnis dubietas tollitur, uteri tumentes et pueri vagientes etc.—Damiani Opusc. XVII.

[483] Decret. Nicolai PP. c. 3, 4 (Baluz. et Mansi II. 118-9).

[484] “Dogmatizatis enim sacri ministros altaris jure posse mulieribus permisceri ... Jam vero quod impudenter asseritis, ministros altaris conjugio debere sociari etc.”—Damiani Lib. V. Epist. 13.

[485] Ad Cadaloum Lib. I. Epist. 20.

[486] In 1060, Cardinal Humbert of Silva-Candida, in combating the prevailing vice of simony, made use of this argument, reasoning that an immoral priest may be suspended or may be tolerated in hope of amendment, but if he trenches on heresy, there can be neither hope nor mercy for him (Humbert. Cardinal. adv. Simoniac. Lib. III. c. 43). Damiani applied this to the defenders of marriage with all his vigor. “Qui nimirum dum corruunt, impudici; dum defendere nituntur, merito judicantur hæretici” (Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 8). “Nam cum peccat homo, quasi in puteum labitur; cum vero peccata defendit, os putei super eum, ne pateat egressus, urgetur ... Hoc autem inter peccatorem et hæreticum distat: quia peccator est qui delinquit, hæreticus autem qui peccatum per pravum dogma defendit” (Opusc. XXIV. Præf.).

[487] Opusc. XXVII. Diss. ii. c. 8.

[488] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 3.

[489] Obeunte igitur pellice, viduatus adjecit iterare conjugium. Quid plura? Confœderat sibi quasi tabularum lege prostibulum, amicorum atque confinium congregat nuptiali more conventum, epulaturis etiam totius affluentæ providet apparatum—Damiani Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 6.

[490] Nec vos terreat quod forte, non dicam fidei sed perfidæ, vos annulus subarrhavit: quod rata et monimenta dotalia notarius quasi matrimonii jure conscripsit; quod juramentum ad confirmandam quodammodo conjuii copulam utrinque processit. Totum hoc quod videlicet apud alios est conjugii firmamentum, inter vos vanum judicatur et frivolum—Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 7.

[491] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. Præf.

[492] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii.

[493] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 1, 2.

[494] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 3.

[495] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. i.

[496] Alex. II. Epist. 125.—Batthyani (Leg. Eccles. Hungar. I. 407) remarks that this lenity arose from the fact that otherwise divine service would have ceased—“omnes ecclesiæ a divinis officiis vacassent.”

It is also observable that subdeacons are not included in this prohibition—a remarkable exemption, since by this time their subjection to the law of celibacy had become a settled rule in the Roman church. I may here remark that I had collected considerable material to trace the varying practice with regard to the subdiaconate, but as it involves no principle, merely depending in earlier times upon the local custom as to the functions of that grade, the discussion would scarcely repay the space that it would occupy.

[497] De manifestis loquimur; secretorum autem cognitor et judex Deus est.—Alex. II. Epist. 118.

[498] Cenomanensem electum, pro eo quod filius sacerdotis dicitur, si cæteræ virtutes in eum conveniunt, non rejicimus; sed, suffragantibus meritis, patienter suscipimus; non tamen ut hoc pro regula in posterum assumatur, sed ad tempus ecclesiæ periculo consulitur.—Gratian. Dist. LVI. c. 13.

[499] Nam pro eo quod filius sacerdotis dicitur, si cæteræ virtutes in eum conveniant, non rejicimus, sed suffragantibus meritis connivendo, eum recipimus.—Alex. II. Epist. 133. Baronius attributes to this the date of 1071.

The contrast between the weakness of Alexander and the unbending rigidity of his successor, Hildebrand, is well shown by comparing this unlimited acceptance of priestly offspring with the refusal of the latter to permit the elevation of a clerk requested by both his bishop and the King of Aragon, simply because he was illegitimate, although in other respects admitted to be unexceptionable (Gregor. VII. Lib. II. Epist. 50). We have already seen that even amid the license which prevailed during the early part of the century, some German bishops habitually refused orders to the sons of priests.

[500] Alex. II. Epist. 112.

[501] I think that there is too much concurrent testimony to this effect to admit a reasonable doubt that the Albigenses were Manichæans. I may return to them hereafter, and therefore will not discuss the point here. As regards the earlier heretics, however, I may mention the following contemporary authorities:—

With respect to those of Toulouse and Orleans, the “Fragmentum Historiæ Aquitaniæ” (Pithœi Hist. Franc. Script. p. 82) says: “Eo tempore decem ex canonicis sanctæ crucis Aurelianis probati sunt esse Manichæi, quos rex Robertus quum nollent ad Catholicam converti fidem, igne cremari jussit. Simili modo apud Tholosam inventi sunt Manichæi, et ipsi igne cremati sunt: et per diversas Occidentis partes Manichæi exorti per latibula sese occultare cœperunt”—and their errors are thus specified in the “Fragmentum Hist. Franc.” (Op. cit. p. 84) “Ii dicebant non posse aliquem in baptismate spiritum sanctum suscipere, et post criminale peccatum veniam non promereri; impositionem manuum nihil posse conferre; nuptias spernebant; episcopum affirmabant non posse ordinare, &c.”

In the Artesian synod, held in 1025 to condemn those of Cambrai, the tenth canon is directed against their hostility to marriage (Labbei et Coleti XI. 1177-8).—See also the prefatory letter of Gerard, Bishop of Cambrai—“Conjugatos nequaquam ad regnum pertinere”—(Hartzheim Concil. German. III. 68).

Concerning those executed at Goslar in 1052—“Ibique quosdam hæreticos, inter alia pravi erroris dogmata Manichæa secta omnis esum animalis exsecrantes, consensu cunctorum, ne hæretica scabies latius serpens plures inficeret, in patibulis suspendi jussit.”—Herman. Contract. ann. 1052.

About 1100 Radolphus Ardens describes the Manichæans who infested the territory of Agen, and recapitulates their doctrines as embracing dualism, abhorrence of animal food and of marriage, rejection of the Old Testament and part of the New, disbelief in the Eucharist, in baptism and resurrection, &c.—“Dicunt enim tantum flagitium esse accedere ad uxorem, quantum ad matrem vel ad filiam”—Radulf. Ardent. T. I. P. ii. Homil. 19.

The council of Toulouse, held by Calixtus II. in 1119, adopted a canon condemning those who objected to the Eucharist, priesthood, and legitimate marriage, showing that Manichæism was unextinguished in Languedoc.—Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 303.

In 1146 a synod at Cologne tried certain heretics, but before the examination was concluded the unfortunates were seized by the rabble and burned “et quod magis mirabile est, ipsi tormentum ignis non solum cum patientia, sed et cum lætitia introierunt et sustinuerunt.” Their Manichæism is manifested by their tenets concerning marriage—“De baptismo nostro non curant: Nuptias damnant.... In cibis suis vetant omne genus lactis, et quod inde conficitur, et quidquid ex coitu procreatur”—Narratio Everwini Præpositi (Hartzheim. III. 353-4). Cf. Bernardi Serm. 65, 66, in Cantica.

The accusations so freely disseminated against them for the purpose of stirring up popular indignation—such as that in their conventicles, after religious exercises, the lights were extinguished, and the congregation abandoned themselves to indiscriminate excesses—are, of course, without foundation. It is instructive to observe that precisely the same scandals were asserted of the early Christians (Tertull. Apologet. c. vii.)—so little does human nature change with the lapse of centuries.

[502] It is scarcely worth while to more than refer to the assertion of mediæval Milanese chroniclers that Eriberto married a noble lady named Useria. Puricelli (Muratori Script. Rer. Ital. V. 122-3) has sufficiently demonstrated its improbability. He does not, however, allude to the argument derivable from the fact that Eriberto’s name is signed to the proceedings of the council of Pavia in 1022, where priestly marriage was so severely condemned.

[503] Gualvaneo Flamma, Chron. Mag. c. 763.—Landulph. Senior. Mediolan. Hist. Lib. III. c. 2.

[504] Landulf. Senior. L. II. c. 35.

The writer was a partisan of the married clergy; but his description is confirmed by the testimony which Damiani bears (ante, p. 203) to the good character of the married clergy of Savoy. Still, there may be some truth in the counter statement of an opponent, S. Andrea of Vallombrosa, a disciple of S. Arialdo—“Nam alii cum canibus et accipitribus huc illucque pervagantes, suum venationi lubricæ famulatum tradebant; alii vero tabernarii et nequam villici, alii impii usurarii existebant; cuncti fere aut cum publicis uxoribus sive scortis, suam ignominiose ducebant vitam.... Universi sic sub simoniaca hæresi tenebantur impliciti.”—Vit. S. Arialdi c. I. No. 7.

The Milanese defended their position not only by Scripture texts, but also by a decision which they affirmed was rendered by St. Ambrose, to whom the question of the permissibility of sacerdotal marriage had been referred by the pope and bishops. Of course the story was without foundation, but singularly enough, the Milanese clung to it long after the subject had ceased to be open to discussion. Puricelli has investigated the matter with his usual conscientious industry, and shows the repetition of the legend not only by Datius and Landulfus Senior in the eleventh century, but by Gualvaneo Flamma in the thirteenth, by the author of the Flos Florum, by Pietro Agario and by Bernardino Corio in the fifteenth, and by Tristano Calco in the sixteenth century—the two latter falling in consequence under the revision of the Index. (Script. Rer. Ital. V. 122-3.)

[505] Milan long retained its bad preeminence as a nest of heresy. When Frederic II., in 1236, delayed his promised crusade to subdue the rebellious Milanese, his excuse to the pope was that he ought not to leave behind him unbelievers worse than those whom he would seek across the seas. “Cum ... jam zizania segetes incipiant suffocare per civitates Italicas, præcipue Mediolanensium, transire ad Saracenos hostiliter expugnandos, et illos incorrectos pertransire, esset vulnus infixo ferro fomentis superficialibus delinire, et cicatricem deformam non medelam procurare,” and Matthew Paris calls Milan “omnium hæreticorum, Paterinorum, Luciferanorum, Publicanorum, Albigensium, Usurariorum refugium ac receptaculum.”—Hist. Angl. ann. 1236.

[506] Arnulf. Gest. Archiep. Mediolan. Lib. III. c. 9.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 10.

Benzo, the uncompromising imperialist, always alludes to the papal party when he speaks of the Patarini—that term not having yet assumed the significance which it subsequently obtained. He accuses Anselmo di Badagio of being the author of the troubles—“primitus Patariam invenit, arcanum domini sui archiepiscopi cui juraverat inimicis aperuit. Abusus est etiam quædam monacha, cum Landulfino suo proprio consobrino.”—Comment. de Reb. Henric. IV. Lib. VII. c. 2.—The latter accusation can no doubt be set down as one of the baseless scandals so freely cast from one party to the other in those turbulent times.

[507] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 10.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 9.

[508] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 11.

[509] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 13.

[510] “Quod Mediolanensis civitas tunc in seditionem versa, repentinum utique nostrum minabatur interitum.”—The peril must have been serious, for even Landolfo, whose nerves were seasoned by constant civic strife, made a vow to become a monk if he should escape—his delay in fulfilling which, after the danger was past, called forth the urgent remonstrances of Damiani.—Damiani Opusc. XLII. cap. 1.

[511] Their defence was “non debere Ambrosianam ecclesiam Romanis legibus subjacere, nullumque judicandi vel disponendi jus Romano pontifici in illa sede competere”.—Damiani Opusc. V.

[512] Nicolaitarum quoque hæresim nihilominus condemnamus, et non modo presbyteros sed et diaconos et subdiaconos ab uxorum et concubinarum fædo consortio, nostris studiis, in quantum nobis possibilitas fuerit, sub eodem quo supra testimonio arcendos esse promittimus.—Damiani Opusc. V.

[513] Damiani op. cit.—Damiani’s account is addressed to the pope, who, he seems to think, may be dissatisfied with the lenity which permitted heretics to return to the church on such easy terms, and he is at some pains to justify himself for his mildness.

[514] Alexand. II. Epist. 1.

[515] His followers claimed for him the honors of martyrdom. He was reverenced accordingly, and Muratori gravely asserts that the evidence in his favor is indubitable.

[516] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 13, 14.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 13, 14.

To this period may probably be attributed two epistles of Alexander II. (Epistt. 93, 94) to the clergy and people of Milan, informing both parties that a Roman synod had recently prohibited incontinent priests from officiating, and had ordered the people not to attend at their ministrations. He adds that those who abandon their functions to cleave to their wives, must be forced also to give up their benefices.

[517] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 15.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 15.—Arnulfus alludes to a dispute concerning the litany, which complicated the quarrel. The troubles even invaded the monasteries, for Erlembaldo procured the forcible ejection of sundry abbots appointed by Guido.

[518] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 18.—Landulf. Lib. III. c. 29. In 1090 the remains of St. Arialdo were translated by Archbishop Anselmo IV. to the church of St. Denis, and Muratori quotes from Alciati a curious statement to the effect that in 1508 Louis XII. removed them to Paris in mistake for the relics of St. Denis the Areopagite, the Parisians in his time still venerating them as those of the latter saint.

About the time of Arialdo’s martyrdom, Cremona must have been won over to the cause of the reformers, for in 1066 we find Alexander II. addressing the “religiosis clericis et fidelibus laicis” of that city, thanking God that they had been moved to extirpate the simoniacal and Nicolitan heresies, and commanding that in future all those in orders who contaminated themselves with women should be degraded.—Alex. II. Epist. 36.

[519] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 18, 19.

[520] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 20.

[521] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 28.

[522] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 23; Lib. IV. c. 2, 3, 4.

[523] Arnulf. Lib. IV., Lib. V. c. 2, 5, 9.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 29, Lib. IV. c. 2.—Lambert. Schafnab. ann. 1077.

Erlembaldo was canonized by Urban II. towards the end of the century. Muratori (Annal. ann. 1085) styles Tedaldo “capo e colonna maestra degli Scismatici di Lombardia.”

[524] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.

[525] Gregor. II. Regist. Lib. I. Epistt. 25, 26, 27.

[526] Maritos ab uxoribus separat; scorta pudicis conjugibus; stupra, incestus, adulteria, casto præfert connubio; populares adversus sacerdotes, vulgus adversum episcopos concitat.—Comit. Ticinens. ann. 1076 (Goldast. III. 314).

[527] To this period is no doubt referable a fragment of a decretal addressed by Urban II. to Anselmo, Archbishop of Milan, giving him instructions as to the ceremony of restoring to the church the ecclesiastics who were to be reconciled (Ivon. Decret. P. VI. c. 407—Urbani II. Epist. 74)—showing that Milan had submitted, and that her clergy were forced to seek absolution and obey the canons. It was this revolution in Lombardy that drove the anti-pope Clement III. from Rome.

[528] Item heresis Nicolaitarum, id est incontinentium subdiaconorum, diaconorum et præcipue sacerdotum inretractabiliter damnata est, ut deinceps de officio se non intromittant qui in illa heresi manere non formidant; nec populus eorum officia ullo modo recipiat, si ipsi Nicolaitæ contra hæc interdicta ministrare præsumant.—Bernald. Constant. ann. 1095.

The very terms of this canon, however, show that “Nicolitism” was still an existing fact.

[529] Tamburini, Storia generale dell’ Inquizione, Milano, 1862, T. I. pp. 307-9.

[530] S. Leon. IX. Epist. 55.

[531] Vit. S. Anselmi Lucensis.—In his collection of canons, St. Anselmo is careful to accumulate authorities justifying his course, and condemning his antagonists.—S. Anselmi Collect. Canon. Lib. VIII. c. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10.

[532] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1089.

[533] Cujus prudentia, non solum in Italia sed etiam in Theutonicis partibus refrenata est sacerdotum incontinentia, scilicet quod prædecessores ejus in Italia prohibuerunt, hoc ipse in aliis ecclesiæ catholicæ partibus prohibere studiosus attemptavit.—Bertold. Constant, ann. 1073.—Also Bernald. Constant, ann. 1073.

Gregorius ... connubia clericorum a subdiaconatu et supra, per totum orbem Romanum edicto decretali, in æternum prohibuit.—Gotefrid. Viterb. Chron. P. XVII.

Sed et datis decretis clericorum a subdiaconatu et supra connubia in toto orbe Romano cohibuit.—Otton. Frisingen. Chron. Lib. VI. c. 34.

Eodem quoque tempore canones antiqui de continentia ministrorum sacri altaris innovari novis accedentibus præceptis cœperunt, per hunc Urbanum Papam et prædecessores suos Gregorium VII. et Nicholaum II. atque Alexandrum II.—Chron. Reichersperg. ann. 1098.

Tempore illo cum Gregorius qui et Hiltebrant Romani pontificatus jura disponeret, hoc decretum quidem antiquitus promulgatum, nunc autem innovatum est, ut videlicet omnes in sacris ordinibus constituti, presbyteri scilicet et diaconi, a cohabitationibus feminarum se, ut decet, cohiberent, aut ab officio cessarent.—Gest. Trevir. Archiep. cap. XXX. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. IV. 174).

Hoc tamen ab eo tempore fuit introductum ut nullus ordinaretur in presbyterum conjugatus: et ordinandi omnes castitatem promittere compellantur coram ordinante.—Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1074.

One chronicler, however, attributes the reform to Alexander II. “Constituit etiam ut nullus presbyter sive diaconus vel subdiaconus, uxorem habeat, sive concubinam in occidentali ecclesia, sed ut sint casti.”—Chron. S. Ægid. in Brunswig. ann. 1071.

[534] Paul Bernried. Vit. Gregor VII. c. ii. § 20.

[535] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. c. iii. § 26.

Even Gregory, however, was not equal to his contemporary Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble, who, during fifty-three years spent in the active duties of his calling, never saw the face of a woman, except that of an aged mendicant.—Rolevink Fascic. Temp. ann. 1074.

The fanciful purity which came to be considered requisite to the episcopal office is well illustrated by the case of Faricius, Abbot of Abingdon, who was elected to the see of Canterbury. His suffragans refused his consecration because he was a skilful leech—“tunc electus est Faricius ad archiepiscopatum, sed episcopus Lincolniensis et episcopus Salesburiensis obstiterunt, dicentes non debere archiepiscopum urinas mulierum inspicere” (De Abbat. Abbendon.—Chron. Abingdon. II. 287). The prejudice against the practice of physic as incompatible with the purity of an ecclesiastic was wide-spread and long-lived, as chronicled in the canons of numerous councils prohibiting it (e. g. Concil. Claromont. ann. 1130 c. 5)—but it was not always so. In 998 Theodatus, a monk of Corvey, received the bishopric of Prague from Otho III., as a reward for curing Boleslas I., Duke of Bohemia, of paralysis, by means of a bath of wine, herbs, spices, and three living black puppies four weeks old (Paulini Dissert. Hist. p. 198); and about the year 1200, Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, bestowed the see of St. David’s on Geoffrey, Prior of Llanthony, his physician, whose skill had won his gratitude.—Girald. Cambrens. de Jur. et Stat. Menev. Eccles. Dist. VII.

[536] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. I. Epist. 30.

[537] Ut secundum instituta antiquorum canonum presbyteri uxores non habeant, habentes aut dimittant aut deponantur; nec quisquam omnino ad sacerdotium admittatur qui non in perpetuum continentiam vitamque cœlibem profiteatur.—Lambert. Hersfeldens. ann. 1074. Cf. Gregor. Epist. Extrav. 4.

[538] As regards Germany, Gregory, in 1074, sent two legates to Henry IV., who promulgated the canon in a national council; and the next year he followed this up by a legation empowered to forbid the laity from attending the offices of married priests. (Herman. Contract. ann. 1074-5.) His correspondence, however, shows that he did not rely alone on such measures, but that he also addressed the prelates directly.

[539] Lambert. Hersfeldens. ann. 1074.

[540] Novo exemplo et inconsiderato prejudicio, necnon et contra sanctorum patrum sententiam ... ex qua re tam grave scandalum in ecclesia oritur, quod antea sancta ecclesia nullius hæresis schismati tam graviter est attrita.—Chron. Turonens. (Martene Ampl. Collect. V. 1007.)

[541] Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav. 4, 12, 13.—Bernald. pro Gebhardo Episc. Apologet. c. 4, 5, 6, 7.

[542] Vit. S. Altmanni.—Hinc capitulum illud de incontinentia sacerdotum a tam invicto propugnatore castitatis dissimulatum non approbatum remansit.

[543] Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav. 12.—Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1074-5-6.—Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 132.—Gregor. Regist. Lib. II. Epist. 29.—Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 237.

An encyclical letter of Siegfrid, in 1075, states that Gregory had sent to his diocese commissioners to reform the immorality of the clergy, and that they had labored earnestly, but fruitlessly, to accomplish the task by a liberal use of suspension and excommunication. He had thereupon reported to the pope the scandal and infamy of his church, when Gregory, considering the multitude of the transgressors, counselled moderation. Siegfrid therefore orders all incorrigible offenders to be suspended and sent to him for judgment. (Hartzheim Concil. German. III. 175.)—Hartzheim also (III. 749) gives, under date of 1077, another letter from Siegfrid to Gregory, in which he promises to do his best in reforming the clergy, but advises moderation towards those whose weakness merits compassion.

[544] See, for instance, Lib. I. Epist. 30; Lib. II. Epistt. 25, 55, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68; Lib. III. Epist. 4; Lib. IV. Epistt. 10, 11, 20; Lib. VII. Epist. 1; Epistt. extrav. 4, 12, 13, etc.

[545] His præcipimus vos nullo modo obedire, vel eorum præceptis consentire, sicut ipsi apostolicæ sedis præceptis non obediunt, neque auctoritati sanctorum patrum consentiunt.—Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav. 14. “Omnibus clericis et laicis in regno Teutonicorum constitutis.”

[546] Regist. Lib. II. Epist. 45.

Letters conceived in the same spirit are extant, addressed to the principal laymen of Chiusi in Tuscany, to the Count and Countess of Flanders, &c. (Lib. II. Epist. 47; Lib. IV. Epistt. 10, 11.)

[547] Martene et Durand. Thesaur. I. 218.—Hugon. Flavin. Chron. Lib. II. ann. 1079.—Cf. Chron. Augustinens. ann. 1075. Theodoric was naturally forced in the end to take a decided stand against Gregory. See his letter in Goldastus, T. I. p. 236, and the account of his episcopate in the Gesta Trevir. Archiep. (Martene Ampl. Collect. IV. 175-8).

[548] Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. cap. 162.

[549] Annalista Saxo, ann. 1076.

We have already seen (p. 142) that Nicholas I., in the ninth century, had expressly forbidden any popular interference with married priests, and it is a little singular to observe that his decretal on the subject is extracted by Ivo of Chartres (Decreti P. II. cap. 82) and presented as valid law, in less than a generation after the death of Gregory VII.

[550] The writer indignantly adds—“Si autem quæris talis fructus a qua radice pullulaverit, lex ad laicos promulgata, qua imperitis persuasum est conjugatorum sacerdotum missas et quæcumque per eos implentur mysteria fugienda esse, in reipublicæ nostræ ornatum illud adjecit.”—Martene et Durand. Thesaur. I. 230-1.

[551] Sigebert. Gemblac. ann. 1074.

[552] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 81, 107.

[553] Ibid. No. 105, 106, 107.

[554] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IV. Epist. 20.

[555] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 87.—Ekkehard of Uraugen and the Annalista Saxo, however, in their accounts of these disturbances, attribute them to political rather than to ecclesiastical causes. The latter, no doubt, would hardly have been efficient without the former. The efforts of Henry to reduce the savage feudal nobles to order made him, throughout his reign, a favorite with the cities.

[556] Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1076.

[557] Hugon. Flaviniac. Lib. II.

[558] Ob hanc igitur causam, quia scilicet sanctam Dei ecclesiam castam esse volebat, liberam atque catholicam, quia de sanctuario Dei simoniacam et neophytorum hæresim et fedam libidinosæ contagionis pollutionem volebat expellere, membra diaboli cœperunt in eum insurgere, et usque ad sanguinem præsumpserunt in eum manus injicere.—Hugon. Flaviniac. Lib. II.

Eo vesaniæ imperatorem induxerat cæca sacerdotum (qui tunc frequentes apud eum erant) libido. Timebant enim si cum pontifice in gratiam rediret, actum esse de concubinis suis, quas illi pluris quam vel propriam salutem vel publicam pendebant honestatem.—Hieron. Emser Vit. S. Bennon. c. III. § 40.

Gregory’s celebrated exclamation on his death-bed does not, however, specially recognize this—“Dilexi justitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.”

[559] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. I. Epist. 30; Lib. III. Epist. 3.

[560] According to Conrad of Ursperg (Chron. ann. 1080) among the reasons adduced for the deposition of Gregory the synod of Brixen, was “Qui inter concordes seminavit discordiam, inter pacificos lites, inter fratres scandala, inter conjuges divortia, et quicquid quiete inter pie viventes stare videbatur, concussit”—in which the words italicized may possibly allude to the separation of the married clergy. Conrad, however, was a compiler of the thirteenth century, and his statements are not to be received without caution. If this motive had its weight with the prelates of the synod, they did not care to publish it to the world, for there is no allusion to it in the letter of renunciation addressed by them to Gregory (Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 238)—forming a striking contrast to the proceedings of the synod of Pavia in 1076, already alluded to.

[561] Wibert Antipap. Epist. VI.

Bishop Benzo, the most bitter of imperialists, did not desire to be confounded with the Nicolitan heretics—

“Omnis enim caste vivens templum Dei dicitur;

Si quis tantum sacramentum violare nititur,

Unus de porcorum grege protinus efficitur.

Facti cœlibes ardentem fugiamus Sodomam:

Hierosolymam petamus, Christianis commodam.”

Comment. de Reb. Hen. IV. Lib. V. c. 6.

[562] Honorius III. in Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 15.

[563] Bernald. Constant. ad Herman. Contract. Append. ann. 1085.

[564] Henricus multitudinem sequens, accessit eis qui sacerdotum conjugium sublatum volebant. Quare resistentes ei opinioni condemnati sunt.—H. Mutii German. Chron. Lib. XV.

I do not remember to have met with any contemporary authority for this assertion, nor is there any provision of this nature in the decrees of the Diet as given by Goldastus (I. 245); but the chroniclers of the period were generally papalists, and would be apt to omit recording anything which they would deem so creditable to their adversaries. Yet that the imperialists were no longer held responsible for clerical irregularities is evident from a letter written in 1090 by Stephen, the papalist Bishop of Halberstadt, to Waltram of Magdeburg, who was a follower of Henry. In all his violent invectives against the imperialists, and in his long catalogue of their sins, he makes no allusion to priestly incontinence, showing that they must have disavowed these irregularities so formally as to leave no ground for imputations of complicity (Dodechini Append. ad Mar. Scot. ann. 1090).

[565] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1091.

[566] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1089.

[567] A monkish chronicler professes to record of his own knowledge Guiberto’s death-bed remorse for the schism which he had been instrumental in causing. “Malens, ut ab ore ipsius didicimus, apostolici nomen nunquam suscepisse.”—Chron. Reg. S. Pantaleon. ann. 1100.

[568] Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 173.

[569] Eos qui in subdiaconatu uxoribus vacare voluerint, ab omni sacro ordine removemus, officio atque beneficio ecclesiæ carere decernimus. Quod si ab episcopo commoniti non se correxerint, principibus licentiam indulgemus ut eorum feminas mancipent servituti. Si vero episcopi consenserint eorum pravitatibus, ipsi officii interdictione mulctentur.—Synod. Melfit. ann. 1089, can. 12.

The second canon of the same council—“Sacrorum canonum instituta renovantes, præcipimus ut a tempore subdiaconatus nulli liceat carnale commercium exercere. Quod si deprehensus fuerit, ordinis sui periculum sustinebit”—shows how much more venial was the offence of promiscuous licentiousness than the heresy of marriage.

[570] Urbani II. Epist. 24.

[571] Gratian. Dist. XXVII. c. 8.

[572] Decret. Comit. Constant. c. 2 (Goldast. I. 246).

[573] Et quia hospes est, plus ecclesiæ prodest: non eum parentela exhauriet, non liberorum cura aggravabit, non cognatorum turba despoliet—Cosmæ Pragens. Chron. Lib. III. ann. 1098.—It should, however, be borne in mind that Bohemia had been Christianized in 871, by Cyrillus and Methodius, missionaries from Constantinople, and the national Slavonic worship, founded on the Greek faith, after many struggles, was not abolished until 1094 (see Krasinski’s Reformation in Poland, London, 1838, I. 13). The attachment of the race to their ancestral rites explains the proneness of the Bohemians and Poles to fall away into heresy.

[574] Höfler, Concilia Pragensia p. xiii. (Prag, 1862.)

[575] Annalista Saxo, ann. 1105.

[576] Nycholaitarum quoque fornicaria commixtio ibidem est ab omnibus abdicata.—Chron. Reg. S. Pantaleon. ann. 1105. Cf. Annal. Saxo, ann. 1105.

[577] Compare Bernaldi Constant. de Reordinatione vitanda etc.

[578] Quod cum dolore dicimus, vix pauci sacerdotes aut clerici Catholici in tanta terrarum latitudine reperiantur.—Annal. Saxo, ann. 1106.

[579] Concil. Trecens. ann. 1107 c. 2 (Pertz, Legum T. II. P. ii. p. 181).

[580] Cosmæ Pragensis Chron. Lib. III. ann. 1118, 1123.

Rerum cunctarum comes indimota mearum

Bis Februi quinis obiit Boseteha kalendis.

[581] Ibid. Lib. III. ann. 1125 (Mencken. Script. Rer. German. III. 1799).

[582] Dubravii Hist. Bohem. Lib. XIV. (Ed. 1687, pp. 380-1.)

[583] Statuitur et hoc semper memorabile, secundum decreta canonum, presbyteros parochianos castos et sine uxoribus esse debere: uxorati vero presbyteri missam a nemine audiendam esse.—Annal. Bosoviens. ann. 1131.

Statuitur quoque ab omnibus, secundum decreta canonum, illud antiquum, quod semper erit innovandum, presbyteros castos et sine uxoribus esse, missam autem uxorati presbyteri neminem audire debere.—Chron. Sanpetrin. Erfurt. ann. 1131.

Statuitur etiam hoc semper memorabile, per decreta canonum presbyteros parrochianos castos et sine uxoribus esse debere, uxorati vero presbyteri missam a nemine audiendam esse.—Chron. Pegaviens. Continuat. ann. 1131.

[584] Ruperti Tuitens. Comment. in Apocalyps. Lib. II. cap. ii.

[585] Hist. Monast. S. Laurent. Leodiens. Lib. V. c. 39 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. IV. 1005).

[586] Henrici Salisburg. Archidiac. de Calam. Eccles. Salisburg. cap. ix.

[587] “Deinde dum nimio zelo rectitudinis de incontinentia clericorum multa sæve disponeret, sine condimento discrecionis, magnam sibi comparavit invidiam, et quam nec dici fas est, acquisivit infamiam.”—He went to Italy, seeking aid from Honorius II., but was captured by Conrad the Swabian, the rival of the Emperor Lothair, and died of affliction in his prison at Parma, October 1st, 1130. (Gest. Trevirorum Continuat. c. 27, 28.)

[588] Anon. Zwetlensis Hist. Roman. Pontif. No. CLXI. (Pez, T. I. P. iii. p. 385.)

[589] Concil. Ratisbonens. sæc. XIII. c. v. (Printed by Schneller, Straubing, 1785.)

[590] Presbyteris autem qui prima et legitima duxere conjugia, indulgentia ad tempus datur, propter vinculum pacis et unitatem Spiritus Sancti, quousque nobis in hoc Domini Apostolici paternitas consilietur.—Synod. Zabolcs ann. 1092 c. 3, or Decret. St. Ladisl. Lib. I. c. 3. (Batthyani, I. 434-5.)

[591] Synod. Zabolcs c. 1, 2.—Any prelate assenting to such illicit unions, and not insisting on immediate separation, was punishable to a reasonable extent (Ibid. c. 4).

[592] Synod. Strigonens. II. (Batthyani, II. 121-8). Peterffy’s emendation of “voluerint” for “noluerint,” in the clause respecting digami, can hardly be questioned.

[593] Decret. Coloman. cap. 41, 42, Comp. cap. 27 and 37.

[594] Synod. Vencellina, circa 1109.

[595] Batthyani, I. 431.

[596] Epist. Urbani apud Batthyani, II. 274.

[597] Synod. Dalmatiæ ann. 1199 (Batthyani, II. 289-90).

[598] Concil. Vienn. ann. 1267 (Batthyani, II. 415-17).

[599] Complures ea tempestate sacerdotes uxoribus velut jure legitimo utebantur.—Dlugosz, ad ann. 1197 (apud Krasinski, I. 52).

[600] Staravolsc. Concil. Epit. ap. Harduin. T. VI. P. II. p. 1937.

[601] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. Lib. IX. Epist. 235.

[602] Concil. Vratislaviens. ann. 1279, c. iii. (Hartzheim III. 808).

[603] Saxo. Grammat. Hist. Dan. Lib. XV. (Ed. 1576, p. 327).

[604] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. VI. 198.

[605] Innocent. III. Regest. XVI. 118.

[606] Prima intentio et cura Cardinalis Sabinensis in hoc concilio erat revocare Suecos et Gothos a schismate Græcorum, in quo presbyteri et sacerdotes, ductis publicis uxoribus consensisse videbantur.—Harduin. VII. 423.

[607] Jaffé, Regesta, p. 515-6.—Paschal. II. Epist. 497.

[608] Concil. Bremens. ann. 1266 (Hartzheim IV. 580).

[609] Emonis Chron. ann. 1219.

[610] “Eodem tempore defunctus est præfatus decanus (Herbrandus) possessor ecclesiæ in Husquert, tertius heres illius nominis, relicto parvulo ejusdem nominis.” (Emonis Chron. ann. 1231.)—and Emo alludes to him as “honesto viro Herbrando.”

“Obiit Geyco decanus in Firmetium vir per omnia sæcularibus artibus idoneus, et bene religiosus et obsequiosus. Successit ei Sicco, quartus a proavo Sigrepo.”—Ibid. ann. 1233.

[611] Menconis Chron. Werens. ann. 1271.

[612] Concil. Tolosan. ann. 1056 can. vii.

[613] Concil. Turon. ann. 1060 c. 6.

[614] Ceterum, quod excommunicavit diaconum suum propter ductam uxorem, contra canones fecisse videtur mihi, nisi forte cogente pertinacia ipsius.—Epist. Berengar. Turon. (Martene Thesaur. I. 195-6). It must be borne in mind that the persecution of Berenger arose solely from his theological subtleties, and that objections to celibacy formed no portion of his errors.

[615] Art de Vérifier les Dates, s. v.

[616] Concil. Pictaviens. ann. 1078 can. 9.

[617] Concil. Rotomag. ann. 1072 can. 16 “de clericis uxoratis.”

[618] Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. iv. c. 2.

[619] Concil. Juliobonens. ann. 1080 can. 3, 5 (Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. V. c. 6.—Harduin. Concil. T. VI. P. I. p. 1599).—Propter eorum feminas nulla pecuniæ emendatio exigatur.

[620] Pauli Carnot. Vet. Agano. Lib. VIII. c. 11.

[621] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IX. Epist. 5.

[622] Gaufridi Grossi Vit. Bernardi Tironens. c. 6 §§ 51-54.

[623] Gregor. VII. Epist. Extrav. 29.—Epist. in Martene Thesaur. III. 871-6.

[624] Roujoux, Hist, de Bretagne, II. 98-99. The independence affected by the Breton church is well shown in a singularly impertinent letter addressed to Leo IX. by the clergy of Nantes, refusing to receive a bishop appointed by him, after the degradation for simony of Prodicus by the council of Rheims in 1050 (Martene Thesaur. I. 172-3).

[625] Martene Thesaur. III. 882.—Haddan and Stubbs II. 96.

[626] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IV. Epistt. 10, 11.

[627] Ebrardi Chron. Watinens. cap. 22-3. Ebrard was a contemporary, a disciple of Otfrid, and therefore his statement of the motives of the persecution is entitled to credence.

[628] “Addens malos sacerdotes sacerdotes non esse, acsi peccator homo non esset homo.” From the tenor of Robert’s defence it is evident that it was the children of the clerks whom he disinherited. The documents are in Warnkönig, Hist. de Flandre, I. 330-3 (Bruxelles, 1835).

[629] Urbani PP. II. Epist. 70.

[630] Lambert. Atrebat. Epist. 60.

[631] Lambert. Atrebat. Epist. 84—Paschalis PP. II. Epist. 134.—Lambert. Epist. apud Baluz. et Mansi II. 150.

[632] Paschalis PP. II. Epist. 415.

[633] Guibert. Noviogent. de Vita Sua Lib. I. cap. vii.

[634] Concil. Claromont. can. 9, 10, 25.

In Lent of the following year (1096) Urban caused these canons to be received by a provincial council held under his auspices at Tours.—Bernald. Constant. ann. 1096.

[635] Ivon. Carnot. Epist. 218.

[636] Ivon. Decret. P. VI. c. 50 sqq.—Panorm. Lib. III. c. 84 sqq.

[637] Ivon. Epist. 200.

[638] Quod ultra modum laxaveris frena pudicitiæ, in tantum ut post acceptum archidiaconatum, accubante lateribus tuis plebe muliercularum, multam genueris plebem puerorum et puellarum.—Ibid. Epist. 277.

[639] Est etiam eis publica et inexpugnabilis cum mulieribus familiaritas, quibus illæ, promissis et præmissis obligatæ munusculis, dies iniquitatis et noctes infamiæ vindicare comprobantur.—Hildebert. Cenoman. Epist. 38 (Lib. II. Epist. 25).

[640] Hist. Episc. Verdunens. (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 254).

[641] Audivi turpissimam famam de monasterio Sanctæ Faræ, quod jam non locus sanctimonialium sed mulierum dæmonialium prostibulum dicendum est, corpora sua ad turpes usus omni generi hominum prostituentium.—Ivon. Epist. 70.

[642] Martene Thesaur. T. V. p. 1142-3.—Honorii PP. II. Epist. 91.—Guill. Nangis ann. 1123, 1124.

[643] P. Abælardi Sermo XXIX.

[644] Bull. Pontif. No. XXIII. ap. Hahnii Collect. Monument. Vet. I. 147. As to the reformation of the nuns of Laon, see Guill. de Nangis ann. 1128.

[645] Roberti de Monte Chron. ann. 1143.

[646] Nonne qui nocentes deberemus absolvere, eis malo exemplo nocemus? Nonne qui deberemus pollutos lavare, vitiorum nostrorum contagione alios polluimus?—— Sed nos, hodie indigni sacerdotes quid dicemus qui cæteris hominibus non majores sed deteriores sumus? Qui cum in conspectu hominum gradu sacerdotalis ordinis celsiores cæteris videamur, tamen cæteris inferiores vita moribusque jacemus? Radulph. Ardent. T. II. P. ii. Homil. 25.—See also Homil. 21.

[647] Nihil enim est quo magis lædatur Ecclesia quam quod laicos videt esse meliores clericis.—Pet. Cant. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lvii.

[648] Hoc totum factum est rogatu Germani presbyteri, filiorumque ejus, qui post inde noster effectus est monachus.—Chron. Besuens. Chart. de tenement. German. presbyt.

[649] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. v. 67.

[650] Petri Venerab. de Mirac. Lib. I. c. 25.—Chron. Episc. Mindens. c. 26.

[651] S. Bernardi Vitæ Primæ Lib. VII. cap. xxi.

[652] Concil. Remens. ann. 1119 can. 4, 5.—“Nullus episcopus, nullus presbyter, nullus omnino de clero ecclesiasticas dignitates vel beneficia cuilibet, quasi hereditario jure, derelinquat.” Calixtus had already caused this provision to be adopted by the council of Toulouse, held in the previous June (Concil. Tolosan. ann. 1119 can. 8).

[653] Cujas quotes these verses as still current in his day, and attributes to the efforts of Calixtus the suppression of sacerdotal marriage in France. (Giannone, Apologia, c. xiv.)

[654] Orderic. Vital. P. III. Lib. xii. c. 13.

[655] Arnulf. Lexoviens. de Schismate cap. I. II. (D’Achery I. 153).

[656] Vit. S. Bertrandi Convenar. No. 13, 14 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. VI. 1028).

[657] Ut clerici ejusdem ecclesiæ sicut usque modo vixerunt permaneant; hoc tamen præcipimus ut presbyteri, diaconi, subdiaconi nullatenus deinceps uxores concubinas habeant; cæteri vero cujuscumque ordinis clerici propter fornicationem, licentiam habeant ducendi uxores.—Du Cange, s. v. Concubina.

[658] Epist. Alex. PP. III. in Martene Ampliss. Collect. II. 794.

[659] Concil. Paris, ann. 1212 can. xvi., xviii. (Ibid. VII. 99).

[660] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IX. Epist. 5.

[661] Roger of Hoveden. ann. 1070.—Baron. Annal. ann. 1070 No. 26.

[662] Lanfranci Epist. XXI.

[663] Alexand. II. Epist. 83.

[664] Wilkins Concil. Mag. Britan. I. 363.

[665] Camden’s Britannia, Tit. Shroppshire.

[666] Decretumque est ut nullus canonicus uxorem habeat. Sacerdotes vero in castellis vel in vicis habitantes, habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant; non habentes interdicantur ut habeant; et deinceps caventur episcopi ut sacerdotes vel diaconos non præsumant ordinare, nisi prius profiteantur ut uxores non habeant.—Wilkins I. 367.

Polydor Virgil describes a council of London held by Lanfranc in 1078, in which—“Ante omnia mores sacerdotum parum puri quamproxime potuit, ad priscorum patrum regulam revocati sunt, estque illis in posterum tempus recte vivendi modus præscriptus” (Angl. Hist. Lib. IX.); but he has evidently mixed together the proceedings of various synods.

[667] Henric. Huntingdon. Lib. VII.—Matt. Paris ann. 1102.—Henry of Huntingdon, though an archdeacon, was himself the son of a priest, and therefore was not disposed to regard with complacency the stigma attached to his birth by the new order of things.

[668] Concil. Londin. ann. 1102.—Wilkins. I. 382 (Eadmer. Hist. Novor. Lib. III. ann. 1102).

[669] Anselmi Lib. III. Epist. 62.

[670] D’Achery Spicileg. III. 434.

[671] Paschalis PP. II. Epist. lxxiv.—Anselmi Lib. IV. Epist. 41.

[672] Simeon Dunelmens. ap. Pagi IV. 348.

[673] See the confirmation of excommunication in which St. Anselm exhaled his fiery indignation at those who continued with “bestiali insania” to defy the authorities of the church. (Anselmi Lib. III. Epist. 112.)

Anselm was not entirely without assistance in his efforts. One of his monks, Reginald, of the great monastery of Canterbury, wrote a fearfully diffuse paraphrase, in Leonine verse, of the life of St. Malchus. It was an evil-minded generation, indeed, that could resist such a denunciation of marriage as that pronounced by the saint—

Plenum sorde thorum subeam plenumque dolorum?

Plenus, ait, tenebris thalamus sordet muliebris.

Displicet amplexus, horror mihi copula, sexus.

Conjugium vile, vilescit sponsa, cubile.

Nolo thorum talem, desidero spiritualem.

(Croke’s Rhyming Latin Verse, p. 67.)

[674] Eadmer. Hist. Novor. Lib. IV.—Anselmi Lib. III. Epist. 109.

[675] Wilkins, I. 378-80.—Paschalis II. Epist. 221.

[676] D’Achery Spicileg. III. 448.

[677] Eadmeri Hist. Novor. Lib. IV.

[678] Eadmeri Hist. Novor. Lib. IV.

[679] Eadmeri Hist. Novor. Lib. IV.

[680] Messenii Chron. Episcoporum per Sueciam etc. p. 76 (Stockholmiæ, 1611).

[681] Concil. Londiniens. ann. 1126 c. 13 (Wilkins, I. 408).

[682] Henric. Huntingd. Lib. VII.—Matt. Paris ann. 1125.—Baronius (ann. 1125, No. 12) endeavors to disprove the story, but is only able to offer general negative allegations, of but little weight when opposed to the testimony of a contemporary like Henry of Huntingdon, who speaks of it as a matter of public notoriety, which covered the cardinal with disgrace and drove him from England.

Such conduct was a favorite theme of objurgation with the ascetics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries—

Certe tu qui missam dicis

Post amplexum meretricis,

Potaberis ab inimicis

Liquore sulphuris et picis.

(Du Méril, Poésies Latines, p. 133.)

So also, among the poems which pass under the name of Golias Episcopus is one of fierce invective directed against the priests, in which this is one of the principal accusations—

O sacerdos, hæc responde,

Qui frequenter et jocunde

Cum uxore dormis, unde

Mane surgens, missam dicis,

Corpus Christi benedicis,

Post amplexus meretricis

Minus quam tu peccatricis.

---

Plenus sorde, plenus mendis,

Ad autorem manus tendis,

Quem contempnis, quem offendis,

Meretrici dum ascendis.

---

Quali corde, quali ore

Corpus Christi, cum cruore,

Tractas, surgens de fœtore,

Dignus plagis et tortore.

Mapes’s Poems (Camd. Soc. Ed. pp. 49-50).

[683] Concil. Westmonast. ann. 1127 c. 5, 6, 7 (Wilkins, I. 410).

[684] Henric. Huntingd. Lib. VII.—Anglo Saxon Chron. ann. 1129.—Matt. Paris ann. 1129.

[685] Concil. Westmonast. ann. 1138 c. 8 (Wilkins, I. 415).

[686] Rymer, Fœdera Tom. I. ann. 1144.—Post. Concil. Lateran, P. XIX. passim.—Lib. I. Tit. 17 Extra.

[687] Orderic Vital. P. III. Lib. xiii. c. 20.

[688] Fluit semine et hinnit in feminas, adeo impudens ut libidinem, nisi quam publicaverit, voluptuosam esse non reputet.... Fornicationis abusum comparat necessitati. Proletarius est adeo quod paucis annis ei soboles tanta succrevit ut patriarcharum seriem antecedat.—Joann. Saresberiens. Epist. 310. Well might Alexander, in ordering his ejection, say “ipsum invenerint tot excessibus et criminibus publicis irretitum, quod per eorum nobis litteras recitata auribus nostris nimium præstiterunt tædium et dolorem.”—Elmham Hist. Monast. August, p. 413.

[689]

Crescit malorum cumulus,

Est sacerdos ut populus,

Currunt ad illicitum,

Uterque juxta libitum

Audax et imperterritus.

(Wright, Polit. Songs of England, p. 9.) And another indignant churchman exclaims:—

Qui sunt qui ecclesias vendunt et mercantur?

Qui sunt fornicarii? Qui sunt qui mœchantur?

Qui naturam transvolant et abominantur?

Qui? clerici; a nobis non longe extra petantur.

Mapes’s Poems, pp. 156-7.

[690] A woman applied to Bishop Hugh for advice “super impotentia mariti, quia debitum ei reddere non poterat,” when the prelate gravely replied, “Faciamus ergo si vis eum sacerdotem, et statim illo in opere, reddita sibi facultate, proculdubio potens efficietur.”—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. c. xviii.

[691] Benedicti Abbatis Gesta Regis Henr. II. T. I. pp. 135-6; T. II. p. xxx. (M. R. Series.)

[692] Chron. Monast. de Bello, London, 1846, pp. 142-3.

[693] Haddan & Stubbs’s Councils of Great Britain I. 423-4.

[694] Matt. Paris ann. 1208.

Perhaps it is to John’s experience in this matter that may be attributed the fact that when, in 1214, he entered into a league with his knight-errant nephew, the Emperor Otho IV., against Philip Augustus, they also declared war against Innocent III., and proposed to carry out a gigantic scheme of spoliation by enriching, from ecclesiastical property, all who might rally to their standard. They proclaimed their intention of humbling the church, reducing the numbers of the clergy, stripping those who were left of all their temporalities, and leaving them only moderate stipends. Both John and Otho had been under excommunication, and could speak feelingly of the overweening power and abuses of the church, whose members they characterize as “genus hoc pigrum et fruges consumere natum, quod otia ducit, quodque sub tecto marcet et umbra, qui frustra vivunt, quorum omnis labor in hoc est, ut Baccho Venerique vacent, quibus crapula obesis poris colla inflat, ventresque abdomine onerat.” (Lünig. Cod. Diplom. Italiæ I. 34). A few weeks later the Bridge of Bouvines put a sudden end to this prosperous plan of reformation.

[695] Du Méril, Poésies Pop. Latines, p. 179.

[696] Mapes’s Poems, p. 10.

[697] Du Méril, op. cit. p. 171.

[698] Filius autem, more sacerdotum parochialium Angliæ fere cunctorum, damnabili quidem et detestabili, publicam secum habebat comitem individuam, et in foco focariam et in cubiculo concubinam.—Girald. Cambrens. Specul. Eccles. Dist. iii. c. 8. (Girald. Opp. III. 129.) However Giraldus and the severer churchmen might stigmatize these companions as concubines, they were evidently united in the bonds of matrimony. He says himself, respecting Wales, “Nosse te novi ... canonicos Menevenses fere cunctos, maxime vero Walensicos, publicos fornicarios et concubinarios esse, sub alis ecclesiæ cathedralis et tanquam in ipso ejusdem gremio focarias suas cum obstetricibus et nutricibus atque cunabulis in laribus et penetralibus exhibentes.... Adeo quidem ut sicut patres eorum ipsos ibi genuerunt et promoverunt, sic et ipsi more consimili prolem ibidem suscitant, tam in vitiis sibi quam beneficiis succedaneam. Filiis namque suis statim cum adulti fuerint et plene pubertatis annos excesserint, concanonicorum suorum filias, ut sic firmiori fœdere sanguinis scilicet et affinitatis jure jungantur, quasi maritali copula dari procurant. Postmodum autem ... canonicas suas filiis suis conferri per cessionem non inefficaciter elaborant.” (De Jure et Statu Menev. Eccles. Dist. i.) That this condition of affairs was not confined to the canons of cathedral churches is evident from his general remarks in the Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. cap. xxiii.

His treatise De Statu Menevens. Eccles. was written after 1215, and therefore subsequent to the death of Innocent III.

[699] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. V. 66; VIII. 147.

[700] De presbytero et logico. Mapes’s Poems, p. 256.

[701] Hali Meidenhad, p. 7. (Early English Text Society, 1866.)

[702] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. VI. 103.

[703] Mapes’s Poems, pp. 171-2. This well-known poem has been attributed to the Venerable Hildebert, Bishop of Le Mans, as written on the occasion of the reformation of the French clergy by Calixtus II. (Croke, Rhyming Latin Verse, p. 85), but the character of that reverend prelate forbids such an assumption, even if the allusion to Innocent did not assign to it a later period.

[704] Concil. Eboracens. ann. 1195 c. 17.—Concil. Londiniens. ann. 1200 c. 10.—Concil. Dunelmens. ann. 1220.—Concil. Oxoniens. ann. 1222 c. 28.—Constit. Archiep. Cantuar. ann. 1225 (Matt. Paris ann. 1225).—Constit. Episc. Lincoln. ann. 1230 (Wilkins, I. 627).—Constit. Provin. Cantuar. ann. 1236 c. 3, 4, 30.—Constit. Coventriens. ann. 1237 (Wilkins, I. 641), &c.

[705] Matt. Paris ann. 1237.

[706] Wilkins, I. 672-3.

[707] De Convocatione Sacerdotum (Mapes’s Poems, pp. 180-2).

[708] Mapes’s Poems, pp. 176-9.—All the poetasters of the period, however, were not enlisted on one side. There is extant an exhortation against marriage, addressed to the clergy, which consists of a violent invective against the sex, recapitulating the customary accusations against women with all the brutal coarseness of the age:—

Hæc est iniquitas omnis adulteræ

Qui virum proprium vellet non vivere,

Ut det adultero non cessat rapere—

Desistat igitur clerus nunc nubere.

Du Méril, op. cit. p. 184.

The “Confessio Goliæ” feelingly bewails the difficulty of rendering obedience to the new regulations:—

Res est arduissima vincere naturam,

In aspectu virginum mentem ferre puram;

Juvenes non possumus legem sequi duram,

Leviumque corporum non habere curam.

Quis in igne positus igne non uratur?

Quis in mundo demorans castus habeatur?

Ubi Venus digito juvenes venatur

Oculis illaqueat, facie prædatur?

Mapes’s Poems, p. 72.

[709] Matt. Paris ann. 1250.

This Boniface was brother of the Duke of Savoy, and was one of the Italian prelates whose intrusion into the choice places of the Anglican church was a source of intense irritation. The career of another brother, Philip, is an instructive illustration of the ecclesiastical manners of the age. He was in deacon’s orders, and yet, as a leader of condottieri, he was a strenuous supporter of Innocent IV. in his quarrel with Frederic II. He was created Archbishop of Lyons, Bishop of Valence, Provost of Bruges, and Dean of Vienne, and, after enjoying these miscellaneous dignities for some twenty years, when at length Clement IV. insisted on his ordination and consecration, he threw off his episcopal robe, married first the heiress of Franche-Comté and then a niece of Innocent IV.—dying at last as Duke of Savoy (Milman, Latin Christ. IV. 326).

The indignation felt at the standing grievance of foreign prelates is quaintly expressed a century later by Langlande—

And a peril to the pope

And prelates that he maketh,

That bere bisshopes names

Of Bethleem and Babiloigne,

That huppe aboute in Engelond

To halwe mennes auteres,

And crepe amonges curatours,

And confessen ageyn the lawe.

Piers Ploughman, Wright’s Edition, l. 10695-702.

[710] Nullusque eorum uxorem ducat: et si antequam sacros ordines suscepit uxorem duxerit, seu postea, si beneficium habeat, ipso privetur, et ab exsecutione sui officii suspendatur, nisi in casu a jure concesso.—Constit. Walteri Episc. Dunelmens. (Wilkins, I. 705).

[711] Sir, il ne doit mie joyer du benefit de celle priviledge, car il ad forfait per vice de Bigamy; comme celui qui ad espousé vefve ou plusors femmes.—Myrror of Justice, cap. III. sect. v.

[712] Concil. Londiniens. ann. 1268 c. 8 (Wilkins, II. 5).

[713] Convocat. Cantuar. ann. 1399 c. 13 (Wilkins, III. 240).

[714] The canon law maintained the extraordinary doctrine that the confession of the guilty woman could not be received as evidence against her accomplice, though it was good as against herself. “Unde nec sacerdotes accusare nec in eos testificari valent.... Quia ergo ista de se confitetur, super alienum crimen ei credi non oportet; sed contra eam sua confessio interpretanda est” (Gratian. P. II. c. xv. q. 3). It would be hard to imagine a rule of practice better fitted to repress investigation and to shield offenders.

[715] Wilkins, II. 40.

[716] Ad domos religiosarum veniens, fecit exprimi mammillas earundem, ut sic physice si esset inter eas corruptela, experiretur—Matt. Paris ann. 1251.

[717] Adæ de Marisco Epist. passim (Monumenta Franciscana). How little the character of the clergy had improved under the ceaseless efforts of the preceding half century may be guessed from Adam’s description of his contemporary brethren—“Nihil aliud pervicacissima caninæ voracitatis impudentia consectantur, quam caducam fastuum arrogantiam, quam mobilem quæstuum affluentiam, quam sordidam luxuum petulentiam, auctoritatem summæ salvationis in perditionis æternæ crudelitatem depravantes; cernimus usquequaquam quasi solutum Satanam effrænata tyrannide beatam hæreditatem benedicti Dei immanissime depopulari.”—Ibid. Epist. CCXLVII. P. i. c. 18.

[718]

And thise ersedeknes that ben set to visite holi churche,

Everich fondeth hu he may shrewedelichest worche;

He wole take mede of that on and that other,

And late the parsoun have a wyf and the prest another,

At wille:

Coveytise shal stoppen here mouth, and maken hem al stille.

Wright, Political Songs of England,

p. 326.

So Robert Langlande states

“In the consistorie bifore the commissarie

He cometh noght but ofte;

For hir lawe dureth over longe,

But if thei lacchen silver,

And matrimoyne for moneie

Maken and unmaken.”

Vision of Piers Ploughman, v. 10102-7

(Wright’s Edition).

[719] 1 Henry VII. cap. 4.

[720] Gwentian Code, Book II. chap. xxx. “Because he was begotten contrary to decree.”—Dimetian Code, Book II. chap. viii. § 27 (Aneurin Owen’s Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, Vol. I. pp. 761, 445). Of the latter of these codes, the recension which has reached us contains alterations made by Rys son of Grufudd, showing it to be posterior at least to the year 1180.

[721] Anomalous Laws, Book X. chap. vii. § 19 (Owen, Vol. II. p. 331).

[722] Ibid. chap. ix. (Vol. II. p. 347).

[723] Ibid. Book VIII. chap. xi. § 19 (Vol. II. p. 205).

[724] Ibid. Book XI. chap. iii. § 15 (Vol. II. p. 409).

[725] Senchus Mor. Introduction. pp. 57-9. (Edited by Hancock, Dublin, 1865.)

[726] Lanfranci Epistt. 37, 38.—Bernardi Vit. S. Malachiæ cap. iii. viii.—The rudeness of the age may be measured by the fact that when Malachi determined to adorn the venerable monastery of Benchor with an oratory of stone such as he had seen abroad, the mere laying of the foundations aroused the wonderment of the people, to whom buildings of that kind were unknown—“quod in terra illa necdum ejusmodi ædificia invenirentur”—and his enemies took advantage of the feeling to interfere with the work on the ground that such an enterprise was unheard of, and that so stupendous an undertaking could never be accomplished. This piece of presumption was promptly rebuked by the death of the ringleader, and by the finding in the excavations of a treasure which enabled St. Malachi to execute his plans (Vit. S. Malach. c. xxviii.). St. Bernard, who derived his impressions from Malachi and his companions, thus describes the Irish of Connaught, “sic protervos ad mores, sic ferales ad ritus, sic ad fidem impios, ad leges barbaros, cervicosos ad disciplinam, spurcos ad vitam. Christiani nomine, re pagani. Non decimas, non primitias dare, non legitima inire conjugia, non facere confessiones; pœnitentias nec qui peteret, nec qui daret penitus invenire. Ministri altaris pauci admodum erant.”—Ibid. cap. viii.

[727] Ibid. c. x. xi. xii. xiii.

[728] Ibid. c. x.

[729] Ibid. c. xv.

[730] Ibid. c. xviii.—Fiunt de medio barbaricæ leges, Romanæ introducuntur.—Ibid. c. viii.

[731] Ibid. c. xvi.—Illæ gentes quæ a diebus antiquis monachi quidem nomen audierunt, monachum non viderunt.

[732] In the hymn in which St. Bernard celebrated the virtues of his friend he compares him to the Apostles—

Sobrius victus, castitas perennis,

Fides, doctrina, animarum lucra,

Meritis parem cœtui permiscet Apostolorum.

[733] Sermo Giraldi in Concil. Dublinens. (De Rebus a se Gestis Lib. II. c. 14).

In the “Topographia Hibernica,” Dist. III. cap. 27, Giraldus confirms his assertion as to the chastity and drunkenness of the Irish clergy, but admits that they observed the canonical fasts with praiseworthy strictness.

[734] Hist. Archiep. Bremens ann. 1179 (Lindenbrog. Script. Septent. p. 107).

It must be borne in mind, however, that in the Irish church bishops were almost as numerous as in the primitive church of Africa—“singulæ pene ecclesiæ singulos haberent episcopos.”—Bernard. Vit. S. Malachiæ cap. X.

[735] Cap. 13 Extra Lib. I. Tit. xvii.

[736] Benedicti Abbatis Gesta Henrici II. ann. 1171.

[737] Girald. Cambrens. op. cit. Lib. II. c. 13.

[738] Girald. Cambrens. loc. cit.

[739] Innocent PP. III. Regest. v. 158.

[740] Concil. Dublinens. ann. 1217 (Wilkins, I. 548).

[741] Quia putridum libidinosæ spurcitiæ contagium adeo apud clericos et presbyteros invaluit his diebus, quod nec auctoritas evangelica, nec canonica severitas illud hactenus extirpare potuit, quia in suæ perpetuæ damnationis periculum, et ordinis ecclesiasticæ ignominiam, populique perniciosum exemplum manifestum, adhuc suas publice detinent concubinas, etc.—Constit. Synod. Ossoriens. (Wilkins, II. 502).

[742] Bradshaw’s Enniskillen (London Athenæum, Sept. 7th, 1878, p. 305).

[743] Haddan and Stubbs, II. 175-80.

[744] Haddan and Stubbs, II, 216, 224-7, 235.—See also Cosmo Innes’ “Scotland in the Middle Ages,” pp. 107 sqq. We may assume that John of Crema or the pope must have conferred extraordinary powers on David before he could have the presumption to thus arbitrarily regulate and revolutionize the church. This, indeed, may readily be conceived as probable when we reflect how little authority Rome could have exercised over the Culdees, and how readily Scotland must have been subjected to the central power by placing her ecclesiastical establishment in the hands of the Sassenach monks.

Towards the end of the 12th century, Giraldus Cambrensis calls the Culdees of Bardsey in Wales, “Cœlibes vel Colidei” and characterizes them as “religiosissimi” (Itin. Cambr. II. 6—ap. Haddan and Stubbs, II. xxiii.).

[745] Gesta Henrici II. T. I. p. 282 (M. R. Series).

[746] Concil. Scotican. ann. 1225 c. 18, 62 (Wilkins, I. 610).

[747] Chron. Paslatens. ann. 1268 (Wilkins, II. 19).

[748] Hist. Compostellan. Lib. II. c. 1.

[749] Hist. Compostellan. Lib. I. c. 20.

[750] Didaci Decret. No. 15 (Hist. Compostellan. Lib. I. cap. 90).

[751] Synod. Helenens. ann. 1027 c. 3 (Aguirre, IV. 393).

[752] Hist, de España, Lib. IX. cap. xi.

[753] Concil. Compostellan. ann. 1056 can. 3. An allusion, however, to those who left the church and married being allowed to return on abandoning their wives, would seem to show that some supervision was exercised. The council of Coyanza, in 1050, had forbidden the residence of strange women, except mother, aunt, or step-mother, but says nothing as to marriage.—Con. Coyacens. ann. 1050 c. iii. (Aguirre IV. 405, 407).

[754] Concil. Gerundens. ann. 1068 can. 7, 8 (Labbei et Coleti T. XII.). The council of Toulouse, in 1056 (see ante, p. 255), which ordered the separation of priests from their wives, undertook to include Spain in its legislation, presumably meaning the eastern portion of the Peninsula which was subject to the Archbishops of Narbonne.

[755] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IV. Epist. 28.

[756] Concil. Gerundens. ann. 1078 can. 1, 3, 4, 5 (Labbei et Coleti T. XII.).

[757] Mariana, loc. cit.

[758] Paschal. PP. II. Epist. 57.

[759] Hist. Compostellan. Lib. I. cap. 20, 58, 81; Lib. II. cap. 3; Lib. III. cap. 46.—Even the moderate reforms introduced met with violent opposition—“nobis omnibus, veluti bruta animalia, nulla adhuc jugali asperitate depressa, reluctantibus”—and only a portion seem to have submitted “quosdam sibi acquiescentes doctrina et operatione conspicuos divina clementia reddidit.”

[760] Didaci Decreta, No. 21 (Hist. Compostell. Lib. I. cap. 96).

[761] Ibid. Lib. I. cap. 100.—“Si qui ex eorum progenie clerici esse et sæculariter continere vellent.”

[762] Hist. Compostellan. Lib. II. cap. 87.

[763] The Spanish church was not alone in this looseness of discipline as regards canons. When Arthur of Britanny took up arms against his uncle King John, and advanced with an army to Tours at Easter, A. D. 1200, he there “more debito in ecclesia B. Martini in canonicum est receptus, et in stallum decani in vestibus chori, sicut canonicus installatus.”—Chron. Turonens. ann. 1200 (Martene Ampl. Collect. V. 1038).

[764] Hist. Compostell. Lib. III. cap. 11.

[765] Ibid. Lib. I. cap. 101 (Concil. Legionens. ann. 1114 can. 8).

[766] Concil. Palentin. ann. 1129 can. 5.—“Concubinæ clericorum manifestæ ejiciantur.”

[767] Hist. Compostellan. Lib. III. cap. 20.—“Pro modulo suæ possibilitatis.”

[768] Concil. Hispan. Sæc. XIII. (Martene Thesaur. IV. 167).

[769] “De los clérigos que casan á bendiciones habiendo órdenes sagradas, que pena deben haber ellos et aquellas con quien casan.—Casándose algunt clérigo que hobiese órden sagrada non debe fincar sin pena, ca débenle vedar de oficio, et tollerle el beneficio que hobiere de la eglesia por sentencia de descomulgamiento fasta que la dexe et faga penitencia de aquel yerro, etc.”—Siete Partidas, P. I. Tit. vi. l. 41.

[770] Concil. Valentin. ann. 1255 (Aguirre V. 197, 201).

[771] Constit. Synodal. Arnaldi de Peralta Episc. Valentin. (Aguirre V. 207-8).

[772] Synod. Gerund. ann. 1257 can. 4; ann. 1274 can. 25 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1461, 1469).

[773] Concil. Penna-fidelens. ann. 1302 can. ii. (Aguirre V. 226).

[774] Concil. Vallis-oletan. ann. 1322 can. vi. vii. (Aguirre V. 243-5).

[775] Concil. Salmanticens. ann. 1335 can. iii. (Aguirre V. 266).

[776] Concil. Palentin. ann. 1388 can. ii. (Aguirre V. 298-99).

[777] Et utinam nunquam continentiam promisissent, maxime Hispani et regnicolæ, in quibus provinciis in pauco maiori numero sunt filii laicorum quam clericorum.... Sæpe cum parochianis mulieribus quas ad confessionem admittunt, scelestissime fornicantur.... De bonis ecclesiæ pascunt concubinam continue et filios, et de pecunia ecclesiae emunt eis possessiones.... Multi presbyteri et alii constituti in sacris, maxime in Hispania, in Asturia et Gallicia et alibi, et publice et aliquoties per publicum instrumentum promittunt et jurant quibusdam, maxime nobilibus mulieribus, numquam eas dimittere; et dant eis arras de bonis ecclesiæ et possessiones ecclesiæ, publice eas ducunt, cum consanguineis et amicis et solenni convivio, acsi essent uxores legitimæ.—Alv. Pelag. de Planctu Ecclesiæ Lib. II. Art. xxviii. (Ed. 1517 fol. 131-3).

This forms part of a list of fifty-four charges brought by Pelayo against the clergy of his time—“peccant in his communiter.” If the good bishop does not exaggerate, these ministers of Christ must have been a fearful curse to the communities over which they presided in the name of the Saviour.

[778] Concil. Dertusan. ann. 1429 can. ii. (Aguirre V. 335-6).

[779] Presbyteris, diaconibus, subdiaconibus et monachis concubinas habere, seu matrimonia contrahere, penitus interdicimus: contracta quoque matrimonia ab hujusmodi personis disjungi, et personas ad pœnitentiam redigi, juxta sacrorum canonum diffinitiones judicamus.—Concil. Lateran. I. c. 21.

[780] Thus Gregory the Great, in 602: “Si enim dicunt religionis causa conjugia debere dissolvi sciendum est quia etsi hoc lex humana concessit, divina lex tamen prohibuit.”—Gregor. I. Lib. XI. Epist. 45.

And St. Augustin: “Proinde qui dicunt talium nuptias non esse nuptias sed potius adulteria non mihi videntur satis acute ac diligenter considerare quid dicant ... et cum volunt eas separatas reddere continentiæ faciunt maritos earum adulteros veros etc.”—De Bono Viduit. c. 10.

[781] Decrevimus ut ii qui a subdiaconatu et supra uxores duxerint, aut concubinas habuerint, officio atque beneficio ecclesiastico careant.—Concil. Claromont. ann. 1130 can. 4. This is repeated verbatim in the council of Rheims in 1131, canon 4.

Concerning the latter a contemporary observes: “Placuit etiam domino apostolico et toti concilio, ne quis audiat missam presbyteri habentis concubinam vel uxorem. Assensu etiam omnium firmatum est ut clerici omnes a subdiacono et supra continentes sint, et qui non fuerint continentes, deponantur.”—Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 1.

[782] Ut autem lex continentiæ et Deo placens munditia in ecclesiasticis personis et sacris ordinibus dilatetur, statuimus quatenus episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi, subdiaconi, regulares canonici et monachi atque conversi professi, qui sanctum transgredientes propositum uxores sibi copulare praesumpserint, separentur. Hujusmodi namque copulationem, quam contra ecclesiasticam regulam constat esse contractam, matrimonium non esse censemus. Qui etiam ab invicem separati, pro tantis excessibus condignam pœnitentiam agant.—Concil. Lateran. II. ann. 1139 c. 7.

[783] Sed nimis abundans per universum orbem nequitia terrigenarum corda contra ecclesiastica scita obduravit.—Orderic. Vital. P. III. Lib. xiii. c. 20.

[784] Concil. Remens. ann. 1148 can. 3, 8. “Sanctorum patrum et prædecessoris nostri Papæ Innocentii vestigia inhærentes, statuimus quatenus episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi, etc.”

[785] Et ad hæc nihil ad præsens certius breviusque respondendum occurrit, nisi quod ita sancti antistites sapuerunt: rectene? ipsi viderint.—Lib. de Præcept. et Dispensat, cap. XVII.—Abelard contrasts the contradictory canons of the church in these matters in his Sic et Non cap. CXXII. It was possibly among other motives the skilful unveiling of ecclesiastical inconsistencies in this curious work that led the authorities of the church to procure the compilation of Gratian’s “Decretum.”

[786] Bernardi Epist. LXXVI.

[787] Ejusd. de Considerat. Lib. III. cap. v.

[788] Si vero diaconus a ministerio cessare voluerit, et contracto matrimonio licite potest uti. Nam etsi in ordinatione sua castitatis votum obtulerit, tamen tanta est vis in sacramento conjugii, quod nec ex violatione voti potest dissolvi ipsum conjugium.—Comment. in Can. i. Dist. XXVII.

The introduction of the doctrine of Innocent and Eugenius into the church has given rise to some controversy. In the Encyclical of Aug. 22, 1851, and in the Syllabus of Dec. 1864, Pius IX. has condemned the error of attributing it to Boniface VIII. Some zealously orthodox writers have endeavored to prove that the church consistently maintained this doctrine from the beginning, but the contrary is admitted by the greater number of Catholic authorities. Cf. Zaccaria, Storia Polemica, p. 346-7 and Bernal Diaz, Practice Criminalis Canonica cap. 74.

[789] Gerhohi Tract. adv. Simoniac. c. 2.—About the year 1140, we find St. Bernard (Epist. 203) writing to the bishop and clergy of Trèves, urging them to labor for the reformation of a married subdeacon of their church, in terms which show that no severe application of the canons was to be expected.

[790] Gerhohi Exposit. in Psalm LXIV. cap. xlix.

[791] Gerhohi Exposit. in Psalm LXIV. c. xxxv. An allusion in this passage to Eugenius III. and the council of Rheims shows that it was written between 1148 and 1153. It seems that the nuns rebelled against the canon (Concil. Remens. ann. 1148 can. iv.) confining them to their convents under threat of deprivation of Christian sepulture.

[792] Ibid. cap. xlvi.

[793] Hugon. Rothomag. contra Hæret. Lib. III. cap. v.—Hugh gives us in a new form the old calculation as to the comparative merits of virginity, continence, and marriage—“Non centesimo honore cum virginibus gloriatur, non sexagesima continentiæ palma lætatur, sed tricesimo conjugii labore fatigatur.”

[794] Fortescue de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. xxi.—Fortescue speaks of the case as having occurred within his own knowledge.

[795] Et constituit ut nullus in sacris ordinibus habeat uxorem vel concubinam.—Chron. S. Ægid. in Brunswig.

[796] Concil. Turon. ann. 1163 can. 4 (MS. St. Michael. ap. Harduin. Tom. VI. P. ii. p. 1600).

[797] Qui autem a subdiaconatu vel supra ad matrimonia convolaverint, mulieres etiam invitas et renitentes relinquant.—Concil. Abrincens. ann. 1172 c. 1. I give this on the authority of the Abate Zaccaria (Nuova Giustificazione del Celibato Sacro p. 120); there is no such canon among those attributed to the council by Hardouin (T. VI. P. II. p. 1634), and by Bessin (Concil. Rotomagensia, p. 86), whose accounts of the proceedings are extracted from Roger of Hoveden and tally with that given in the Gesta Henrici II. attributed to Benedict of Peterboro (I. 33. M. R. Series). As a number of canons proposed by the papal legates, Cardinals Theodwin and Albert, were rejected by the Norman bishops, it is possible that the local reports and those current at Rome may have differed.

[798] Post Concil. Lateran. P. XVIII. c. 12.

[799] Post Concil. Lateran. P. XVIII. e. 2, 6.

[800] Sane sacerdotes illi, qui nuptias contrahunt, quæ non nuptiæ sed contubernia sunt potius nuncupanda, post longam pœnitentiam et vitam laudabilem continentes, officio suo restitui poterunt, et ex indulgentia sui episcopi ejus exsecutionem habere.—Can. 4 Extra, Tit. iii. Lib. III.

[801] Post Concil. Lateran. P. XVIII. c. 4.

[802] Post Concil. Lateran. P. XVIII. c. 13.—In a decretal addressed to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, Alexander grants permission of marriage to a certain subdeacon, and forbids interference with such legitimate marriage, giving as a reason that the subdiaconate of the person referred to carried with it no preferment.—Ibid. c. 14.

[803] Post Concil. Lateran. P. VI. c. 9.

[804] Votum simplex impedit sponsalia de futuro, non autem dirimit matrimonium sequens; secus in voto solenni.—Can. 6 Extra Lib. IV. Tit. vi.

The practical rule deduced by a shrewd lawyer in the latter half of the thirteenth century from this varying legislation is, “Note deus relles; que simple vou et sollempnié lie maeme quant à Deu; et simple vou empêche à marier, mès il ne tost pas ce qui est fet; et note que vou, de la nature de soi, ne dépièce pas mariage, mès c’est de constitucion d’yglise”—(Livres de Jostice et de Piet, Liv. X. chap. vi. § 6). This is likewise the conclusion reached by Thomas Aquinas, Summ. Theol. Supp. Quæst. LIII. Art. i. ii.

[805] Alani ab Insulis Lib. Pœnitentialis.

[806] Post. Concil. Lateran. P. XIX. c. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10.—Can. 10, 11, 12, 14, Extra Lib. I. Tit. xvii.

[807] Can. 17, 18, Extra Lib. I. Tit. xvii.

[808] Quia de talibus absque difficultate curia Romana dispensat, quia et de subdiaconibus quibusdam audivimus a domino Papa dispensatum.—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. cap. v.

[809] Consuetudinem introductam quod filii eorum qui vestras ecclesias tenuerunt ... patribus ... consecuti, sub reprehensibili collusione volunt ipsas ecclesias jure successionis habere, etc.—Lucii. PP. III. Epist. 88.—Cf. Concil. Rotomag. ann. 1189 can. vi.

[810] Chartular. Eccles. Parisiens. No. XX. T. I. p. 35.

[811] D’Oudegherst, Annales de Flandre, chap. CIII.—Baluz. et Mansi T. I.—Miræi Diplom. Lib. I. c. 88.—Grandes Chroniques, T. IV. pp. 339-42.—Innocent. PP. III. Regest. Append. ad Lib. XIV.

[812] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. XI. 204.

[813] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. XII. 13.

[814] Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. cap. vi.

The “Gemma” was the favorite work of its author, who relates with pride the approbation specially bestowed upon it by Innocent III.

[815] Yet so hopeless was this well-intentioned attempt, that Giraldus is willing to let off his recalcitrant clergy with the simple restriction demanded of the laity—abstinence for three days previous to partaking of the communion. “Qui igitur in immunditiæ veluti suo volutabro volvitur adhuc et versatur, hanc saltem altari sacro et sacrificiis reverentiam sacerdos exhibeat, ut vel tribus diebus et noctibus priusquam corpus Christi consecrare præsumat mundum ... vas custodiat.”—Ibid. cap. vi.

[816] Hoc autem magistrum Petrum Manducatorem in audientia totius scholæ suæ quæ tot et tantis viris literatissimis referta fuit dicentem audivi, quia nunquam hostis ille antiquus in aliquo articulo, adeo ecclesiam Dei circumvenit, sicut in voti illius emissione.—Ibid. cap. vi.

[817] Epist. Henr. Card. Albanens. (Ludewig, Rei. Msctor. II. 441).

[818] Baluz. et Mansi III. 380.

[819] De filiis quoque sacerdotum, diaconorum, rusticorum, statuimus, ne cingulum militare aliquatenus assumant; et qui jam assumpserunt, per judicem provincias a militia pellantur.—Feudor. Lib. V. Tit. x.—Conf. Conr. Urspergens. ann. 1187.

[820] Statut. Synod. Odon. Tullens. cap. vi. (Hartzheim III. 456).

[821] Can. 7 Extra Lib. V. Tit. xxxviii.

[822] Ne vero facilitas veniæ incentivum tribuat delinquendi: statuimus, ut qui deprehensi fuerint incontinentiæ vitio laborare, prout magis aut minus peccaverint, puniantur secundum canonicas sanctiones, quas efficacius et districtius præcipimus observari, ut quos divinus timor a malo non revocat, temporalis saltem pœna a peccato cohibeat.

Si quis igitur hac de causa suspensus, divina celebrare præsumpserit, non solum ecclesiasticis beneficiis spolietur, verum etiam pro hac duplici culpa, perpetuo deponatur.

Prælati vero qui tales præsumpserint in suis iniquitatibus sustinere, maxime obtentu pecuniæ vel alterius commodi temporalis, pari subjaceant ultioni.

Qui autem secundum regionis suæ morem non abdicarunt copulam conjugalem, si lapsi fuerint, gravius puniantur, cum legitimo matrimonio possint uti.—Concil. Lateranens. IV. can. 14.

Ad abolendam pessimam, quæ in plerisque inolevit ecclesiis, corruptelam, firmiter prohibemus, ne canonicorum filii, maxime spurii, canonici fiant in sæcularibus ecclesiis, in quibus instituti sunt patres etc.—Ibid. can. 31.

[823] See his instructions to his legates, cap. xi. (Martene Ampl. Collect. VII. 267-74).

[824] Concil. Melfitan. ann. 1284 c. iii. (Ibid. p. 284).

[825] Tolle de ecclesia honorabile connubium et torum immaculatum; nonne reples eam concubinariis, incestuosis, seminifluis, mollibus, masculorum concubitoribus et omni denique genere immundorum?—Bernardi Serm. lxvi. in Cantic. § 3.—This series is understood to have been written in 1135.

[826] Bernardi Serm. de Conversione cap. xx.

[827] Constit. Gallonis cap. (Harduin. I. T. VI. P. II. p. 1975).—Giraldus Cambrensis, a few years earlier, makes the same assertion (Gemma. Eccles. Dist. II. cap. xv.).

[828] Statut. Eccles. Trecorens. c. 32 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 1102). Cf. Synod. Andegavens. ann. 1312 cap. 1. (D’Achery I. 742).

[829] Statut. Eccles. Nemausens. Tit. VII. c. 5 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 1044).

[830] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. Lib. XV. Epist. 113.

[831] Concil. Parisiens, ann. 1212 can. 4 (Harduin. T. VI. P. II. p. 2001).

[832] Ibid. P. II. c. 21, P. III. c. 2 (Harduin. VI. II. 2009, 2011).

[833] Chron. Augustens. ann. 1260 (Freher. et Struv. I. 546-7).

[834] Michel, Théat. Franç. au Moyen Age, p. 23.

[835] Guillel. de Nangis ann. 1299.

[836] Cæsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. XII. c. xx. xxi.

[837] Chron. Casinens. Lib. III. cap. xxxix.

[838] Concil. Hammaburg. ann. 1406 (Hartzheim VI. 2).

[839] Constit. Sicular. Lib. III. Tit. 25 c. 1.

It is possible that Frederick’s legislation may have attracted attention to the irregularities of the Neapolitan church, for in 1230 Gregory IX. addressed an encyclical letter to the prelates of that kingdom “præsertim super cohabitatione mulierum;” and two years later he deemed it necessary to repeat his admonitions.—Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1230 No. 20.

[840] Baluz. et Mansi I. 211.

[841] Specul. Saxon. Lib. III. art. 45.

[842] Richstich Landrecht, Lib. II. c. 25.

[843] Michelet, Origines des Loix, p. 68. This popular phrase gives point to the story told by Henri Estienne of a German ambassador to Rome, to whom, on his farewell audience, the pope gave a message to his master, commencing, “Tell our well-beloved son”—The honest Teuton could not contain himself at what he took to be a flagrant insult, and he interrupted the diplomatic courtesies with an angry exclamation that his noble master was not the son of a priest.—Apol. pour Herodote, Liv. I. chap. iii.

[844] This admirable prelate, after enjoying the episcopate for twenty-seven years, was at length deposed in 1274 by Gregory X., at the council of Lyons, in consequence of his excesses “præsertem de deflorationibus virginum, stupris matronarum et incestibus monialium” (Chron. Cornel. Zanfliet, ann. 1272). For some details of his excesses, see the epistle addressed to him by Gregory X. in Hardouin, Concil. T. VII. p. 665. As Gregory had been archdeacon of Liége, he was probably familiar with the subject. Henry’s promotion to the see of Liége was part of the policy of Innocent IV. in elevating William of Holland, his brother, to the imperial throne as a competitor to Frederic II. By special dispensation Henry had enjoyed the see for ten years before he was ordained to the priesthood, and after his degradation he infested the bishopric for twelve years, until his death, one of his exploits being the killing of his successor, John of Enghien.—Hist. Monast. S. Laurent. Leodiens. Lib. V. c. 69 (Martene Ampl. Collect. IV. 1105).

[845] Concil. German. ann. 1225 c. 5 (Hartzheim III. 521). This council was assembled to check the prevalent vices of concubinage and simony, and its elaborate provisions show how fruitless previous efforts had been.

[846] Gudeni Cod. Diplom. II. 36.—Not a few testaments of this kind are preserved.

[847] Concil. Fritzlar. ann. 1246 can. xi. (Hartzheim III. 574).

[848] Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1260 c. 1.

[849] Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1261 can. xxvii. xxxix. (Hartzheim III. 604, 607). The latter canon is very prolix and earnest, and inveighs strongly against the “cullagium,” or payment exacted by archdeacons and deans for permitting irregularities. The authorities apparently grew gradually tired of attempting the impossible. In 1284 the council of Passau, in a series of long and elaborate canons, contented itself with a vague threat of prosecuting priests who publicly kept concubines, and with prohibiting them from ostentatiously celebrating the marriage of their children.—Concil. Patav. ann. 1284 can. ix. xxxi. (Ibid. pp. 675, 679).

[850] Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1342 cap. viii. (Hartzheim IV. 338).

[851] Synod. Wratislav. ann. 1416 § 1 (Hartzheim V. 153).

[852] Concil. Melfitan. ann. 1284 c. v. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 285-6).

[853] Giannone, Apologia cap. XIV.—Ancarono gave his name to one of the most celebrated colleges of law in Bologna.—Bruni Vita Gabrielis Palæoti c. 4 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VI. 1390).

[854] Gobelinæ Personæ Cosmodrom. Ætat. VI. c. 92, 93.—How utterly monastic discipline was neglected in Germany is shown by the fact that a century earlier, in 1307, a council of Cologne found it necessary to denounce the frequency with which nuns were seduced, left their convents, lived in open and public profligacy, and then returned unblushingly to their establishments, where they seem to have been received as a matter of course.—Concil. Colon. ann. 1307 c. xvii. (Hartzheim IV. 113). That this had little effect is proved by a repetition of the threats of punishment, three years later (Concil. Colon. ann. 1310 c. ix.; Hartzheim IV. 122). In 1347, John van Arckel, Bishop of Utrecht, was obliged to prohibit men from having access to the nunneries of his diocese, in order to put an end to the scandals which were apparently frequent (Hartzheim IV. 350). In 1350, the Emperor Charles IV. felt called upon to address an earnest remonstrance to the Archbishop of Mainz concerning the unclerical habits of his canons and clergy who spent the revenues of the church in jousts and tourneys, and who, in dress, arms, and mode of life, were not to be distinguished from laymen (Ibid. IV. 358). How little was effected by these efforts is manifest when, in 1360, William, Archbishop of Cologne, was obliged to refute the assertions of those monks and nuns who alleged in their defence that custom allowed them to leave their convents and contract marriage (Ibid. IV. 493).

[855] Henke, Append. ad Calixt. pp. 585-6.

[856] Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1128.—Platina sub Honor. II.

[857] Arnulphi Lexoviens. de Schismate cap. iii. (D’Achery I. 156).

[858] Anacleti Antipapæ Epist. X. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 702).

[859] Matt. Paris ann. 1251.

[860] Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1253.—The same author preserves a legend that when Innocent IV. heard of the death of Grosseteste, he ordered a letter to be prepared commanding Henry III. to dig up and cast out the remains of the bishop. The following night, however, Grosseteste appeared in his episcopal robes and with his crozier inflicted a severe castigation on the vengeful pope, who thereupon abandoned his unchristian purpose.—Ibid. ann. 1254.

[861] Portions of Petrarch’s descriptions are unfit for transcription; the following, however, will give a sufficient idea of his experience. “Veritas ibi dementia est, abstinentia vero rusticitas, pudicitia probrum ingens. Denique peccandi licentia magnanimitas et libertas eximia, et quo pollutior eo clarior vita, quo plus scelerum eo plus gloriæ, bonum nomen cœno vilius, atque ultima mercium fama est.... Taceo utriusque pestis artifices, et concursantes pontificum thalamis proxonætas.... Quis, oro, enim non irascatur et rideat, illos senes pueros coma candida, togis amplissimis, adeoque lascivientibus animis ut nihil illuo falsius videatur quam quod ait Maro ‘Frigidus in Venerem senior.’ Tam calidi tamque præcipites in Venerem senes sunt, tanta eos ætatis et status et virium capit oblivio, sic in libidines inardescunt, sic in omne ruunt dedecus, quasi omnis eorum gloria non in cruce Christi sit, sed in commessationibus et ebrietatibus, et quæ has sequuntur in cubilibus, impudicitiis: ... atque hoc unum senectutis ultimæ lucrum putant, ea facere quæ juvenes non auderent.... Mitto stupra, raptus, incestus, adulteria qui jam pontificalis lasciviæ ludi sunt,” etc. (Lib. sine Titulo Epist. xvi.).

In his VII. Eclogue Petrarch describes the cardinals individually. Their portraits, though metaphorically drawn, correspond with the general character of the above extracts. See also the Lib. sine Titulo Epistt. vii. viii. ix.

[862] Nic. de Clamengiis de Ruina Ecclesiæ cap. xvii.—Cf. Theod. a Niem Nemor. Union. Tract. VI. cap. xxxvi. xxxvii.

[863] Quod dominus Johannes papa cum uxore fratris sui et cum sanctis monialibus incestum, cum virginibus stuprum, et cum conjugatis adulterium et alia incontinentiæ crimina, propter quæ ira Dei descendit in filios diffidentiæ commisit.... Item quod dictus dominus Johannes papa fuit et sit homo peccator, notorie criminosus de homicidio, veneficio, et aliis gravibus criminibus quibus irretitus dicitur graviter diffamatus, dissipator bonorum ecclesiæ et dilapidator eorundem, notorius simoniacus, pertinax hæreticus et ecclesiam Christi notorie scandalizans. Item quod dictus Johannes Papa XXIII. sæpe et sæpius coram diversis prælatis et aliis honestis et probis viris pertinaciter, diabolo suadente, dixit, asseruit, dogmatizavit et adstruxit, vitam æternam non esse, neque aliam post hanc, etc.—Concil. Constantiens. Sess. XI.

Even supposing some of these special charges to have been manufactured for the purpose of effecting the desirable political object of getting rid of the objectionable pontiff, yet the profound conviction of his vileness, evinced by the proffering of such accusations, is almost equally damaging.

[864] Theod. a Niem de Vit. Joann. XXIII.

[865]

Leno vorax, pathicus, meretrix, delator, adulter,

Si Romam veniet, illico, cretus erit.

Pædico insignis, prædo furiosus, adulter,

Exitiumque Urbis, perniciesque Dei,

Gaude prisce Nero, superat te crimine Sixtus,

Hic scelus omne simul clauditur et vitium.

Steph. Infessuræ Diar. Rom. ann. 1484 (Eccard. Corp. Hist. II. 1941).

[866]

Innocuo priscos æquam est debere Quirites.

Progenie exhaustam restituit patriam.

(Sannazarii Epigram. Lib. I.)

[867]

Spurcities, gula, avaritia, atque ignavia deses,

Hoc, Octave, jacent quo tegeris tumulo.

(Marulli Epigram. Lib. IV.)

[868] Sannazaro, as was meet in a Neapolitan, hated Alexander cordially, and was never weary of assailing his wickedness. The relations between him and his daughter Lucretia were a favorite topic—

Ergo te semper cupiet Lucretia Sextus?

O fatum diri nominis! hic pater est?

(Sannazar. Epigr. Lib. II.)

Humana jura, nec minus cœlestia,

Ipsosque sustulit Deos:

Ut silicet liceret (heu scelus) patri

Natæ sinum permingere,

Nec execrandis abstinere nuptiis

Timore sublato simul.

(Ibid.)

The well-known epigram of Pontanus tersely describes another of his vices—

Vendit Alexander sacramenta, altaria, Christum.

Emerat ille prius, vendere jure potest.

[869] In comparing the labors of the pope with those of St. Paul, St. Bernard exclaims, “Numquid ad eum de toto orbe confluebant ambitiosi, avari, simoniaci, sacrilegi, concubinarii, incestuosi, et quæque istiusmodi monstra hominum, ut ipsius apostolica auctoritate vel obtinerent ecclesiasticos honores, vel retinerent?”—De Consideratione Lib. I. c. iv.

[870] According to St. Bonaventura, this scandalous doctrine was frequently taught.—Libell. Apologet. Quæst. I.

[871] Dial Mirac. Dist. XII. c. xix.

[872] Hali Meidenhad. (Early English Text Society, 1866.) The author at times trenches closely on Manichæism. It is true that he revives, with some variation, the ancient computation of the relative merits of the various conditions of life—“For wedlock has its fruit thirtyfold in heaven, widowhood sixtyfold; maidenhood with a hundredfold overpasses both” (p. 22); but while he thus faintly disavows an intention to revile marriage, he again and again alludes to it as wicked and impure per se. “Well were it for them, were they on the day of their bridal borne to be buried.... If thou askest why God created such a thing to be, I answer thee: God created it never such; but Adam and Eve turned it to be such by their sin, and marred our nature” (p. 8).

Virginity he asserts to be the highest attribute of humanity, and in heaven virgins are the equals of angels and the superiors of saints.—“Maidenhood is a grace granted thee from heaven.... ’Tis a virtue above all virtues, and to Christ the most acceptable of all” (p. 10). “To sing that sweet song and that heavenly music which no saints may sing, but maidens only in heaven.... But the maiden’s song is altogether unlike these, being common to them with angels. Music beyond all music in heaven. In their circle is God himself; and his dear mother, the precious maiden, is hidden in that blessed company of gleaming maidens, nor may any but they dance and sing” (pp. 18-20).

As for matrimony and maternity, nothing can redeem them in the eyes of the ascetic.—“All other sins are nothing but sins, but this is a sin and besides denaturalizes thee and dishonoreth thy body. It soileth thy soul and maketh it guilty before God, and, moreover, defileth thy flesh.... Now what joy hath the mother? She hath from the misshapen child sad care and shame, both, and for the thriving one fear, till she lose it for good, though it would never have been in being for the love of God, nor for the hope of heaven, nor for the dread of hell” (p. 34).—But I dare not follow him in his more nauseous flights of imagination.

This is by no means a solitary example. The same pious obscenity is to be found, for instance, in some of Abelard’s theological speculations addressed to Heloise and her nuns, as in his solution of her 42nd problem.

[873] Ayenbite of Inwyt, p. 328 (Early English Text Soc. 1866). This is a translation made in 1340 of “Le Somme des Vices et des Vertues,” written in 1279 for Philippe-le-Hardi, by Laurentius Gallus. The author is not a whit behind his brother ascetics in extolling the praises of virginity.—“Vor maydenhod is a tresor of zuo grat worth thet hit ne may by be nonen y-zet a pris ... vor maidenhod aboue alle othre states berth thet gretteste frut” (Ibid. p. 233-4). The legend would seem to be suggested by a somewhat similar story narrated by Gregory the Great (Dialog. Lib. III. cap. 7).

[874] Theophili Alexandrin. Commonitor. can. v. (Harduin. I. 1198).

[875] Innocent. III. Regest. Lib. XVI. Epist. 118.

The curiously artificial standard of morals thus created may be estimated from the case of the archdeacon of Lisieux, who refused to accept an election to the see of that place on account of his inability to maintain the purity requisite for the episcopal office. Vanquished at length by the importunity of his friends, he was consecrated, and resolutely undertook to abandon his evil habits. The unaccustomed privation brought on a fearful disease, but though assured that his life would prove a sacrifice if he persisted in his resolution, he resisted all entreaties, and refused to purchase existence by sullying his position. He thus fell a martyr to a tenderness of conscience which had not prevented him from indulgence while filling the responsible position of archdeacon.—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. cap. xi.

[876] Graviore autem sunt animadversione plectendi, qui proprias filias spirituales, quas baptizaverint vel semel ad confessionem admiserint, violaverint.—Constit. Synod. Gilb. Episc. Circestrens. ann. 1289 (Wilkins, II. 169). Cf. Synod. Cenomanens. ann. 1248 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 1375). Concil. Remens. ann. 1408 cap. 21 (Ibid. VII. 418). Concil. Salisburg. XXX. can. de Confess. (Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. p. 155.)

Abelard (Sermo XXIX.) in a passage which, though addressed to the virgins of the Paraclete, is hardly quotable, asserts the frequent corruption of nuns by their spiritual directors. See also St. Bonaventura, Tractatus quare Fr. Minores prædicent, (Romæ 1773, p. 431) and Gerson, who retorts the charge on the friars, in his Tract. de Reform. Eccles. in Concil. Constant. cap. x. (Von der Hardt, T. I. P. v. p. 93). Cf. Marsilii Patav. Defens. Pacis P. II. cap. xvii.—Synod. Andegavens. ann. 1262 cap. x.; ann. 1291 cap. 1; ann. 1312 cap. 1 (D’Achery I. 727, 735, 742). Similar allusions are unfortunately too frequent, and, as we shall see hereafter, are to be found until a recent period.

[877] In 1398, Cardinal Peter d’Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, speaks of the manner in which his clergy lived with their concubines as man and wife, and brought up their children without concealment in their houses—“tenentes secum in suis domibus suas concubinas, et mulieres publice suspectas, in scandalum plurimorum cohabitant simul copulati, eisdem domo, mensa, et lecto, residendo, acsi essent vir et uxor matrimonialiter conjuncti: proles super terram gradientes ex hujusmodi suis concubinis susceptas una cum eisdem in suis domibus publice secum habendo et tenendo”—(Hartzheim VI. 709).

[878] Prout testatur nimia de plerisque regionibus clamans Christiani populi corruptela, quæ cum deberet ex sacerdotalis antidoti curari medelis, invalescit proh dolor! ex malorum contagione quod procedit a clero.—Chron. Augustens. ann. 1260.

[879] According to Thomas of Cantinpré, this occurrence took place at Paris, in a synod held in 1248, and Satan explained his candor by saying that he was compelled to it by God.—(Hartzheim IX. 663.)

[880] Inter alia dixit quod prælati faciebant ruere totum mundum.... Unde monuit eos quod ipsi se corrigerent ... alioquin dixit se dure acturum cum ipsis super reformatione morum.—Harduin. VII. 692.

[881] Clerici et presbyteri ... maxime per fetidum peccatum luxuriæ seipsos et alios pertrahunt ad infernum.—Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1323 can. iii. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 1289).

[882] Petri de Herentals Vit. Gregor. XI. ann. 1375 (ap. Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages, London, 1845, p. 153).

[883] “Swiche preestes be the sones of Hely ... hem thinketh that they be free and have no juge, no more than hath a free boll, that taketh which cow that him liketh in the toun. So faren they by women; for right as on free boll is ynough for all a toun, right so is a wicked preest corruption ynough for all a parish, or for all a countree.”

[884] Li Gieus de Robin et de Marion (Michel, Théatre Français au Moyen Age, p. 129).

[885] Wright’s Edition, p. 491, l. 1359.

[886] Monumenta Franciscana, pp. 602-4.

This testimony concerning the Franciscans is not confined to heretics and laymen. Early in the fifteenth century, a council of Magdeburg took occasion to reprove them for the dissolute and unclerical mode of life of which they offered a conspicuous example. It appears that they dignified with the name of “Marthas” the female companions who, in primitive ages, were known as “agapetæ,” and who had latterly acquired among the secular clergy the title of “focariæ”—“et in domibus suis frequenter soli cum mulieribus quas ipsorum Martas (ut eorum verbis utamur) habitare non verentur.”—Concil. Magdeburg, ann. 1403 Rubr. de Pœnis. (Hartzheim V. 717.)

On the other hand, in the “Creed of Piers Ploughman,” a Franciscan attacks the Carmelites—

They been but jugulers,

And japers of kynde;

Lorels and lechures,

And lemans holden.

---

And that wicked folk

Wymmen betraieth,

And begileth hem her good

With glaverynge wordes,

And therwith holden her hous

In harlotes warkes.

Wright’s Edition, pp. 453-4.

[887] This was written in answer to an attack on celibacy by Guillaume Saignet, entitled “Lamentatio ob cœlibatu sacerdotum, sive Dialogus Nicænæ Constitutionis et Naturæ ea di re conquerentis.”—Zaccaria, Storia Polemica del Celibato Sacro, Præf. p. xiv.

[888] Vel inexperti forte erant hi doctores quam generale et quam radicatum sit hoc malum, et quod deteriora flagitia circa uxores aut filias parochianorum et abominationes horrendæ in aliis provenerint apud multas patrias, rebus stantibus ut stant, si quærentur per tales censuras arceri. Scandalum certe magnum est apud parochianos curati ad concubinam ingressus, sed longe deterius si erga parochianas suas non servaverit castitatem.—De Vita Spirit. Animæ Lect. IV. Corol. xiv. prop. 3.

[889] De Statu. Relig. Lib. I. (Giannone Apolog. cap. 14).

[890] There is a tradition that the Abbey of Montariol lost its sovereignty over the inhabitants of the village of that name in consequence of a revolt caused by the monks exacting this feudal right in all its odious cynicism, in place of receiving a payment in commutation as was frequently done. A lively controversy has arisen over the exactness of this tradition, and the Abbé Marcellin, in his edition of Le Bret’s Histoire de Montauban seems to me to have successfully proved its falsity. He admits, however, that in his researches on the subject he has found one case in which an ecclesiastic undertook to enforce his rights to the letter; and the President Boyer, writing in the sixteenth century (Decisiones, No. 17 Decis. 297) asserts that he had seen the proceedings of a lawsuit in which “Rector seu curatus parochialis prætendebat ex consuetudine primam habere sponsæ cognitionem” (Eschbach, Introduction a l’Étude du Droit, § 174). In some remote portions of France the tribute was still exacted “en nature” by temporal seigneurs as late as the sixteenth century, as appears from documents printed by MM. Mazure et Hatoulet (Fors de Béarn, p. 172). Velly (Hist. de France, Paris, 1770, T. III. p. 325) quotes from Laurière a document of 1507 which, in recounting the privileges of the barony of Saint-Martin states that the Comte d’Eu has the “droit de prélibation” there, and Boutaric (Droits Seigneuriaux, Toulouse, 1775, p. 650) remarks that he has met nobles who pretended to possess the right, but that it had been abolished by the courts. In 1854 M. Bouthors, in his “Coutumes locales du bailliage d’Amiens,” chanced to allude to a custom by which the episcopal officers until 1607 exacted a tribute from newly married couples for permission to pass together the first three nights after the wedding—a custom growing out of the old droit de marquette. This aroused the ire of the faithful, and M. Louis Veuillot wrote a treatise in which he emphatically denied that such a right had ever existed, and a lively controversy arose on the subject. M. Lagréze (Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p. 390) has examined the matter thoroughly and the proof which he accumulates of the existence of the right is indisputable, though he denies that it was ever claimed by ecclesiastics.

[891] See the Taxæ Sacræ Pœnitentiariæ, a tariff of prices for absolution in the Roman curia for all infractions of human and divine law, of which more hereafter.

Heretically inclined reformers did not hesitate to accuse the clergy of thus speculating in the power of the keys and the sins of the people—

The power of the apostles

Thei pasen in speche,

For to sellen the synnes

For selver other mede.

And purliche a pœna,

The puple asoyleth,

And a culpa also,

That they may katchen

Money other money-worth,

And mede to fonge;

And ben at lone and at bode,

As burgeises useth.

Thus they serven Sathanas,

And soules bygyleth,

Marchaunes of malisones,

Mansede wrecches.

Creed of Piers Ploughman, l. 1417-32.

[892] The curious confusion of vice with religion, fostered by mediæval sacerdotalism, is well illustrated by the complaint which Erasmus puts in the mouth of the Virgin—“Et nonnumquam ea petunt a virgine quæ verecundus juvenis vix auderet petere a lena, quæque ne pudet literis committere” (Erasmi Colloq. Peregrinatio Religionis). The existence of such inconsistencies is one of the unfathomable mysteries of human intelligence.

[893] Anon. Cartusiens. de Religionum Orig. cap. 17-19 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VI. 40-46).

[894] See Lecky’s History of Rationalism.

[895] Videlicet castitatem, obedientiam ... atque vivere sine proprio.—Statut. Ord. S. Johan. Hierosol. Tit. I. § 1 (Lünig Cod. Ital. Diplom. T. II. p. 1743).

[896] Thus Cap. LV.: “Hoc enim injustum consideramus ut cum fratribus Deo castitatem promittentibus fratres hujusmodi in una eademque domo maneant.” Cap. LVI. and LXXII., by the latter of which even the kiss of a mother was denied them, render evident the extreme asceticism which was proposed by the founders of the order (Harduin. T. VI. P. II. pp. 1142, 1146).

At a subsequent period we learn that the Templar’s oath of initiation promised “obedientiam, castitatem, vivere sine proprio, et succurrere terræ sanctæ pro posse suo.” It was, moreover, enjoined upon them not to enter a house in which a woman lay in child-bed, not to be present at the celebration of weddings or the purification of women, nor to receive any service from a woman, even water for washing the hands.—See the proceedings against them in 1309, in Wilkins, II. 331 et seq.

[897] Rymer, Fœdera, I. 55.

[898] Wilkins II. 331-2.—Raynouard, Condamnation des Templiers, p. 83.

[899] Alexandri III. Epist. Append. III. No. 20 (Harduin. VI. P. II. p. 1557).

[900] Raynald. Annal. ann. 1210 No. 6, 7; ann. 1223 No. 54; ann. 1496 No. 33.

[901] Concil Vallis-oletan. ann. 1322 can vi. (Aguirre V. 243).

[902] Concil. Dertusan. ann. 1429 can. iii. (Harduin. VIII. 1076).

[903] Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1441 No. 20.—The Order of Calatrava was under the strictest of the rules, the Cistercian. (Giustiniani, Ordini Militari s. v.)

[904] Reg. Ord. Mil. Avisii a B. Joanne Cirita edita (Migne’s Patrologia, T. 188, p. 1669).

[905] Alexander’s Bull declares that “Milites dictarum militiarum pro majori parte, continentiæ et castitatis voto, qui in eorum professione emittunt, contempto, concubinas etiam plures, et in eorum ac præceptoriarum et prioratum dictarum militarum propriis domibus et locis, non sine magno religionis opprobrio, publice tenere et eis cohabitare, et etiam adulteria cum aliis mulieribus conjugatis committere non verentur: ex quo ab eorundem regnorum incolis et habitatoribus maximo odio habentur, dissensiones et inimicitiæ oriuntur, diversa scandala quotidie concitantur etc.”—Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1496 No. 33.

[906] Osorii de Reb. Emmanuelis R. Lusitan. Lib. I. (Edit. Colon. 1574, p. 12a.)

[907] Patrologia, T. 188, p. 1674.

[908] Statut. Ord. S. Johan. Hierosol. Tit. XVIII. § 50.

[909] Ibid. Tit. XVIII. § 51.

[910] See the supplication of Rodolph of Hapsburg to the Pope for assistance to the order.—Cod. Epist. Rodolphi I. No. xcix. (Lipsiæ, 1806).

[911] Anon. Cartus. de Relig. Orig. cap. XXVIII. (Martene Ampliss. Coll. VII. 62).

[912] Communis opinio Catharorum est quod matrimonium carnale fuit semper mortale peccatum, et quod non punietur quis gravius in futuro propter adulterium vel incestum quam propter legitimum conjugium, nec etiam inter eos propter hoc aliquis gravius puniretur.—Summa F. Renieri (Martene Thesaur. V. 1761).

This Regnier describes himself as a heresiarch previous to his conversion, and his summary of the creed of his former associates may be regarded as correct in the main, though perhaps somewhat heightened in repulsiveness. For further details see ante, p. 208.

[913] Bernardi Serm. lxvi. in Cantica §§ 9, 11.

[914] Bernardi Serm. lxv. in Cantica, §§ 4, 5.—“Cum femina semper esse et non cognoscere feminam, nonne plus est quam mortuum suscitare? Quod minus est non potes; et quod majus est vis credam tibi? Quotidie latus tuum ad latus juvenculæ est in mensa; lectus tuus ad lectum ejus in camera, oculi tui ad illius oculos in colloquio, manus tuæ ad manus ipsius in opere: et continens vis putari? Esto ut sis; sed ego suspicione non careo.”

The morality of the age had evidently not impressed the Saint with the conviction of human power to resist temptation.

[915] Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii.

[916] Bishop Gerard, of Cambrai, confesses this in his refutation of the Artesian Manichiæans in 1025—“De quibus nos responsuros quodam discretionis gubernaculo nostri sermonis carinam subire oportet, ne quasi inter duos scopulos naufragium incurrentes, occasionem demus in alterutrum, scilicet aut omnes indiscrete a conjugiis exterrendo, aut omnes indiscrete ad connubia commonendo.”—Concil. Atrebatens. ann. 1025 cap. x. (Hartzheim III. 89).

When St. Bernard, in his fiery denunciation of the Manichæan errors, exclaimed, “non advertant qualiter omni immunditiæ laxat habenas qui nuptias damnat” (In Cantica Serm. lxvi. § 3), he did not pause to reflect how severe a sentence he was passing on the saints of the fifth century who, as we have seen, would only admit marriage to be a pardonable offence.

[917] Disputat. inter Cathol. et Paterin. c. ii. (Martene Thesaur. V. 1712-13).

It is somewhat singular that Manichæism should have been attributed to a sect of heretics in Bosnia who styled themselves Christians, and who were brought back to the fold in 1203 by a legate of Innocent III. It would appear that, so far from entertaining Manichæan doctrines, neglect of ecclesiastical celibacy was actually one of their erroneous practices, for in their pledge of reformation they promise that separation of man and wife shall thenceforth be enforced “neque de cætero recipiemus aliquem vel aliquam conjugatum, nisi mutuo consensu, continentia promissa, ambo pariter convertantur.”—Batthyani, II. 293.

[918] S. Petri Venerab. contra Petrobrusianos.—S. Bernardi Epist. 241.—Ejusd. Vit. Prim. Lib. VI. Part iii. c. 10.—Guill. de Podio-Laurent. c. i.—Alberic. Trium-Font. Chron. ann. 1148.

[919] Hugon. Rothomag. contra Hæret. Lib. III. cap. vi. This is by no means an unusual specimen of the inconsequential character of mediæval polemics. Archbishop Hugh was a man of mark among his contemporaries, both as a theologian and as a statesman. It was he who, in 1139, at the council of Winchester, saved King Stephen from excommunication by the English bishops. (Willelmi Malmesb. Hist. Novell. Lib. II. § 26.) For a somewhat similar specimen of fanciful theology, the reader may consult the exposition of the esoteric meaning of the plagues of Egypt by St. Martin of Leon, a writer of the twelfth century.—S. Martin. Legionens. Serm. xv.

[920] Epist. ad Lucium PP. Epist. 4. (Migne’s Patrologia, T. CLXXIX. p. 957.)—Cf. Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 177.

[921] Guillielm. de Newburgh, Lib. I. cap. 19.—Ottonis Frising. de Gest. Frid. I. Lib. I. cap. liv., lv.—Sigeberti Chron. Continuat. Gemblac. ann. 1146.—Ejusdem Continuat. Præmonstrat. ann. 1148.—Roberti de Monte Chron. ann. 1148.—The detailed account given by William of Newburgh he professes to have gathered from some of Éon’s followers performing penitential pilgrimages after the death of the heresiarch.

[922] Conrad. Urspergens. ann. 1212.—“Hoc quoque probrosum in eis videbatur, quod viri et mulieres simul ambulabant in via, et plerumque simul manebant in una domo, ut de eis diceretur, quod quandoque simul in lectulis accubabant.” The follies of the early Christians were doubtless imitated by the new sectaries. As early as 1197 we find them denounced as heretics, under the various names of Waldenses, Poor Men of Lyons, and Sabatati, and condemned to the stake by the council of Girona, in Aragon.—Aguirre V. 103.

[923] La Nobla Leyczon, 408-13.—There has been considerable discussion as to the date of this work. It appears to me to bear the mark of more than one period, or, at least, of successive recensions. Internal evidence shows the beginning to have been written about the year 1100, while the later portion, commencing about l. 345, seems to have been composed subsequently to the persecutions of the early part of the 13th century.

[924] Bernardi Fontis Calidi Lib. contra Waldenses.—Alani de Insulis contra Hæret. Lib. II.

[925] La Nobla Leyczon, 242-3.

[926] Ibid., 88.

[927] Camerarii Hist. de Fratrum Orthodox. Ecclesiis pp. 104-7, 116-7.

[928] Pluquet, Dictionnaire des Hérésies, art. Vaudois.

[929] The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of another. The views of St. Francis, when promulgated in the fifth century by the Timotheists, were stigmatized as heretical.—V. Harduin. Concil. I. 525.

[930] Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1261 can. xlviii. (Hartzheim III. 612, 615).

The decline of the order from the asceticism of its founder afforded a fair mark for satire—

Seyn that they folwen

Fully Fraunceyses rewle,

That in cotinge of his cope

Is more cloth y-folden

Than was in Fraunceis froc

When he hem first made.

And yet under that cope

A cote hathe he furred

With foyns or with fichewes

Other fyn bevere,

And that is cutted to the kne,

And queyntly y-botened,

Lest any spiritual man

Aspie that gyle.

Fraunceys bad his brethern

Bar-fot to wenden;

Now han they buckled shone,

For blenyng of her heles,

And hosen in hard weder

Y-hamled by the ancle,

And spicerie sprad in her purs

To parten where hem luste.

Creed of Piers Ploughman l. 579-600.

[931] Thus, a council held at Cologne in 1306, in denouncing the mendicancy of the Begghards, quotes Gen. III. 18: “In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane tuo,” and proceeds: “Quod ad fortes et sui compotes moraliter intelligitur esse dictum: et tales in ocio victum vendicantes, eleemosynas rapiunt, quæ infirmis et debilibus fuerant pauperibus ministrandæ.” And in objecting to their views of celibacy, “Ajunt etiam: Nisi mulier virginitatem in matrimonio deperditam doleat et dolendo deploret, salvari non potest: quasi matrimonium sit peccatum, cum tamen ipsum ante peccatum in loco sancto a sanctorum sanctissimo fuerit institutum: quæ virginitas in fœtum sobolis compensatur, per quam humana natura stabilitate perdurat,” which contrasts strangely with the teachings quoted above from “Hali Meidenhad.” Great stress, moreover, is laid upon the indissolubility of the marriage vow and the wickedness of separating husband and wife:—“Quomodo spiritu Dei agantur qui contra spiritum Dei agunt, prohibentis virum ab uxore, et e converso sine causa dimitti?”—Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1306 cap. i., ii. (Hartzheim IV. 100-101). The good fathers of the council were discreetly blind to the antagonism of their teachings to the received doctrines and practices of the church.

[932] A collection of documents illustrating the history of this singular and powerful sect will be found in Baluze and Mansi III. 206 et seq.

How persistent and profound was the conviction which created the heresy is shown by its prolonged existence. Even as late as 1421 Martin V. found it necessary to issue a Bull denouncing it (Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1421 No. 4); and in Germany the council of Wurzburg in 1446, revived the old denunciations against the Begghards and Beguines (Hartzheim V. 336).

[933] Their customary salutation and password was an invocation of the fallen angel—“Salutet te injuriam passus.”—“May the wronged one preserve thee!”—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1315.

[934] Trithem. loc. cit.—Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1318 No. 44.—Hartzheim Concil. German. IV. 630.

[935] Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 55-56.

[936] Inter omnia monstra quæ unquam intraverunt ecclesiam, monstrum horum fratrum est seductivius, infundabilius, et a veritate ac a charitate distantius.—Univ. Oxon. Litt. de Error. Wicklif. Art. 103 (Wilkins III. 344).

[937] Trialogi Lib. IV. cap. 15.

[938] A Wickliffite tract (“De Officio Pastorali,” published by Prof. Lechler, Leipzig, 1863) takes strong ground on this point. Speaking of unchaste priests, it says (P. I. cap. viii. pp. 16-17), “Talis sic notorie sustentans curatum dat imprudenter elemosinam contra Christum ... periculosum peccatum est crimini consentire; sed sic faciunt qui taliter curato in temporalibus subministrant.” And again (P. I. cap. xvii.), “Subditi enim non debent audire missam talium sacerdotum, et per consequens non debent dare sibi oblaciones vel decimas, ne videantur consencientes crimini sic notorio in curatis.”

[939] Si Deus est, domini temporales possunt legitime ac meritorie auferre bona fortunæ ab ecclesia delinquente.—Conclus. Magist. Johan. Wycliff. Art. vi. (Wilkins III. 123).

Licet regibus auferre temporalia a viris ecclesiasticis ipsis abutentibus habitualiter. Ibid. Art. xvii.

So in the proceedings conducted by Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury, against Wickliffe in 1382, among the articles presented as extracted from his writings were—

Art. 4. Quod si episcopus vel sacerdos existat in peccato mortali, non ordinat, consecrat nec baptizat.

Art. 16. Quod nullus est dominus civilis, nullus est episcopus, nullus est prælatus dum est in peccato mortali (Wilkins III. 157).

Even “verbum otiosum” and “ira quantumlibet levis” were denounced by him as mortal sins according to the University of Oxford.—Litt. de Error. Art. 210, 211 (Wilkins III. 347).

[940] Arnold’s Select English Works of John Wyclif, Vol. II. p. v.—Vol. I. p. 364.

[941] “God ordeyned prestis in the olde lawe to have wyves, and nevere forbede it in the newe lawe, neither bi Crist ne bi his apostlis, but rathere aprovede it. But now, bi ypocrisie of fendis and fals men, manye binden hem to presthod and chastite, and forsaken wifis bi Goddis lawe, and schenden maydenes and wifis and fallen foulest of alle.”—Of Weddid Men and Wifis, cap. i. (Arnold’s Wyclif, III. 190; also in Vaughan’s Tracts of John de Wyckliffe p. 58).—See also The Seven Deadly Sins, cap. xxx. (Arnold, Vol. III. p. 163).

In the tract “De Officio Pastorale,” alluded to above, there is a similar passage—“conjugium secundum legem Christi eis licitum odiunt ut venenum, et seculare dominium eis a Christo prohibitum nimis avide amplexantur” (P. II. cap. xi. pp. 50-51).

It is to be borne in mind that at this period no one assumed that clerical celibacy had been ordained of Christ or the Apostles.

[942] Trialogi Lib. III. c. 22, 23; Lib. IV. 16 (Ed. Lechler, Oxford 1869).—Cf. Apology for Lollard Doctrines, p. 38 (Ed. Camden Soc.).

[943] Wilkins III. 229,—Trialogi Lib. IV. c. 20.

[944] Conclusiones Lollardorum (Wilkins III. 221-3).

[945] Wilkins III. 248.

[946] In 1426, ten years after the execution of Lord Cobham, a Franciscan named Thomas Richmond was brought before the council of York for publicly preaching the high Wickliffite doctrine “Sacerdos in peccato mortali lapsus, non est sacerdos. Item quod ecclesia nolente vel non puniente fornicarios, licitum est sæcularibus eosdem pœna carceris castigare, et ad hoc astringuntur vinculo charitatis” (Wilkins III. 488). This practical application of the Hildebrandine principle did not suit the church of the fifteenth century. It was pronounced heretical, and Friar Thomas was forced to recant.

Equally offensive to the memory of Gregory was the decision of the Sorbonne in 1486, condemning as heretical the propositions of the puritan Bishop of Meaux—“3. Un prêtre fornicateur ne doit pas dire Dominus vobiscum ni reciter l’office en aucun lieu sacré. Ce qui est faux et suspect d’heresie.”—“4. Les sacremens administrez ou l’office dit par un tel prêtre ne valent pas mieux que les cris des chiens. Proposition fausse et erronée dans la premiere partie, héretique scandaleuse et offensant les oreilles pieuses dans la seconde.”—Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CXVI. No. 39.

[947] When, after the fearful disaster of Taas, the council of Bâle, in 1432, commenced the conferences which resulted in the nominal reconciliation of the Hussites, the fathers of the council were much scandalized at hearing the Bohemian deputies reverently quote Wickliffe as the Evangelical Doctor. In fact, Peter Payne, his disciple, who did so much to promulgate his doctrines in Bohemia, was one of the disputants (Hartzheim V. 762-4). Even as early as 1403 the errors of Wickliffe were formally condemned by the University of Prague, on presentation by the Ordinary of the diocese, showing that they were already spreading and attracting attention (Höfler, Concil. Pragensia, p. 43.—Prag, 1862).

[948] Artic. Damnat. Joannis Husz, No. viii. x. xi. xii. xiii. xxii. xxx. (Concil. Constantiens. Sess. xv.)—On his examination Huss declared that these articles were exaggerated. See the proceedings in Von der Hardt, T. IV. pp. 309-11. But on the next day he defended a proposition which was virtually identical (Ibid. p. 321).

[949] Poggii Florent. Descript. Hieron. Prag. (Von der Hardt, T. III. p. 69).

[950] Statut. Synod. ann. 1405; 1406 No. 1; 1407 No. 3 (Höfler Concil. Pragens. pp. 50, 54, 69).

[951] Pluquet, Diet. des Hérésies, s. v. Huss.—Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1413 can. 1. “asserentes etiam ... quod bona clericorum male viventium possunt rapere et eos spoliare sine pœna excommunicationis ... Ex eadem radice et hæretica pravitate dicunt alii, quod sacerdos in mortali existens peccato non possit conficere corpus Christi” (Hartzheim V. 39, 40).

[952] Conciliab. Pragens. ann. 1420 can. xii., xiii.—At this time the Hussites had full sway in Bohemia; the council was held by Conrad, Archbishop of Prague, who had adopted their faith, and its canons were intended for the internal regulation of their own church (Hartzheim V. 198). In the long conferences, extending from 1431 to 1438, which resulted in their reunion with the Catholic church, there is no allusion to the subject of celibacy. The four points on which they insisted were, 1st, the communion in both elements; 2d, the reformation of morals by abrogating ecclesiastical immunity; 3d, free preaching of the Scripture; and 4th, the secularization of church property (Ibid. 760-73). How little, in fact, they differed in doctrinal points from Rome is seen in the confession of faith agreed upon at Prague in 1432 (Johan, de Ragus. de Reduct. Bohem. ap. Monument. Concil. General. Sæc. xv. pp. 182 sq.).

This did not, however, save them from the customary accusations of immorality. Thus, a contemporary describes the indulgence of indiscriminate intercourse as one of the rules of the sect (Joann. Fistenportii Chron. ann. 1419.—Hahn. Collect. Monument. T. I. p. 403), and, in 1431, Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz, in convoking a council to take action against them, says of the sect “exterminavit clerum et omnem cœlibatum commercio nephando stupravit.”—Gudeni Cod. Diplom. IV. 185.

[953] Epist. Procopii Art. VIII. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 25).

[954] Petit. Cæsaris No. 12 (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. V. 348).

[955] Conciliab. Pragens. ann. 1420 can. viii.

[956] Camerarii Hist. Narrat. de Fratrum Orthodox. Ecclesiis in Bohemia, etc. pp. 100, 109-10, 114, 121, 128.

[957] Consensus in Fide inter Ecclesias Evangelicas, etc. Haidelbergæ, 1605.

[958] The spirit of the sectaries of Schmidt is shown by one of their doctrines—“Propter sacerdotum nequitiam, licentiavit Deus et abjecit sacerdotium evangelicum,” and by their argument for abolishing masses for the dead “nihil prosint defunctis, sed sint solatia vivorum et repleant marsupia clericorum.”—Gobelin. Person. Cosmodrom. Ætat. VI. cap. xciii.—Cf. Theod. Vrie, Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib. III. Dist. viii.

[959] See the proceedings in Baluze and Mansi, I. 288-93. As usual, the Men of Intelligence were accused of indulging in promiscuous intercourse.

[960] Even soon after Savonarola’s martyrdom, Julius II. refused to listen to those who desired a condemnation of his memory. Leo X. honored him by celebrating the Epiphany of 1515 in his convent of San Marco. Julius III. declared that he would deem heretical any one who should attack him. Paul IV. assembled a congregation for the purpose of examining and deciding upon his works, and after six months’ labor they reported that his writings were unexceptionable, though a portion which reflected too vigorously on the papal court were declared to be unfitted for general perusal.—Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, Paris 1856, pp. 296-7.

[961] See Baluze et Mansi I. 584-5 for the letters to the Emperor of Germany and King and Queen of Spain. Perrens (op. cit. p. 375) also gives the one addressed to the King of France, while those to the Kings of England and Hungary have apparently been lost.

[962] Taceo de fornicationibus et adulteriis, a quibus qui alieni sunt probro cæteris ac ludibrio esse solent, spadonesque aut sodomitæ appellantur; denique laici usque adeo persuasum habent nullos cœlibes esse, ut in plerisque parochiis non aliter velint presbyterum tolerare nisi concubinam habeat, quo vel sic suis sit consultum uxoribus, quæ nec sic quidem usquequaque sunt extra periculum.—Nic. de Clemangis de Præsul. Simoniac. (Bayle, Dict. Hist. s. v. Hall).

[963] Nic. de Clamengiis Disput. super Mater. Concil. General.

[964] Nic. de Clamengiis de Ruina Ecclesiæ cap. xxii., xxxvi.—Conf. Theobaldi Conquest. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XIX. p. 909).

[965] P. de Alliaco Canones Reformat, cap. iv. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. VI. p. 425).

[966] Gersoni Declarat, defect, viror. ecclesiast. lxv., lxvi.

[967] Dicimus quod de duobus malis minus est incontinentes tolerare sacerdotes quam nullos habere.—Gersoni Dial. Sophiæ et Naturæ Act. IV.

[968] Ejusd. Sermo de Vita Clericorum.

[969] Theod. a Niem Nemoris Unionis Tract. V. cap. XXXV.

[970] Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib. II., III. (Von der Hardt T. I.).

[971] Nic. de Clamengiis, Disput. sup. Mat. Conc. General. This work was written in 1416, after the council had been in session for nearly two years.

[972] Theobaldi Conquestio (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XIX. p. 904).

[973] Item, fistulatores, tubicenæ, joculatores, 516; item, meretrices, virgines publicæ, 718.—Laur. Byzynii Diar. Bell. Hussit. A Catholic contemporary, however, reduces the number of courtezans to 450 and that of jugglers and minstrels to 320 (Joann. Fistenportii Chron. ann. 1415.—Hahn. Collect. Monument. I. 401).

[974] Bernhardi Baptisati Sermo (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XVIII. pp. 884-5).

[975] Concil. Constant. Sess. XLIII. can. de Vita et Honestate Clericorum.

[976] De Ecclesiæ Reformat. Protocoll. cap. xxxiii. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. x. pp. 635-6).

[977] Reformatorii Constant. Decretal. Lib. I. Tit. v. (Ibid. p. 679).

[978] Ibid. Lib. III. Tit. x. cap. 20 (p. 722).

[979] For instance, as regards the religious houses—“In nonnullis quoque monasteriis ... norma disciplinæ respuitur, cultus divinus negligitur, personæ quoque hujusmodi, vitæ ac morum honestate prostrata, lubricitati, incontinentiæ, et aliis variis carnalis concupiscentiæ voluptatibus et viciis non sine gravi divinæ majestatis offensa tabescentes, vitam ducunt dissolutam.”—Martin V. ad Brandam § iii. (Ludewig Reliq. Msctorum. XI. 409).

[980] Usque adeo nonnullorum clericorum corruptela excrevit, ut morum atque honestatis vestigia apud eos pauca admodum remanserint.—Constit. Brandae § 1 (Op. cit. XI. 385). This condition of affairs was not the result of any abandonment of the attempt to enforce the canons. Local synods were meeting every year, and scarcely one of them failed to call attention to the subject, devising fresh penalties to effect the impossible. The result is shown in the lament of the council of Cologne in 1423—“Quia tamen, succrescente malitia temporis moderni, labes hujusmodi criminis in ecclesia Dei in tantum inolevit, quod scandala plurima in populo sunt exorta, et verisimiliter exoriri poterunt in futurum, et ex fide dignorum relatione percepimus quod quidam ecclesiarum prælati et alii, etiam capitula ... tales in suis iniquitatibus sustinuerunt et sustinent.” So far, however, were the decrees of the council from being effective, that the Archbishop was obliged to modify them and to declare that they should only be enforced against those ecclesiastics who were notoriously guilty, and who kept their concubines publicly.—Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1423 can. i. viii. (Hartzheim V. 217, 220).

[981] Ambrosii Camaldulensis Lib. V. Epist. xii. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. III. 119-21). This was not the only case of abbots whose scandalous lives were treated with equal forbearance. See Epistt. xiii., xiv.

[982] Harduini Andegav. Epist. Statut. Præf. (Martene Thesaur. IV. 523-4).

[983] Alan. Charter. Lib. de Exilio (Johan. Mariæ Lib. de Schismat. et Concil.).

[984] Nic. de Clamengiis de Lapsu et Reparat. Justitiæ (Ed. 1519 pp. 13-14).

[985] Wilkins III. 364-5.

[986] Æneæ Sylvii Comment. de Gest. Conc. Basil. ad calcem (Opp. Basil. 1551 pp. 66-70).—Cf. Sigismundi Imp. Avisam. ann. 1433 (Goldast. III. 427 sqq.).

[987] Concil. Basiliens. Sess. xx. (Jan. 22, 1435).

[988] Pragm. Sanct. ann. 1438 cap. 31 (Goldast. I. 403).

[989] Quoniam nostri temporis clerici sunt, heu, affectu crudeles, affatu mendaces, gestu incompositi, victu luxuriosi, actu impii, et sub vacuo sanctitatis nomine sancti nominis derogant disciplinæ (Hartzheim V. 266). The council contented itself with repeating the canons of Bâle.

[990] Lib. III. Tit. i. c. 3, in Septimo.

[991] Quicunque alii concubinas et mulieres hujusmodi, contra præsentem prohibitionem tenere præsumentes, inhabiles censeantur ad beneficia obtinenda, et in dicta curia officia hujusmodi exercenda, nec illorum capaces efficiantur, nisi inhabilitatem suam antea per dictæ sedis literas obtinuerint aboleri.—Ubi sup.

[992] Comp. Doeringii Chron. passim. Döringk was minister or head of the powerful Franciscan order in Saxony, and therefore may be considered an unexceptionable witness.

In the Polish diet of 1459, one of its leading members brought forward a series of propositions which showed the feelings entertained by the people towards papal exactions—“The Bishop of Rome has invented a most unjust motive for imposing taxes—the war against the infidels.... The Pope feigns that he employs his treasures in the erection of churches; but in fact he employs them to enrich his relations,” etc.—Krasinski, Reformation in Poland I. 96.

The councils of Constance and Bâle had produced, for a time, a spirit of great independence. John of Frankfort does not hesitate to declare that the papal authority is not binding when in opposition to the law of God—“Unde patet quod nec papalis vel et imperialis constitutio legi Dei obvians possit dici recta; nec aliquis ipsorum potest licite mandare quod sua constitutio servetur a subditis” (Johann. de Francford. contra Feymeros). According to the decisions of the Decretalists, this was rank heresy, and yet John of Frankfort was one of the leading minds of the period, and of unquestioned orthodoxy. He was a popular preacher, a doctor of theology, chaplain and secretary of the Count Palatine of the Rhine, and a bold disputant against the Hussites. He records with his own hand that, as inquisitor, he convicted and burned, July 4th, 1429, at Lüders, an unfortunate heretic who denied the propriety of invoking the Virgin and the saints. Under the skilful management, however, of Nicholas V. and Pius II. this spirit of independence died away, to again revive, in the next century, in a more determined form.

[993] Ludewig Reliq. Msctorum. XI. 415.—Under Boniface IX., at the commencement of the century, claims arising from simoniacal transactions were constantly and openly prosecuted in the court of the Papal Auditor.—Theod. a Niem de Vit. Joann. XXIII.

[994] Concil. Constantiens. Sess. XI.

[995] Steph. Infessuræ Diar. Roman, ann. 1484 (Eccard. Corp. Hist. III. 1939-40).

[996] “Si vous saviez tout ce que je sais! des choses dégoûtantes! des choses horribles! vous en frémiriez! Quand je pense à tout cela, à la vie que mènent les prêtres, je ne puis retenir mes larmes.” And again, “Ma peggio ancora. Quello che sta la notte con la concubina, quell’ altro con il garzone, e poi la mattina va a dire messa, pensa tu come la va. Che vuoi tu fare di quella messa?”—Jérome Savonarole d’après les Documents Originaux, par F. T. Perrens, pp. 71-2. Paris, 1856.

[997] Ap. Chavard, Le Célibat, des Prêtres, p. 400.

[998] Masselin, Journal des États de Tours, pp. 197-99.

What were the teachings and the influence on the people of such a priesthood may be guessed from a remark in one of the sermons of Oliver Maillard, a celebrated Franciscan preacher of the period. “Sunt ne ibi mulieres et sacerdotes qui dicunt quod mulieres comedentes venenum ad expellendum materiam de matrice sua, ne fœtus veniat ad partum, antequam anima rationalis introducatur, non peccant mortaliter?”—Ap. H. Estienne, Apol. pour Herodote Liv. I. chap. vi.

[999] 1 Henr. VII. 4.

[1000] Wilkins III. 630-33.

Yet in the letter of Archbishop Morton to the abbot reciting all these enormities, he is not even threatened with deposition, but only invited to mend his ways.

[1001] Froude’s History of England, Ch. III.

[1002]

Or gef hym self had done a synne

By the prestes sybbe kynne,

Moder or suster, or hys lemmon

Or by hys doghter gef he had on.

John Myrc’s Instructions for Parish Priests, p. 26 (Early English Text Society, 1868).

[1003] Concil. Arandens. ann. 1473 c. ix. (Aguirre V. 345-6).

[1004] Concil. Hispalens. ann. 1512 can. xxvi., xxvii. (Aguirre V. 371-2).

[1005] Statut. Eccles. in Braunschweig. cap. 75 (Mayer, Thes. Jur. Eccles. I. 124).

[1006] Synod. Strigonens. ann. 1382, 1450, 1480 (Batthyani III. 275, 481, 557).

[1007] Galeoti Martii de dictis et factis Matthiæ Regis cap. xi. (Schwandtneri Rer. Hungar. Script.).

[1008] Synod. Reg. ann. 1498 c. 16 (Batthyani I. 551).

[1009] Wiæ Hist. Episc. Camin. c. 41.—These irregularities were not of recent introduction. The canon referred to is copied almost literally from a synod held nearly forty years before by Bishop Henning. In fact, from the description given by the latter of the drinking, gambling, trading, and licentiousness of the ecclesiastics of Camin, there was little of the clerical character about them.—Synod. Camin. ann. 1454 (Hartzheim V. 930).

[1010] Wiæ Hist. Episc. Camin. c. 42.—Synod. Sedinens. c. 5.

In West Prussia, in 1497, the synod of Ermeland expresses itself as scandalized by the priests taking their companions publicly to fairs and other gatherings, and, to put a stop to the practice, it offers to secret informers one-half of the fine imposed on such indiscretions.—Synod. Warmiens. ann. 1497 c. xxxix. (Hartzheim V. 668).

[1011] Boissen Chron. Slesvicens. ann. 1494.

[1012] Robles, Vida del Card. Ximenes de Cisneros, cap. xii., xiii.—Robles was chaplain to Ximenes, and presumably derived his information from the cardinal himself.

[1013] Rursus in certis monasteriis dicti ordinis, ipsæ moniales apertis claustris, indifferenter omnes homines etiam suspectos intromittunt, ac extra monasteria in curiis, castris et plateis vagantes, plura scandala committunt.... Similiter religiosi qui in sacris ordinibus constituti non sunt, relicto habito regulari, matrimonium contrahere dicuntur.... Præterea omnes et singulos monachos et moniales regulam S. Benedicti hujusmodi expresse vel tacite professos, qui habitum monasticum sine dispensatione legitima reliquerunt aut matrimonia contraxerunt, ad monasteria, si illa exiverunt, redire et habitum monasticum ac velum nigrum reassumere dicta auctoritate compellatis.—App. ad Chron. Cassinens. Ed. Dubreul, pp. 902-3.

The words italicized would seem to indicate that monks and nuns occasionally married without even quitting their monasteries.

[1014] Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, p. 84.

[1015] Statut. Ord. Cisterc. ann. 1516 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 1636-7).

[1016] Thus, in 1193, the general chapter of the order promulgated the rule—“Si contigerit mulieres abbatiam ordinis nostri ex consensu intrare, ipse abbas a patre abbate deponatur absque retractatione. Et quicumque sine conscientia abbatis introduxerit, de domo ejiciatur, non reversurus, nisi per generale capitulum.”—(Capit. General. Cisterc. ann. 1193 cap. 6—apud Martene Thesaur. IV. 1276.) The strictness with which this was enforced is illustrated by the proceedings in 1205 against the abbot of the celebrated house of Pontigny, because he had allowed the Queen of France and her train to be present at a sermon in the chapel and a procession in the cloisters, and to spend two nights in the infirmary. He adduced in his defence a special rescript of the pope and a permission from the head of the order in favor of the queen, but these were pronounced insufficient, and sentence was passed that he merited instant deposition “quia tam enorme factum sustinuit, in totius ordinis injuriam,” but that in consequence of the powerful intercession of the Archbishop of Rheims and other bishops, he was allowed to escape with lighter punishment.—(Hist. Monast. Pontiniac.—Martene Thesaur. III. 1245.)

This rule, indeed, was almost universal in the ancient monasteries. The great abbey of St. Martin of Tours preserved it inviolate until the incursions of the Northmen rendered the house an asylum for the inhabitants of the surrounding territory, and the prohibition was subsequently revived and formally approved by Leo VII. in 938, (Leonis PP. VII. Epist. vi.). In that of Sithieu, from the time of its foundation early in the seventh century, it was preserved without infraction for more than three centuries. Even the license of the Carlovingian revolution did not cause its inobservance; and when, amid the disorders of the tenth century, the Counts of Flanders became lay abbots of the convent, and discipline was almost forgotten, the mediation of two bishops was required to obtain permission, about the year 940, for Adela, Countess of Flanders, prostrated with mortal sickness, to be carried in and laid before the altar, where she miraculously recovered.—(De Mirac. S. Bertin. Lib. II. c. 12—Chron. S. Bertin. c. 23, 24.)

So when Boniface founded the abbey of Fulda, he prohibited the entrance of women in any of the buildings, even including the church. The rule was preserved uninfringed through all the license of the tenth and eleventh centuries, and when, in 1132, the Emperor Lothair came to Fulda to celebrate Pentecost, his empress was not allowed to witness the ceremonies. So when Frederic Barbarossa, in 1135, spent his Easter there, he was not permitted to enter the town, because his wife was with him. In 1398 Boniface IX., at the request of the Abbot John Merlaw, relaxed the rule and permitted women to attend at the services of the church—shortly after which it was destroyed by lightning, as a warning for the future.—(Paullini Chron. Badeslebiens. $ viii.)—An equally convincing indication of the favor with which this regulation was regarded by Heaven was afforded when Abbot Helisacar, about the year 830, introduced it in the celebrated monastery of St. Riquier, and immediately the number of miracles worked by the relics of the Saint increased in a notable degree (Chron. Centulensis Lib. III. cap. iv).—At the Grande Chartreuse, founded by St. Bruno towards the end of the eleventh century, women were not even allowed to enter on the lands of the community.—Chart. S. Hugon. Gratianopolit. (Patrolog. T. 166, p. 1571).

[1017] Anon. Carthus. de Relig. Orig. cap. XL. (Martene Ampliss. Coll. VI. 93).

[1018] Johan. de Trittenheim Lib. Lugubris de Statu et Ruina Monast. Ordinis cap. iii.

[1019] Annuntia populo fideli meo, et dic quod Filius meus avaritiam, superbiam et luxuriam clericorum et sacerdotum amplius sustinere nec possit nec velit. Unde nisi se quantocius emendaverint, totus mundus propter eorum scelera periclitabitur.—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1476.

[1020] Quum pene in omnibus conciliis et a plerisque Romanis pontificibus super cohibenda et punienda clericorum incontinentia, et eorum honestate servanda multa hactenus emanaverint constituta; et nullatenus ipsorum reformari quiverit correctio morum: ... videretur pensandum an expediret et posset provideri quod in ecclesia Occidentali, quantum ad votum continentiæ, servaretur consuetudo ecclesiæ Orientalis, quantum ad promovendos, potissime quum tempore Apostolorum consuetudo ecclesiæ Orientalis servaretur.—Durand. de Modo General. Concil. P. II. rubr. 46 (Calixtus, p. 537).

[1021] Card. Zabarellæ Capit. Agend. in Concil. Constant. cap. xii. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. ix. p. 525).

[1022] Zaccaria, Nuova Giustificaz. pp. 121-2.—Milman, Latin Christ. Book XIII. chap. 12.

[1023] Not having the works of Tudeschi to refer to, I give his remarks as quoted by Villadiego (Fuero Juzgo, p. 177, No. 85) from Gloss. in cap. olim, de cleric. conjug.—“Quod deberet ecclesia facere sicut bonus medicus, ut si medicina, experientia docente, potius officit quam prodit, cam tollat; sic corum voluntati relinqueretur, ita ut sacerdos qui abstinere noluisset, posset uxorem ducere, cum quotidie illicito coitu maculentur.”

[1024] Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias, majori restituendas videri.—Platina in Vit. Pii II.

[1025] Æneæ Sylvii de Concil. Basil. Lib. II.

[1026] De Continentia Sacerdotum, Nürnb. 1510, Prop. 6, 7.

[1027] Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1479.

[1028] Serrarii Hist. Rer. Mogunt. Lib. I. c. 34.

[1029] Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CXVI. No. 30-38.

[1030] Krasniski, Reformation in Poland, I. 110.

[1031] Gravamina German. Nationis, No. VII.—Remed. contra Gravamina (Freher. et Struv. II. 677-8).

In the previous century some remonstrances against grievances had been uttered, but in a very different tone from this.

[1032] Avisamenta ad Cæsar. Majest. (Ibid. p. 680).

[1033] When Diether was elected Archbishop of Mainz, in 1459, his envoys sent to obtain his confirmation from Pius II. were stupefied with a demand for 20,506 florins—more than double the amount of annates previously assessed on the see. He refused to yield to the demand, but by a little sharp practice between the Apostolic Chamber and the Roman bankers he became entangled, and on his persistent refusal he was prosecuted for the amount, deposed by the pope, and Adolph of Nassau appointed in his place, leading to a bloody war and the devastation of city and territory.—Appell. Dom. Dytheri (Senckenberg. Selecta Juris T. IV. p. 393).—Cf. Helwich de Dissidio Moguntino (Rer. Moguntiac. Script. T. II.). This is probably the fraud alluded to by the Diet of 1510, where it was complained that the annates of the see of Mainz were raised from 10,000 florins to 25,000; and this latter sum was exacted seven times in one generation, resulting in taxation on the peasantry so severe that an insurrection against the clergy was threatened.—Remed. contra Gravam. (Freher. et Struv. II. 678).

In the complaint made to Adrian VI., in 1523, by the Diet of Nürnberg, it is asserted that three generals of the mendicant orders at Rome had purchased the cardinalate with gold wrung from Germany.—Gravam. Nationis German, cap. lxxiii.—ap. Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 203.

The general popular opinion of the Roman court is manifested in the Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum, when speaking of the quarrel between Reuchlin and the theologians, which had been carried before the papal tribunal—“Si Papa est pro theologi, tunc non timeo; etiam audivi ab uno notabili viro, qui est officialis curiæ, qui dixit. Quid nobis hic cum literis? Si Reuchlin habet pecuniam, mittat huc: quia in curia oportet habere pecunias, alias nihil potest expedire.”

That this estimate of the papal curia was shared by the orthodox is shown in the story told of Pierre Danes, Bishop of Vaur, who in 1545 was sent as ambassador by Francis I. to the Council of Trent. In debate a French theologian was inveighing against the corruptions of the Rota, when an Italian ecclesiastic sneeringly cried out, “Gallus cantat.” Danes promptly rejoined, “Utinam illo gallicinio Petrus ad resipiscentiam et fletum excitetur.”—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VII. 224.

[1034] The Epist. Obseur. Viror. probably reflects the general sentiment of the conservatives of the time in denouncing Erasmus and the learned wits as heretics. “Quia juvenes volunt se æquiparare senibus, et discipuli magistris, et juristæ theologis, et est magna confusio, et surgunt multi hæretici et pseudochristiani, Iohann. Reuchlin, Erasmus Roterodamus: Bilibaldus nescio quis, et Ulricus Huttenus, Hermannus Buschius, Jacobus Wimphelingus, qui scripsit contra Augustinenses, et Sebastianus Brandt, qui scripsit contra prædicatores, etc.”

So, at a later date, after Luther had arisen, the “Conciliabulum Theologistarum” classes them together “Habeo etiam ego unum spiritum familiarem; illum ego volo mittere ad Lutherum et Erasmum de nocte in lectum, ut eos tribulet et vexet.”

[1035] Erasmi Colloq. Confabulatio Pia.

[1036] Ibid. See also the Encomium Moriæ.—“Nam quid dicam de iis qui sibi fictis scelerum condonationibus suavissime blandiuntur, ac purgatorii spatia veluti clepsydris metiuntur, secula, annos, menses, dies, horas, tanquam e tabula mathematica citra ullum errorem dimentientes?”

[1037] Confabulatio Pia (Colloquia).

[1038] Speaking of the Virgin’s milk and the countless relics of the cross everywhere exposed to the adoration of the pious, he exclaims, “O matrem filio simillimam! ille nobis tantum sanguinis reliquit in terris; hæc tantum lactis quantum vix credibile est esse posse uni mulieri uniparæ, etiamsi nihil bibisset infans.... Idem caussantur de cruce Domini, quæ privatum ac publice tot locis ostenditur, ut si fragmenta conferantur in unum, navis onerariæ justum onus videri possint; et tamen totam crucem suam bajulavit Dominus”—to which he makes a pious interlocutor reply, “Novum fortasse dici possit; mirum nequaquam, quum Dominus, qui hæc auget pro suo arbitrio, sit omnipotens.”—Colloq. Peregrinat. Religionis.

[1039] Supplement. Epist. M. Lutheri, No. II. (Halæ, 1703).

[1040] The popular view of the priesthood is well summed up by Erasmus in the following dialogue: “Cocles, Cur mavis sacerdotium quam uxorem?—Pamphagus, Quia mihi placet otium. Arridet Epicurea vita.—Co. At mea sententia suavius vivunt, quibus est lepida puella domi, quam complectantur, quoties libet.—Pam. Sed adde, nonnunquam quum non libet. Amo voluptatem perpetuam. Qui ducit uxorem, uno mense felix est: cui contingit optimum sacerdotium, in omnem usque vitam fruitur gaudio.—Co. Sed tristis est solitudo, adeo ut nec Adam suaviter victurus fuerit in Paradiso nisi deus illi adjunxisset Evam.—Pam. Non deerit Eva cui sit opulentum sacerdotium,” etc.—Erasmi Colloq. de Captandis Sacerdotiis.

It is, however, perhaps, in the “Encomium Moriæ” that he gives fullest rein to his bitter satire. His own sad experience of conventual life gave him special opportunity of declaiming against the monks “qui se vulgo religiosos ac monachos appellant, utroque falsissimo cognomine, quum et bona pars istorum longissime absit a religione, et nulli magis omnibus locis sint obvii.” Their habit, their observances, their discipline, their ignorance, idleness, vices, are recounted at great length and with the most stinging ridicule, and he makes Folly dismiss them with the contemptuous valediction, “Verum ego istos histriones, tam ingratos beneficiorum meorum dissimulatores quam improbos simulatores pietatis libenter relinquo.” The secular priesthood, the bishops, and even the pope himself, are treated with little more respect, and every class of the ecclesiastical body is stigmatized as endeavoring to thrust upon others the care of the flock and industrious only in shearing the sheep.

The “Encomium Moriæ” had an immediate and immense success. Numberless editions were required to supply the avidity of the learned, and it was immediately translated into almost every language of Europe for the benefit of the unlearned. It appeared in 1509; the Colloquies in 1516.—When these works had produced their result, their dangerous tendencies were discovered, and they enjoyed the honor of being included in the first Index Expurgatorius (App. Concil. Trident). Cardinal Caraffa, indeed, in 1538, had urged upon Paul III. the propriety of excluding the Colloquies from use in schools as a text-book for students.—Concil. de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 602).

[1041] The “Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum” was certainly published before 1516, probably in 1515 (Ebert, Bibliog. Dict. s. v.).—It is equally severe upon the monks—“Tunc ille dixit: ego distinguo de monachis, quia accipiuntur tribus modis. Primo, pro sanctis et utilibus, sed illi sunt in cœlo. Secundo, pro nec utilibus nec inutilibus, et illi sunt picti in ecclesia. Tertio modo pro illis qui adhuc vivunt, et illi multis nocent, etiam non sunt sancti, quia ita superbi sunt sicut unus sæcularium. Et ita libenter habent pecunias et pulchras mulieres,” etc. And again, “Ubi enim diabolus pervenire vel aliquid officere non potest, ibi semper mittit unam malam antiquam vetulam vel unum monachum.”

[1042] De Vanitate Scientiarum cap. lxi., lxii., lxiv.

[1043] Orat. in Comit. Augustan. (Freher. et Struv. II. 702.)

[1044] Bartholini Comment. de Comit. Augustens. ann. 1518 (Senckenberg. Selecta Juris T. IV. pp. 669-70).

[1045] Rymer, Fœdera XIII. 586-7.

[1046] Even in this, Luther was by no means the first. Erasmus had exposed the wickedness of the system with fully as much fervor in the “Encomium Moriæ.”—“Hic mihi puta negotiator aliquis, aut miles, aut judex, abjecto ex tot rapinis unico nummulo, universam vitæ Lernam semel expurgatam putat, totque perjuria, tot libidines, tot ebrietates, tot rixas, tot cædes, tot imposturas, tot perfidias, tot proditiones existimat velut ex pacto redimi, et ita redimi ut jam liceat ad novum scelerum orbem de integro reverti.”—And in the “Epistolæ Obscurorum Vivorum” the falseness of its promises was unflinchingly asserted.

[1047] Ranke, Reformation in Germany, B. II. chap. 3.

[1048] Lutheri Opp. T. I. fol. 335a (Jenæ, 1564).

[1049] Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. 1692, I. 614.

[1050] De Captiv. Babylon. Eccles. (Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, 1581, II. fol. 283a).

[1051] Artic. et Errores Libb. Jur. Canon. No. 18 (Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, 1581, II. fol. 318a).

[1052] Ibid. fol. 319b.

[1053] Ibid. fol. 362a, 374a.

[1054] Krasinski, op. cit. I. 112-3.

[1055] Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, 1581, T. II. fol. 438, 440.

[1056] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1521.

[1057] Lutheri Epistt. Jenæ, 1545, T. II. fol. 38, 39.

[1058] Synod. Vuitemberg. (Lutheri Opp. II. 470).

[1059] Lutheri Opp. II. 477 sqq.—In this edition the tract is dated 1522 in the index and 1521 in the text. Henke and Ranke, however, agree in assigning it to a period subsequent to his return from Wartburg.

[1060] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1523.—The fact that Spalatin recorded whether he wore the cowl or not, shows the importance which Luther’s friends attached to his example with respect to it.

[1061] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1522.

[1062] Supplement. Epistt. M. Lutheri No. 31 (Halæ, 1703).

[1063] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1523.—Thammii Chron. Colditens.—Link married a daughter of Suicer, a lawyer of Oldenburg in Misnia, and the bride’s example was shortly afterwards followed by her two sisters, one of whom was united to Wolfgang Fuess, parish priest of Kolditz, and formerly a monk of Gera; while the other accepted the addresses of the parish priest of Kitscheren. (Spalatin, ubi sup.)

[1064] Spalatin, ubi sup.—How these innovations were regarded in Rome is manifested in a minatory epistle addressed, in 1522, by Adrian II. to the Elector Frederic of Saxony. “Et cum ipse sit apostata ac professionis suæ desertor, ut plurimos sui faciat similes, sancta illa Deo vasa polluere non veretur, consecratasque virgines et vitam monasticam professas extrahere a monasteriis suis, et mundo imo diabolo, quem semel abjuraverunt, reddere ... Christi sacerdotes etiam vilissimis copulat meretricibus etc.” (Hartzheim VI. 192.)

[1065] See the address of Frederic Nausea, surnamed Blancicampianus, afterwards Bishop of Vienna, at the Council of Mainz in 1527.—Synod. Mogunt. ann. 1527 (Hartzheim VI. 207).

[1066] Reformat. Cleri German. ann. 1524 c. 26 (Goldast. Constit. Imp. III. 491).

[1067] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1524.

[1068] Respons. S. R. I. Ordinum Norim b. cap. 18 (Goldast. op. cit. I. 455).—With this the Legate Cheregato professed himself to be content, but he bitterly complained of an intimation that if these apostate priests and nuns transgressed the laws in any other way, the secular tribunals would punish them. He held that, though apostates, they were still ecclesiastics, only amenable to the courts Christian, and he protested against any violation of the privileges and jurisdiction of the church such as would be committed in bringing them before a civil magistrate. (Ibid. p. 456.)

[1069] Spalatin. ann. 1523.

[1070] Edict. Norimb. Convent, ann. 1523 c. 10, 18, 19 (Goldast. II. 151).—This illustrates well the vacillating conduct of the Council of Regency during this period.

[1071] Chron. Torgaviæ—Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1523. He conveyed them at once to Wittenberg, and Luther writes to Spalatin asking him to collect funds for their support until they can be permanently provided for.

[1072] Spalatin. ubi sup.

[1073] Spalatin. ann. 1524.

[1074] Melanchthon to Camerarius (ap. Mayeri Dissert. de Cath. Lutheri conjuge. pp. 25-6).—Melanchthon can only suggest that it was a mysterious act of Providence.—“Isto enim sub negotio fortassi aliquid occulti et quiddam divinius subest, de quo nos curiose quærere non decet.”—The whole letter is singularly apologetic in its tone.

[1075] Spalatin. ann. 1525.

Pomeranius, a priest of Wittenberg, in writing to Spalatin, gives as the reason of Luther’s marriage—“Maligna fama effecit ut Doct. Martinus insperato fieret conjunx;” and Luther, in a letter to the same, admits this even more distinctly—“Os obstruxi infamantibus me cum Catherina Borana.” That his action was not generally approved by his friends is apparent from his asking Michael Stiefel to pray that his new life may sanctify him—“Nam vehementer irritantur sapientes, etiam inter nostros.”—Spalatin. ubi sup.

That surprise should have been aroused is singular, when he had already proclaimed the most extreme views in favor of matrimony. As early as 1522 he delivered his famous “Sermo de Matrimonio,” in which he enjoins it in the strictest manner as a duty incumbent upon all. Thus, in considering the impediments to marriage, he treats of vows, concerning which he says: “Sin votum admissum est, videndum tibi est, ut supra memoravi, num tribus eviratorum generibus comprehendaris, quæ conjugio ademit Deus, ubi te in aliquo istorum uno non repereris, votum rescindas, monasticen deseras oportet; moxque ad naturalem sociam adjungas te matrimonii lege.”—P. I. c. 8 (Opp. Ed. Vuitemberg. V. 121). To this must be added his decided opinions on the subject of conjugal rights, as developed in the well-known passage which has excited so much animadversion, and which, if we are to interpret it literally, conveys a doctrine which sounds so strangely as the precept of a teacher of morality. In treating of the causes of divorce, he remarks: “Tertia ratio est, ubi alter alteri sese subduxerit, ut debitam benevolentiam persolvere nolit, aut habitare cum renuerit. Reperiuntur enim interdum adeo pertinaces uxores, qui etiam si decies in libidinem prolabentur mariti pro sua duritia non curarent. Hic oportunum est ut maritus dicat ‘Si tu nolueris, alia volet.’ Si domina nolit, adveniat ancilla, ita tamen ut antea iterum et tertio uxorem admoneat maritus, et coram aliis ejus etiam pertinaciam detegat, ut publice et ante conspectum ecclesiæ, duritia ejus et agnoscatur et reprehendatur. Si tum renuat, repudia eam, et in vicem Vasti, Ester surroga, Assueri regis exemplo” (Ibid. p. 123).

One conclusion, at least, can safely be drawn from this, that the morality of the age had impressed Luther with the belief that the self-restraint of chastity was impossible.

That the Catholics should make themselves merry over the marriage of the apostate monk and nun was to be expected, and Jerome Emser did not think it beneath him to write an epithalamium on the wedding of his former friend, of which the following may be taken as a specimen—

Ad Priapum Lampsacenum

Veneramur, et Silenum

Bacchumque cum Venere

cum jubilo.

Septa claustri dissipamus,

Sacra vasa compilamus

Sumptus unde suppetat

cum jubilo.

Mayeri Dissert. p. 22, 23.

[1076] Mayeri de Cath. Luth. conjug. Dissert. 4to. Hamburgi, 1702. Cranach, as we have seen, was one of the three witnesses present at the marriage.

[1077] Lutheri Opp. (Jenæ, 1564, T. I. fol. 496-500).

[1078] Supplement Epistt. M. Lutheri No. 212 (Halæ, 1703).

[1079] Avisamentum de Concubinariis non absolvendis, 4to. 1505.—The author devotes a long argument to prove that incontinence in a priest is worse than homicide. His conclusion is “Omnis sacerdos fornicando est sacrilegus et perjurus; et gravius totiens quotiens peccat quam si hominem occidat.”

[1080] Wideman. Chron. Curiæ ann. 1505.

[1081] Neque superiorum tolerantia, seu prava consuetudo, quæ potius corruptela dicenda est, a multitudine peccantium, aliave quælibet excusatio eis aliquo modo suffragetur.—Concil. Lateran. V. ann. 1514 Sess. IX.

[1082] Quia vero in quibusdam regionibus nonnulli jurisdictionem ecclesiasticam habentes, pecuniarios quæstus a concubinariis percipere non erubescunt, patientes eos in tali fœditate sordescere.—Concil. Lateran. V. ann. 1516 Sess. XI.—Cf. Cornel. Agripp. De Vanitate Scient, c. lxiv.—Agrippa even states that it was a common thing for bishops to sell to women whose husbands were absent the right to commit adultery without sin.

[1083] Taxæ Sacræ Pœnitentiariæ, Friedrich’s Ed. p. 38; Gibbings’s, p. 3; Saint-André’s, p. 8.

[1084] Gerardi Noviomagi Philippus Burgundus (Mathæi Analect. I. 230).

[1085] Statut. Synod. Joan. Episc. Ratispon. ann. 1512 (Hartzheim VI. 86).

[1086] Art. 18e “Item. Mais, Nous nous plaignions d’aucuns chanoines qui nous gâtent nôtre bordeau de la ville, car il y en a qui le tiennent en leurs maisons, privément, pour tous venans.”—Quoted from a contemporary MS. by Abraham Ruchat in his “Histoire de la Reformation de la Suisse,” T. I. p. xxxiii.-v. (Genève, 1727). According to Cornelius Agrippa, the Roman prelates derived a regular revenue from this source, the right to keep definite numbers of strumpets in the public brothels being partitioned out between them.—De Vanitate Scient, c. lxiv.

[1087] See, for instance, Novelle, P. III. Nov. lvi.

[1088] Reformat. Cleri German. (Hartzheim VI. 198).—“Hanc perditissimam hæresin ... non parvam habuisse occasionem, partim a perditis moribus et vita clericorum etc.”

There was no scruple in confessing this fact by those who spoke authoritatively for the Catholic church, and it long continued to be alleged as the cause of the stubbornness of the heretics. Thus the Bishop of Constance, in the canons of his Synod of 1567—“Estote etiam memores, damnatam et detestandam cleri vitam huic malo in quo, proh dolor! versamur, majori ex parte ansam præbuisse.... Omnes sapientes peritique viri unanimi sententia hoc asserunt, hocque efflagitant penitus, ut prius clerus ecclesiarumque ministri ac doctores a vitæ sordibus repurgentur, quam ulla cum adversariis nostris de doctrina concordia expectari queat.” And then, after describing in the strongest terms the vices of the clergy and their unwillingness to reform, he adds “Quæ sane morum turpitudo, vehementer et tantopere imperiti populi animos offendit ut subinde magis magisque a catholica nostra religione alienior efficiatur, atque sacerdotium una cum sacerdotibus doctrinam juxta atque doctores, execretur, dirisque devoveat: ita ut protinus ad quamvis sectam deficere potius paratus sit quam quod ad ecclesiam redire velit.”—Synod. Constant. ann. 1567 (Hartzheim VII. 455).

Pius V. himself did not hesitate to adopt the same view. In an epistle addressed to the abbots and priors of the diocese of Freysingen, in 1567, he says—“Cum nobiscum ipsi cogitamus quæ res materiam præbuerit tot tantisque pestiferis hæresibus ... tanti mali causam præcipue fuisse judicamus corruptos prælatorum mores, qui ... eandemque vivendi licentiam iis, quibus præerant permittentes et exemplo eos suo corrumpentes, maximum apud laicos odium contemptionem et invidiam non immerito contraxerunt.” (Hartzheim. VII. 586).

Alfonso de Castro in 1556 declares that the priesthood was one of the efficient causes of the spread of heresy. It would be difficult for orthodoxy to maintain itself without the direct interposition of God, in view of the scandalous lives, and general worthlessness of all orders of ecclesiastics, whose excessive numbers, ignorance, and turpitude exposed them to contempt.—Alph. de Castro de Just. Punit. Hæres. Lib. III. c. 5.

[1089] Reformat. Cleri German, cap. xv.—So when, in 1521, Conrad, Bishop of Wurzburg, issued a mandate for the reformation of his clergy, he described them as for the most part abandoned to gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, quarrelling, and lust.—Mandat. pro. Reformat. Cleri. (Gropp, Script. Rer. Wirceburg. I. 269).—In 1505 the Bishop of Bamberg, in complaining of his clergy, shows us how little respect was habitually paid to the incessant repetition of the canons.—“Condolenter referimus vitam et honestatem clericalem adeo apud quamplures nostrarum civitatis et dioceseos clericos esse obumbratam ut vix inter clericos et laycos discrimen habeatur: et ipsa statuta nostra synodalia in ipsorum clericorum cordibus obliterata et a pluribus non visa aut perlecta vilipendantur: nullam propter nostram, quam hactenus pii pastoris more tolleravimus patientiam, capientes emendationem.”—(Hartzheim VI. 66.)

[1090] Grillandi Tract. de Sortilegiis Quæst. xvii. No. 1.

[1091] Gravamin. Ordin. Imperii cap. xxi., lvii., lxx. (Goldast. I. 464).

When such complaints were made by the highest authority in the empire, it is not difficult to understand the reasons which led the senate of Nürnberg—which city had not yet embraced the Reformation—to deprive, in 1524, the Dominicans and Franciscans of the superintendence and visitation of the nuns of St. Catharine and St.. Clare; nor do we need Spalatin’s malicious suggestion—“cura et visitatione, pene dixeram corruptione.”—Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1524.

[1092] Adriani PP. VI. Instructio data Fr. Cheregato, Nov. 25, 1522 (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 146).

[1093] Adriani PP. VI. Breve ad Frid. Saxon. (Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 542b.—Le Plat, II. 134).

[1094] Erasmi Lib. XXXI. Epist. 43.

Notwithstanding the sarcasm, popularly attributed to Erasmus, on the occasion of Luther’s union with Catharine von Bora—that the Reformation had turned out to be a comedy, seeing that it resulted in a marriage—he continued to raise his voice in favor of abolishing the rule of celibacy. Thus he writes, in October, 1525, “Vehementer laudo cœlibatum, sed ut nunc habet sacerdotum ac monachorum vita, præsertim apud Germanos, præstaret indulgeri remedium matrimonii” (Lib. XVIII. Epist. 9). And again, in 1526, “Ego nec sacerdotibus permitto conjugium, nec monachis relaxo vota, ni id fiat ex auctoritate Pontificum, ad ædificationem ecclesiæ non ad destructionem.... In primis optandum esset sacerdotes et monachos castitatem ac cœlestem vitam amplecti. Nunc rebus adeo contaminatis, fortasse levius malum erat eligendum” (Lib. XVIII. Epist. 4).

Yet, in his “Liber de Amabili Ecclesiæ Concordia,” written in 1533 in the hope of reuniting the severed church, while awaiting the promised general council which was to reconcile all things, Erasmus did not hesitate to give utterance to the opinion that those who fell away in heresy or even schism were worse than those who lived impurely in the true faith.

[1095] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1525.

[1096] Ibid. ann. 1526.

[1097] Henke Append. ad Calixt. p. 595.—Serrarii Rerum Mogunt. Lib. v. (Script. Rer. Mogunt. I. 831, 839). As Albert, though Primate of Germany, was only thirty-five or six years of age, the proposition was not an unreasonable one.

[1098] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1526.

[1099] Thammii Chron. Coldicens.

[1100] Chron. Waldeccense (Hahnii Collect. Monument. I. 851).

[1101] Confess. Augustanæ P. II. Art. ii., vi.

In his Apology for the Augsburg Confession, however, even the coldness of Melanchthon is warmed in describing the hideous licentiousness caused by the law of celibacy (Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, T. IV. p. 252-3).

[1102] Deliberat. de Concordia etc. c. iii., v. (Goldast. I. 509).

[1103] See Letter of Bergenroth to Romilly, from Simancas, June 14th, 1863 (Cartwright’s Memoir of Bergenroth, London, 1870, p. 124).

[1104] Sentent. Caroli V. § 5 (Ibid. I. 510).—Rescript. Caroli V. § 5 (Ibid. III. 512). Henke, Append. ad Calixt. pp. 595-6.

[1105] Kerssenbroch Bell. Anabaptist. cap. 15, 31.

[1106] How little the situation was comprehended is amusingly shown in a letter from an enlightened and liberal prelate, Johann Schmidt, Bishop of Vienna, to Ferdinand, in 1540, concerning some proposed negotiations then on foot for a reconciliation between the churches. He lays down as a condition precedent to reunion that all the church lands confiscated by the Protestants shall be restored, and the monastic orders reëstablished. The mesne profits, he admits, cannot be collected, but some composition for them should be made.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 649.

[1107] An elaborate series of documents relating to these transactions may be found in Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 511, III. 172-235. Also in Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. Vol. II.

[1108] Artic. Melanch. ad Regem Franciæ, No. X., XI. (Le Plat, op. cit. II. 785-7).

[1109] Lib. ad Rationem Concord. ineundam Art. XXII. § 13 (Goldast. II. 199).

[1110] Respons. Protestant. Art. X. § 3 (Ibid. II. 206). This was still more strongly insisted on in a paper subsequently drawn up by Bucer and presented in the name of the Protestants.—Respons. Protestant. c. 11-14 (Ibid. p. 213).

[1111] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. III. 152-3.

[1112] Et quanquam cum Apostolo sentiendum eum qui cœlebs est curare quæ sunt Domini etc. (I. Cor. vii.) eoque magis optandum multos inveniri clericos qui cum cœlibes sint vere etiam contineant, tamen quum multi qui ministerii ecclesiastici functiones tenent, jam multis in locis duxerint uxores, quas a se dimittere nolint; super ea re generalis concilii sententia expectetur, cum alioqui mutatio in ea re, ut nunc sunt tempora, sine gravi rerum perturbatione nunc fieri non possit.—Interim cap. XXVI. § 17.

Charles must have entertained the expectation that a change would be authorized by the council of Trent, or prudence would have dictated the policy of not leaving the matter open with the consciousness that the difficulty could only become daily greater by tolerance.

[1113] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 19-25.

[1114] Pallavicini, Storia del Concilio di Trento Lib. XII. c. 8. Zaccaria (Nuova Giustificaz. pp. 145, 266), while admitting the fact, states that the original of this document has been sought for in vain; though it had long before been published by Dom Martene (Ampliss. Collect. VIII. 1203). In appointing, however, Jodocus, Bishop of Lubec, as a substitute to exercise their powers, the legates require that priests thus restored shall abandon their wives—a condition not expressed in the original bull (Ibid. p. 1211).

Both from this and from the language of the Interim, it appears that even the Catholic priesthood had begun to arrogate for themselves the right of marriage. That such was the case to a great extent will be seen hereafter.

[1115] Le Plat, T. IV. p. 27.

[1116] Recess. ann. 1551 c. 10 (Goldast. II. 341).

[1117] Transac. Pataviens. Artic. de Relig. (Ibid. I. 573).

[1118] Ibid. I. 574.

[1119] Vision of Piers Ploughman, Wright’s ed., pp. 300, 303.

[1120] Ibid. p. 325.—According to David Buchanan, Langlande was also author of a tract “Pro conjugio sacerdotum.” (Ibid. Introduction, p. x.)

[1121] In a sermon before the Convocation of 1512, Colet is very severe upon the vices of the church—“we are troubled in these days by heretics—men mad with strange folly—but this heresy of theirs is not so pestilential and pernicious to us and the people as the vicious and depraved lives of the clergy”—and he urges the prelates to revive the ancient canons, the enforcement of which would purify the church. (Seebohm’s Oxford Reformers of 1498, p. 170. London, 1867.)

The title of this work seems to me a misnomer. Neither Colet nor Erasmus had the aggressive spirit of martyrdom which was essential to the character of a reformer in those fierce times. They could deplore existing evils, but lacked all practical boldness in applying remedies, and their influence is only to be traced in the minds which they unwittingly trained to do work which they themselves abhorred.

[1122] Thus, in his Epigrams, he ridicules the bishops as a class:—

“Tam male cantasti possis ut episcopus esse,

Tam bene legisti, ut non tamen esse queas.

Non satis esse putet, si quis vitabit utrumvis,

Sed fieri si vis præsul, utrumque cave.”

T. Mori Opp. p. 249. Francofurti, 1689.

And he addresses a parish priest:—

“Quid faciant fugiantve tui, quo cernere possint,

Vita potest claro pro speculo esse tua.

Tantum opus admonitu est, ut te intueantur, et ut tu

Quæ facis, hæc fugiant: quæ fugis, hæc faciant.”

Ibid. p. 247.

See also his epigrams “In Posthumum Episcopum,” “In Episcopum illiteratum,” “De Nautis ejicientibus Monachum,” etc.

[1123] Responsio ad Lutherum, passim: “Pater, frater, potator Lutherus,” seems to be a favorite expression, but is mild in comparison with others—“novum inferorum Deum,” “Satanista Lutherus,” “pediculoso fraterculo.” Luther’s friends are “nebulonum, potatorum, scortatorum, sicariorum, senatum,” and More winds up his theological argument with—“furiosum fraterculum et latrinarium nebulonem cum suis furiis et furoribus, cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque relinquere.”

Luther was himself a master in theological abuse, but More’s admiring biographer, Stapleton, boasts that the German was appalled at the superior vigor of the Englishman, and for the first time in his life he declined further controversy—“magis mutus factus est quam piscis.” (Stapletoni Vit. T. Mori cap. iv.) As More, however, published the tract under the name of “William Rosse, an Englishman who had recently died in Rome, Luther’s reticence is more easily to be accounted for”.

[1124] In one passage More describes his Utopians as considering virtue to consist in living according to nature. “Nempe virtutem definiunt, secundum naturam vivere: ad id siquidem a Deo institutos esse nos.... Vitam ergo jucundam, inquiunt, id est voluptatem, tanquam operationum omnium finem, ipsa nobis natura præscribit: ex cujus præscripto vivere, virtutem definiunt” (Utopiæ Lib. II. Tit. de Peregrinatione). In another passage, however, he describes two sects or heresies, the one consisting of men who abstained from marriage and the use of flesh, the other of those who devoted themselves to labor, marrying as a duty and indulging in food to increase their strength, and says of them “Hos Utopiani prudentiores, at illos sanctiores reputant” (Ibid. Tit. de Religionibus).

[1125] Respons. ad Lutherum Perorat.

It should be borne in mind that this was written after his friend Erasmus had publicly given in his adhesion to marriage as the only remedy for sacerdotal corruption.

[1126] Ibid. Lib. I. cap. iv.

[1127] Froude’s England, Ch. x.

[1128] Wilkins III. 669, 678.

[1129] Card. Eboracens. Epist. v. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. III. 1289).

[1130] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, T. I. App. p. 19.

[1131] Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. II. ch. v.

[1132] Rymer’s Fœdera, XIV. 15.

[1133] Wilkins III. 704.—Bishop Burnet says that Wolsey’s design in procuring this Bull was to suppress all monasteries, but that he was persuaded to abandon his purpose on account of opposition and dread of scandals.—Hist. Reform. Vol. I. p. 20 (Ed. 1679).

[1134] Rymer, XIV. 24.—Confirmed by the king, January 7, 1525 (Ibid. p. 32).

[1135] Ibid. pp. 156-6, 172-5.

[1136] Ibid. pp. 240-44, 250-58. See a letter of the English ambassadors at Rome to Wolsey, describing a conference on this subject with the Pope, wherein he freely acknowledged the propriety of destroying those houses which were nothing but a “Scandalum religionis.”—Strype, Eccles. Memorials, I. App. 58.

[1137] Rymer, XIV. pp. 270-1.

[1138] Rymer, XIV. 272-3.

[1139] Ibid. 273-5.

[1140] Ibid. 291-3.

[1141] Ibid. 345-6. A document showing one phase of the struggle may be found in Strype’s Memorials I. Append. p. 89. It is to the credit of Wolsey that he retained his interest in his colleges even after his fall. See his letter to Gardiner of July 23rd, 1530 (Ibid. p. 92).

[1142] Pecock’s Records of the Reformation No. 276 (Vol. II. p. 259).

[1143] Wilkins III. 755-62.

[1144] Ibid. 770-82, 789.—Parliamentary Hist. of England, I. 525. In 1532 Henry had complained to his Parliament that the clergy were but half subjects to him, in consequence of their oaths to the pope, and he desired that some remedy should be found for this state of things (Ibid. p. 519).

[1145] Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 195.

[1146] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 40 (Camden Soc.).—Strype, op. cit. p. 197.

[1147] Strype, op. cit. pp. 277-8.

[1148] Burnet I. 182.

[1149] Wilkins III. 787.

[1150] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 175.

[1151] Hist. Reform. I. 190-1.

[1152] Le Plat V. 244-5.

[1153] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 112.

[1154] Eccles. Memorials, I. 256-7.

[1155] Suppression of Monasteries, Nos. xvii., xxi., xxiv., xlii., xlv., xlvii., xcviii., &c.

[1156] Ibid. No. cxx.

[1157] Travels of Nicander Nucius, pp. 68-71 (Camden Soc.).

[1158] Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 249.

[1159] As published in the Harleian Miscellany, the Beggars’ Petition bears the date of 1538, but internal evidence would assign it to a time anterior to the suppression of the monasteries, and Burnet attributes it to the period under consideration, saying that it was written by Simon Fish, of Gray’s Inn, that it took mightily with the public, and that when it was handed to the king by Ann Boleyn, “he lik’d it well, and would not suffer anything to be done to the author” (Hist. Reform. I. 160). Froude, indeed, assigns it to the date of 1528, and states that Wolsey issued a proclamation against it, and further, that Simon Fish, the author, died in 1528 (Hist. Engl. Ch. VI.), while Strype (Eccles. Memorials1. 165) includes it in a list of books prohibited by Cuthbert, Bishop of London, in 1526. In the edition of 1546, the date of 1524 is attributed to it.

The tone of that which was thus equally agreeable to the court and to the city, may be judged from the following extracts, which are by no means the plainest spoken that might be selected.

“§ 13. Yea, and what do they more? Truly, nothing but apply themselves by all the sleights they may to have to do with every man’s wife, every man’s daughter, and every man’s maid; that cuckoldry should reign over all among your subjects; that no man should know his own child; that their bastards might inherit the possessions of every man, to put the right-begotten children clean beside their inheritance, in subversion of all estates and godly order.

Ҥ 16. Who is she that will set her hands to work to get three-pence a day, and may have at least twenty-pence a day to sleep an hour with a friar, a monk, or a priest? Who is he that would labour for a groat a day, and may have at least twelve-pence a day to be a bawd to a priest, a monk, or a friar?

“§ 31. Wherefore, if your grace will set their sturdy loobies abroad in the world, to get them wives of their own, to get their living with their labour, in the sweat of their faces, according to the commandment of God, Gen. iii., to give other idle people, by their example, occasion to go to labour; tye these holy, idle thieves to the carts to be whipped naked about every market-town, till they will fall to labour, that they may, by their importunate begging, not take away the alms that the good Christian people would give unto us sore, impotent, miserable people your bedemen.”

[1160] Articles devised by the Kinges Highnes Majestie, ann. 1536 (Formularies of Faith, Oxford, 1856 p. xxxi.).

[1161] Burnet I. 193-4, 222-4;—Parl. Hist. I. 526-7. To our modern notions, there is something inexpressibly disgusting in the openness with which bribes were tendered to Cromwell by those who were eager to obtain grants of abbey lands (Suppression of Monasteries, passim). On the other hand, the abbots and abbesses who feared for their houses had as little scruple in offering him large sums for his protection. Thus the good Bishop Latimer renders himself the intermediary (Dec. 16th, 1536) of an offer from the Prior of Great Malvern of 500 marks to the king and 200 to Cromwell to preserve that foundation; while the Abbot, of Peterboro’ tendered the enormous sum of 2500 marks to the king and £300 to Cromwell (Ibid. 150, 179). The liberal disposition of the latter seems to have made an impression, for, though he could not save his abbey, he was appointed the first Bishop of Peterboro’—a see erected upon the ruins of the house.

[1162] “They be very pore, and can have lytyll serves withowtt ther capacytes. The bischoyppys and curettes be very hard to them, withowtt they have ther capacytes.”—The Bishop of Dover to Cromwell, March 10th, 1538 (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 193). These “capacities” empowered them to perform the functions of secular priests. The good bishop pleads that certain poor monks may obtain them without paying the usual fee.

[1163] 27 Henry VIII. c. 25, renewed by 28 Hen. VIII. c. 6.—Parliament. Hist. I. 574.

[1164] Burnet I. 227-34; Collect. 160.—Wilkins III. 784, 792, 812.—Rymer XIV. 549.

[1165] 28 Henry VIII. c. 10.—Parl. Hist. I. 533.

[1166] Burnet I. 235-7. These pensions were not in all cases secured without difficulty, even after promises had been made and agreements entered into (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 126).

[1167] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 170.—Strype’s Eccles. Memor. I. 262.

[1168] Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. ix.

[1169] Suppression of Monast. pp. 194, 203.

[1170] A letter from John Bartelot to Cromwell shows that the abbot purchased secrecy by distributing thirty pounds to those who detected him, and promising them thirty more. This latter sum was subsequently reduced to six pounds, for which the holy man gave his note. This not being paid at maturity, he was sued, when he had the audacity to complain to Cromwell, and to threaten to prosecute the intruders for robbery and force them to return the money paid. Bartelot relates his share in the somewhat questionable transaction with great naïveté, and applies to Cromwell for protection.—Suppression of Monasteries, Letter xxv.

[1171] This may have been true, for Dr. London was one of the miserable tools who are the fitting representatives of the time. His desire to discover the irregularities of the monastic orders arose from no reverence for virtue, for he underwent public penance at Oxford for adultery with a mother and daughter (Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 376); and his zeal in suppressing the monasteries was complemented with equal zeal in persecuting Protestants. In 1543 he made himself conspicuous, in conjunction with Gardiner, by having heretics burned under the provisions of the Six Articles. His eagerness in this good work led him to commit perjury, on conviction of which he was pilloried in Windsor, Reading, and Newbury, and thrust into the Fleet, where he died.—Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. 26, 27.

In fact, Henry’s capricious despotism rendered it almost impossible that he could be served by men of self-respect and honor.

[1172] Burnet I. 238-43.—See also Froude’s Hist. Engl. III. 285 et seq. During his visitation (Aug. 27th, 1538), the Bishop of Dover writes to Cromwell, “I have Malkow’s ere that Peter stroke of, as yt ys wrytyn, and a M. as trewe as that” (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 212). In a report of Dec. 28th, 1538, Dr. London observes, with dry humor, “I have dyvers other propre thinges, as two heddes of seynt Ursula, wich bycause ther ys no maner of sylver abowt them, I reserve tyll I have another hedd of herse, wich I schall fynd in my waye within theese xiiii. days, as I am creadably informyd” (Ibid. p. 234). Dr. Leighton writes in the same spirit to Cromwell—“Yee shall also receive a Bag of Relicks wherein ye shall see Stranger Things as shall appear by the Scripture. As God’s Coat, or Ladie’s Smock; Part of God’s Supper, In cœna Domini; Pars petræ super qua natus erat Jesus in Bethlehem. Besides there is in Bethlehem plenty of Stones and sometimes Quarries, and maketh their mangers of Stone. The scripture of every thing shall declare you all. And all these of Mayden Bradley. Where is a holy Father Prior; and hath but six Sons and one Daughter married yet of the goods of the Monastery. And he thanketh God, he never meddled with married women; but all with Maidens, the fairest could be gotten. And always married them right well. The Pope, considering his fragility, gave him license to keep a w——: and hath good writing, sub Plumbo, to discharge his conscience” (Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 253).—Nicander Nucius (op. cit. pp. 51-62) relates some of the stories current at the time of the miracles engineered by the monks to stave off their impending doom.

[1173] Parl. Hist. I. 535.

[1174] 31 Henry VIII. c. 13 (Parl. Hist. I. 537).

[1175] 32 Hen. VIII. c. 24 (Ibid. 543-44).

[1176] Burnet I. 262-3.

[1177] Rymer XIV., XV.

[1178] 37 Hen. VIII. c. 4 (Parl. Hist. I. 561).

[1179] Parl. Hist. I. 537. Such hospitals, chantries, &c., as were spared by Henry VIII. were speedily swept away, as soon as Edward VI. succeeded to the throne, by the act 1 Edw. VI. c. 14 (Parl. Hist. I. 583).

[1180] This may readily be considered no exaggeration. A letter from John Freeman to Cromwell values at £80,000 the lead alone stripped from the dismantled houses (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 290).

[1181] Such is the substance of a memorandum in Henry’s own hand-writing (Suppression of Monasteries, No. 131, p. 263).

[1182] 31 Hen. VIII. c. 9 (Parl. Hist. I. 540).

[1183] Burnet I. 300.

[1184] Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 345.

[1185] See letters of the Lord Chancellor Audley and the learned Sir Thomas Elyot to Cromwell.—Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 263-5.

[1186] Op. cit. I. 392-403; II. 258-63.

[1187] 5-6 Edw. VI. c. 2 (Parl. Hist. I. 596).

[1188] 1 Edw. VI. c. 3.—Parl. Hist. I. 583.—Burnet II. 45. In 1538 the Bishop of Dover interceded with Cromwell for licenses to enable some ejected friars to abandon their monastic gowns, “For off trewthe ther harttes be clene from the relygyon the more parte, so they myght change ther cotes, the whyche they be not abull to paye for, for they have no thenge” (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 197).

[1189] Fœdera, T. XIV. p. 551.

[1190] Froude, Hist. Engl. IV. 543.

[1191] Thus “An Exposition into the sevenith Chapitre of the firste Epistle to the Corinthians” seems to have been almost entirely devoted to an argument against celibacy, adducing all manner of reasons derived from nature, morality, necessity, and Scripture, and describing forcibly the evils arising from the rule. The author does not hesitate to declare that “Matrimony is as golde, the spirituall estates as dung,” and the tenor of his writings may be understood from his triumphant exclamation, after insisting that all the Apostles and their immediate successors were married—“Seeing that ye chose not married men to bishoppes, other Criste must be a foole or unrighteous which so did chose, or you anticristis and deceyvers.”

The “Sum of Scripture” was more moderate in its expressions. “Yf a man vowe to lyve chaste and in povertie in a monasterie, than yf he perceyve that in the monastery he lyveth woorse than he did before, as in fornication and theft, then he may leve the cloyster and breke his vowe without synne.”

Tyndale in “The Obedience of a Cristen Man” is most uncompromising. “Oportet presbyterem ducere uxorem duas ob causas.” ... “If thou bind thy self to chastitie to obteyn that which Criste purchesed for the, surely soo art thow an infidele.”

The “Revelation of Anticriste” carries the war into the enemy’s territory in a fashion somewhat savage. “Keping of virginitie and chastite of religion is a devellishe thinge” (Wilkins III. 728-34).

[1192] Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book III. Chapter 34.

[1193] For instances of these practices, see Froude’s England, Ch. III.

[1194] Wilkins III. 778.—Strype, in his “Memorials of Cranmer,” Bk. I. Chap. 18, gives this proclamation as dated Nov. 16, in the 30th year of Henry VIII. which would place it in 1538, and Bishop Wilkins also prints (III. 696) from Harmer’s “Specimen of Errors” the same with unimportant variations, as “given this 16th day of November, in the 13th year of our reign,” which would place it in 1521. It is impossible, however, at a time when even the Lutherans of Saxony had scarcely ventured on the innovation, that in England priestly marriage could already have become as common as the proclamation shows it to be. The bull of Leo X., thanking Henry for his refutation of Luther, was dated Nov. 4th, 1521, and we may be sure that the king’s zeal for the faith would at such a moment have prompted him to much more stringent measures of repression, if he had ventured, at that epoch, to invade the sacred precincts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction—a thing he would have been by no means likely to do. The date of 1521 is therefore evidently an error.

For the same reasons I have been forced to reject a discussion in convocation of the same year (Wilkins III. 697), in which the question of sacerdotal marriage was decided triumphantly in the affirmative. The proceedings are evidently those of Dec. 1547, in the first year of Edward VI.

[1195] Burnet’s Collections I. 319.

[1196] MS. State Paper Office (Froude, III. 65). Ap Rice’s report to Cromwell is sufficiently suggestive as to the interior life of the monastic orders to deserve transcription. “As we were of late at Walden, the abbot there being a man of good learning and right sincere judgment, as I examined him alone, showed me secretly, upon stipulation of silence, but only unto you as our judge, that he had contracted matrimony with a certain woman secretly, having present thereat but one trusty witness; because he, not being able, as he said, to contain, though he could not be suffered by the laws of man, saw he might do it lawfully by the laws of God; and for the avoiding of more inconvenience, which before he was provoked unto, he did thus, having confidence in you that this act should not be anything prejudicial unto him.”

[1197] MS. State Paper Office (Froude, III. 372). It is not to be assumed, however, that the clergy were worse than the laity. During the visitation of the monasteries, Thomas Leigh, one of the visitors, says, in writing to Cromwell, Aug. 22, 1536, concerning the region between Coventry and Chester “For certain of the knights and gentlemen, and most commonly all, liveth so incontinently, having their concubines openly in their houses, with five or six of their children, and putting from them their wives, that all the country therewith be not a little offended, and taketh evil example of them” (Miscellaneous State Papers, London, 1778, I. 21). It perhaps would not be easy to determine the exact responsibility of the clergy for this immorality of their flocks.

[1198] Strype, Eccles. Memorials, Vol. I. Append. p. 176.

[1199] Burnet’s Collect. I. 362.

[1200] Formularies of Faith, Oxford, 1856.—Wilkins III. 826.

[1201] Suppression of Monasteries, pp. 160-1.

[1202] He made one exception. Nuns professed before the age of 21 were at liberty to marry after the dissolution of their houses, whereat, according to Dr. London, they “be wonderfull gladde ... and do pray right hartely for the kinges majestie” (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 214).

[1203] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. I. 320.

[1204] Burnet I. 254-55; Collect. 332, 347.

[1205] “Nothing has yet been settled concerning the marriage of the clergy, although some persons have very freely preached before the king upon the subject.”—John Butler to Conrad Pellican (Froude III. 381).

[1206] Burnet, Collect. I. 329.

[1207] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. I. 339, 343.

[1208] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. I. 344.—Wilkins III. 847.

[1209] Yet the moderate party ventured to submit to parliament “A Device for extirpating Heresies among the People,” among the suggestions of which was a bill for abolishing ecclesiastical celibacy, legalizing all existing marriages, and permitting the clergy in general “to have wives and work for their living”—Rolls House MS. (Froude III. 381).

[1210] Burnet I. 258-9.—31 Henry VIII. c. xiv. Mr. Froude endeavors to relieve Henry of the responsibility of this measure, and quotes Melanchthon to show that its cruelty is attributable to Gardiner (Hist. Engl. III. 395). He admits, however, that the bill as passed differs but slightly from that presented by the king himself, with whom the committee which framed it must have acted in concert. According to Strype, “The Parliament men said little against this bill, but seemed all unanimous for it; neither did the Lord Chancellor Audley, no, nor the Lord Privy Seal, Cromwel, speak against it: the reason being, no question, because they saw the king so resolved upon it.... Nay, at the very same time it passed, he (Cranmer) stayed and protested against it, though the king desired him to go out, since he could not consent to it. Worcester (Latimer) also, as well as Sarum (Shaxton), was committed to prison; and he, as well as the other, resigned up his bishopric upon the act”—(Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. 19). This shows us how the royal influence was used. Cranmer, indeed, in his reply to the Devonshire rebels, when in 1549 they demanded the restoration of the Six Articles, expressly asserts “that if the king’s majesty himself had not come personally into the Parliament house, those lawes had never passed” (Ibid. App. No. XL.).

[1211] 31 Henry VIII. c. 6 (Parl. Hist. I. 536-40).

[1212] Parl. Hist. I. 540.

There is a story current that soon after the passage of the Act, the Duke of Norfolk, who had had so much to do with it, on meeting a former chaplain of his named Lawney, jocularly said to him “O, my Lawney (knowing him of old much to favor priests’ matrimony), whether may priests now have wives or no?” “If it please your grace,” replied he, “I cannot well tell whether priests may have wives or no; but well I wot, and am sure of it, for all your act, that wives will have priests.”—Strvpe’s Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. viii.

[1213] Dr. London chronicles the troubles of this class. “I perceyve many of the other sortt, monkes and chanons, whiche be yonge lustie men, allways fatt fedde, lyving in ydelnes and at rest, be sore perplexide that now being prestes they may nott retorn and marye” (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 215).

Nicander Nucius asserts that many did marry openly—“ἂλλους δδὲ γυναῖκας ἐννόμως συνεύνους εἰσαγομένους” (Op. cit. p. 71).

[1214] His first marriage was entered into while he was still quite young, and before he had taken orders. The second, however, shows that he acted with some independence, for it took place in 1531, before Henry’s open rupture with Rome, and while he was ambassador to the Emperor. At that time he was King’s chaplain and archdeacon of Taunton, and his nuptials therefore were plainly an indication of heresy.—Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. iii., Book III. Chap. xxvii.

[1215] Burnet I. 256-7. It was not until 1543 that he ventured to confess this to the king (Ibid. p. 328). At his trial in 1556 his two marriages were one of the points of accusation against him (Ibid. II. 339).

Sanders, in commenting upon Cranmer’s time-serving disposition, which enabled him to accommodate himself to Henry’s capricious opinions, and yet to enter fully into the reformatory ideas predominant under Edward VI., does not fail to satirize his connubial propensities. “Unum illud molestissime tamen ferens, quod meretricem quandam suam non poterat palam uxoris loco libere habere, quia id non laturum Henricum sciebat, sed partim domi eam occultare, partim cum foras prodiret, cista quadam ad id affabre facta inclusam, secum una circumferre cogeretur. Iste ergo jam desiit esse Henricianus, et tam ex immatura regis Edouardi ætate quam ex Protectoris in sectas summa propensione, suæ statim simul et libidini et hæresi habenas laxandas statuit; nam et scorto suo mox est publice pro uxore usus, et catechismum Edouardo dedicatum, falsæ impiæque doctrinæ plenum, in lucem edidit.”—De Orig. et Prog. Schismatis Anglicani, p. 193 (Ed. 1586).

[1216] Melanchthon. Epist. Ed. 1565 p. 34.

[1217] 2-3 Edw. VI. c. 21 (Parl. Hist. I. 586).

[1218] 32 Hen. VIII. c. 10.—Burnet I. 282.—Parl. Hist. I. 575.

Richard Hilles, writing in 1541 to Henry Bullinger, assumes that this modification of the Six Articles only applied to those who were guilty of incontinence, and that it did not “appear to the king at all extreme still to hang those clergymen who marry or who retain those wives whom they had married previous to the former statute” (Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 205)—but both Burnet and the Parliamentary History make no such distinction, and in the abstract of the bill as printed in the Statutes at Large (I. 281) it is described as applicable to “priests married or unmarried.”

[1219] [see transcriber’s notes} Hooper to Bullinger.—Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 36.

[1220] Thus Dr. Parker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was married on June 24th, 1547, within six months after Henry’s death, to Margaret, daughter of Robert Harlston of Mattishall. As he had been in priest’s orders since 1527, he assumed a liberty which was not even asked of Parliament until nearly eighteen months later (see his autobiographical memoranda in his Correspondence, pp. vii., x., Parker Soc., 1853).

[1221] 1 Edw. I. c. I, 12 (Parl. Hist. I. 582-4).—Wilkins IV. 16.—Burnet, II. 40, 41; III. 189.

[1222] 2-3 Edw. VI. c. 21 (Parl. Hist. I. 586).—Burnet II. 88-9.

[1223] Wilkins IV. 26.—Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 59. Wilkins and Cardwell date this in 1547, which is evidently impossible. Burnet (II. 102) alludes to it under 1549, which is much more likely to be correct.

[1224] Sanderi Schisma Anglic. pp. 214-5.

[1225] Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. II. chap. 14.—Smith subsequently at Louvain continued to urge the necessity of celibacy and was answered by Peter Martyr. Strype calls him a filthy fellow, notorious for lewdness, and his championship of chastity excited some merriment. There is an epigram upon him by Lawrence Humphrey—

“Haud satis affabre tractans fabrilia Smithus

Librum de vita cœlibe composuit

Dumque pudicitiam, dum vota monastica laudat,

Stuprat, sacra notans fœdera conjugii.”

(Ibid. Chap. 25.)

[1226] The vast growth of the sheep-farms had long been a subject of complaint. Even as early as 1516, Sir Thomas More describes with indignant energy the misery caused by the ejectment of the agricultural population in order to form enormous sheep-walks, which were found more profitable to the landlords than ordinary farming. He declares that the sheep “tam edaces atque indomitæ esse cœperunt, ut homines devorent ipsos, agros, domos, oppida vastent ac depopulentur.”—Utopia, Lib. I.

[1227] Burnet II. 117-9.

[1228] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, II. 420.

[1229] Burnet II. Collect. 217. In the Latin version, “ Episcopis, presbyteris et diaconis non est mandatum ut cœlibatum voveant; neque, jure divino coguntur matrimonio abstinere” (Wilkins IV. 76).

[1230] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, II. 355.

[1231] Ibid. p. 445.—“Our curate is naught, an Assehead, a Dodipot, a Lack-Latine, and can do nothing.”

[1232] 5-6 Edw. VI. c. 12 (Parl. Hist. I. 594).—Burnet II. 192.

It is curious to observe that the modern “Ritualistic” portion of the English clergy adopt the same line of argument from the marriage service of the Anglican ritual, and apply it not only to the priesthood but to the whole body of believers. See “The Church and the World,” edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, 2d edition, 1866, p. 161.

[1233] Reform. Legg. Eecles. Tit. de Hæresibus. cap. xx. (Cardwell’s Ed., Oxford, 1850, p. 20).—Cf. Tit. de Matrimonio c. ix. (p. 44).

[1234] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 20. This story derives additional piquancy from the fact that this Dr. Weston was somewhat notorious for uncleanness and was subsequently deprived of the Deanery of Windsor for adultery (Ibid. pp. 111-2).

[1235] 1 Mary c. 2 (Parl. Hist. I. 609-10).—Burnet II. 255.

[1236] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, III. 52.

[1237] Burnet II. Append. 264. According to Strype, Bonner’s impatience did not wait for the royal injunctions, for in February he deprived of their livings all the married priests in his diocese of London and commanded them to bring all their wives within a fortnight in order that they might be divorced.—Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. III. chap. 8.

Julius III. issued a Bull, March 8th, 1554, defining Cardinal Pole’s legatine powers, among which was that of removing the excommunication from married clerks and legitimating their children, the fathers being removed from function and benefice, separated from their wives, and subjected to penance (Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 131). This was the course adopted for a time, but as the kingdom was not yet formally reconciled to Rome, the action had was under the local authorities.

[1238] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. Append. 33.—In the same place (p. 31) may be found a copy of the summons served upon offenders of this class.

[1239] Burnet II. 275 and Append. 256.—Rymer (T. XV. pp. 376-77) gives a similar commission dated March 9th, issued to Stephen Gardiner to eject the canons and prebendaries of Westminster in the same summary manner. The proceedings throughout England were doubtless framed on these models.

[1240] Burnet II. Append. 260.

[1241] Bishop Poynette wrote a book entitled “An Apologie on the Godly Marriadge of Priestes,” in rejoinder to Martin’s “Traictise declaryng and plainly prouyng that the pretensed marriage of priestes and professed persones is no marriage,” which was a reply to Poynette’s previous work. Bale also issued a bitter attack on Bonner’s Articles (Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 135) and Dr. Parker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, published a voluminous rejoinder to Martin.

[1242] Wilkins IV. 96-7.

[1243] Burnet II. 276; III. 225-6.

[1244] A specimen of the form of restitution subscribed by those who were restored on profession of amendment and repentance has been preserved—“Whereas ... I the said Robert do now lament and bewail my life past, and the offence by me committed; intending firmly by God’s grace hereafter to lead a pure, chast, and continent life ... and do here before my competent judge and ordinary most humbly require absolution of and from all such censures and pains of the laws as by my said offence and ungodly behavior I have incurred and deserved: promising firmly ... never to return to the said Agnes Staunton as to my wife or concubine, &c.”—(Wilkins IV. 104).

[1245] Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. III. chap. 8.—Nov. 14th, 1554, we find a record of four priests doing penance in white shirts and holding candles at Paul’s Cross, London, while Harpsfield preached a sermon.—Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 203.

[1246] Parl. Hist. I. 616.

[1247] The Bull is dated December 24, 1554 (Wilkins IV. 111).—Parliament repealed the attainder of Cardinal Pole, November 22d, and on the 24th he arrived in London as legate (Burnet II. 261-2).

[1248] 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary c. 8 (Parl. Hist. I. 624). The title of the bill shows that, though the Parliament was almost exclusively Catholic, it was disposed to make its obedience to Rome the price for obtaining confirmation of the abbey lands—“A Bill for repealing all statutes, articles, and provisoes made against the See Apostolique of Rome, since the 20th of Henry VIII., and for the establishment of all spiritual and ecclesiastical possessions and hereditaments conveyed to the laity.”

[1249] 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary, c. 4 (Parl. Hist. pp. 626-8).

[1250] Mag. Bull. Roman. T. I. p. 809.

[1251] Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 149.

[1252] Parl. Hist. I. 626; II. 342.

[1253] Card. Poli Constit. Legat. Decret. v. (Wilkins IV. 800).

[1254] Strype’s Parker, Book II. chap. vi. In 1561 the remains were exhumed from the stables of Dr. Marshall, the previous dean of Christ’s Church, and reburied in the church, the precaution being taken of mingling them with the bones of St. Frideswide, so as to prevent any future profanation in case of another revolution of religion. The affair excited considerable attention at the time, and produced the following epigram:

Femineum sexum Romani semper amarunt:

Projiciunt corpus cur muliebre foras?

Hoc si tu quæras, facilis responsio danda est:

Corpora non curant mortua, viva petunt.

[1255] “That none of those priests that were, under the pretence of lawfull matrimony, married, and now reconciled, do privilie resorte to their pretensed wives, or suffer the same to resorte unto them. And that those priests do in no wise henceforth withdrawe themselves from the mynisterie and office of priesthodde under the paine of the lawes”—Pole’s Injunctions in Diocese of Gloucester (Wilkins IV. 146).

[1256] Wilkins IV. 157. Thus in the visitation of the diocese of Lincoln, the vicar of Spaldwick was presented for scandalizing his flock by carrying in his arms his child by a wife from whom he had been separated. At the same time a priest of Caisho named Nix was subjected to penance for consorting with his former wife, but was permitted to resume his functions—Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 293.

[1257] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 111-12.

[1258] Wilkins IV. 169.

[1259] 1 Eliz. c. 1, 2, 4 (Parl. Hist. I. 646-76).

[1260] Burnet, II. 386-95.

[1261] Parker’s Correspondence, p. 66.—Sanders does not fail to make the most of this refusal to legalize priestly marriage by act of Parliament, and of the hesitation which rendered the final decision a mere toleration and not an approval. “Clerus enim in Anglia novus, partim ex apostatis nostris, partim ex hominibus mere laicis factus, ut est valde spiritualis, primo quoque tempore de nuptiis cogitabat; multumque sategit, ut conjugia Episcoporum Canonicorum et cæterorum ministorum legibus approbarentur; sed obtineri non potuit, quia vel turpe videbatur ministerio, vel reipublicæ perniciosum. Edovardus quidem sextus omnes canonicas et humanas prohibitiones circa clericorum aut etiam religiosorum connubia lege comitiali seu parlamentaria sustulerat; eam legem mox abrogavit Maria, nunc restituendam ac renovandam clamitant isti, sed non exaudiuntur: omnes tamen per totum fere regnum quia de dono [castitatis] (ut loquuntur) non sunt certi, non secundum leges, sed secundum indulgentiam; vel (ut illi dicunt) secundum scripturas, sed ad libidinem suam compositas, ineunt prima, secunda, vel etiam tertia conjugia, contra canones et morem non solum Latinorum sed etiam Græcorum; et prole ita abundant, ut ad illam sustentandam opibusque augendam, et populus supra modum gravetur, et ipsi misere beneficia sua expilent.”—De Schismate Anglicano, Lib. III. (Ingoldstatii, 1586, p. 299).

[1262] Strype’s Annals, I. 81.

[1263] Royal Injunctions of 1559, Art. XXIX. “Although there be no prohibition by the word of God, nor any example of the primitive church, but that the priests and ministers of the church may lawfully, for the avoiding of fornication, have an honest and sober wife, and that for the same purpose the same was by act of Parliament in the time of our dear brother King Edward the Sixth made lawful, whereupon a great number of the clergy of this realm were married and so continue; yet, because there hath grown offence and some slander to the church, by lack of discreet and sober behavior in many ministers of the church, both in chusing of their wives and undiscreet living with them, the remedy whereof is necessary to be sought; it is thought therefore very necessary that no manner of priest or deacon shall hereafter take to his wife any manner of woman without the advice and allowance first had upon good examination by the bishop of the same diocese and two justices of the peace of the same shire dwelling next to the place where the same woman hath made her most abode before her marriage; nor without the goodwill of the parents of the said woman if she have any living, or two of the next of her kinsfolks, or for lack of the knowledge of such, of her master or mistress where she serveth. And before she shall be contracted in any place, he shall make a good and certain proof thereof to the minister or to the congregation assembled for that purpose, which shall be upon some holy-day where divers may be present. And if any shall do otherwise, that then they shall not be permitted to minister either the word or the sacraments of the church, nor shall be capable of any ecclesiastical benefice. And for the marriages of any bishops, the same shall be allowed and approved by the metropolitan of the province and also by such commissioners as the Queen’s Majesty thereunto shall appoint. And if any master or dean or any head of any college shall purpose to marry, the same shall not be allowed but by such to whom the visitation of the same doth properly belong, who shall in any wise provide that the same turn not to the hindrance of their house”—(Wilkins IV. 186).

See also a letter of Theodore Beza, Zurich Letters, p. 247 (Parker Soc. Publications).

[1264] Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 309.

[1265] Strype’s Parker, Book II. chap. v.—In 1569 the returns for the Archdeaconry of Canterbury show 135 married clergymen to 34 licensed preachers, and there is no mention of any unmarried men (Ib. III. xxiv.).

[1266] In the English version, as given by Burnet (Vol. II. Append. 217), there are 42 articles, of which this is the 31st. In the Latin edition (Wilkins IV. 236), there are but 39 articles, this being the 32d, which is the arrangement according to the standard of the Anglican church.

[1267] Wilkins IV. 189-91.—This commission was the commencement of the Court of High Commission, which played so lamentable a part in the troubles of the succeeding reigns. The result of its visitation in 1559 shows how little real conviction existed among the clergy who had been exposed to the capricious persecutions of alternating rulers. Out of 9400 beneficiaries in England under Mary, but 14 bishops, 6 abbots, 12 deans, 12 archdeacons, 15 heads of colleges, 50 prebendaries, and 80 rectors of parishes had abandoned their preferment on account of Protestantism (Burnet Vol. II. Append. 217), and of these it is fair to assume that the higher dignitaries at least had not been allowed to retain their positions.

[1268] Wilkins IV. 253.—Strype’s Parker, App. liii.

[1269] In 1576 she declared to Grindal, then Archbishop of Canterbury, “that it was good for the church to have few preachers, and that three or four might suffice for a county; and that the reading of the Homilies to the people was enough.”—Strype’s Life of Grindal, p. 221.—See also Strype’s Parker, Book II. chap. xx.

[1270] Strickland, Life of Queen Elizabeth, Chap. IV.

[1271] Strype’s Annals, I. 364-5.

[1272] Parker’s Correspondence, pp. 146-8.

[1273] Ibid. p. 152.

[1274] Parker’s Correspondence, pp. 156-8.

[1275] Wilkins IV. 269.

[1276] Parker’s Correspondence, p. 259.

[1277] Qui autem istis darent filias suas, ne protestantes quidem fere inveniebantur, nedum Catholici: primum quia existimant id esse per se infame, ut sint vel dicantur uxores presbyterorum. Secundo, quia juxta leges regni non sunt adhuc vera sed adulterina conjugia, ac proinde proles illegitima. Tertio quia non accrescit his uxoribus aut liberis suis ex maritorum loco aut honore in Republica ulla dignitas aut existimatio, quod est contra naturam veri matrimonii. Non enim Archiepiscopus, Episcopus, aliusve hodie prælatus in Anglia si sit conjugatus, tribuit quicquam ex eo honoris vel præeminentia uxori suæ, non magis quam si esset ejus tantum concubina. Hinc sit ut nec eas Elizabetha in aulam, nec principum uxores in consortium ullo modo admittant, ne Archiepiscoporum quidem vocatas conjuges; sed debent eas mariti domi continere, pro vasis tantem libidinis aut necessitatis suæ. Quæ istis ergo conditionibus, vel summis prælatis conjungerentur, cum honestiores paucæ aut nullæ reperiebantur, quas poterant habere accipere fuit necesse. Sed et aliis modis utcumque istorum hominum cupiditati per magistratum civilem impositum est frænum. Nam et Collegiorum alumni qui in Anglicanis universitatibus admodum multi erant, otioque ac saturitate panis abundabant, ac admodum provecti ætate erant, cupiebant et ipsi habere uxores; sed videbatur inconveniens, et id privilegii Collegiorum tantum Rectoribus concessum est, cum hac tamen exceptione, ut conjuges seorsim plerunque extra Collegia constituant, rariusque eas intromittant.—De Schismate Anglicano Lib. III. (Ingoldstat. 1586, p. 300).

See also Florimund. Raemund. Histor. Memoral. Lib. VI. cap. xii.

Of course much allowance must be made for the statements of so keen a partisan as Sanders, and one who had suffered so much from those whom he satirized, yet he was a man of too much shrewdness to make statements which his contemporaries could recognize as entirely destitute of foundation.

Even to this day the position of the wives of the Anglican prelates is made a subject of ridicule by Catholic polemics. A recent Italian tract entitled “Il Celibato del sacerdozio Cattolico” remarks “Osservate piuttosto le mogli de’ vescovi e degli arcivescovi Anglicani, tenute esse in conto di concubine non hanno posto alcuno nella civile società.”—Panzini, Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 472.

[1278] Zurich Letters, Second Series, p. 359 (Parker Society, 1845). Wiburn was deprived for non-conformity in 1564, so that this must have been written subsequently (Strype’s Life of Grindal, p. 98).

[1279] Zurich Letters, First Series, pp. 164, 179.

[1280] “That, concerning Virginity and the Single Life, he handled the case so finely that to his thinking, if he should have believed him, he could not find three good Virgins since Christ’s time. And that so he left the Matter with an Exhortation to all to Mary, Mary. Further, That he said in that Sermon that single-living Men, that is to say unmaried, and especially unmaried priests, lived naught. And that there in that City were lately presented five or six unmaried priests that kept five or six whores apiece; though there were not above four unmaried priests in the City in all.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 349.

[1281] “Where he alledgeth that he never called Priests Wives Whores, it is untrue. For three Women going through his Park, wherein is a path for footmen, he supposing they had been Priests Wives called unto them, Ye shall not come through my Park and no such Priests Whores.”—Ibid. p. 358.

[1282] See a tract published against the rebels, attributed by Strype to Sir Thomas Smith, which ridicules the advocates of celibacy with a vigor reminding us of the Beggars’ Petition.—“This is a quarrel wholly like the old Rebels Complaint of Enclosing of Commons. Many of your Disordered and evil disposed Wives are much agrieved that Priests, which were wont to be Common be now made Several. Hinc illæ lachrymæ. There is Grief indeed, and Truth it is, and so shall you find it. Few Women storm against the marriage of priests, calling it unlawful and incensing Men against it, but such as have been Priests Harlots or fain would be. Content your Wives yourselves and let Priests have their own.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 558.

[1283] A causidico, medicastro, ipsaque artificum farragine, ecclesiæ rector aut vicarius contemnitur et fit ludibrio. Gentis et familiæ nitor sacris ordinibus pollutus censetur: fœminisque natalitio insignibus unicum inculcatur sæpius præceptum, ne modestiæ naufragium faciant, aut (quod idem auribus tam delicatulis sonat) ne clerico se nuptas dari patiantur.—T. Wood, Angliæ Notitia (Macaulay’s Hist. Engl. Chap. III.).

Lord Macaulay attributes the degraded position of the clergy to their indigence and want of influence. These causes doubtless had their effect, but the peculiar repugnance towards clerical marriage ascribed to all respectable women had a deeper origin than simply the beggarly stipends attached to the majority of English livings.

[1284] Rahlenbeck, L’Église de Liége, p. 49. The stern and self-centred soul which won for Idelette the hand of Calvin was unshaken to the last, as may be seen by his curious account of her death-bed, in a letter to Farel (Calvini Epistolæ, p. 111. Genevæ, 1617). His grief was doubtless sincere, but his friends were able to compliment him on his not allowing domestic affliction to interfere with his customary routine of labor (Ibid. p. 116).

[1285] I have not access to the original, but quote the following from Quick’s “Synodicon in Gallia Reformata,” London, 1692—“Art. XXIV..... We do also reject those means which men presumed they had, whereby they might be redeemed before God; for they derogate from the satisfaction of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ. Finally, We hold Purgatory to be none other than a cheat, which came out of the same shop: from which also proceeded monastical vows, pilgrimages, prohibition of marriage and the use of meats, a ceremonious observation of days, auricular confession, indulgences, and all other such matters, by which Grace and Salvation may be supposed to be deserved. Which things we reject, not only for the false opinion of merit which was affixed to them, but also because they are the inventions of men, and are a yoke laid by their sole authority upon conscience” (Quick I. xi.).—See also the Confession written by Calvin in 1562, to be laid before the Emperor Ferdinand (Calvini Epist. pp. 564-66).

[1286] Discip. Chap. XIII. can. xxviii. (Quick, I. liii.).

[1287] Ibid. Chap. I. can. xlvii.

[1288] Chap. IV. Art. xii., Chap. XVI. Art. xiv. (Quick, I. 32, 38).

[1289] Prelates of high position were not wanting to the list of married men. Carracioli, Bishop of Troyes, and Spifame, Bishop of Nevers, were of the number. Jean de Monluc, Bishop of Valence (brother of the celebrated Marshal Blaise de Monluc, whose cruelties to the Huguenots were so notorious), married without openly apostatizing, and died in the Catholic faith. Cardinal Odet de Châtillon, Bishop of Beauvais, and brother of the Admiral, became a declared Calvinist, married Mdlle. de Hauteville, and called himself Comte de Beauvais. He seems to have retained his benefices, and was still called by the Catholics M. le Cardinal, “Car il nous estoit fort à cœur,” says Brantôme (Discours 48), “de luy changer le nom qui luy avoit esté si bien seant.”

[1290] Édit de Roussillon, Art. 7 (Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises, XV. 172). This edict was cited in the proceedings of the case of Dumonteil, about the year 1830, of which more hereafter.

[1291] Édit de 1576, Art. 9.—Édit de Poitiers, Art. Secrets, No. 8 (Isambert, T. XV. pp. 283, 331).

[1292] Concil. Rotomag. ann. 1581 cap. de Monasteriis § 32 (Harduin. X. 1253).

[1293] Édit de Nantes, Art. Secrets, No. 39 (Isambert, T. XVI. p. 206).

[1294] Grégoire, Hist, du Mariage des Prêtres en France, pp. 58-9.

[1295] A decision rendered on the argument of the distinguished avocat général Omer Talon expressly states “que la prohibition du mariage des personnes constituées dans les ordres etant une loi de l’État aussi bien que de l’Église, un prêtre malgré sa profession de Calvinisme, était demeuré sujet aux lois de l’État, et dès lors n’avait pas pu valablement contracter mariage.”—Bouhier de l’Écluse, de l’État des Prêtres en France, Paris, 1842, p. 12.

[1296] Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, p. 3 (Ed. 1609).

[1297] Knox, pp. 15-16.—Calderwood’s Historie of the Kirk of Scotland, I. 83-5 (Wodrow Soc.).

[1298] Knox, pp. 16-17.

[1299] Buchanan. Rer. Scot. Hist. Lib. xv.—Robertson, Hist of Scot. B. II.—Knox, 71-2.—Calderwood I. 222.

[1300] Buchanan. Lib. xv.

[1301] Wilkins IV. 207.

[1302] Concil. Edinburgens. ann. 1549 can. 1, 2 (Wilkins IV. 48).

[1303] Wilkins IV. 207-10.—Knox, p. 129. It should be borne in mind in estimating these penalties that they are expressed in pounds Scots, which were about one-twelfth of the pound sterling. These canons, it appears, were not adopted without opposition. According to Knox, “But herefrom appealed the Bishop of Murray and other prelates, saying That they would abide the canon law. And so they might well enough do, so long as they remained Interpretors, Dispensators, Makers and Disannullers of the law ” (Op. cit. 119). It was doubtless on some such considerations that the Archbishop of St. Andrews relied when he consented to waive his exemption in this matter. His personal reputation may be estimated from the remark of Queen Mary when, in December, 1566, he performed the rite of baptism on James VI. She forbade him to use the popular ceremony of employing his saliva, giving a reason which was in the highest degree derogatory to his moral character (Sir J. Y. Simpson, in Proceedings of Epidemiological Society of London, Nov. 5th, 1860).

[1304] Robertson, Hist. Scot. Bk. II.

[1305] Thus the Parliament of 1560, which effected a settlement of the Reformed Religion, was urged to its duty by a Supplication presented in the name of “The Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, and other true Subjects of this Realm, professing the Lord Jesus within the same,” which, among its arguments against Catholicism, does not hesitate to assert—“Secondarily, seeing that the sacraments of Jesus Christ are most shamefully abused and profaned by that Romane Harlot and her sworne vassals, and also because that the true Discipline of the Ancient Church is utterly now among that Sect extinguished: For who within the Realme are more corrupt in life and manners than are they that are called the Clergie, living in whoredom and adultery, deflouring Virgins, corrupting Matrons, and doing all abomination without fear of punishment. We humbly, therefore, desire your Honors to finde remedy against the one and the other”—Knox, p. 255.

[1306] This doctrine bore its full share in the history of the Scottish reformation. Two years after the execution of the protomartyr, Patrick Hamilton, in 1528, his sister Catharine was arraigned on account of her belief in justification through Christ. Learned divines urged upon her with prolix earnestness of disputation the necessity of works, until her patience gave way, and she rudely exclaimed, “Work here and work there, what kind of working is all this? No work can save me but the work of Christ my Saviour.” By the connivance of the king she was enabled to escape to England.—Calderwood’s Historie, I. 109.

[1307] Knox, p. 283.

[1308] Knox, p. 119.—Calderwood, I. 423.

[1309] Thus the assembly of the church in 1562, drew up a remonstrance to the queen, in which they requested that “in every Parish some of the Tythes may be assigned to the sustentation and maintenance of the poor within the same: And likewise that some publike relief may be provided for the poor within Burroughs”—Knox, p. 339.

[1310] Ibid. p. 278. The Book was signed at Edinburgh, Jan. 27, 1561, but only after the adoption of a proviso—“Provided that the Bishops, Abbots, Priors and other Prelates and Beneficed men, which else have adjoyned themselves to us, brooke the revenues of their Benefices during their lifetimes.”—Worldly wisdom certainly was not lost sight of in the ardor of a new and purer religion.

[1311] Knox, 136.

[1312] Calderwood’s Historie, I. 123-4.

[1313] Knox, p. 65.—Knox’s characteristic comment on this is—“When he had said these words, they were all dumb, thinking it better to have ten concubines than one wife.”

[1314] Calderwood I. 231 sqq.

[1315] Knox, p. 130.—Calderwood I. 337 sqq.—Burnet vol. II. The implacable character of Scottish persecution is aptly illustrated by a proclamation issued by Cardinal Beatoun in 1540 for the purpose of spiting Sir Ralph Sadler, the English envoy at Edinburgh. It was during Lent, and the proclamation declared “that whosoever should buy an egg or eat an egg within those dioceses should forfeit no less than his body to be burnt as a heretic, and all his goods confiscate to the king”—Froude, Hist. Engl. IV. 54.

It was a life and death struggle, in which quarter could neither be asked nor given.

[1316] Knox, p. 263.

[1317] Ibid. p. 304.

[1318] Strype’s Parker, Book II. ch. xviii.

[1319] The orator of the council of Cologne in 1527, sharply reminded the assembled prelates that they must set the example of obeying their own statutes, and that they could not expect the people to reverence the true church so long as it notoriously bade defiance to the laws of God and man. “Quasi præscribatur lex cujus sancitor voluerit esse exlex. Parendum enim est legi quam quisque sancit.... Audis præterea non licere plurimas habere uxores, quæ animum tuum alliciant; non decere domi alere tot scorta tot Veneres, quæ te continue exedunt, tuamque substantiam disperdunt.... His et aliis datur scandalum populo; præbetur offendiculum vulgo, cui hac tempestate vilet et contemptui est ordo quilibet sacer. Vilis plebs te sacerdotem nunc cachinnis atque ludibriis incessit et odit, qui calumniandi ansam ultro præbueris. Dicit namque: tot hic, aut ille, scorta domi suæ ex patrimonio Crucifixi nutrit, quo non sordida scorta, sed pauperes Christi forent sustentandi”—Concil. Colon. ann. 1527 (Hartzheim VI. 210-213).

So at the council of Augsburg, in 1548, the orator dwelt upon the advantage which the heretics derived from the sins of the clergy—“Non estis nescii, quemadmodum nos hæretici apud populum perpetuo traducant: nos scortatores, nos ambitiosos, nos avaros, nos ignavos, et rudes esse, nos otio semper, luxui et ventri servire, identidem vociferantur.... Superbe itaque illi: sed utinam non nimium sæpe vere: nam si vera potius hoc loco, quam plausibilia, dicenda sint; negare certe non possumus, quin maximam ad nos accusandos occasionem sæpe dederimus”—Concil. Augustan. ann. 1548 (Hartzheim VI. 388).

[1320] Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1521 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1018).

[1321] Quisquis igitur contra sacrorum conciliorum et patrum decreta, sacerdotes, diaconos aut subdiaconos lege cœlibatus non teneri docuerit aut liberas illis concesserit nuptias, inter hæreticos, omni tergiversatione rejecta numeretur.—Concil. Paris. ann. 1528, Decret. 8.

This, I think, is the first authoritative promulgation of Damiani’s doctrine, which, as we shall hereafter see, was adopted and extended by the council of Trent.

[1322] Ibid. can. 3, 27.

[1323] Pierre de la Place, Estat de Rel. et Rep. Liv. III.

[1324] Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1551 can. 22 (Harduin. X. 468).

[1325] Consilium de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 598).

[1326] Bull, ad Canonum (Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. 1692, I. 682).

Alexander III., in prohibiting the sons of priests from enjoying their fathers’ benefices, had permitted it if a third party intervened, and a dispensation for the irregularity were obtained. The letter of this law was frequently observed, but its spirit eluded by nominally passing the preferment through the hands of a man of straw, and it was this abuse which Clement desired to eradicate.

[1327] Consilium de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 599).

[1328] Wilkins IV. 209.

[1329] Le Plat, V. 88. The opinion which was held of the venality of the Roman Court in such matters is forcibly expressed in the instructions given to Lanssac, the French ambassador at Trent. He is ordered to press the abolition of the Papal power of dispensation “attendu que nul n’en est refusé s’il a argent.”—Ibid. p. 153.

[1330] Ejus sanctitati lex non sit præscribenda.—Ibid. p. 385.

[1331] Tax. Sac. Pœnitent. Ed. Gibbings, p. 13.—This was only one carlino (the tenth part of a ducat, equal to about fourpence), more than the charge for the bastard of a layman.

[1332] In 1526 or 1527, the authorities of Seville endeavored to regulate this by forbidding certain articles of dress to concubines, whether of ecclesiastics or laymen.—Wahu, Le Pope et la Société Moderne, Paris, 1879 p. 395.

[1333] Ribadeneira Vit. Ignat. Loyol. Lib. II. cap. v.

Ribadeneira was one of Loyola’s early disciples, and is therefore good authority. His description would show that permanent unions were formed, respected by the people but not recognized by the church, in the same manner as those alluded to by Bishop Pelayo, two centuries earlier.

[1334] Diaz de Luco, Practica Criminalis Canonica cap. lxxiii. (Venetiis, 1543).

[1335] Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1536, P. II. c. 28. Six years later, in 1542, Bishop Hermann embraced Lutheranism, married, and in 1546, was driven from his see and retired to his county of Wied, where he died some years afterwards, at the ripe age of 80 years.

[1336] Concil. Salisburg. XLI. (Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. pp. 296-322).

[1337] Acta Concil. Trident. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1063-9).

[1338] Sarpi, Istor. del Concilio Trident. Lib. VI. (Ed. Helmstad. II. 140).—Cf. Le Plat, V. 337-8.

[1339] Le Plat, V. 235.

[1340] Charles was careful to put on record his ceaseless endeavors with Clement and Paul to obtain the convocation of a council and the numberless promises made to him, for the evasion of which reasons were always found.—Commentaires de Charles-Quint, pp. 96-7 (Paris, 1862).

[1341] Select. Harl. Miscell., London, 1793, p. 137.

[1342] The temper with which the Protestants now viewed the council is well expressed in a letter from Aonio Paleario written in 1542 or 1545, from Rome to Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin, urging them by no means to sanction the assembly with their presence—(Published by Illgen, 4to. Leipzig, 1833).

[1343] There is something very amusingly suggestive in the guarded manner in which Charles alludes to the translation of the Council—“O ditto Papa Paulo por respeitos, que o moveram (os quaes Deus permitta que forsem bons) tratton de avocar e transferir a Bolonha”—(Commentaires, p. 98).

[1344] That the complaints of the Protestants were well founded, is evident from the secret instructions given, Feb. 20th, 1552, by Julius III. to the Bishop of Monte Fiascone, when sending him as legate to Charles V. He was to explain to the emperor that the Council would not discuss the propositions of the heretics “nimirum quod judex non respondet parti, ne ex judice se partem constituat;” and he is further to explain that “petentes commune concilium hæretici et schismatici repellendi sunt a onciliis universalibus ... nullo modo commmunicandum esse concilium cum hæreticis et schismaticis, qui sunt extra ecclesiam ... sed bene possunt admitti, ut possint interesse pro convincendis etiam pluries eorum erroribus.”—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. T. IV. p. 534-5.

[1345] The feeling entertained by Pius towards the council is shown by his remark, in Dec. 1561, to M. de Lisle, the French ambassador, that it had been called simply for the benefit of France—“dautant que ledit concile, qui est de peu de besoin pour le reste de la chrestienté, superflu aux Catholiques et non desiré des papes” (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 742).

[1346] The characteristic correspondence is in Le Plat, IV. 678-87.

[1347] Charles declares that at the commencement of his pontificate Paul was earnestly desirous of reforming the abuses of the church, but that his zeal rapidly diminished and he followed the example of Clement in contenting himself with empty promises.—“Com tudo despois com o tempo aquellas mostras e ardor primeiro se foi esfriando, e seguindo os passos e exemplo do Papa Clemente, com boas palavras prolongon e entretene sempre a convoçáō e ajuntamento do concilio” (Commentaires, p. 97).

[1348] Per serrar la bocca agl’ heretici i quali non facevano altro in voce et in scritto che dir male della corte di Roma.—Carraciolo, Vita di Paolo IV. MS. Br. Mus. (Young, Life and Times of Aonio Paleario, I. 261).

[1349] Concilium de Emendanda Ecclesia (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 601, 602).

[1350] It has been customarily stated by Catholic writers that this proceeding of Paul IV. was directed not against his own work, but against the heretically commentated editions, but this, I believe, has been refuted by Schelhorn. See Gibbings’s “Taxes of the Penitentiary,” p. xlix.

[1351] Published by Clausen, Copenhagen, 1829.

[1352] Lib. ad Ration. Concord. ineundam Art. XXII. § 13 (Goldast. II. 199).

[1353] Formul. Reformat, cap. XVII. § 4 (Goldast. II. 335).

[1354] Ibid. cap. III. § 1, cap. V. § § 7, 9.

[1355] Synod. Augustan. ann. 1548 c. 10.

[1356] Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1548.

[1357] Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1548 cap. ii.

[1358] Synod. Trevirens. II. ann. 1549 cap. xi., xix.

[1359] Mandat. de abjic. Concub. (Hartzheim VI. 353).

[1360] Ibid. p. 358. A Diocesan Synod was also held at Liége, Nov. 15, which gave offending clerks fifteen days to part with their concubines (Ibid. VI. 395).

[1361] Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1549 cap. Quibus possint.—Cap. de Monach. conjugat.—Cap. de Concub. Monach.—Cap. Comœdias.

[1362] Hartzheim VI. 767, 781.

[1363] Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. pp. 328, 337 (Concil. Salisburg. XLIV. can. vii.).

[1364] Gropp, Collect. Script. Wirceburg. I. 311.—Hartzheim VI. 359, 417. In the epistle convoking his council, Bishop Melchior of Wurzburg alluded passionately to the evils everywhere existing: “Videtis percussum pastorem; videtis oves dispersas; videtis impudentem peccandi licentiam; videtis adversus pietatem audaciam tum loquendi tum disputandi impiissimam, et indies scelerata gliscere schismata” (Ibid. X. 753).

[1365] Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1549 c. 82, 102.

[1366] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1550 (Hartzheim VI. 654).

[1367] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 611.

[1368] Consult. Imp. Ferdinand. (Le Plat, V. 235). It would be impossible to conceive a darker picture of clerical life than is given in this document. “Ejici autem nunc clerum, conculcari pedibus, pro nihilo haberi et tanquam publicum offendiculum devoveri diris aut paulo plus, tam verum est quam minime falsum, cleri mores insulsos esse, vanos esse, turpes esse, æque ecclesiæ perniciosos ac Deo execrabiles”—Ibid. p. 237.

[1369] Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 190, 285.

[1370] Hosii Dialogus de ea, num Calicem Laicis et Uxores Sacerdotibus permitti etc. Dilingæ, 1558.

[1371] Pallavicini, Storia del Concil. di Trento, Lib. XIV. c. 13.

Twelve years before, his uncle, the Bishop of Liége, in promulgating the Augsburg formula of reformation, had made a similar assertion—“Preterquam quod hoc infœlici sæculo, quo omnis caro corrupit viam suam, præsertimque ordo clericorum et ecclesiasticorum, nimium degenerant, plus quam unquam est necessaria”—Concil. Leodiens. ann. 1548 (Hartzheim VI. 392). The increased emphasis of Ferdinand is a measure of the success which had attended the reformatory movements of Charles V. during the interval.

In such a condition of ecclesiastical morality it is no wonder that even in orthodox Vienna the most popular theme on which preachers could expatiate was the corruption of the church.—See the Emperor Ferdinand’s secret instructions to his envoy in Rome, March 6th, 1560, in Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 622.

[1372] Pallavicini, loc. cit. That the Catholic church of Germany had become widely infected with this Lutheran heresy is also shown by the fact that in 1548 the Archbishop of Cologne had found it necessary to prohibit throughout his province all marriages of priests, monks, and nuns, and had pronounced illegitimate the offspring of such unions.—Hartzheim VI. 357.

[1373] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 644.

[1374] Pallavicini, Lib. XV. c. 5.—The duke, though no bigot, was a good Catholic.

[1375] Pallavicini, Lib. XVII. c. 4. At the request of Duke Albert, the question was also mooted at the provincial synod of Salzburg, held in 1562 for the purpose of sending delegates to Trent.—Hartzheim VII. 230.

[1376] Articuli de Reform. Eccles. No. 14, 15, 18.—Goldast. II. 376.

[1377] Consultat. Imp. Ferdinandi (Le Plat, V. 249, 252).

[1378] Considerat. Cæsar. Majest. sup. Matrim. Sacerd. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 (Goldast. II. 382-3—Le Plat, VI. 315).

[1379] Le Plat, V. 154, 208, 211.

[1380] Le Plat, V. 562-3.

[1381] Capi dati da’ Francesi cap. 1—(Baluz. et Mansi IV. 374) Comp. Zaccaria pp. 133-4.

[1382] Votum castitatis sacris ordinibus conjunctum, atque vota quæ in probatis religionibus emittuntur, et alia quæcunque rite suscepta, fideliter sunt observanda.—Le Plat, IV. 649.

[1383] Ibid. IV. 756, 760, 761, 765.—The 182 articles which, according to Archbishop Bartholomew, required reform in the internal discipline of the church form as damaging a commentary upon its condition as any of the attacks of the Protestants.

[1384] Art. v.—Lettere del Arcivesc. Calini (Baluz. et Mansi IV. 295).—Le Plat, V. 674.

[1385] Lettere di Calini (Ibid. 326).

[1386] See the apologetic letter of the nuncio to the emperor, Jan. 19th, 1562 (Le Plat, op. cit. V. 320). Ferdinand remonstrated earnestly, but did not venture to rebel against their decision (Ibid. 351-60).

[1387] Ibid. p. 388.

[1388] Lettere del Nunzio Visconti (Baluz. et Mansi III. 453).

[1389] Disputat. Joann, de Ludegna (Harduin. X. 359). The learned doctor presents his argument in the form of a colloquy between himself and Calvin, and its spirit may be gathered from the first speech of Calvin, in which he is made to declare that he is endeavoring to find arguments with which to defend himself and his apostate strumpets.

[1390] Sarpi, Lib. VII. (Opere, II. 280, Helmstat, 1761).

[1391] Sarpi (loc. cit.).

[1392] Pallavicini, Lib. XVII. c. 4.

[1393] Sarpi, Lib. VIII. p. 315.

[1394] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Sacrament. Matrimon.

Can. IX. Si quis dixerit clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutos, vel regulares castitatem solemniter professos, posse matrimonium contrahere, contractumque validum esse, non obstante lege ecclesiastica vel voto; et oppositum nihil aliud esse quam damnare matrimonium; posseque omnes contrahere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiamsi eam voverint, habere donum; anathema sit; quum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus tentari.

Can. X. Si quis dixerit statum conjugalem anteponendum esse statui virginitatis vel cœlibatus, et non esse melius ac beatius manere in virginitate aut cœlibatu, quam jungi matrimonio, anathema sit.

[1395] The feelings which the Council excited among the Protestants are expressed with more vigor than elegance by Alexander Nowell, at that time Dean of St. Paul’s—“No Sir, your Prelats sat not there about conning of Articles of Religion, or to Dispute with Hereticks to vanquish them. A few louzy Friars, whom no Man would fear but in his Pottage or Egg-py, did serve that Turn well enough. And your great Prelates devised the while by that long Consultation, how by Sword and Fire they might most cruelly murder all true Christians, whom they call Hereticks; and now do labour to put in Execution such their bloody Devices.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 377.

[1396] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXV. Decret. de Reformat. cap. 14,15.

[1397] Ma noi facciamo quello che ci si permette di fare, non quello che vorremmo.—Examinatore, Firenze, 1868, p. 15.

[1398] Lett. No. LXIX. (Ed. Amsterd. II. 299). This and the concluding letters are not in Mansi’s edition.

[1399] Pallavicini, Lib. XXII. c. 10.

[1400] Goldast. II. 380.—Le Plat, VI. 310, 312.

It is observable from this that many priests left the church and married without formally embracing the Lutheran faith, and a return of these was anticipated from a relaxation of the canons. Others, as may be gathered from various references above, married and still performed their regular duties. Of these, some no doubt acted in virtue of dispensations granted by the nuncios of Paul III., after the promulgation of the Interim, but many did so in utter contempt of discipline. An illustrative example of the latter class may be found in the well-known Stanislas Orzechowski, whose marriage, notwithstanding his prominent position, shows the laxity of opinion which prevailed on the subject. As priest and canon of Przemysl in Poland, his marriage naturally gave great offence to his colleagues, which was not diminished by a dissertation which he wrote in favor of priestly marriage. This, he subsequently claimed, had been prepared for the purpose of laying before the council of Trent, and its publication had arisen from the indiscretion of a friend to whom he had entrusted it. Somewhat contaminated with the new ideas by his education at Wittenberg, he sturdily refused to give up either his wife or his position. His consequent excommunication he disregarded, though according to his own account he gave up on marrying his benefices and the ministry (Lettera a Guilio III. trad. di B. Leoni, Milano, anno. VI.), and notwithstanding this he had a very narrow escape from the death-penalty, and his condemnation excited a commotion throughout Poland that was very favorable to the spread of the reformed opinions (Orichovii Annales, pp. 71-84, 108, Ed. 1854). At length the feeling against the pretensions of the church became so strong that the Diet of 1552 removed all the civil and temporal penalties of excommunication, so that he triumphed for the time. When in 1556, the legate Lippomani held a synod at Lovictz, he called to account those who had connived at so great an irregularity. They denied granting the dispensation, saying that they had only suspended the censures until the pleasure of the pope should be known; but at the same time many prelates used all their influence with Lippomani to obtain one. Lippomani declared that he had no power to grant it, nor would he do so if he could, seeing that Orzechowski defended himself on heretical grounds (Concil. Lovitiens.—Labbei et Coleti Supp. T. V. p. 702). In 1561 Orzechowski, in his address to the synod of Warsaw, admitted that he had sinned, but claimed that he had been punished sufficiently—“Si quis igitur a me quærat; Num uxorem sacerdos duxerim? Duxisse me fatebor. Peccasti igitur? Peccavi. Pœnas ergo peccati debes? Debui et persolvi” (Doctrina de Sacerd. Cœlibatu, Varsaviæ, 1801). He therefore complained of the persecutions to which he was exposed on account of his wife, and he petitioned both the pope and the council of Trent for a dispensation. While the Tridentine fathers refused it, some authors assert that it was granted by Pius IV. to him as an exceptional case “tibi soli Orichovio,” but careful investigation has failed to discover the Bull, and, according to Zaccaria the pope merely sent secret orders to his legate Commendone not to allow Orzechowski to be molested, but at the same time to give no publicity to an act of tolerance in contravention of the canons of the council of Trent (Grégoire, Hist du Mariage des Prêtres en France, pp. 51-55).

In his answer to Fricius, Orzechowski assumes that he was absolved from his excommunication by the Legate—“Præterea a sententia excommunicationis, qua eram a Joanne Episcopo Premisliensi, ob hanc eandem uxorem, ex ecclesia pulsus, a Legato Romani Petri absolutus cum sim, nihil feci contra ilium” (ap. Doctrin. de Sacerd. Cœlibat. p. 24). He also alleges the extraordinary excuse that he abandoned the priesthood before his marriage.

The history of Orzechowski, with probably a less fortunate result, is no doubt that of innumerable others, whose obscurity has prevented their sufferings from being known beyond their own narrow circle.

Strype (Annals, I. 485-6) asserts that after the accession of Queen Elizabeth the Catholic emissaries in England had a general dispensation to marry, in order to assist their concealment and to further the design of creating schism in the Anglican church. He gives as his authority one Malachi Malone, a converted Irish friar.

[1401] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VI. 331.

[1402] This was not his first attempt of this kind. In 1540 he had called upon John Cochlæus to examine the Confession of Augsburg and report as to what points were reconcilable with Catholicism and what were not. Cochlæus responded in an elaborate dissertation, wherein he took strong ground against abandoning celibacy, but admitted that he was utterly unable to suggest any remedy for the evils resulting from it,—especially the “scandalosus presbyterorum in seculo concubinatus, præsertim apud plebanos in pagis, qui communiter cum ancillis rem domesticam gubernare necessitate quadam coguntur.”—Le Plat, II. 667.

[1403] G. Cassandri Consult, XXIII., XXV. (Le Plat, VI. 761-2, 783-4).

[1404] Wicelii Via Regia, De Conjug. Sacerd.

Both these tracts were printed with other controversial matter, by Hermann Conring, 4to. Helmstadt, 1569.

[1405] Goldast. II. 381.

[1406] Le Plat, VI. 335.

[1407] De Thou, Lib. xxxvii.

[1408] In 1560 Ferdinand addressed to Pius IV. an earnest request that a special dispensation might be granted to Maximilian, then king of Bohemia, authorizing him to receive the communion in both elements. In this he stated that his son’s scruples of conscience on the subject were so strong that he had abstained for three years from taking the sacrament. In the secret instructions to the Imperial ambassador accompanying this request, the latter is furnished with elaborate reasons to prove that the suspicions entertained at Rome of Maximilian’s orthodoxy were unfounded.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 619-23.

[1409] Le Plat, VI. 336.

[1410] Struvii Corp. Hist. German. II. 1097.

[1411] Bernardi Sermo. 66, in Cantica, cap. i.

[1412] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. V. 340.

[1413] The council of Trent has never been received in France. For a résumé of the efforts made to obtain its adoption and their uniform lack of success, see Chavart, Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 507-12.

[1414] In August, 1564, Philip II. had ordered its publication in the Low Countries, but Margaret of Parma had hesitated to obey in consequence of the intense opposition excited by its interference with local liberties and franchises, as it completed and crowned the centralizing policy which rendered the papacy supreme over all local churches. It was not until Dec. 18, 1565, that it was finally promulgated, under imperative commands from Philip. It is characteristic of Philip’s habitual double-dealing, however, that while his public orders commanded the reception of the Council without exception, he secretly reserved the rights of himself and his subjects (Le Plat, Concil. Trident. VII. Præf. p. vi.).

[1415] By a Bull dated July 18, 1564, Pius IV. fixed May 1, 1564, as the time when the Tridentine canons became the law of the church. His letter to the Archbishop of Bremen with an official copy and directions as to its promulgation, is dated Oct. 3d of the same year (Hartzheim VII. 25).

It would seem to be a work of supererogation for a learned Italian lawyer to write an elaborate treatise, dedicated to Pius IV., against the abolition of celibacy, yet Marquardo dei Susani thought it worth while to do this in his “Tractatus de Cœlibatu Sacerdotum non abrogando,” 4to. Venice, 1565.

[1416] Bull. Cum primum § 12 (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 180).

[1417] “Plerosque ... abjecto Dei timore et sine ulla hominum verecundia, concubinas palam habere, easque perinde, ac si legitimæ eorum uxores essent, in ecclesiis et aliis locis publicis conspici, vulgo iisdem, quibus illi vocantur, officiorum et dignitatum nominibus appellatas; eoque hæreses tantopere crevisse, ac multiplicatas fuisse; quod ecclesiastici tam turpiter et nequiter vivendo, omnem plane existimationem amiserint, et in summam non apud hæreticos modo, sed etiam Catholicos contemptionem venerint.... Nisi enim tam nefandum concubinatus vitium extirpetur, nullam spem reliquam esse videmus reprimi posse hæreses. Sed timemus (quod Deus avertat) ne brevi tempore istæ, quæ supersunt, Catholicorum reliquias amittantur, et omnis prorsus Catholicæ religionis cultus apud vos extinguatur.”—Breve Pii V. ad Archiep. Salzburg. (Hartzheim VII. 231).

[1418] Bull. Horrendum (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 267).

[1419] Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. p. 556.

[1420] De Thou, Hist. Univers. Lib. XXXVIII. ann. 1566.

[1421] Bull. Quæ ordini.—How difficult was the task thus undertaken is admitted in the Bull itself—“Quia vero difficile nimis esset, præsentes quocumque illis opus erit proferre” (Ibid. II. 323-4).

[1422] Bull. Ad Romanum. (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 325).

[1423] Synod. August. ann. 1610 P. III. c. iii. § 1 (Hartzheim IX. 59).

[1424] In hac etiam urbe meretrices ut matronæ incedunt per urbem, seu mula vehuntur, quas affectantur de media die nobiles familiares cardinalium clericique. Nulla in urbe vidimus hanc corruptionem, præterquam in hac omnium exemplari, habitant etiam insignes ædes: corrigendus etiam hic turpis abusus.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 604.

[1425] De Thou, Lib. XXXIX.

[1426] Bull. Postquam verus (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 567)—“Certum nequeat suæ testimonium continentiæ exhibere.”

[1427] Fleury, Liv. CLXXI. chap. 104 et seq.

[1428] Muratori, Annal. ann. 1569.—Henrion, Hist. des Ordres Religieux I. 196.—Fleury, Liv. CLXXI. chap. 26.—De Thou, Lib. L.—The calm Muratori stigmatizes the Umiliati as “troppo scorretto e corrotto ordine,” and Henrion, who cannot certainly be regarded as a prejudiced authority, declares that “les excès des Humiliés surpassoient ceux des laïques les plus débauchés.” Pius V., in his Bull suppressing the order, is equally emphatic, and vouches for the truth of the miracle by which the life of St. Charles was preserved.—Bull. Quemadmodum sollicitus (Mag. Bull. Rom. II. 326).

[1429] Vû que par toute l’Italie on le vit reconnoitre pour l’usage et observations de toutes les ordonnances, on n’en voit une seule entretenue de celles qui concerne la reformation de la vie et mœurs des ecclésiastiques.... Et ce peut dire pour ce regard que l’église n’est en autre lieu de la Chrétienté si déréglée et difforme qu’ès pays où le pape a commandement et puissance absolu.—Le Plat, VII. 259.

[1430] Concil. Mediolanens. ann. 1565 P. II. Const. xiv. (Harduin. X. 661)—Concil. Mediolanens. ann. 1582 Const. xiv. (Ibid. p. 1117).

[1431] Concil. Sipontin. ann. 1567 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric.—Concil. Ravennat. ann. 1568 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. v.—Concil. Urbinat. ann. 1569 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. vi.—Concil. Florent. ann. 1573 Rubr. XXXVII. c. 3, 4.—Concil. Neapol. ann. 1576 cap. XXII.—Concil. Consentin. ann. 1579 Sess. IV.—Concil. Salernit. ann. 1596 cap. XVIII.—Concil. S. Severin. ann. 1597 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric.—Concil. Amalfitan. ann. 1597 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. v.—(Labbei et Coleti Supplement. T. V. pp. 827-1331).

[1432] The documents are in Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VII. 199-201. For the condition of morals in the church of Holland, see Synod. Harlem. ann. 1564; Synod. Ultraject. ann. 1564; Concil. Ultraject. ann. 1565 (Hartzheim VII. 5, 22, 137). It was to the publication of the council of Trent that William of Orange attributed the inevitable revolution which followed (Stradæ de Bell. Belgic. Lib. iv.).

[1433] Synod. Salisburg. ann. 1569 Const. XXVII. cap. xviii., xix., xx., xxi., xxii. (Hartzheim VII. 306-8).

[1434] Concil. Salisburg. XLVII. (Dalham, Conc. Salisb. p. 583).

[1435] Visitat. Salisburg. ann. 1616 Tit. I. cap. vi. (Hartzheim IX. 266).

[1436] Decret. Reformat. Pragens. (Hartzheim VII. 53).

[1437] Statut. Rural. Julii Wirceburg. P. III. c. iv. (Gropp Script. Rer. Wirceburg. I. 471-4). It is somewhat remarkable that Bishop Julius attributes the prohibition of marriage to the Council of Nicæa. After describing the custom of the Greek church, he proceeds, “Permissio vero et consuetudo illa duravit usque ad Nicænum concilium, in quo generali decreto abrogata est, statutumque ne aliquis habens uxorem consecretur sacerdos”—a falsification which is equally singular, whether it proceeded from ignorance or fraud, and an admission that celibacy was not of apostolic origin which was rare in a Catholic prelate of that period.

[1438] Synod. Gnesnens. c. xxxiii. (Hartzheim VII. 891).

[1439] Synod. Wratislav. ann. 1580 (Hartzheim VII. 890).

[1440] Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1591 c. xiii. (Hartzheim VIII. 352).

[1441] Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1628 (Hartzheim IX. 431).—As usual, a distinction is drawn between those who thus formed permanent, though illicit connections, and others who indulged in promiscuous license—“alii vaga dissoluti lascivia, tanquam equi emissarii, ad incontinentissimum quodque scortum aut adulteram adhinniunt trahuntque ingentes liberorum spuriorum greges. Hæc in propatulo sunt; quæ vero in occulto fiunt ab ipsis, turpe est et dicere.”

[1442] Llorente, Histoire Critique de l’Inquisition d’Espagne, Chap. XXVIII. Art. iii. No. 7.

[1443] Statut. Diœces. Pragens. ann. 1565 (Hartzheim VII. 26).

[1444] Synod. Salisburg. ann. 1569 (Hartzheim VII. 407).

[1445] Le Plat, VII. 238.

[1446] Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap. xxxviii. (Aguirre, VI. 457).

[1447] Henr. Cuyckii Speculum Concubinariorum Sacerdotum, Monachorum ac Clericorum; Coloniæ, 1599.

[1448] Synod. Constant. ann. 1609 (Hartzheim VIII. 838). Another orator, Dr. Mayer, S. J., though more cautious in his deductions, was equally outspoken in his denunciations of the wickedness of the clergy (Ibid. p. 831).

[1449] Synod. Antverp. ann. 1610 (Hartzheim VIII. 979).

[1450] Damhouder. Rerum Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. No. 25 (Antverp. 1601).

[1451] Synod. Boscodunens. II. ann. 1612 (Hartzheim IX. 200).

[1452] Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1625 cap. v., x. Hartzheim IX. 350.—Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1628 (Ibid. p. 428).

[1453] Synod. Monasteriens. ann. 1652 (Hartzheim IX. 786-7).

[1454] Synod. Colon. ann. 1662 P. III. Tit. I. cap. 1 § iii. (Hartzheim IX. 1006).

[1455] Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. Luxemb. 1742, T. VI. App. p. 2.

[1456] Pierre de la Place, Estat. de Relig. etc. Liv. III.

[1457] Quick, Synod. Gall. Reform. I. 18.

[1458] Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CLVII. Nos. 37-42.

[1459] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 401.

[1460] Concil. Remens. ann. 1564, Stat. XVII. (Harduin. X. 477).

[1461] Concil. Camerac. ann. 1565, Rubr. VIII. c. 3.—At this council, which was held in June, 1565, the council of Trent was formally adopted. As forming part of Flandre Française, Cambray may properly be considered as French, though Francis I., by the treaty of Madrid in 1526, had been compelled to surrender his sovereignty, and till a hundred years later it continued under Spanish dominion.

[1462] Concil. Camerac. ann. 1567 c. iii. (Hartzheim VII. 216).

[1463] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1631 Tit. XVIII. c. xiv. (Ibid. IX. 562).

[1464] Claudii Episc. Ebroicens. Statut. cap. III. § 1 (Migne’s Patrol. Tom. 147 pp. 244-5.)

[1465] Concil. Remens. ann. 1583 cap. xviii. § 5 (Harduin. X. 1293).

[1466] Concil. Turon. ann. 1583 cap. xv. (Ibid. p. 1481).

[1467] Concil. Avenionens. ann. 1594 can. xxxii. (Ibid. p. 1854).

[1468] Concil. Burdigalens. ann. 1624 cap. xiii. § 2. (Harduin. XI. 96).

[1469] Synod. Tornacens. ann. 1574 Tit. xii. c. 5, 6, 7 (Hartzheim VII. 780).—Synod. Audomarens. ann. 1583 Tit. xvi. c. 2 (Ibid. VII. 947). Concil. Burdigalens. ann. 1583 can. xxi. (Harduin. X. 1360).—Concil. Bituricens. ann. 1584 Tit. xlii. can. 1-4 (Ibid. X. 1503-4).—Concil. Aquens. ann. 1585 cap. de Vit. et Honestate Cleric. (Ibid. X. 1547).—Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1609 cap. xli. (Ibid. XI. 96).

[1470] Du Fail, whose high official position in the Parlement of Rennes precludes the supposition of any tendency to Calvinism, devotes one of his discourses (Contes et Discours d’Eutrapel No. xx.) to the evils entailed by celibacy on the church and on society, quoting the exclamation of Cardinal Contarini to Velly the French ambassador, “O quæ mala attulit in ecclesia cœlibatus ille!” It is true that such stories as “Frater Fecisti” are not historical documents, yet they have their value as indicating the drift of public feeling and the convictions forced upon the minds of the people by the irregularities of the clerical profession. The same lesson is taught by Boccaccio, Piers Ploughman, Chaucer, Poggio, the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles, and all the other records of the interior life of the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries.

[1471] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VII. 136.—Collect. Synod. Mechlin. Tom. I. pp. 39, 57.—Synod. Mechlin. ann. 1570 Tit. xiv. (Ibid. I. 118).—Synod. Lovaniens. ann. 1574 (Ibid. I. 191).—Synod. Provin. Mechlin. ann. 1607 Tit. XVIII. c. viii. (Ibid. I. 395).—Synod. Diœces. Mechlin. ann. 1607 Tit. XVII. c. vi. (Ibid. II. 237).—Congregat. Archipresbyt. ann. 1613 (Ibid. II. 271).—Tertia Congregat. Episc. ann. 1624 (Ibid. I. 466).—Ibid. I. 514.

Synod. Augustan. ann. 1567 P. III. c. ii. (Hartzheim VII. 182).—Synod. Constant. ann. 1567 P. II. Tit. i. c. 9 (Ibid. VII. 541).—Synod. Ruremond. ann. 1570 (Ibid. VII. 653).—Synod. Boscodunens. ann. 1571 Tit. xiv. c. ii. (Ibid. VII. 723).—Synod. Warmiens. ann. 1577 c. i. (Ibid. VII. 871).—Synod. Mettens. ann. 1604 c. xlviii., liii., lxii. (Ibid. X. 768-70).—Synod. Brixiens. ann. 1603 De discip. cler. c. xviii. (Ibid. VIII. 576).—Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1604 Tit. VIII. c. vi. (Ibid. VIII. 623).—Synod. Constant. ann. 1609 P. II. Tit. xvii. c. 7 (Ibid. VIII. 906).—Synod. Mettens. ann. 1610 Tit. XI. c. xi. (Ibid. VIII. 962).—Synod. Antverp. ann. 1610 Tit. XVII. c. vi. (Ibid. VIII. 1003).—Statut. Visitat. Salisburgens. ann. 1616 Tit. I. c. vi. (Ibid. IX. 266).—Synod. Iprens. ann. 1629 c. xx. (Ibid. IX. 496).—Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1639 Tit. XIX. c. ix., x. (Ibid. IX. 592-3).—Synod. Audomar. ann. 1640 Tit. XIV. c. vii. (Ibid. X. 802).—Synod. Colon. ann. 1651 P. II. c. ii. § 1 (Ibid. IX. 742).—Synod. Hildesheim. ann. 1652 (Ibid. IX. 805-6).—Synod. Colon. ann. 1662 P. III. Tit. ii. c. 1, 2, 3 (Ibid. IX. 1008-11).—Statut. Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1678 c. xi., xii., xiii., xiv. (Ibid. X. 60).—Statut. Synod. Argentinens. ann. 1687 De clericis addit. I. (Ibid. X. 180).—Synod. Brugens. ann. 1693 Tit. v. § 2 (Ibid. X. 202).—Cod. Canon. Mettens. ann. 1699 Tit. x. c. xviii. (Ibid. X. 245).—Synod. Bisuntin. ann. 1707 Tit. II. c. xxv. (Ibid. X. 291).—Synod. Culmens. et Pomesan. ann. 1745 c. ix. (Ibid. X. 517).

Concil. Toletan. ann. 1565 Act. II. cap. xxii.; Act. III. cap. xix., xxv. (Aguirre V. 396, 405-6).—Concil. Valentin. ann. 1565 Tit. II. cap. xviii., xix. (Ib. 425).—Concil. Toletan. ann. 1582 Act. III. Decret. xxxv. (Ib. VI. 12).—Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 1591 Lib. I. Tit. viii.; Lib. III. Tit. ii. (Ib. 256, 271-3).—Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap xxxiii. (Ib. 456).

[1472] Ratio est quia tunc non dimittit habitum ut periculose vagetur, sed ut commodius fornicetur, vel liberius furetur.—Apud C. Chabot, Encyclopédie Monastique p. 24 (Paris, 1827).

[1473] Spatharius, Aurea Methodus corrigendi regulares, 1625, p. 57—“atque mea sententia, in totalem ordinis ruinam et destructionem singularum religionum” (Apud Chabot, op. cit. p. 95).

[1474] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. lvii.—The first and second Mexican Councils are not contained in Aguirre’s collection, but were printed, together with the third, by Archbishop Lorenzana, in two folio volumes, Mexico, 1769. The Third Council has also been reprinted in Mexico, in 1858, as a manual of existing local ecclesiastical law.

[1475] Constituciones Sinodales de Santafé, 1556 cap. IV. (Groot, Hist. Eccles. y Civil del Nuevo Reino de Granada, T. I. Append, ii. p. 497).

[1476] Synod Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xi., lxvii. (Aguirre, VI. 193, 198).

[1477] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. li.—Concil. Mexican. III. ann. 1585 Lib. V. Tit. x. § 8.

[1478] Aguirre, VI. 51, 55.—The canons of the council directed against concubinage &c. are Act. III. c. 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 (Ibid. pp. 40-41).

[1479] Synod. Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xxxvi.—Synod. VIII. ann. 1594 cap. xxxvi.—Concil. Provin. Limens. III. ann. 1601 Act. II. Decret. iv. (Aguirre, VI. 197-8, 436, 479).

[1480] Mendieta, Historia Eccles. Indiana, Lib. IV. cap. xlvi. (Mexico, 1870).

[1481] Memorias de los Vireyes del Perú, Lima, 1859, T. III. pp. 63-70.

[1482] Synod. Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xli.—V. ann. 1588 cap. ix. (Aguirre VI. 198, 216).

[1483] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. lxxxi.

[1484] Concil. Mexican. III. ann. 1585 Lib. V. Tit. x. § 7.

[1485] Notes 57 and 229, pp. 452, 549.

[1486] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Reform. Matrim. c. viii.—It requires some artful special pleading on the part of Rivera and of the authorities on whom he relies to reconcile this Mexican laxity with the instructions of the council of Trent.

[1487] For the brutal details of the questions which the confessor was required to ask of his penitents, female as well as male, see Burchardi Decretorum Lib. XIX. c. v. I dare not give even a specimen.

[1488] Concil. I. Toletan. ann. 398 can. vi. For the custom of the early church in the matter of the confession of sins, see Socrates, H. E. V. xix., and Sozomen, H. E. VII. xvi.—In the ninth century it was still an open question whether sacerdotal confession was necessary, v. Concil. Cabillon. II. ann. 813 c. xxxiii. (Cf. c. xxv. xxxii.). It was finally settled and auricular confession made obligatory by the Council of Lateran in 1215 (Concil. Lateranens. IV. ann. 1215 c. xxi.).

[1489] Gratian. Caus. xxx. q. i. can. 8—I accept this decretal as genuine on Jaffé’s authority, though its authenticity seems to me more than doubtful.

[1490] Gratian. Caus. xxx. q. i. can. 9, 10.

[1491] See ante, passim, especially p. 350.

[1492] Calixti II. Serm. I. de S. Jacob. (Migne’s Patrolog. T. 163 p. 1390).—The genuineness of these sermons has been doubted, but they are unquestionably, if not by Calixtus, by a writer nearly contemporary.

[1493] Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, p. 71. See also Cornelius Agrippa, De Vanitate Scientiar. c. lxiv.

[1494] Limborch Hist. Inquisitionis p. 34.

[1495] Bernard. Diaz de Luco Pract. Crimin. Canon. cap. LXXV., LXXVI. (Ed. 1543, pp. 72-3).

[1496] Llorente, Hist. de l’Inquisition d’Espagne, Ch. XXVIII. Art. i. No. 4.

[1497] Bull. Cum sicut nuper (Mag. Bull. Rom. II. 4. Ed. 1742).

[1498] Reg. Gonsalvii Montan. Inquisit. Hispan. Exemplis Illustrata, pp. 184 sqq. (Ed. Heidelbergæ, 1567).

[1499] Llorente, loc. cit. Nos. 6-8.

[1500] Bull. Universi Dominici Gregis. (Mag. Bull. Rom. III. 484).

In Spain, by the Carta Acordada of Aug. 3d, 1629, the Bull of Gregory XV. was to be referred to in the Edict of Denunciation; and by the Carta of Sept. 12th, 1634, a clause was to be added to the Edict to the effect that notwithstanding the Bull, the offence was reserved exclusively to the Inquisition.—Breve Resumen de las Cartas Acordadas antiquas y modernas, dispuesto por Abecedario, s. v. Solicitante (MS. Bib. Reg. Hafniens. No. 218b, p. 264). That the Court of Rome kept faith in the matter of solicitation would seem to be proved by a case occurring in 1695, when Dr. Augustin Velda, rector of La Sallana in Valencia was accused before the Inquisition, and fled to Rome, where he presented himself to the Sacred Congregation and was ordered to return. This he did, but with what result is not noted (Ibid. p. 339). [This exceedingly interesting MS. is a manual for use in one of the tribunals of the Spanish Inquisition, compiled about the year 1670, with notes bringing it down to the middle of the 18th century. I take this occasion of expressing my obligations to the gentlemen in charge of the Royal Library of Copenhagen, of the Bodleian Library of Oxford, and of the Royal Library of Munich, for their courtesy in communicating to me a number of MSS.]

[1501] Referred to in a Decree of 1745 (Bullar. Benedicti XIV. T. I. p. 291).

[1502] Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience, Paris, 1741, T. I. p. 862.—Amort, Diet. Selectt. Casuum Conscientiæ, Aug. Vind. 1733, T. I. pp. 704-5. From the latter we learn that a few years previously the Franciscans of Bavaria had agreed to receive the Bull in so far as to prohibit any of their confessors from absolving a penitent who had been solicited by those of their own order, unless she would permit him to denounce the culprit to the Superior—an example which the writer wishes were followed elsewhere, as it would be very useful in repressing many scandals which afflicted the German church.

[1503] Rodriguez, Nueva Somma de ’Casi de Coscienza, P. I. cap. LIII. No. 10.

[1504] Rod. à Cunha pro SS. D. N. PP. Pauli V. Statuto nuper emisso in Confessarios Feminas solicitantes Quæst. XXII. No. 3; XXIII. No. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14 (4to. Benavente 1611).

[1505] Ant. de Sousa Opusc. circa Constit. Pauli PP. V. in Confessarios allicientes etc. 4to. Ulyssip. 1623, Tract. I. cap. xviii.

[1506] Ibid. Tract. II. cap. xviii. No. 9-12.

[1507] MS. Bib. Reg. Hafniens. No. 218b, p. 264.

[1508] Ibid. pp. 264-5.

[1509] Llorente, Chap. XXVIII. Art. i. Nos. 20, 23.

[1510] Ibid. Art. ii.

[1511] Ibid. Ch. XL. Art. ii. Nos. 2-14.

[1512] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 602.—Caraffa and his coadjutors, indeed, went so far as to suggest the entire suppression of the conventual orders (Ibid. 601).

[1513] A printed copy of this Bull occurs in some voluminous pleadings between the church of Cordova and the Inquisition, in 1643.—MS. Bibl. Bodl. Arch. S. 130.

[1514] De Potter, Vie de Scipion de’Ricci, T. I. pp. 87 sqq. 258 sqq.

[1515] Michelet, La Sorcière, Ch. IX.

[1516] Llorente, Chap. XXVIII. Art. i. No. 14.

[1517] The dangerous suggestiveness of the questions asked in the confessional was recognized, and confessors were sometimes warned to be careful.—Synod. Diœces. Mechlin. II. ann. 1609 Tit. v. cap. i.

[1518] See, for instance, Concil. Toletan. ann. 1582, Decret. XXVIII., XXIX. (Aguirre, VI. 11).—Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap. xix. (Ib. p. 450).—Synod. Beneventan. ann. 1693 Tit. LIV. c. iii. (Collect. Lacens. I. 94).—Synod. Neapol. ann. 1699 Tit. XI. c. i. No. 11 (Ib. p. 232). Also a curious list of twenty abuses of the confessional in a letter from the Bishop of Antwerp to the Archbishop of Mechlin in 1624 (Synodicon Mechliniense, T. I. p. 474).

[1519] Instructions for a Parish Priest, p. 27 (Early Eng. Text Soc. 1868).

[1520] As specimens of this, I may refer to Cardinal Cozza’s “Dubia Selecta emergentia circa Sollicitationem in Confessione Sacramentali juxta Apostolicas Constitutiones” Lovanii, 1750—and the similar works by à Cunha and de Sousa, quoted above.

[1521] Cozza, op. cit. Dub. XVII. No. 112.

[1522] Mag. Bull. Roman. Tom. VI. App. p. 1.

[1523] Occasional references to this practice may be found in earlier times. See, for instance, Concil. Monasteriens. ann. 1279 c. xv. (Hartzheim III. 649)—Suppression of Monasteries, No. XVII. (Camden Soc.).—Synod. Tornacens. ann. 1520 c. vii. (Hartzheim VI. 156).

[1524] V. Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience, I. 836.

[1525] Conc. Trident. Sess. XIV. De Pœnitent. c. vi.

[1526] Del Bene de Offic. S. Inquisit. P. II. Dub. CCXXXVII. § ix. No. 6.

[1527] Cozza, op. cit. Dub. XXXIII.

[1528] Mag. Bull. Roman. Tom. VI. App. p. 1.

[1529] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1661 c. xi. (Hartzheim IX. 888).—Synodicon Mechliniense II. 319.

[1530] Ibid. I. 559.

[1531] Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1698 c. xxviii. (Hartzheim X. 219).

[1532] Synod. Bisuntin. ann. 1707 Tit. XIV. c. xiv. (Ibid. 323).

[1533] Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience Paris, 1741, T. I. p. 837.—From the German edition of Amort (Dict. selectt. Casuum Conscientiæ, Aug. Vind. 1733) we learn that the state of the canon law on this subject was the same in Germany as in France.

[1534] Bull. Sacrament. Pœnitent. § 4 (Bullar. Benedicti XIV. T. I. p. 23).—In 1742 he extended the provisions of this constitution over the Greek churches subject to Rome.—Bull. Etsi pastoralis § IX. No. v. (Concil. Collect. Lacens. II. 518).

[1535] Benedict. XIV. Const. CXX. § 3 (Bullar. I. 219).

[1536] Ibid. p. 291.

[1537] Llorente, Chap. XVIII. Art. i. No. 13.

[1538] Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1742 c. iv. (Hartzheim X. 487).

[1539] Instruct. Pastoral. ann. 1768 c. xcvii. (Ibid. 638).

[1540] Instruct. S. Inquisit. Roman. ann. 1867 (Collect. Lacens. III. 554).—Litt. Past. Episc. Caradrens. XXVII. 2, 3 (Ibid. VI. 646-7).

[1541] Ap. Helsen, Abus du Célibat des Prêtres, p. 87.

[1542] See, for instance, the manner in which Escobar (Theolog. Moralis Tract. I. Ex. viii. cap. 3 No. 80) and Avila (De Censuris Eccles. P. VII. Disp. IV. Dub. vii. in fin.) explain away the Bull of Pius V. contra clericos sodomitas.

[1543] Factum pour Marie Catherine Cadière, La Haye, 1731, pp. 142-44.

[1544] Michelet, La Sorcière, Chap. X., XI., XII.—After reading the pleadings on both sides (published at the Hague in 1731), I can entertain no doubt as to the guilt of Girard. The case at the time attracted general attention throughout Europe.

[1545] When Grandier was arrested and tried for sorcery, his papers were seized, and among them was found an essay against sacerdotal celibacy. Under torture, he confessed that he had written it for the purpose of satisfying the conscience of a woman with whom he had maintained marital relations for seven years (Hist. des Diables de Loudun, pp. 85, 191). The manuscript was burnt, with its unlucky author, but a copy was preserved, which has recently been printed (Petite Bibliothèque des Curieux, Paris, 1866). In it, Grandier shows himself singularly bold for a man of his time and station. The law of nature, or moral law, he holds to be the direct exposition of the Divine will. By it revealed law must necessarily be interpreted, and to its standard ecclesiastical law must be made to conform. He evidently was made to be burned as a heretic, if he had escaped as a sorcerer. The promise of chastity exacted at ordination he regards as extorted, and therefore as not binding on those unable to keep it; while he does not hesitate to assume that the rule itself was adopted and enforced on purely temporal grounds—“de crainte qu’en remuant une pierre on n’esbranlat la puissance papale; car hors cette considération d’Estat, l’Eglise romaine pense assez que le célibat n’est pas d’institution divine ni nécessaire au salut, puisqu’elle en dispense les particuliers, ce qu’elle ne pourrait faire si le célibat avoit esté ordonné d’en haut” (pp. 34-5).

[1546] Notwithstanding his Sorbonic degree, Du Pin is said to have been secretly married, and to have left a widow, who even ventured to claim the inheritance of his estate. He was engaged in a correspondence with William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, with a view to arrange a basis of reconciliation of the Anglican Church with Rome, and, according to Lafitau, Bishop of Sisteron, in that correspondence he assented to the propriety of sacerdotal marriage.

[1547] I cannot pretend to decide the controversy as to the alleged marriage between Bossuet and Mdlle. Desvieux de Mauléon, nor to determine whether it is true that she and her daughters claimed his fortune after his death. Much has been written on both sides, and I have not the materials at hand to justify a positive opinion, though the extracts from La Baumelle’s “Mémoires de Madame de Maintenon” given by the Abbé Chavard (Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 474 sqq.) would seem to show that there were good grounds for asserting the marriage. I believe, however, that there is no doubt of Bossuet engaging with Leibnitz and Molanus in a negotiation as to the terms on which the Lutherans could reënter the Roman communion, and that he promised, in the name of the pope, that Lutheran ministers admitted to the priesthood or episcopate should retain their wives. It is asserted that the proposed arrangement was nearly agreed to on both sides, when the pretensions of the House of Hanover to the English crown caused Leibnitz to withdraw from the undertaking.

[1548] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 314-5.—Davanzati, Bishop of Canosa, was also in favor of abrogating the rule of celibacy.

[1549] This view of the competence of the temporal power to regulate the question seems to have been widely received at this period. An anonymous work published in 1769 under the title of “Recherches sur l’État Monastique et Ecclésiastique,” written by a good Catholic, asserts (p. 204), “Si le cas de donner des citoyens à la pàtrie devenoit urgent, le législateur, en autorisant le mariage des prêtres, n’entreprendroit rien sur le sacrement de l’Ordre.”

[1550] Zaccaria, in the introduction to his “Nuova Giustificazione” (p. ix.), denies that the papal court entertained any idea of making the concession; but, in considering the question as to the power or duty of the pope to alter the law of celibacy (Diss. IV. cap. 6), his remarks show clearly that the subject was discussed in a tone to afford the partisans of marriage reasonable grounds for hope. Among the threatening proceedings of the emperor was the suppression of no less than 184 monasteries (Lecky, Hist. of Rationalism, chap. vi.).

[1551] Vetus et Constans in Ecclesia Catholica de Sacerdotum Cœlibatu Doctrina. Varsaviæ, 1801.

[1552] “A Modest Apology for the Catholics of Great Britain,” published anonymously in 1800—a work singularly moderate and candid in its tone. Dr. Geddes had been suspended from his functions in consequence of a translation of the Bible which he had published. See Allibone’s Dictionary, I. 657.

[1553] Dupin, Manuel du Droit Pub. Ecclés. Français. 4e Ed. Paris, 1845, p. 274.—Édit de Mars 1768, concernant les Ordres Religieux (Isambert, XXIII. 476).

[1554] See Lasteyrie’s Hist. of Auricular Confession, translated by Cocks, London, 1848, Book II. chap. iv., vi.

[1555] Bouvet, De la Confession et du Célibat des Prêtres, Paris, 1845, p. 504.

[1556] Archives of Florence—Segreterio di Stato nella Reggenza, Filza 194 No. 6.

[1557] De Potter, Mémoires de Scipion de’ Ricci, I. 284 sqq.

[1558] Atti e Decreti del Concilio di Pistoja dell’ anno 1786, Pistoja, 4to. pp. 237, 239.

[1559] Acta Congr. Archiep. et Episc. Hetruriæ Sess. XVIII. (Bambergæ 1790, T. I. p. 453).—Bull. Auctorem fidei ann. 1794 § § 80-84.

[1560] Chiesi (Rivista Cristiana, Dic. 1876 p. 470).—Concil. Trident. Sess. XXV. De Reg. et Mon. cap. xv.

[1561] Panzini, Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 333.

[1562] Vie de Scipion de’ Ricci I. 289: II. 373 sqq.

[1563] Prattica del Modo da procedersi nelle cause del S. Offitio cap. xxv. (MS. Bibl. Reg. Monacens. Cod. Ital. 598).

[1564] Esaminatore, Firenze, Ap. 15th, 1867, p. 100. In Spain, an official return made in 1764 estimated the number of ecclesiastics, regular and secular, at 281,160 souls (Castillo y Mayone, Historia de los Frailes, III. 144).

[1565] “D’être fidèle à la nation, à la loi, au roi, et del veiler exactement sur le troupeau confié à leurs soins.” It was not only the objections of the king and of the pope that rendered this oath unpalatable, but also the fact that it gave adhesion to the law for the secularization of ecclesiastical property and of the monastic orders. It was ordered in the Constitution civile du Clergé, Tit. II. Art. 21, 38, adopted July 12 and promulgated Aug. 24, 1790.

[1566] I have before me one of the pamphlets issued about this time (Le Mariage des Prêtres, Paris, Laclaye, 1790, 8vo. pp. 102), addressed to the Assembly. It is a tolerably calm and well-reasoned argument, basing its demand upon the usages of the primitive church, the precepts of Scripture, the rights of nature, and public utility. The author asserts himself to be a priest well advanced in life, and he assumes that the corruption of society disseminated by the licentiousness of ecclesiastics is generally recognized and understood.

[1567] This speech is printed in full from a MS. in the public library of Geneva, by the Abbé Chavard (Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 483-500).

[1568] La loi ne reconnait ni vœux religieux, ni aucun autre engagement qui serait contraire aux droits naturels ou à la constitution.

[1569] Desmaze, Pénalités Anciennes, p. 222, Paris, 1866.

[1570] I have not found it easy to form a satisfactory estimate of the number of French ecclesiastics previous to the Revolution. Le Bas (Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de l’Histoire de France, V. 218) gives a table, showing an aggregate of 418,206 souls, of whom 235,147 may be considered as attached to the secular service, and 183,059 to the regular orders and canons. Of these latter, 100,451 were men and 82,608 were women. On the other hand, M. Sauvestre (Congrégations Religieuses, pp. 5, 6) quotes from the Abbé Expilly a statement that in 1765 there were 79,000 monks and 80,000 nuns; while he shows that other contemporary authorities reduce the number of members of religious orders in 1789 to 52,000 of both sexes. M. Charles Chabot (Encyclopédie Monastique, p. x., Paris, 1827) computes, after elaborate tabulation, the number of ecclesiastics, regular and secular, at 407,753 persons, enjoying a revenue of 127,610,576 francs.

[1571] Lett. Encyc. 15 Mars, 1795, art. IX. (Grégoire, p. 109).

[1572] This speech of Portalis père is an admirable commentary on the Concordat, developing its causes and consequences with a rigidity of logic and an enlightened spirit of faith which are equally creditable to the head and heart of the distinguished orator. From the portion devoted to the subject of marriage, I quote the following, as embodying a clear exposition of the intentions of those who negotiated the Concordat.

“Quelques personnes se plaindront peut-être de ce que l’on n’a pas conservé le mariage des prêtres.... En effet, d’une part nous n’admettons plus que les ministres dont l’existence est nécessaire à l’exercice du culte, ce qui diminue considérablement le nombre des personnes qui se vouaient anciennement au célibat. D’autre part, pour les ministres mêmes que nous conservons, et à qui le célibat est ordonné par les réglements ecclésiastiques, la défense qui leur est faite du mariage par ces réglements n’est point consacrée comme empêchement dirimant dans l’ordre civil: ainsi leur mariage, s’ils en contractaient un, ne serait point nul aux yeux des lois politiques et civiles, et les enfans qui en naîtraient seraient légitimes; mais dans le for intérieur et dans l’ordre religieux, ils s’exposeraient aux peines spirituelles prononcées par les lois canoniques: ils continueraient à jouir de leurs droits de famille et de cité, mais ils seraient tenus de s’abstenir de l’exercice du sacerdoce. Conséquemment, sans affaiblir le nerf de la discipline de l’église, on conserve aux individus toute la liberté et tous les avantages garantis par les lois de l’état; mais il eût été injuste d’aller plus loin, et d’exiger pour les ecclésiastiques de France, comme tels, une exception qui les eût déconsidérés auprès de tous les peuples Catholiques, et auprès des Français mêmes, auxquels ils administreraient les secours de la religion” (Dupin, Manuel du Droit Public Ecclés. Français, 4ème éd. pp. 196-8).

[1573] Code Civil, Liv. I. Tit. v.

[1574] In an address to the Council of State, Dec. 20th, 1813, Napoleon said, “Le sacerdoce est une sorte de mariage; le prêtre étant uni à l’église comme l’époux à son épouse, il n’y aurait aucun inconvénient à appliquer au prêtre qui se marierait la peine de la bigamie: un tel ecclésiastique ne mérite aucun sorte de considération”—Bouhier de l’Écluse, de l’État des Prêtres en France, Paris, 1842, p. 17.—Chavard (Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 409-10) quotes Dean Stanley as asserting, on the authority of the elder Duc de Broglie, that Pius VIII. spontaneously offered to Napoleon to permit sacerdotal marriage, but that the Emperor declined the proposal. I cannot but think, however, that there must be some mistake in this statement.

[1575] For many of the above details I am indebted to the curious but ill-digested little work—“Histoire du Mariage des Prêtres en France,” published by Grégoire in 1826. Grégoire, though a priest of the ancien régime, was a sincere and consistent republican. A member of the States General, of the Convention, and of the Council of Five Hundred, elected Bishop of Blois by the voice of a people who knew and respected him, he preserved his ardent faith through all the excesses of the Revolution, and his democratic ideas in spite of the injuries inflicted on his class in the name of the people. The sincerity and boldness of his character may be estimated by a single example. When, on the 7th of November, 1793, Gobel, Bishop of Paris, appeared before the Convention with twelve of his vicars and publicly renounced his sacred functions on the ground that hereafter there should be no other worship than that of liberty and equality, almost all the ecclesiastics in the Convention followed his example. To hold back at such a moment was dangerous in the extreme, yet Grégoire had the hardihood to utter a defiant protest. “I am a Catholic by conviction and by feeling, a priest by choice, a bishop by the voice of the people, but not from the people nor from you do I derive my mission, and I will not be forced to an abjuration.” To him perhaps more than to any one else is attributable the skilful management which carried the church through the storms and persecutions of the Revolution, but the same inflexibility which maintained his Catholicism through the ordeal of 1793 and 1794 caused him to stand by his republicanism long after it had gone out of fashion. He was not to be bought or bullied; the Legitimist was less tolerant than the Terrorist, and under the Restoration he was reduced almost to absolute indigence. Together with the other constitutional bishops, he had been compelled to resign his bishopric by order of the pope after the Concordat of 1801, and he was too dangerous a man to be rewarded for his invaluable services to religion. He died in 1831.

[1576] Grégoire, op. cit. p. 102.

[1577] Bouhier de l’Écluse, op. cit. It was apparently this case which led to the publication, under date of Monaco, 1829, of the “Considerazioni imparziali sopra la legge del Celibato Ecclesiastico, proposte dal Professore C. A. P.”—a tolerably well written summary of the arguments against the rule.

[1578] Talmadge’s Letters from Florence, p. 166.

[1579] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 525-30.

[1580] J. M. Cayla, Les Curés mariés par le Concile, Paris, 1869.

[1581] Encyc. Mirari vos.

[1582] Encyc. Qui pluribus.

[1583] Litt. Apostol. Multiplices inter.

[1584] Panzini, pp. 16, 58, 102, 143, 201, 401.

[1585] Ibid. p. 123.

[1586] Naples was, perhaps, the first kingdom in Europe to promulgate a civil marriage law, and to withdraw matrimonial cases from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This was one of the reforms of the minority of Ferdinand IV. about the year 1760. See Colletti’s History of Naples, Horner’s Translation, I. 107.

[1587] Conc. Vatican. ann. 1870 Const. Dogmat. I. cap. iv. I use Cardinal Manning’s version.

[1588] Castillo y Mayone, II. 247, 254.—Panzini, pp. 358-63.—Alloc. Acerbissimum, 27 Sept. 1852.—Encyc. Incredibili afflictamur, 17 Sept. 1863.—Chavard, op. cit. p. 263.

[1589] Panzini, pp. 596-7.

[1590] Esaminatore, Firenze 15 Dic. 1867, p. 396.

[1591] Encyc. Neminem latet, 19 Mar. 1857.—Panzini, pp. 535-6.

[1592] Panzini, p. 123. An example of this is to be seen in the case of Saurin vs. Starr and Kennedy, which excited so much interest in England in 1869 by its curious revelations of the petty tyrannies and sordid miseries which sometimes at least form a feature of conventual life.

[1593] Yet, to meet the spiritual wants of all classes, there are still congregations which practise the most severe ascetic austerities. Thus, in 1883, a description of the Barefooted Clares in Paris shows that, out of eighteen members, but four are more than twenty-two years of age, the severity of discipline causing nearly all who enter to die young. No fire is allowed, even that in the kitchen being arranged to prevent access; sleep is only had on a narrow board, meat is only eaten on Christmas Day, and silence is enforced until some of the nuns lose the power of forming connected sentences.

[1594] The Pères de la Foi, also known as Adorateurs de Jésus and Paccanaristes, were Jesuits in disguise; the Société des Victimes de l’Amour de Dieu were Quietists. For the Report of M. Portalis, recommending their suppression, see Dutilleul, Hist. des Corporations Religieuses en France, Paris, 1846, pp. 411 sqq. For an exceedingly interesting sketch of modern French monachism, see also Ch. Sauvestre’s “Les Congrégations Religieuses” (Paris, 1867)—a work to which I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness for much that follows.

[1595] Décret du 18 Fév. 1809 Sect. II. Art. 8 (Dupin, Droit Ecclés. p. 295). This regulation, I believe, is still in force, and the members of these bodies are accustomed to renew their engagements every five years. From the position taken by Bishop Fabre, of Montreal, in April, 1883, in the case of a young woman who desired to leave her convent, I presume that the same regulation is in force in the Dominion of Canada.

[1596] For details, see Dupin, op. cit. pp. 285-298.

[1597] Chabot, Encyclopédie Monastique, p. xi. (Paris, 1827).

[1598] N. Y. Nation, May 29th, 1879. It is to the Paris correspondence of this journal that I am indebted for most of the details respecting the recent struggle between the religious orders and the state.

[1599] “Règle 91.—Qu’il ne laisse entrevoir aucune opinion, soit politique, soit théologique ou religieuse, contraire aux opinions du saint-siége.”—Sauvestre, op. cit. 215.

[1600] Le Pape et la Société Moderne, Paris, 1879, pp. 416-437.

[1601] Sauvestre, op. cit. pp. 123-4.

[1602] N. Y. Nation, April 21st, 1881.

[1603] Noli metuere ne omnes virgines fiant; difficilis res est virginitas, et ideo rara quia difficilis. Incipere plurimorum est, perseverare paucorum.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 36.

[1604] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Sacrament. Matrim. c. ix.

[1605] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIII. De Reform. c. xii. The Abbé Chavard relates (Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 269) that he once asked the directors of a seminary whether the age for assuming the burdens of the priesthood ought not to be postponed to the fortieth year, and he was told that the church must have priests and that there were few indeed who would submit to its conditions after the age of illusions was passed.

[1606] Souvenirs d’Enfance et de Jeunesse, Paris, 1883, p. 139. “Le fait est que ce qu’on dit des mœurs cléricales est, selon mon expérience, dénué de tout fondement. J’ai passé treize ans de ma vie entre les mains des prêtres, je n’ai pas vu l’ombre d’un scandale; je n’ai connu que de bons prêtres. La confession peut avoir, dans certains pays, de graves inconvénients. Je n’en ai pas vu une trace dans mon jeunesse ecclésiastique.”

[1607] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXV. De Reform. cap. xiv.

[1608] Convent. Episcc. Mediolanenss. ann. 1849 Sess. III. No. 18 (Collect. Lacens. VI. 717).—Concil. Roman. ann. 1725 Tit. XVI. c. iii. (Ib. I. 372).

[1609] For the varying legislation on this subject the reader may refer to C. Beneventan. ann. 1693 Tit. XVIII. c. iii. (Collect. Lacens. I. 44).—Synod. Bahiens. ann. 1707 Lib. III. (I. 854).—C. Tarracon. ann. 1717 c. XXXI. (I. 779).—C. Avenionens. ann. 1725 Tit. XXXVII. c. iii. (I. 554).—Synod. Firmanens. ann. 1726 Tit. IX. (I. 599).—C. Ebredunens. ann. 1727 c. v. No. 5 (I. 626).—Synod. Nat. Hungar. ann. 1822 De Discip. renov. 3 (V. 940).—C. Baltimor. IV. ann. 1840 Decr. X. (III. 72).—Conv. Episcc. Mediolan. ann. 1849 Sess. III. No. 18 (VI. 717).—C. Turon. ann. 1849 Decr. XI. i. (IV. 268-9).—C. Avenionens. ann. 1849 Tit. VI. c. v. No. 16 (IV. 348).—C. Remens. ann. 1849 Tit. XII. c. ii. (IV. 129).—C. Albiens. ann. 1850 Tit. I. Decr. v. No. 1 (IV. 411).—C. Burdigal. ann. 1850 T. IV. c. xii. No. 3 (IV. 588).—C. Bituricens. ann. 1850 Tit. VI. (IV. 1122).—C. Tolosan. ann. 1850 Tit. IV. c. iv. No. 126 (IV. 1069).—C. Senonens. ann. 1850 Tit. IV. c. iv. (IV. 904).—C. Aquens. ann. 1850 Tit. V. § 2. c. ix. No. 1 (IV. 985).—C. Rothomag. ann. 1850 Decr. XI. No. 3-5 (IV. 525).—C. Lugdunens. ann. 1850 Decr. XVIII. No. 1-3 (IV. 475).—Synod. Thurlesiens. ann. 1850 Decr. XVII. No. 14 (III. 785).—Conv. Epp. Lauretan. ann. 1850 Sect. I. v. (VI. 778).—Conv. Epp. Siciliæ Tit. II. c. i. No. 9 (VI. 815).—C. Auscitan. ann. 1851 Tit. IV. c. i. No. 147 (IV. 1200).—C. Quebecens. I. ann. 1851 Decr. XIV. (III. 615).—C. Westmonasteriens. I. ann. 1852 Decr. XXIV. No. 4 (III. 939).—C. Quebecens. II. ann. 1854 Decr. XIV. No. 20 (III. 652).—C. Armacens. ann. 1854 Decr. XXIII. (III. 852).—C. Portus Hispaniæ ann. 1854 Sect. II. No. 5 (III. 1100-1).—C. Ravennat. ann. 1855 P. IV. c. iv. No. 3 (VI. 198).—C. Seti. Ludovici II. ann. 1858 Decr. VII. (III. 318).—C. Viennens. ann. 1858 Tit. V. c. vi. (V. 197).—C. Strigonens. ann. 1858 Tit. VI. No. 9 (V. 53).—C. Venetic. ann. 1859 P. II. c. xvii. No. 10-11 (VI. 317).—C. Urbinatens. ann. 1859 P. II. Tit. vii. No. 148 (VI. 51).—C. Pragens. ann. 1860 Tit. I. c. vi. No. 1 (V. 426).—C. Coloniens. ann. 1860 Tit. II. c. xxxiv., xxxviii. (V. 378-80).—C. Cincinnatiens. III. ann. 1861 Decr. IX. (III. 226).—C. Coloniens. ann. 1863 Tit. IV. c. iv. (V. 670).—C. Quitens. ann. 1869 Decr. IV. No. 2 (VI. 403).—C. Ultrajectens. ann 1865 Tit. VIII. c. iv. (V. 905).—C. Pl. Baltimor. II. ann. 1866 Tit. III. c. vi. No. 164 (III. 446).—C. Halifaxiens. ann. 1868 Decr. XVIII. (III. 751).

[1610] De Sacerdotum Cœlibatu Doctrina Varsoviæ, 1801 pp. 62-3.

[1611] See previous note for warnings of this kind. The council of Ausch, in 1851, even ventures to allude to the grave inconveniences which may arise from the residence of a sister or aunt, if young, and if there is not also the mother or a female servant in the house.

[1612] Helsen, Avis à l’Archevêque de Malines, Monseigneur Sterckx, sur les abus du Célibat des Prêtres, 4to. Bruxelles, 1833.

[1613] Helsen, pp. 19-20.

[1614] Ibid. pp. 74-5.

[1615] Helsen, pp. 13, 16, 18, 100.

[1616] The comparative strength of the ecclesiastical militia is an important element in considering the condition of the church and its influence on the laity. I have already quoted statistics with regard to France, Belgium, and Austria, and will here append those for some of the other states and cities of Europe as given by Prof. von Schulte in his work on the Newer Catholic Orders (N. Y. Nation, Aug. 1st, 1872, p. 75).

Prussia, one ecclesiastic for every 584 Catholics, of all ages.

Bavaria, one for every 300 Catholics.

Germany at large, one for every 481.

Aix-la-Chapelle, one for every 110.

Cologne, one for every 313.

Münster, one for every 61.

Trèves, one for every 56.

Paderborn, one for every 33.

In the old Kingdom of Naples, by the census of 1842, there were 55,167 ecclesiastics in a population of 6,145,492, making a proportion of one to 112 (Penka, Uberior Cœlibatus Sacerdotalis Expositio, Cracoviæ, 1846).

[1617] In Italia libido non est probrosa.—P. Dens Theolog. No. 100 de jure et justitia. (ap. Helsen, p. 10). Dens died in 1775.

[1618] L’Esaminatore, Firenze, 15 Settemb. 1867.

[1619] Prota, Matrimonio Civile, Napoli, 1864, p. 44.

[1620] L’Esaminatore, 15 Oct. 1867.

[1621] Panzini, Pubblica Confessione, pp. 101, 357.

[1622] Report to the Italian Committee of the American Episcopal Church (The Episcopalian, Phila., Sept. 11th, 1867).

[1623] C. Baltimor. I. ann. 1829 Decr. XXV. (Collect. Lacens. III. 30-1).—C. Baltimor. V. ann. 1843 Decr. IX. (III. 90).—C. Australiens. I. ann. 1844 Decr. XII. (III. 1051).—C. Thurlesens. ann. 1850 Decr. XII. 41 (III. 782).—C. Rothomagens. ann. 1850 Decr. XVII. 3 (IV. 530).—C. Tolosan. ann. 1850 Tit. III. c. i. No. 70 (IV. 1054).—C. Casseliens. ann. 1853 Tit. III. (III. 837).—C. Tuamens. ann. 1854 Decr. VIII. (III. 860).—C. Quebecens. II. ann. 1854 Decr. IX. § 7 (III. 639).—C. Port. Hispaniæ ann. 1854 Art. IV. No. 1, 2 (III. 1098).—C. Halifaxiens. I. ann. 1857 Decr. XIV. (III. 745).—C. Viennens. ann. 1858 Tit. III. c. vii. (V. 169).—C. Coloniens. ann. 1860 Tit. II. c. XV. (V. 351).—C. Pragens. ann. 1860 Tit. IV. c. vii.; Tit. V. c. viii. (V. 508, 543).—Synod. Ultraject. ann. 1865 Tit. IV. c. viii. (V. 830).—C. Plen. Baltimor. II. ann. 1866 App. X. (III. 553).

[1624] Helsen, Abus du Celibat, p. 85.

[1625] C. Tuamens. ann. 1817 Decr. XVII. (Collect. Lacens. III. 765).—C. Australiens. I. ann. 1844 Decr. XII. (III. 1052-3).—C. Remens. ann. 1857 c. VI. No. 27 (IV. 211).

[1626] Instruct. S. Inquisit. Roman. Feb. 20, 1867, No. 7, 11-14 (Collect. Lacens. III. 553-6).

[1627] For an extract from a modern manual of the confessional “de agendi ratione confessarii erga conjugatos et conjugendos,” see Bouvet, De la Confession et du Célibat des Prêtres, Paris, 1845, pp. 290-6. It will be remembered what excitement was aroused in the British House of Commons a few years since, when a member produced and read a very much less objectionable form prepared for use by “Anglican priests.”

[1628] Bouvet, p. 516.

[1629] Lasteyrie, Hist. of Auricular Confession, II. 38-45.

[1630] Wahu, op. cit. p. 423.

[1631] Sauvestre, op. cit. p. 144. It is by this policy that the church renders itself responsible for the evil committed by its members. No human organization is without its share of the weak or vicious, and there is no lack of scandals in the Protestant denominations; but in these there is a wholesome jealousy which usually seeks at once to cast out and punish the offender. Thus, when, in July, 1867, the Rev. Mr. Wendt, at an orphan institution near Philadelphia, was discovered to be tampering with the virtue of the children under his charge, those who were most nearly connected with the management of the asylum were the first to take steps for his prosecution, and, as soon as the necessary legal proceedings could be had, he was undergoing a sentence of fifteen years’ solitary confinement, without a voice being raised in palliation of his crime.

[1632] Op. cit. pp. 138-44.

[1633] One result of this is that there is a large number of priests, summarily deprived by their bishops of the ministry, who seek the great cities to hide their poverty or find some miserable means of support. As all requests for dispensation to marry are refused, they mostly live in concubinage and their offspring go to swell the ranks of the dangerous classes. See Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 542-48.

[1634] Wahu, op. cit. pp. 154-55.

[1635] Syllab. Dec. 1864 No. xix., xlii., liv., lv.

[1636] Clement. PP. VIII. Instruct. super aliquibus ritibus Græcorum, A. D. 1595, § V. No. 27.—Benedict. PP. XIV. Bull. Etsi Pastoralis, A.D. 1742, § VII. No. 16, 27, 28 (Concil. Collect. Lacens. II. 449, 517).