[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).