XXXI. THE CHURCH OF TO-DAY (part 1 of 2)

XXXI. THE CHURCH OF TO-DAY (part 1 of 2)

The question of sacerdotal marriage was left in France, on the collapse of the empire, in a curiously unsettled condition, giving rise to very remarkable contradictions in the judicial decisions which since then have from time to time been rendered by the tribunals as cases were brought before them.

Under the Restoration, a priest named Martin, an old réfractaire of 1792, committed the imprudence of marrying in 1815. Not long after he died without issue. His relatives contested the succession with the widow, and in 1817 the inferior court decided in her favor. The next year the court of appeals reversed the judgment on the ground that sacerdotal marriage had only been sanctioned indirectly by the legislation of the Revolution, and that the Charter of 1814 (Art. 6) had restored Catholicism as the religion of the state. In 1821, however, the final decision of the court of cassation settled the question in favor of the widow, thus legalizing such unions, for the incontrovertible reason that the code did not recognize vows or holy orders as causes incapacitating for marriage.[1576]

Even yet, however, the matter was not held to be finally disposed of. In 1828, Louis Thérèse Saturnin Dumonteil, a priest of Paris, who desired to contract marriage, failed to obtain from the courts the customary assistance required by the law to set aside the refusal of his parents, who declined their assent to his projected union. The case was argued in all its bearings on civil and ecclesiastical law, and he found the tribunals resolutely opposed to him. When the Revolution of July unsettled the public mind with visions of the revival of the principles of ’89, Dumonteil endeavored to carry out his project. The lower court decided in his favor, March 26, 1831, but the higher courts reversed the decision and pronounced definitely that priests could not contract civil marriage,[1577] and this in spite of the Charter of 1830, which simply affirmed Catholicism to be the religion of the majority of Frenchmen, while that of 1814 had declared it to be the religion of the state.

This curiously vexed question seems incapable of positive solution. The case of Dumonteil apparently discouraged aspirants for clerical marriage during the next thirty years, for I have met with no allusions to any attempt in that direction until 1861. In that year M. de Brou-Laurière, a priest already debarred from his sacred functions, engaged himself in marriage with Mdlle. Elizabeth Fressanges, of Deuville near Périgueux. On calling upon the mayor of the village to perform the ceremony and register the contract, that functionary refused to act. He was supported by the public authorities, and the expectant bridegroom was obliged to appeal to the tribunals to obtain his rights. The question was warmly contested and thoroughly argued, and it was not until a year had elapsed that the court of Périgueux rendered a decision ordering the mayor to perform his functions and to marry the patient couple. The case was then carried to the superior court at Bordeaux, which reversed the previous decision.

Again, in 1864, in the case of the Abbé Chataigneu, the court of Angoulême decided that a priest was, under the law of France, not competent to contract civil marriage.[1578] On the other hand, in 1870, the court of Algiers, in the case of a M. Q——, delivered an elaborate decision to the effect that in France there is no law forbidding the civil marriage of priests.[1579] Yet in 1878 the court of cassation confirmed a decision of the court of Rennes, pronouncing null and void the marriage of a priest, at the instance of his nephew and niece, to whom he had bequeathed his property by a will anterior to the marriage. When M. Loyson (Père Hyacinthe) married Mrs. Merriman, in 1872, the ceremony was performed in London, at the office of the Registrar of Marriages, and M. Loyson gave as the reason of his seeking a foreign land the refusal of the French officials to confirm the civil ceremony. So the Abbé Chavard, vicar at Marseilles, in 1874, went to Geneva for the same purpose, where he continued his priestly functions; and this leads me to regard as exceedingly improbable a recent statement in the daily journals that priestly marriages occur in France at the rate of twenty or thirty a year. In fact, so lately as September, 1883, there was before the courts a case which shows how uncertain is the question still in France. A certain Abbé Junqua was expelled from the church and was condemned to three months’ imprisonment for continuing to wear the priestly robes. He subsequently married and engaged in trade, when he failed, and his wife sought to secure her dowry from the bankrupt assets, but was resisted on the ground that her marriage was illegal under the Concordat, although the church had itself deprived the husband of his ecclesiastical character.

In Switzerland I have met with two or three cases of such marriages, but they have no special significance. In one of them, occurring in Lucerne some thirty years ago, the priest left the church in order to marry, and lived with his wife until her death, in 1880, when he permitted her to be buried as a Catholic, and had the mortification of seeing her name entered on the register, publicly exposed in the parish church, as an unmarried woman.

In Wiesbaden, in 1821, a priest named Koch, with the permission of the authorities, abandoned the priesthood and applied to the curé of the place to marry him, when, meeting with a refusal, he had the ceremony performed by a Protestant pastor, and was promptly excommunicated by the Vicar of Ratisbon. Not deterred by this, in 1828 a hundred and eighty priests of Baden petitioned the secular power for permission to marry, and the Chamber of Deputies showed a disposition to grant the request. This effort was imitated in 1831 by the Catholic clergy of Silesia, but the movement was repressed by the Prussian government; and in 1833, at Trèves, a clerical association was formed to carry out the same object.[1580] These efforts brought forth from Gregory XVI. an encyclical letter, in which he urged the faithful to stand by the canons, and severely condemned the weakness of some prelates who were disposed to yield.[1581] Some similar movements in Austria in the next decade led Pius IX., almost immediately after his accession to the papal chair, in his encyclical letter of November 9th, 1846, to condemn the foul conspiracy against celibacy which was favored by ecclesiastics plunged in sensuality and forgetful of their own dignity.[1582] In 1851, moreover, he took especial pains to stigmatize a work, published in Lima by Francisco de Paula in 1848, entitled “Defensa de la Autoridad de los Gobiernos,” which impiously sought to decentralize the church, and which took strong grounds against enforced celibacy.[1583]

How immovable, indeed, is the position of the hierarchy on this matter is shown by the case of Panzini. Panzini is, or was, a Capuchin monk who, in 1854, conceived the idea that the greater part of the evils under which the establishment labors are the result of celibacy and its attendant immorality. He addressed to the pope an anonymous memorial urging him to submit the question to the bishops then assembled in Rome, and followed this with two similar subsequent applications. Finally, in the troubles of 1859, anticipating the assembling of a European congress, he resolved to print an essay on the subject, addressed to all the bishops of the church, thinking that the congress would afford him an opportunity of reaching them. The printer to whom he confided his manuscript promptly placed the dangerous matter in the hands of Cardinal Antonelli, when Panzini was at once thrown into prison and delivered to the Inquisition. After a trial which lasted six months, he was condemned to twelve years’ incarceration and perpetual suspension from the sacerdotal functions which were his only source of livelihood. After two years of his sentence had expired, he was released at the instance of the Italian government, and in 1865 he published his essay, rewritten from memory, under the title of “Pubblica Confessione di un Prigioniero dell’ Inquisizione Romana ed origine dei mali della Chiesa Cattolica.”

Now, Panzini’s persecution arose solely from his affirming that enforced celibacy is impolitic and unnatural. He professed unbounded reverence for the church in all matters of faith, and claimed that the point at issue was merely one of discipline on which the church might make a mistake. Even here, however, he was careful to declare his measureless admiration for voluntary asceticism. Virginity he believed to be immensely superior to matrimony, and he anathematized as cheerfully as the council of Trent could wish all who should proclaim the contrary. Even monasticism he defended as a state of perfection recommended by Christ. His sole objective point was the rigidity of the law which renders the single state indispensable to all ecclesiastics, and he essayed to prove that this is in direct antagonism to all the general principles of Catholic theology, that the purity which is its pretext is impossible to enforce, and that the effort itself is most disastrous to the church and to the faithful. The authorities were not disposed to consider that these opinions were an allowable dissidence on matters of policy, and they hastened to brand them as heretical. In the sentence passed upon Panzini the Inquisition took occasion to stigmatize as heresy the assertion that enforced celibacy is contrary to nature, that it is a stumbling-block and the cause of perpetual transgression.[1584] That this theory was enforced in practice so long as the church could control the secular power is shown in the case of an Italian priest who, preferring to sanctify love by marriage rather than to indulge in illicit intrigue, married and fled with his bride to Africa, seeking among the Infidel the liberty denied him in Christendom. Three children blessed his union, but the unresting vigilance of the church discovered his retreat, when, with the aid of the French consulate, he was seized, carried back to Naples, and thrown into prison to repent indefinitely over his errors.[1585]

There evidently could be no reasonable ground for expecting a change of policy in this respect on the part of the Roman curia, and this was recognized in 1866 by some Catholic priests of Hungary, who desiring liberty of marriage, and seeing the futility of anticipating it at the hands of their superiors, united in petitioning the National Diet for the requisite permission. Yet in spite of the extravagance of supposing that a body which, since the Council of Trent, has become so thoroughly centralized as the church, would listen to the wishes of its lower classes, there were not wanting those who imagined that the Council of the Vatican in 1870 would adopt the discipline of the Eastern Church and permit marriage to the inferior orders. Any such expectations were destined to be disappointed as soon as the preliminary machinery of the council became known. A congregazione centrale was appointed by Pius IX. in advance, consisting exclusively of cardinals connected with the Inquisition, and to this body was delegated the sole determination of the matters to be submitted to the council for discussion. Under this congregazione, and presided over by its members, were five consulte, to act as sub-committees on the subjects respectively confided to their deliberations. The consulta on faith and dogma was under the presidency of Cardinal Bilio, notorious as the compiler of the Syllabus of December, 1864; and that on canons and discipline was committed to Cardinal Catarini, whose whole career had been passed in the Inquisition, and who had acquired a sinister fame by his rigorous punishment of all attempts at reform. If, as the church asserts, the proceedings of general councils are under the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, it will be seen what reverent care was observed to keep Him in due subjection, and to spare the church the scandal of being brought, by thoughtless innovators, into opposition with Him.

As the destined outcome of the council was simply the dogma of papal infallibility, the hopes of the anti-celibatarians were transferred to the schism caused by that dogma, and known as that of the Old Catholics. In 1875, a Dean Suczinsky married the Baroness Gazewaska, and joined the schismatics, when the Prussian government decided to protect him in the enjoyment of his temporalities, and his new brethren agreed to receive him, and thus committed themselves on the question of celibacy—a decision confirmed in 1878 by the Synod of Bonn, which decreed, by a vote of 75 against 22, that the prohibition of the canons is not an obstacle to the marriage of ecclesiastics, or to the cure of souls by married priests. Yet the Old Catholic movement, despite the well-earned eminence of some of its leaders, such as Döllinger, was destined to failure from the start. It sought a compromise where no compromise was possible—asserting the right of private judgment against the Church Universal only to a certain point, and that point one which concerned itself rather with intellectual subtleties than actual daily affairs. The unbearable oppressions which lent practical application to the polemics of Luther no longer existed; and the secular powers of Europe felt too secure in their ability to defend themselves against ecclesiastical encroachment to give substantial aid to the opponents of Rome. The Old Catholic schism may therefore already be regarded almost as a thing of the past, and one which will exercise no influence over the future.

A more serious blow than that which Döllinger and his friends sought to aim at the Roman curia has been dealt, in the matter of marriage, by the adoption, in successive Catholic states, of what is known as Civil Marriage, by which matrimony is withdrawn from the exclusive control of the church, and the sacrament and benediction are declared to be accidents not necessary to the legal status of husband and wife or to the legitimacy and heritable capacity of children. We have already seen that this was one of the legislative results of the French Revolution, and the example thus early set by France has been followed of late by Italy and Austria after its adoption, in 1853 by Sardinia, as one of the earliest reformatory measures of Cavour. Yet the church positively refuses to regard such marriages as entitled to respect. When the project was under discussion in Italy, the Unità Cattolica, one of the papal organs, in its issue of July 16th, 1864, did not hesitate to assert that the establishment of civil matrimony was establishing the liberty of licentiousness, and that, after having scattered houses of ill-fame throughout Italy, it would convert the whole peninsula into one brothel. In a similar spirit, Pius IX., in his allocution of October 30th, 1866, denounced it as leading to an organized system of scandalous concubinage. When, in May, 1868, Austria followed the example of Italy, Pius, within a month, delivered an allocution, in which he not only condemned the “abominable law,” but declared it to be null and void; and Cardinal Rauscher, Archbishop of Vienna, issued a manifesto, in which he not only denied that the civil contract constituted marriage and directed that children sprung from such unions should be entered on the parish registers as neither legitimate nor illegitimate, but gave positive instructions that absolution should be denied, even in articulo mortis, to all parties who had cohabited in such unions—thus stigmatizing them as worse than concubinage. In a similar spirit, when, in 1869, civil marriage was proclaimed under the short-lived republic of Spain, the clergy, under inspiration from the Vatican, denounced it as concubinage, and threatened to suspend the celebration of the Mass. With the restoration of the monarchy the law was promptly repealed, and an effort to restore it was rejected by an emphatic vote of the Cortes in February, 1883, though, with the more liberal tendencies that have since arisen, the matter is again proposed for discussion. Leo XIII. has been vigorous in his opposition to the innovation. In his first Encyclical, issued April 21st, 1878, he declared that “citizens, profaning the dignity of Christian marriage, have adopted legal concubinage in place of religious matrimony;” and he returned to the attack in a special Encyclical on the subject, published February 10th 1880. In this he assumes that, as “by the will of Christ the church alone can and ought to legislate and decide concerning sacraments, so it is out of the question to attempt to transfer any, even the smallest part, of her power to the government of the state,” and therefore “judicial sentences on conjugal contracts, as to whether they have been entered upon rightly or wrongly,” are a direct infringement of the rights of the church, whether those judgments be adverse or not to the canons.

The earlier passages of this Encyclical are so warm and eloquent a defence of the holiness of matrimony, as the natural condition of man decreed by God, that it would probably trouble its author to explain why so exalted and divine a state should be prohibited to the ministers of the God who devised it and fitted his creatures specially for it. Yet the persistent and bitter opposition of the church to the civil marriage laws may not unreasonably be attributed to the fact that under them the state has the power to recognize and permit clerical marriage. For more than half a century such laws had existed in France, but as the French tribunals leaned towards upholding ecclesiastical celibacy, they were acquiesced in comparatively in silence. When Italy, however, followed the example, it was seen that the temper of the Italian government would lead to construing them in a sense favorable to priestly liberty, and hence the opposition, which has been justified and intensified by the result. Immediately on the passage of the Civil Marriage Act, Dr. Prota, of Naples, an energetic reformer within the church, in a letter of October 30th, 1865, advised all his clerical friends to marry and to persist in the exercise of their functions, “and the more who do so at once and simultaneously the safer for all, for the bishops will venture the less to persecute you in the face of public opinion.” Accordingly cases of priestly marriage commenced to occur, and when they were contested their validity was confirmed by the tribunals. The superior courts of Genoa, Trani, and Palermo successively decided in this sense, and finally, in 1869, occurred the case of Andrea Treglia, of the diocese of Salerno, which settled the question in Naples. The municipal officers of Vietri refused to marry him; the court of Salerno decided against him, but when the matter was carried up to the court of appeals of Naples judgment was rendered in his favor, and he was married forthwith—thus legitimating the unions of some fifty priests who had preceded him, without the question having been settled by the tribunal of last resort. In the organ of the reforming Catholics of Naples, the Emancipatore Cattolica, it is curious to see the successive marriages chronicled with the same satisfaction as that evinced by Spalatin in the stormy days of Luther.[1586]

Yet the whole question is one of but slender practical importance. In no country is the Catholic church subservient to the state. It controls its own sacraments, and no government is likely to venture upon interference with it in its own sphere. While, therefore, it may be deprived of the power to persecute and punish those of its members who enter upon civil marriage, it yet possesses the ability to deprive them of their functions, which in most cases is equivalent to depriving them of bread; and it has an unquestioned right to expel them from its communion. The priest who marries, therefore, is virtually separated from his church and deprived of his means of livelihood—motives which, combined with the moral forces at work to keep men within the accustomed bounds, are quite sufficient to prevent defection from growing common, or to render marriage with a priest attractive to women above the lowest class. Even in the United States, where there is no legal impediment to priestly marriage, and the tone of society is such as rather to welcome those who escape from the pale of Rome, such cases are very rare. A few years since one occurred in Philadelphia, and in February, 1882, Father Agudi, of Hartford, committed matrimony, but these are the only instances which I remember to have noted for many years past. While, therefore, the civil marriage laws of Europe unquestionably loosen the ties which in this respect bind the priest to his church, there are still sufficient material and moral forces at work to prevent desertions from this cause from assuming any serious proportions.

* * * * *

Predictions, as a rule, are idle, and yet it would appear entirely safe to assume that those who look forward to a change in the policy of the church as regards the enforcement of celibacy among its ministers are prompted rather by their wishes than by judgment, or by knowledge of the influences at work. It matters little what may be the aspirations of the vast body of men who form the working ecclesiastical force—the humble priests and curés upon whom it depends for its support among the populations. The autocratic theocracy, founded in the dark ages, and strengthened by the council of Trent, received its final and irrevocable shape when the church submissively adopted the Vatican decree, which declared “that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this definition let him be anathema.”[1587] It would be futile to imagine after this that any pressure could be brought to bear upon the Roman curia sufficient to induce a change in its immemorial policy—a change, moreover, which would overwhelm it with the bitterest humiliation by contradicting all its teachings since the days of St. Jerome. What was so unbendingly refused to all the princes and nearly all the clergy of Catholic Christendom in the doubtful days of the Reformation will not be granted now, when, despite the destruction of the temporal power in Italy, the spiritual influence of the church is as great as ever, and it sees the results of its policy in the rapidly extending area of its domination. When Pius IX. could boast that during his single pontificate he had founded twenty-nine metropolitan sees and one hundred and thirty episcopal dioceses, there would seem to be no valid reason, from the stand-point of the Vatican, for an act so revolutionary as the abrogation of celibacy, which would convert its janizaries into householders, with human interests dissociated from those of the church-militant.

* * * * *

The monastic orders have not escaped the innovating spirit of the nineteenth century. In Spain, the revolutionary cortes of 1820 enacted a law suppressing all the existing monastic foundations, excepting the Knights of Malta and the Hospitalarios de San Juan, and further prohibiting the founding of new institutions and the administering of vows; but when in 1823 the constitutional government fell under French bayonets, the Orders reëstablished themselves and took a bloody revenge upon their persecutors. Again in 1836 the government of Isabella II. undertook the same task, excepting the Padres de las Escuelas Pias, the Hospitalarios de San Juan, and the Clerigos de la Mision, but the attempt was short-lived; as was also that of 1868 under the Republic. In the Netherlands, a series of laws adopted between 1818 and 1826 forbade the admission of novices in the contemplative orders, which, being of no public utility, had no claim for recognition; and irrevocable vows, moreover, were declared illegal. In 1820 a similar effort was made in Naples, but it was unsuccessful. In the New World still more sweeping reforms have been undertaken. Thus Paraguay, in 1824, suppressed all monasteries as useless; Brazil, in 1829, prohibited the entrance of new devotees in the existing foundations, thus condemning them to gradual extinction; and in 1851 New Grenada not only expelled the Company of Jesus and forbade the establishment of any Order professing the doctrine of passive obedience, but threw open the doors of all religious establishments, and promised legal protection to those who should abandon them. Ten years later it suppressed them altogether, and in 1874 its example was followed in Venezuela.[1588] In 1849, one of the first acts of the Roman Republic was to liberate all monks and nuns from obedience to their vows; and in 1853 Cavour suppressed all the monastic houses of the Kingdom of Sardinia, applying their property to the improvement of the clergy, in spite of the superstitious fears excited by the almost simultaneous deaths of several members of the royal family. After the formation of the Kingdom of Italy, the law of June 28th, 1866, completed the suppression of all the religious houses, pensioned or subsidized their members, and confiscated their property. This process of secularization was rapidly carried out, and early in 1867 the journals reported that nearly all the inmates of the monasteries were dispersed, some of them returning to their families, some of them accepting refuge offered by the charitable, but most of them clubbing together and hiring houses in which to live as of old. Two exceptions, indeed, were made in the enforcement of the law. Monte Casino, the venerable mother of western monachism, was spared, and provision made for its maintenance as a national monument; while Savonarola’s convent of San Marco was similarly favored, rather perhaps because of its frescoes than of its historical associations. Against all this the church of course protested vigorously, pronouncing the suppression of the orders and the secularization of their possessions to be null and void; but the readiness with which purchasers were found to give even more than the appraised value of the property, shows how futile was resistance to the tendency of the age.

So great a social revolution was of course not effected without much of individual suffering, which, in some cases at least, was not diminished by the methods adopted in enforcing the law. The fact that in 1856, 8000 monks petitioned Pius IX. for secularization, shows that the ideas of the age had penetrated into some of the monasteries, but in the greater number of cases the inmates were naturally averse to the change. Panzini, who can assuredly not be regarded as a prejudiced witness, speaks with bitter indignation of the files of soldiery sent to drive from their houses the terrified nuns, who were thrown upon the world without the means of subsistence or the training to earn a livelihood, while their vows precluded them from marrying or from worldly employment. Even the private fortunes brought by them in many cases to their convents shared the common fate of confiscation, and they sought in vain to have their dowers restored to them.[1589] It is impossible not to feel sympathy for those whose misfortune consists in having been born too late, and who are made to expiate the sins of a system which they have reverently received from their forefathers. The student of the past, moreover, may be pardoned a feeling of regret at the destruction of the venerable institutions which, for a thousand years, fostered the religious growth of Christendom; but the civilization which they rendered possible has outgrown them. In the history of development it is inevitable that Zeus should dethrone his father Cronos; and the progress of humanity demands the removal of that which has outlived its usefulness, and has become only a stumbling-block in the path of human improvement.

Pius IX. himself had felt the need of some measure of reform in the religious orders, but was powerless to enforce it. It is asserted that before his early liberal tendencies had become completely eradicated, on his return from Gaeta, he entertained the idea of rendering life in common indispensable in all monastic institutions, of substituting for the irrevocable vow one which should be renewable at a fixed interval, and of deferring all ordinations to the priesthood until the applicant should have entered on his 36th year. These sensible measures, however, were opposed so strenuously by all the officials that the Pope gave way—the General of the Franciscans even proclaiming vehemently that they would assuredly result in the destruction of all the religious orders.[1590] It would seem that Pius eventually, in this respect as in others, fell completely into the hands of the ultra-conservatives, for though in 1857 he defined that the simple vow of the novitiate should not be taken before the age of 16, and that the irrevocable vow should be deferred until the accomplishment of a novitiate of three years, yet the following year he decreed that the simple vow of the novice was irrevocable, except by papal dispensation, unless, indeed, the general of the order should see fit to expel the postulant.[1591] It is remarked, moreover, that while he not infrequently exercised his dispensing power in releasing worthy applicants from the vows of poverty and obedience, he never absolved them from that of chastity;[1592] though it is not unreasonably urged that all enlightened legislation holds engagements, even in matters of trifling import, to be invalid when made by minors, while the church permits, and even incites, children in their sixteenth year to enter into obligations the nature of which they are unable to appreciate, and then unyieldingly exacts of them the rigid execution of the rash promise, under pain of eternal damnation.

Yet, notwithstanding these successive shocks, monasticism has rarely been more flourishing or more vigorous than of late years. Warned by the successive secularization of its temporalities in one country after another, the church has learned to give to the monastic system the direction in which its evils are least sensibly felt, its benefits to humanity are greatest, and the influence which it is capable of exerting is most serviceable to the hierarchy. Though at times mistaken in the spirit of the age; though often misled by pride, by ambition, and by avarice, the Roman church has missed its aim and mistaken its vocation, yet, upon the whole, it has manifested that adaptation to the wants of successive generations which is the real secret of its power and the condition of its success. Clearly recognizing the scant toleration which our hard-working nineteenth century has for holy idleness and unproductive sanctity, it moulds its institutions to meet the necessities of the age. It no longer glories in new and fantastic forms of worship or insane feats of asceticism—not the pillar of Stylites, the poverty of Francis, or the thong of the Flagellants[1593]—but it seeks to organize systems by which the beneficence of the many may be efficiently administered by the trained labor of the few. It endeavors no longer to agglomerate around idle communities the wealth which could only pander to their vices, but rather to render useful by associated action the benevolent self-abnegation which in other communions is apt to be lost or frittered away for lack of judicious organization and direction. When thus the vow of celibacy is uttered, not in the hope of a life of ease and sensual indulgence, not in the pride of Pharisaical holiness, not in the lust of exaggerated maceration, not in the hope of purchasing by solitude and mortification the favor of an all-merciful Creator, but for the single-minded purpose of devoting a life to elevating fellow-creatures from degradation or to relieving their physical and mental miseries, no one can deny that institutions which in their wantonness of prosperity accomplished so much of evil possess fruitful germs of good to be developed through adversity and tribulation.

The results of this wise policy have shown themselves especially in France and Belgium. When, in 1625, St. Vincent de Paul founded the Order of the Sisters of Charity, he accomplished a work which was destined to prove as useful to the church as the mendicant and preaching orders which resuscitated it in the thirteenth century, or the Company of Jesus, which enabled it to set bounds to the Protestant Reformation. It was a return to the primal and vital principles of Christianity, which bound anew the peoples to the hierarchy and bridged over the all but impassable gulf between them.

This tie, so delicate and yet so firm, proved lasting. Even amid the horrors of the Revolution, when conventual vows were forbidden, and the monastic orders were scattered ruthlessly abroad, the gentle virtues and the tireless ministrations of the Sisters of Charity won for them respect and toleration from the cruel fanatics who respected and tolerated nothing else. When, even under the Concordat of 1801, the reëstablishment of monastic orders was strictly forbidden, and those which endeavored timidly to organize themselves under the names of Pères de la Foi, Victimes de l’Amour de Dieu, Cœur de Jésus, etc., were broken up in 1804 without ceremony,[1594] exceptions were made in favor of the charitable associations of females, the missionary societies of Saint-Esprit and the Lazaristes, and the brotherhood of the Écoles Chrétiennes. The missionary societies proved to be a focus of reactionary intrigue, which the First Empire was powerful enough to crush. They were accordingly suppressed in 1809, but at the same time an imperial decree placed under the fostering care of Madame Lætitia the women who devoted themselves to works of charity and mercy. Annual appropriations for their support were regularly made, and, thus favored, they prospered amazingly. The religious activity of the people seemed to flow in this channel with redoubled force from its long retention, and in the eight years from 1807 to 1815 there were no less than 1261 congregations authorized—an average of 157 per annum. At the same time the state refused to recognize the right of any person to abstract himself irrevocably from society. The law wisely prohibited engagements for life in any service, and this was held applicable to the religious congregations, in which, by the decree of 1809, the period of engagement was limited to five years.[1595]

In spite of the favor shown to the charitable associations, the prejudice against the monastic system was still so strong that the Restoration, with all its reactionary tendencies, did not dare to run counter to the convictions of the people. The law of 1809 forbidding male congregations was never repealed, and the most that the Bourbons ventured openly to do was to authorize a few by special decree, such as the Lazaristes, the Missions Etrangères, &c. Meanwhile the female congregations continued to increase; a general law was enacted in May, 1825, providing for their authorization under definite provisions, and between 1815 and 1830, 643 new ones were officially recognized. The efforts made from 1825 to 1827, under Charles X., to introduce the Jesuits and other male orders gave rise to lively agitation, and the elections of 1827 settled the question definitely in the negative.[1596] The Revolution of 1830 put an end for the time to all hope of reëstablishing the monastic system in France, and a law in 1834 specially affirmed the application of Art. 291 of the Penal Code, directed against unauthorized associations, to those for religious purposes. The constitutional government of Louis Philippe showed itself persistently hostile to monachism. It is true that in 1840 Lacordaire succeeded in obtaining sufferance for his order of Dominicans, but this was exceptional; and even towards the female orders the policy of the monarchy was repressive. During the eighteen years of its existence, but fourteen authorizations for founding new congregations were granted, while the Jesuits, who had ventured to enter the kingdom without permission, were formally expelled in 1845 after a severe parliamentary struggle. The Second Republic was more liberal, and the Second Empire ostentatiously sought the alliance of the church. The Loi Falloux, in 1850, seemed to recognize the existence of male orders, and advantage was immediately taken of a vague phrase to assume their legality. At length, in 1852, a law was passed regulating, by a general form, the incorporation of all religious societies, and under this their growth was amazingly rapid—none the less so, perhaps, because they were not even required by the authorities to observe the law and go through the formality of procuring authorizations. In 1827 there were but 20,943 female devotees, while the number of males under conventual vows was too insignificant for computation,[1597] and under the monarchy of July the growth was exceedingly small. In 1861 these had increased to 17,776 males and 90,343 females, and in 1877 to 22,207 males and 127,000 females.

In Belgium the figures are equally startling. In 1856 that little kingdom had 2383 monks and 12,247 nuns—a total of 14,630—an enormous proportion in so small a population, enabling the clergy, as has more than once been seen, almost to control the elections.

To comprehend the full significance of these figures, they may be compared with the undisturbed monasticism of an old Catholic state such as Austria. That empire, in 1859, had but 10,449 monks and 6463 nuns, or 16,912 in all. For the Catholic population alone of Austria, this gives one to every 1579 inhabitants, while, about the same period in France the proportion was one to every 346 souls, and in Belgium, one to every 308.

The Company of Jesus furnishes an equally instructive illustration of the flourishing condition and rapid growth of monachism despite the shackles apparently imposed on it by modern institutions. The Jesuits, formally reëstablished in 1814 by Pius VII. and gradually working an entrance into one kingdom after another, have increased with a rapidity which is exceedingly significant.

Thus in 1834 the Company numbered but 2684, ” 1844 ” ” ” 4133, ” 1854 ” ” ” 5510, ” 1864 ” ” ” 7734,

and a still later computation gives them 7949 members, divided into 3389 priests, 2323 brother coadjutors, and 2237 novices—the large proportion of the latter indicating how great is the prospective increase. In France alone their number had grown from 200 in 1845 to 1085 in 1865, and to 1509 in 1877.

In this enormous spread of monachism, it is interesting to observe the change which has occurred from mediæval sensual indulgence and mystic asceticism to modern utilitarianism. Thus in France, by the census of 1861, there were, out of 17,776 men bound by vows,

Devoted to education, 12,845, Distribution of charity and care of the sick, 389, In charge of houses of refuge and farm schools, 496, Devoted to religious contemplation, 4,046,

while of 90,343 women, there were

Devoted to education, 58,883, Distribution of charity and care of the sick, 20,292, In charge of houses of refuge and farm schools, 3,073, Devoted to religious contemplation, 8,095.

The large proportion of almoners and hospital nurses among the women is easily explicable by what has already been stated as to the favor shown by successive governments to the Sisters of Charity, and the good which is effected by these organizations cannot easily be overrated. Who is there who can fail to do justice to these humble Christians, when once he has had the good fortune to witness their self-devotion and the benefits arising from their tireless ministrations, made doubly valuable by system and special training? In our own land, torn by sudden and gigantic civil war, when the sick and wounded had accumulated almost beyond the possibility of care, who that then noted the blessed agency of those angels of the hospital, would willingly pause to coldly criticise the institutions of which they are the most perfect development? In a Catholic country like France, the opportunities for good works are of course vastly greater, for almost every benevolent institution naturally seeks the aid of the church, and that aid is willingly given, not only from charitable motives, but also, we may assume, on account of the enormous influence thence accruing among the masses of the population who are the beneficiaries, and this is especially felt in the manufacturing centres and amid the periodical crises attendant upon modern financial and industrial development. The crèches where babies are kept while their mothers are at the factory are presided over by nuns; the distribution of bread and soup at the Bureaux de Bienfaisance is made by nuns; the neglected and wretched little children who are sent to the infant schools are washed and tended by nuns;[1598] and, in fact, whatever tender, or humane, or charitable influence reaches the prolétaire in his grieving and despairing wretchedness, almost necessarily comes to him through some channel connected with a religious order.

A much more complex question, however, is presented by the numbers and the activity of the orders devoted to education. While giving due weight to the purely benevolent impulses which lead so many to undertake the task of training the young, and while freely acknowledging the vast amount of good arising from the education, in so many cases gratuitous, of those who might otherwise remain in the darkness of ignorance, the inquirer cannot shut his eyes to other considerations. The eagerness with which the church seeks to acquire for itself the direction of the docile mind of childhood shows how fully it is alive to the importance of this most fruitful source of influence. Previous to 1849, the educational system of France was, nominally at least, in the hands of the State, though even then the church had made large inroads upon its province. The leading instrumentality in this was the congregation of the Frères des Écoles Chrétiennes, founded in 1680 by the Abbé de la Salle, for the gratuitous instruction of the poor, and Frère Philippe, the General of the Order, testified in 1849 before a parliamentary committee that the body then consisted of 3300 members with 200,000 children under their care. The spread of communism among the people, as manifested in the overthrow of the monarchy, alarmed the conservatives, and one of the first acts of the Republic under Louis Napoleon was to encourage by the Loi Falloux the efforts of the church to extend its operations. How successful was the attempt is shown by a comparison of the statistics of twenty years.

1843. 1863. Religious of both sexes engaged in primary teaching, 16,958 46,840 Number of primary schools under their direction, 7,590 17,206 Number of scholars in these schools, 706,917 1,610,674 Children in salles d’asile, under sisterhoods, 301,536

By 1861, in the next grade of schools, the religious orders had 55,151 male pupils, while those in the government institutions of similar class numbered only 63,291. In 1865 the whole number of children between the ages of 7 and 12 in France was 4,018,427; while, two years previous, out of 2,265,576 boys attending school, 443,732 were in institutions conducted by the religious orders, and of 2,070,612 girls, no less than 1,166,942, or more than half, were under the care of sisterhoods.

This enormous and rapidly increasing proportion shows how largely the coming generation is trained under monkish influences, and justifies the efforts made by the Ferry ministry, after the overthrow of the reactionary government of MacMahon, to check the growth of these schools. The religious orders are bound to a peculiar obedience to the Holy See; all other bonds, whether of family or of country, are as nothing in comparison. The monk who conscientiously regards his vows cannot be a citizen, or be fitted to train future citizens. The congregation, for instance, of the Frères de la Saintè-Croix is largely engaged in educating and furnishing teachers; and among the secret statutes of the order is one forbidding its members to admit the existence of any opinion, whether in politics, theology, or religion, contrary to the opinion of Rome.[1599] What are the political opinions of Rome may readily be found in the Syllabus of 1864, among its anathemas directed against freedom of thought and of the press, against any liberty which threatens to abridge the temporal power of the hierarchy or to limit its absolute authority, and indeed against the simplest toleration in the matter of religious belief. That these are in fact the principles which govern education in clerical schools was shown during the debates on the Ferry laws in 1879, by M. Ferry, who had, after some difficulty, procured copies of text-books used in them, and who quoted from them passages praising feudal rights and reviling the Revolution, justifying the Inquisition and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, denouncing civil marriage as concubinage, alluding to religious toleration as a temporary necessity, and inculcating the doctrine of the submission of the state to the church. It needs no argument to show that institutions which teach such principles as these are not fit to be trusted with the training of those who are to constitute a self-governing Republic.

Nor was this the only evil arising from the successful efforts made by the church through its monastic legions to control the education of France. The enormous demand for recruits to fill the rapidly growing ranks of its army of teachers exceeded its capacity to provide suitable material, whether as regards mental or moral training. In its desire to favor the growth of clerical schools, the Second Empire waived in favor of the religious orders the rigorous examinations required of the laity as a condition precedent to employment as teachers. The supervision of the state being thus withdrawn, discretion was left with those whose unworldly duties can scarcely be supposed to render them competent judges, and that discretion has been necessarily much abused. It is related by Mdlle. Daubié, herself an instructress of high reputation, that when she was eight years old she was applied to, by a woman employed in tending cows, to teach her the catechism, and within a year she was surprised to find her whilom pupil suddenly reappear as a sister, duly authorized to teach. It is computed that, among the male religious employed in teaching, not more than one in ten has the brevet, which would be indispensable to them if they were laymen; while, of the sisters engaged in instruction, out of 8000 superiors of institutions, only about 1000 are brevetées, and, of their assistants, not more than one per cent. are so qualified.

If the mental qualifications of these educators were thus disregarded, their moral characters were equally relieved from proper scrutiny; and this, combined with the temptations inseparable from the celibate system, has not infrequently led to the most shocking results. The enormous influence of the ecclesiastical establishment, working upon the bureaus of the government, the officials of justice, and the press, was usually sufficient to prevent much public scandal under Louis Napoleon and Marshal MacMahon; but a list of the prosecutions reported in the newspapers from 1861 to April, 1879, collected by Dr. Wahu,[1600] shows about fifty cases in which the male teachers had abused the children under their charge, many of these cases being of appalling turpitude. As eleven of these occurred during the first three months of 1879, it may reasonably be concluded that equal freedom on the part of the public prosecutors and the press during the previous eighteen years would have produced a vastly larger number of convictions; and not the least deplorable feature of the matter is that in more than one case the culprit had been previously transferred several times from one institution to another, giving grounds for the assumption that the authorities were cognizant of his wickedness, and preferred to allow him to spread contagion throughout different communities rather than incur the scandal of punishing him.

As illustrative of two phases of the subject, I may briefly refer to two cases from among a number which were brought to light in 1861, as the result of the efforts of a writer bold enough to brave the anger of the church, and who found a journal with the hardihood to second his efforts. One of these occurred at Saintes, in a school under the care of the Frères des Écoles Chrétiennes. Out of 300 boys, one hundred had been the victims of the monsters to whom they had been confided, and who enjoyed with a Satanic zest the corruption which they spread through so many households. The evil became rumored abroad, but no one dared to attack the members of so powerful an order, until an old soldier who held the post of gendarme found the evil in his family. Unused to prudence, he complained. The local board of supervision, afraid of compromising the “interests of religion,” endeavored to hush up the affair, but the prefect, fortunately, was of different temper, and took up the matter energetically. The guilty brethren disappeared, and their superior professed to know nothing about them, while the gendarme was soon afterwards dismissed from his post, and the matter passed over, leaving nothing behind it but a hundred ruined youths and corrupted families. The other case is that of Frère Cléonique at Jonsac, whose offences were too fully proved for denial, and whose counsel on his trial could only urge in palliation that the responsibility rested, not on his client, but on the system which employed such creatures and exposed them to temptations beyond their strength—“Gentlemen,” said he, “look at my client. What is he, after all? A clown, a goîtreux, almost a crétin; surely less than a man! He was herding flocks, when they undertook to persuade him that he had a call. A black gown was thrown on his shoulders, and, behold him in charge of a school! Such a nature could only attempt that career through pride and sloth. There he is, utterly untrained, ignorant of everything in life, and yet charged with teaching our children how to live!... Do you wonder that one day the beast awoke in that soul, into which nothing lofty had been instilled?... There he is before you, but who is really to blame; who is the criminal? Assuredly not this poor wretch, involved in the blindest ignorance, whom they drew from his obscurity, and to whom they taught nothing before confiding to him the grave responsibility of training youth.” It is satisfactory to add that this ingenious plea was unsuccessful, and that the brute was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor—but he had been seven years at Jonsac, and his victims counted by the hundred.[1601]

It was during these prosecutions, in 1861, that Frère Philippe, the General of the “Frères des Écoles Chrétiennes,” was stimulated to issue a secret circular, in which, after alluding to two previous ones of the same nature sent out in 1854 and 1860, he said that the time had come to speak plainly about the “horrible disease which devours the Order,” and which, under the investigations then in progress, was leading one brother after another to prison, and was sowing scandal broadcast. But the prosecutions died away, and matters soon resumed their usual course. It is but two or three years since that the Bien-Public, in comparing the morality of the lay schools with those in charge of the church, was able to produce these statistics:—

In 10,000 lay schools, 5.44 crimes and 22.29 offences (delits). In 10,000 church schools, 65.10 ” and 90.50 ” ”

Nor are these shocking cases confined to France. In 1873 a similar scandal was suddenly brought to light in the great Barnabite college at Monza, in Lombardy, where there were more than 300 students, many of whom were found to have been debauched by their instructors. The institution was promptly closed by the authorities, but the chief criminals, Father Stanislas Cereza, the principal, and Father Villa, one of his assistants, escaped, having prudently disappeared at the first rumors of the development.

It was, however, political considerations rather than moral ones which led the French cabinet, shortly after the fall of MacMahon had destroyed the alliance between church and state, to commence an attack on the clerical schools. The measure proposed in what were known as the Ferry laws was certainly not a sweeping one, for the seventh article, on which the struggle took place, simply provided that “no man can be allowed to direct an establishment of public or private teaching, of whatever order this establishment may be, if he belongs to a non-authorized religious congregation;” and an official list of the non-authorized congregations showed them to consist merely of 1502 Jesuits, 327 Dominicans, 222 Marists, 230 Benedictines, 193 Eudists, 65 Basilians, 22 Barnabites, 14 Oratorians, 91 members of the Congregation of St. Bertin, and 105 of the Congregation of the Sacré Cœur de Jésus. The measure, in fact, was aimed rather at the Jesuits than at the others; but clerical influence was as yet too strong, and after a discussion, which lasted for about nine months, this section of the law was rejected by the Senate. Jules Ferry accepted the defeat, but at once announced that the existing statutes against the Jesuits and other unauthorized orders would be enforced—a declaration which received the approval of the Chamber of Deputies. Within a fortnight, on March 31st, 1880, accordingly, two decrees were issued. The first of these expelled the order of the Jesuits from France, giving them until June 30th to dissolve, and allowing a further delay until August 30th for the closing of their schools and colleges, in order not to inconvenience the students by dispersing them before the usual period of vacation. The other decree called upon all non-authorized congregations within three months to take the necessary steps to obtain the verification and ratification of their statutes and regulations, and the legal recognition of their establishments, and promising that when this was done provisions for the male congregations should be made by special acts, while those for female communities should be by either special acts or by simple decrees. The enforcement of the existing laws was threatened against all which should neglect within the given period to apply for authorization with all the prescribed details. Now, the laws required that the superiors of all orders should be residents of France, and that all congregations should submit in spiritual matters to the jurisdiction of the episcopal ordinaries, while, in fact, the more important orders have foreign superiors and are independent of episcopal jurisdiction. It was distasteful in the last degree to submit to this, and the indisposition to do so was strengthened by the prospect that each congregation would come before the Chambers as the subject of a special debate, in which their regulations would be discussed, with very slender prospect of ultimately obtaining the desired permission, since a special act would confer on them the right to hold real-estate—a right which many members, even of the Catholic Right, were not prepared to grant them.

The result of the first decree was that at the dates appointed the Jesuit establishments and colleges were closed, with but a faint show of passive resistance; but, as the members were not personally exiled, a large portion of them remained, and their colleges were continued by placing over them as nominal principals influential laymen under their control.

The second decree struck at 5917 members of unauthorized congregations. Its execution was postponed in hopes that the bodies thus threatened would endeavor to comply with the law, but the only concession they were willing to make was by putting forth a declaration containing a public act of submission to the constitution and a resolution to take no part whatever in public or political matters. At last, in November, 1880, the government found itself obliged to employ force, and the establishments were closed by the police, aided where necessary by the military. A general system of passive resistance had been organized; doors had to be violently broken open, and the inmates carried out through jeering or sympathizing crowds. The popular feeling, in fact, had been worked upon as far as possible, and at some places, as at Lyons, civil conflict seemed for a moment to be imminent, while at Turquoing (Nord) even blood was shed; but on the whole the crisis passed away with much less disturbance than had been anticipated. Since then the growing strength of republicanism throughout France, unimpeded by clerical and reactionary efforts, shows how much slighter a hold the religious orders had on the popular mind than had been supposed, and how mistaken had been Napoleon III. in regarding an alliance with the church as a necessity for the preservation of his dynasty. In fact, there has been no banishment of individuals nor expropriation of property. Though the unauthorized congregations have been dissolved, in accordance with laws which date back to the Ancien Régime, the members retain their property, enjoy all the rights of citizenship, and can perform Mass in the churches near their convents—indeed, the aristocracy, which naturally affiliates with them, has rather made a point of offering them ostentatious hospitality.

The effort to separate education from clericalism still continues. The execution of the decrees was accompanied by the adoption of laws establishing government colleges for women and providing free primary education, and, March 24th, 1882, there was passed an act rendering education compulsory. For nearly nine months there had been hot debate between the Deputies and the Senators over an amendment of Jules Simon’s, that instruction should be given in the public schools on the duties of the pupils “towards God and towards their country,” but the elections of January, 1882, deprived the clericals of their power, the Senate receded from the amendment, and the education provided for by the act is to be purely secular.

It may safely be assumed that France will not abandon the institutions thus established to attacks by the priesthood such as the Belgian clergy habitually make upon the public schools of that kingdom. In a parliamentary debate, February 22, 1881, on this subject, it was stated, without contradiction, that the curés were in the habit of refusing communion not only to the children who attend these schools, but also to their parents and grandparents, uncles, and aunts—in fact, admission to communion under the circumstances is the exception and refusal is the rule. Even threats are made to withhold baptism from future infants, the sacrament is denied to dying parents, and wives are urged to withdraw from all sexual relations with their husbands. When spiritual weapons are insufficient, more carnal means are employed by efforts to ruin the business of the disobedient by a system of “Boycotting,” which is sometimes successful; and the enthusiastic curé of Virginal admitted that he had pronounced it to be a less offence to commit murder than to vote for a Liberal, because Liberalism is heresy.[1602] When such is the spirit of the church at the present day, French republicanism may be pardoned for desiring to limit its control over popular education.

* * * * *

It only remains for us to consider what is the present effect of celibacy on the moral condition of the church, and whether it has succeeded, after fifteen centuries of fruitless effort, in at last obtaining a priesthood whose chastity is more than nominal. At the commencement of the struggle, the great apostle of asceticism, St. Jerome, calmed the fears of those who dreaded a diminution of population from the spread of vows of continence, by assuring them that few would be found to persevere to the end in a task so difficult as the maintenance of virginity.[1603] Has, then, human nature changed during the interval, and has the church been justified in its assertion at the council of Trent that God would not withhold the gift of chastity from those who rightly seek it, or permit us to be tempted beyond our strength?[1604] It is certainly not so easy to answer this question now, as we have seen it in former ages, when men were more plain-spoken and less decent, when offences against morality were committed more openly, and when they were denounced both by the church and its enemies with a distinctness of utterance unfit for modern ears. Yet it is not impossible to find some evidence bearing on the question which may enable the impartial inquirer to arrive at a conclusion.

The church is unquestionably violating the precept “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” when, in its reliance that the gift of chastity will accompany ordination, it confers the subdiaconate at the age of 22 and the priesthood at 25[1605]—or even earlier by special dispensation—and then turns loose young men, at the age when the passions are the strongest, trained in the seminary and unused to female companionship, to occupy a position in which they are brought into the closest and most dangerous relations with women who regard them as beings gifted with supernatural powers and holding in their hands the keys of heaven and hell. Whatever may have been the ardor with which the vows were taken, the youth thus exposed to temptations hitherto unknown, finds his virtue rudely assailed when in the confessional female lips repeat to him the story of sins and transgressions, and he recognizes in himself instincts and passions which are only the stronger by reason of their whilom repression. That a youthful spiritual director, before whom are thrown down all the barriers with which the prudent reserve of society surrounds the social intercourse of the sexes, should too often find that he has over-estimated his self-control, is more than probable.

This, of course, is merely a priori reasoning, and of itself proves nothing, except the extreme imprudence of a system which applies fire to straw and assumes that combustion will not follow. Doubtless there are cases in which the assumption is justified by the result—whole countries, indeed, where scandals are few. In Ireland, for instance, we rarely hear of immoral priests, though such cases would be relentlessly exposed by the interests adverse to Catholicism, and the proverbial chastity of the Irish women may be both a cause and a consequence of this. In the United States, also, troubles of the kind only come occasionally to public view; but here, again, the church is surrounded by antagonistic churches, the laborers are few and hardly worked, and the position is not one to attract those who might seek a life of sloth and indulgence. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the extreme care with which the church avoids scandal renders it impossible for one not within the pale to ascertain what may really be the relations between ecclesiastics and the female servants whom, as we shall see, they are permitted to keep in their houses.

In lands where Catholicism is dominant I fear that there can be little doubt as to this, although Ernest Renan, a witness of unquestionable impartiality, whose clerical training gave him every opportunity of observation, declares emphatically that he has known no priests but good priests, and that he has never seen even the shadow of a scandal.[1606] In spite of the Nicæan canon, on which the rule of celibacy has virtually rested, the church, after a struggle of more than a thousand years, was forced to admit the “subintroducta mulier” as an inmate of the priest’s domicile. The order of Nature on this point refused so obstinately to be set aside, that the Council of Trent finally recognized women as a necessary evil, and only sought to regulate the necessity by forbidding those in holy orders from keeping in their houses or maintaining any relations with concubines or women liable to suspicion.[1607] It is true that the severe virtue of St. Charles Borromeo refused to grant to a septuagenary priest a license for more than a year for the residence of a sister equally aged, and forced him to apply annually for its renewal; it is also true that the council of Rome, in 1725, allowed the residence of women only within the first and second degrees of kindred;[1608] but in modern times the Tridentine canon has been interpreted as allowing the residence of female servants or house-keepers, in view of the hardship of doing without domestics and the expense of employing men. In order to meet the Tridentine caution to avoid suspicion, efforts have sometimes been made to define a minimum “canonical” age for these women, varying from thirty to fifty years, but usually placed at forty—a palliative which, as might be expected, accomplishes little, even when, as is not always the case, the rule is observed more scrupulously than by the device of dividing the canonical age and keeping two girls of twenty.[1609]

Few priests, it may be assumed, have the self-denial to live without this female companionship, which is permitted by the church as a matter of course. Indeed, the census-paper officially filled in at the Vatican and returned in January, 1882, stated the population of the palace to be 500, of which one-third were women. While, of course, it does not follow that the relations between these women and the grave dignitaries of the papal court may not be perfectly virtuous, still, considering the age at which ordination is permitted, it would be expecting too much of human nature to believe that, in at least a large number of cases among parish priests, the companionship is not as fertile of sin as we have seen it to be in every previous age since the ecclesiastic has been deprived of the natural institution of marriage. The “niece” or other female inmate of the parsonage throughout Catholic Europe still excites the smile of the heretic traveller, and is looked upon as a matter of course by the parishioner, while the prelates, content if open scandal be avoided, affect to regard the arrangement as harmless, knowing that it serves as a preventive of more flagrant and more public trouble, though the fact that this companionship is made the subject of discussion and regulation at virtually every council or synod or episcopal convention held by the church shows that privately it is recognized as a necessary evil at best. Yet the old sophistry is not forgotten, which proves that such sin is less than the infraction of ecclesiastical laws. In a tract in favor of celibacy, published at Warsaw in 1801, with the extravagant laudation of the authorities, argument is gravely made that as priestly marriage is incestuous, such adultery is vastly worse than simple licentiousness, the latter being only a lapse of the flesh, while marriage would be schism and arrogant disobedience, involving sin of a far deeper dye.[1610]

It would, of course, be vain to expect, at the present day, from the rulers of the church, the outspoken candor of the Middle Ages, when evils were denounced openly and in the coarsest terms. In those days councils could speak, because none but those connected with the church were likely to be cognizant of their proceedings; while, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the immorality of ecclesiastics was so notorious that no harm could arise from admitting it in the efforts made for its correction. In modern times, however, when an external veil of decency is to be maintained before the eyes of antagonistic critics, when scandal is, of all things, to be avoided, and when the proceedings of ecclesiastical bodies are carefully revised at Rome, before they are allowed to become public, with the consciousness that they may be spread by the press before a world of hostile mockers, ready to jeer at the woes of the church, only the most guarded allusions can be made to such subjects, and these only when the case is urgent. When, therefore, we see that almost every council held in modern times has deemed it necessary to insist on the supreme importance of preserving chastity—lying, swearing, stealing, and other sins not being even alluded to; when the caution against undue familiarity with women, even devotees, is constantly urged; and when the relations between the priest and his servant are frequently indicated by directions that he must not admit her to companionship at the table, or on walks and journeys, and especially not in visiting fairs and merrymakings, it would be difficult not to recognize under this guarded phraseology an admission of the actual relationship existing between the good pastors and their female inmates, and a friendly warning, si non caste saltem caute.[1611]

It is not often that we can obtain an inside view of these matters, especially from a source that is at once well informed and not hostile, but such a view, confirming the worst suspicions, is afforded by an indignant remonstrance addressed, in 1832, to Monseigneur Sterckx, Archbishop of Mechlin, by the Abbé Helsen, who for twenty-five years had been a popular preacher in Brussels.[1612] The abbé calls upon his prelate to enforce the Tridentine canon by banishing the women who are universally inmates of the houses of priests, and thus put a stop to the sin and the scandal which destroy the influence of the church and spread immorality among the faithful. Even the bishops and dignitaries of the church are not spared, and the archbishop himself is summoned to dismiss the “Petronilla” who had accompanied him from the curacy of Bouchout to the cathedral of Antwerp, and from Antwerp to the metropolitan seat of Mechlin.[1613] Throughout this plain-spoken epistle the author assumes as a matter of course not only that the relations between the clergy and their servants are guilty, but that they are so recognized by every one—so notorious, indeed, as to need no proof—and, as a natural consequence, he regards the priesthood as a source of infection destructive to public morals. The cure is to be found in putting a stop to these irregular unions—“If women were forever banished from the houses of ecclesiastics vowed to celibacy, I think we should not see so great a number of prostitutes who ply their trade at night in our great cities, nor so many illegitimate children who curse their destiny as they multiply more and more around us. We ridicule the Seraglio of the Grand Turk and the polygamy of the Moslem, but they too, on their side, ridicule the infinite number of strumpets with whom Christian Europe is deluged, and the custom of keeping as many concubines as can be afforded. Whence comes to us this shameful trade, so hurtful to society, which is found under our religion more than under any other? We dare not doubt that it is the result of our own misconduct; we dare not accuse only the heretics and the philosophers of modern times; no, no! the most poisonous spring is in us, among us, with us, and it will not dry up without us. Let us blush to our eye-balls; let us hide ourselves from public sight! Oh for the times and the virtues of the primitive church! Why come ye not again?”[1614] That this sort of scarcely veiled concubinage is, in fact, a fruitful source of prostitution can scarcely be doubted if, as Helsen asserts, the ordinary custom is, when one of these priest’s servants becomes pregnant and cannot be saved by a prudent absence, to dismiss her and take another, perhaps younger and more attractive; and that this may occur repeatedly without the ecclesiastic being subjected to any special annoyance or supervision—unless, indeed, he is so ill-advised as to take pity on the unfortunate girl and refuse to send her away. In that case he becomes a public concubinarian, liable to the canonical penalties, with which he is sometimes disciplined. As Helsen indignantly exclaims, “Would the Mahometans tolerate such infamy in their fakirs and dervishes? The Japanese, the Chinese, the Hindus in their bonzes? The pagans in their Vestals? Our ancestors in their Druids? Even the Jews and Protestants have blushed for it, since they advise their Rabbis and ministers to marry rather than thus to contaminate themselves.”[1615] Helsen does not fail to allude to the public familiarity of these servants with their employers—the familiarity condemned in almost the same words by many of the councils cited above—and it would seem the extreme of Pyrrhonism to doubt that almost universal concubinage is tolerated, even where on the surface there are no public scandals to attract the attention of the malicious.

Testimony of the same nature exists as to Italy, where the upheaval of the last quarter of a century has created discussion and brought forth statements of facts and opinions which reveal to some extent the internal condition of the church. That immorality should be prevalent would seem to be inevitable, if only from the overgrown number of the clergy, which has been fostered by the ambition of the church. In Rome itself, by the census of July 1st, 1867, there were no less than 7404 ecclesiastics of both sexes, in a population of 215,573, or one to every 29 inhabitants of all ages. In the Pontifical States, prior to their absorption by the Kingdom of Italy, the proportion was one to every 55 of the population. In Northern Italy, embracing the Pontificate, the Duchies, Lombardo-Venetia and Piedmont, there was one to every 140; while in the whole of Italy, exclusive of the Pontificate, in 24,231,860 souls there were 174,001 ecclesiastics, showing a proportion of one to 239. These numbers are so wholly beyond the spiritual needs of the people that it is evident that an ecclesiastical career must be sought by thousands who have no vocation for a life of abstinence and self-denial; while even among those who are induced in the fervor of youth to bind themselves by the irrevocable vow of chastity, there must be other thousands who find too late that they have over-estimated their strength. That passions thus denied their appropriate relief in the institution of marriage should degenerate often into brutal license, is too natural to excite special wonder.[1616]

It would be difficult to restrain the appetites of so vast a body as this even with the most determined vigilance on the part of prelates and in the presence of the sternest popular feeling, but both of these elements of repression may safely be assumed to be lacking. The scandal of the Countess Lambertini, whose suit for a share of the estate of her father, Cardinal Antonelli, has for ten years been before the Roman courts, would seem to show that even the virtues of Pius IX. were powerless to eradicate the license which has been traditional in the papal court; and when a theological manual, which is still largely used as a text-book in Catholic seminaries, coolly states that in Italy lust is not regarded as disgraceful,[1617] though we may hope that the standard of morality has improved since it was written, yet we cannot expect to find in the people of which such a statement could be made, the virtue that would hold to strict account a priesthood whose example has been one of the efficient means of its degradation. That there is no restraining influence would in fact appear from the consensus of opinion of all who have had an opportunity of forming a judgment.

An address purporting to emanate from sixteen bishops to Cardinal Catarini, begging for an enlargement of the questions to be discussed in the Vatican Council, assumes the rule of celibacy to be the cause, not only of heresy and schism, but of scandal to the people and of disgrace to the church. It speaks of the disgusting trials which are perpetually coming before the tribunals, making the priestly garb a source of shame to its wearers, and leading the people to regard them, not as the flower of the soldiers of Christ, but as a colony sprung from Sodom.[1618] The Archbishop of Tarento, Giuseppe Capecelatro, has had no scruple in urging the abrogation of the canon in order to reduce the immense number of bastards whose existence disgraces the church.[1619] In a similar mood, D. Marco Petronio, a priest of Pirano, in Istria, declares that the boasted chastity of the priesthood has filled the church with demons in place of angels, who lead their flocks to ruin by their acts and example,[1620] and Panzini describes the church as a brothel filled with men ruined by the attempt to deprive them of marriage. When the latter, indeed, was on his trial before the Inquisition, he asserted that in consequence of the canon, there were daily committed in Rome itself more than twenty thousand mortal sins, and the advocate of the Holy Office, D. Giuseppe Cipriani, contented himself with quietly responding, “Perhaps not so many.”[1621] We may therefore feel confident that there is no exaggeration in the remarks of the Rev. William Chauncy Langdon, who had ample opportunities of observation during his long residence in Italy as agent of the American Episcopal Church—“I learned to regard a priest, who had lived all his mature life, openly and faithfully with a woman to whom he had not of course been married; by whom he had children now grown up, and for all of whom he was faithfully providing—with a relative respect as one who had greatly risen above the morality of his church, and of the society around him, and whose life really might be considered, on the dark moral background behind him, a source of relative light.”[1622]

We have here an example of the tolerated concubinage which Helsen describes as universal under the interpretation put upon the Tridentine canons. It would seem that it ought to be in some degree a safeguard against worse offences and more public scandals, as a kind of substitute for marriage; but unlawful indulgence weakens the power of resistance to temptation and hardens the conscience to sin. In spite, therefore, of this practical relaxation of the canons, we see the old troubles of the relations between spiritual directors and their fair penitents continue to vex the pious. As we have seen with the less delicate matter of the female companions of the clergy, the councils of modern times are not likely to be outspoken with regard to such a subject, but the frequency with which they reiterate commands that the confessions of women shall not be heard, save in case of infirmity, except in church; that when heard elsewhere it shall always be with open doors, and that in church the confessional shall be in a spot publicly visible, with a grating between the confessor and his penitent; that before and after sunset the lamps shall always be lighted, with other similar precautions, shows that the risk is fully recognized and requires constant watchfulness.[1623] Helsen, in fact, alludes to the scandals of the confessional as a cause of its avoidance by the faithful and as contributing powerfully to the growth of religious indifference;[1624] and that these scandals exist is not a mere matter of conjecture or inference. If it were so, there would be no need for reiterating the prohibitions against the absolution by confessors of their fair partners in guilt, which is still occasionally found to be necessary by modern councils;[1625] nor would Pius IX. in 1866 have felt himself obliged to declare that the power granted to bishops to absolve in cases reserved to the Pope shall not in future extend to offences reserved for papal absolution by Benedict XIV.’s Bull “Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ.” In fact, the crime of “solicitation” must have become notoriously frequent before the Congregation of the Inquisition of Rome could have felt impelled, in 1867, to put forth an Instruction addressed to all archbishops, bishops, and ordinaries, complaining that the constitutions on the subject did not receive proper attention, and that in some places abuses had crept in, both as to requiring penitents to denounce guilty confessors, and as to the punishing of confessors guilty of solicitation. It therefore urged the officials everywhere to greater vigor in investigating such offences and gave a summary of the practice of the Inquisition in regard to these matters, supervision over which, it will be remembered, was confided to the Holy Office by the Bulls of Pius IV. and Gregory XVI. From this it appears that when such a denunciation is received, it is the custom of the Inquisition to order the accused to be watched, and not to prosecute him unless he is the subject of three separate accusations. When this number has been reached, a special court is convened whose business it is to examine whether there may not be some special enmity on the part of the accusers. Failing this, the accused is then examined under oath, care being taken not to reveal the names of the accusers nor to violate the seal of the confessional. If the transgressor confesses or is convicted, he is deprived forever of the faculty of hearing confessions and must abjure the heresy implied in his crime; but the severer punishments decreed by Gregory XV. of degradation from holy orders and delivery to the secular arm are not to be inflicted. Those who voluntarily confess without being denounced, even though they may subsequently be denounced, are allowed to escape with a suitable penance and are ordered merely not to hear subsequently the confessions of those whom they have solicited; confession after denunciation, but before trial, also diminishes the penalty. The utmost secrecy is enjoined on all concerned, who are to be sworn to silence, and so great a stress is laid on this that even priests are required to take the oath on the Gospels. The accuser is not to be asked whether she consented to the solicitation, and if she voluntarily makes such a statement it is not to be entered in the proceedings of the case. After the trial is finished, moreover, the whole is to be consigned to oblivion.[1626] In view of this nervous anxiety for secrecy, and the tenderness manifested throughout to the offender, it is surely not uncharitable to conclude that scandal is more feared than sin in these matters.

Possibly the abuses of the confessional may be less frequent now than they were in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, yet it is evident that they are still quite prevalent enough to require a much more efficient system of repression than they are at all likely to receive. It is true that the questions put to the penitent by the confessor are divested of the extremity of brutal coarseness prescribed by Bishop Burckhardt, but they are still sufficiently suggestive to be revolting to the pure-minded, and dangerous in no small degree to those who are likely to lapse.[1627]

What in reality is the extent of these abuses can only be a subject of conjecture. Their very nature causes them to be scrupulously concealed not only by the principals, but by those who may incidentally find themselves wronged, and the church itself exerts all its influence to shield the guilty and suppress the scandal. How powerfully and how unscrupulously its influence is exerted to this end may be judged from a few examples. In 1817, at Availles, in France, the sacristan complained to the mayor that his daughter was received every night by the curé, to the scandal of the people. The mayor thus invited entered the priest’s house suddenly one night and found the girl in dishabille, hidden in a corner. He drew up an official statement of the facts and forwarded it to the authorities, and the response to this was his summary dismissal from office on the ground of having violated the domicil of the curé and increased the scandal.[1628] More recent than this is the notorious case of the Abbé Mingrat, who while curé of Saint-Opre, near Grenoble, got into trouble by seducing one of his penitents, but was saved from prosecution and transferred to Saint-Quentin. Here he established relations with a devout young married woman, which ended in his cutting her in pieces with his pocket-knife and throwing the fragments into the river Isère. Even yet no action would have been taken had not the mayor of the place insisted, but Mingrat was enabled to escape to Savoy, where he was provided for as a persecuted saint.[1629] Similarly, in 1877, the Abbé Debra, condemned at Liège in default, for no less than thirty-two offences, was, after proper seclusion in a convent, given a parish in Luxembourg by the Bishop of Namur.[1630] In the case of the Abbé Mallet, which occurred in 1861, the church was unable to save the culprit from punishment, but did what it could to conceal his crimes from the faithful. As a canon of Cambray, he seduced three young Jewish girls and procured their confinement in convents under pretext of laboring for their conversion. One of his victims lost her reason in consequence of her sufferings, and the court of Douay condemned him to six years at hard labor—a sentence which was announced by an orthodox journal thus—“M. le chanoine Mallet de Cambrai, accusé de détournement de mineurs pour cause de prosélytisme religieux a été condamné à six ans de reclusion”—where the skilful use of the masculine “mineurs” and the characterization of his offence as religious proselytism elevate the worst of criminals into a martyr for the faith.[1631] It is quite within the bounds of probability that, as such a martyr, he may, since the expiration of his sentence, have been enjoying, in some cure of souls, the opportunity of repeating his missionary experiments.

It is evident from these various causes that the criminal records can give only the barest suggestion as to the extent of crimes thus committed in secret by a class shielded by influences so powerful. The records of the ministère de la justice, moreover, are not in France open to the public, and the only mode of obtaining even an approximate idea of the number of prosecutions in these cases is to gather them from the journals in which they chance to appear as items of news. An attempt to effect this has been made by Dr. Wahu, and though, from the nature of the case, necessarily imperfect, it affords some interesting and suggestive statistics. His list extends from the beginning of 1861 to April, 1879, and is thus tabulated:—

1861 3 cases. 1862 2 ” 1863 1 ” 1864 1 ” 1866 2 ” 1867 3 ” 1868 3 ” 1869 3 ” 1872 10 ” 1873 6 ” 1875 5 ” 1876 1 ” 1877 16 ” 1878 35 ” 1879 (Jan. to April) 19 ”

In all 110 cases, of which nearly one-half were brethren connected with educational institutions, referred to above.

The earlier years of this list must be necessarily imperfect, and, indeed, M. Charles Sauvestre has given details of nine cases occurring in schools in 1861,[1632] all which have escaped Dr. Wahu, but, even making allowance for the impossibility of hunting up all the fugitive records of the past, the increase during recent years is not to be regarded as indicating an increase of immorality. It rather proves how powerful were the forces protecting the church and repressing publicity under the Second Empire. The absence of cases in 1870-1 is probably attributable to the preoccupations of the Franco-Prussian War and its consequent troubles. While the presidency of M. Thiers, in 1872, yielded 10 cases, the reactionary government of Marshal MacMahon showed but 12 cases in four years. After the fall of MacMahon the number rapidly increases, the first four months of 1879 affording no less than 19 cases. Whether, since then, this rate of progression has been maintained I have no means of knowing, but it is to be hoped that the breaking up of the unauthorized orders, and the increased vigilance of the authorities, aided by an aroused public sentiment, have led to a decrease in the dismal record. One deplorable feature of many of these cases is the large number of victims frequently represented in a single prosecution, and that the perpetrator had often been afforded the opportunity of continuing his crimes in successive situations. Thus, in the affair of the Abbé Debra, at Liège, in 1877, there were 32 offences charged against him; and, of those occurring in the single year 1878, frère Marien was condemned for no less than 299, frère Mélisse, at Saint-Brice, for 50, frère Climène at Candé, Mazé, and Martigné-Ferchaud, for 25, and frère Adulphe at Guipry, Saint-Meloir-des-Ondes, and Pleurtuit, for 67.

It would be a libel on human nature to assert that this catalogue of sin does not represent more than an average of wickedness, and the responsibility for the existence of so shocking a condition of morality must, at least in part, be attributed to the rule of celibacy, for there is nothing in the status of the church in France to attract to it those who seek merely a career of sloth and self-indulgence. The income of the parish priest in France only averages about 1100 francs per annum, and his position, in a vast majority of cases, is wholly insecure, being dependent altogether upon the pleasure of his bishop, who can dismiss him at any moment and thus deprive him of all means of livelihood. In 1866, out of a total of 33,707 priests in service, only 3715 held preferment of which they could not be thus deprived at the whim of their superiors.[1633] A profession so poorly rewarded, subjected to discipline nominally so severe, and held under such a tenure, can scarce be expected to draw to its ranks men of character and position; and in fact, the Bishop of Poitiers, in 1877, made in a pastoral letter the humiliating avowal that the better and more intelligent classes as a rule avoided the church, which was compelled to find its recruits among the children of peasants and laborers. This is confirmed by a work entitled “Le grand péril de l’église de France,” issued in 1879 by the Abbé Bougaud, Vicar-General of Bishop Dupanloup of Orléans, by which it appears that the districts which furnish the most recruits are those which are most ignorant, and that, as education increases, the willingness to enter the church diminishes. Moreover, not only is this the case, but even the numbers of the secular clergy, necessary for the ministrations of religion, are deficient. In his own diocese of Orléans there were 180 priests lacking, and in that of Troyes there were 100 parishes without curés; and though the want of qualified ministers was daily increasing, the pupils in the seminaries were diminishing, and it seemed impossible to fill the void.[1634] While some allowance must of course be made for the character of the material thus pressed into service, this fact only increases the responsibility of those who persist in subjecting youths fitted neither by nature nor training to the tremendous strain of enforced celibacy in a career which surrounds them with the most dangerous temptations.

* * * * *

Irrespective of questions of morality, the rule of celibacy in modern society is harmful to the state in proportion as it contributes to the aggrandizement of those who enforce it. A sacerdotal caste, divested of the natural ties of family and of the world, with interests in many respects antagonistic to the communities in which its members reside, with aims which, from the nature of the case, must be for the temporal advancement of its class, is apt to prove a dangerous element in the body politic, and the true interests of religion, as well as of humanity, are almost as likely to receive injury as benefit at its hands, especially when it is armed with the measureless power of confession and absolution, and is held in strict subjection to a hierarchy. Such a caste would seem to be the inevitable consequence of compulsory celibacy in an ecclesiastical organization such as that of the Catholic church, and the hierarchy based upon it can scarce fail to become the enemy of human advancement, so long as the priest continues to share the imperfections of our common nature. How little the aims of that hierarchy have changed with the lapse of ages may be seen in the pretensions which it still advances, as of old, to subject the temporal sovereignty of princes and peoples to the absolute domination of the spiritual power. The temper of Innocent III. and Boniface VIII. is still the leading influence in its policy, and the opportunity alone is wanting for it to revive in the nineteenth century the all-pervading tyranny which it exercised in the thirteenth. Even the separation of church and state is condemned as a heresy, and as the state is denied the privilege of defining the limits of its own authority, and as the right of the church to use force is asserted, it would be difficult to set bounds to the empire which is its rightful heritage, and of which it is deprived by the irreligious tendencies of the age.[1635]

Yet, in spite of this antagonism to the spirit of modern society and civilization, it would be futile to anticipate the downfall of the church, or even any marked modification in its general organization or teaching. It arose out of a necessity in human development. With all its aberrations, it has been, perhaps, the most efficacious of agencies for the improvement and civilization of man, and it will not disappear or undergo any essential change until the necessity for its existence shall have passed away in the elevation of mankind. The human race is not yet prepared for independence in religious and moral thought, and the masses in many lands will long require to be controlled with the awful authority claimed for an infallible church, and will find inexpressible comfort in that implicit faith which throws upon another the burden of sin and the responsibility of salvation. The church thus is doing its work, and has its work to do. We may, indeed, look forward hopefully to the time when the diffusion of education and the growth of intelligence will enable man to throw off the trammels which still are requisite to his well-being and well-doing, and will seek and obey his Creator without an intermediary, but that time is yet far off, and until it comes Latin Christianity has a mission from which it cannot be spared.

NOTE.

A Catholic reviewer of my first edition has assured me that I am in error in assuming clerical celibacy to be a point of faith in his church. To use his own words—“The writer is mistaken when he calls the celibacy of the clergy a point of faith. It never was more than a point of discipline, as is keeping the fasts and other commandments of the church, which may be modified by the same authority which prescribed them.” That it may, even as a point of faith, be abrogated by the same authority which defined it, I do not doubt, for everything is possible to a General Council guided by an infallible Pope; that it may now be occasionally represented and even treated as a point of discipline, I think quite possible and shall not undertake to dispute, seeing that the Greek discipline is tolerated in that portion of the Greek church which admits the supremacy of Rome,[1636] but that the council of Trent intended to make it a point of faith and did so make it is susceptible of the plainest demonstration. Any one who will read the Tridentine canons (ante, pp. 536-7) will see that their form is purely doctrinal and not disciplinary. If this be questioned, I may refer to Chr. Lupus, whose orthodoxy and accuracy in such matters no good Catholic can doubt, and who informs us, what indeed is self-evident, that the council of Trent classified its anathemas of faith as canons, and its regulations of discipline as decrees of reformation—“Sacrosancta Tridentina synodo fidei anathematismos, canones; morum autem regulas appellet decreta reformationis” (App. ad Synod. Chalced. Art. I.—Opp. II. 248), and the anathemas on the subject will be found classed under the title “Doctrina de Sacramento Matrimonii,” followed by disciplinary regulations under the rubric “Decretum de Reformatione Matrimonii.” The form of the canons in fact tells its own story. The dread anathema, the final and highest condemnation of the church (“Anathema est æternæ mortis damnatio et non nisi pro mortali debet imponi crimine et illi qui aliter non potuerit corrigi”—Grat. Decret. P. II. Caus. XI. Q. iii. c. 41) is directed, not against him who actually marries, but against those who assert that all may marry who have not the gift of chastity; and the same condemnation is pronounced on those who hold that marriage is preferable to celibacy. It is therefore treated purely as a matter of belief, the mere discussion of which is practical heresy. This was the form adopted by the council throughout in defining points of faith, as, for instance, in treating of Original Sin, which no one will pretend to be a matter of discipline—“Si quis per Jesu Christi Domini nostri gratiam quæ in baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitti negat ... anathema sit” (Sess. V. de Peccat. Orig. c. 5). Any one believing in the validity of priestly marriage is therefore not merely a contemner of a point of discipline but a heretic, and it is simply a libel on the good fathers of Trent to assert that they would anathematize as worthy of perpetual perdition a simple theoretical opinion on a matter of discipline.

Their intentions, moreover, as to this, are rendered indisputable by the answer of Pius V. in 1561, just before the final meeting of the Council, to the demand of Charles IX. for the concession of the cup to the laity. The pontiff states that he had considered that point and the marriage of the clergy to be matters of law, and therefore capable of alteration by due authority, but that, on expressing this opinion in the last conclave, he had been stigmatized as a Lutheran (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 734). This is confirmed by the remarks of Fra Paolo on the canon which pronounces the anathema on those who deny that a non-consummated marriage is dissolved by the vow of either spouse (Sess. XXIV. de Sacram. Matrim. c. vi.), where he alludes to the surprise caused by making it a point of faith—“Nel sesto anathematimismo del Matrimonio restarono molti ammirati che fosse posto per articolo di fede” (Ist. del Concil. Trident. Lib. VIII.—Ed. Helmstadt. II. 382).

The same view continued long to be upheld as orthodox. It would be difficult to find a work published under auspices more authoritative than Andreas Forster’s “De Cœlibatu Clericorum Dissertatio,” a thesis publicly read in the University of Dillingen in 1782, printed by authority, and dedicated to Pius VI. At that time there were serious efforts making, in the bosom of the church itself, to overthrow the rule of celibacy, and there was no hesitation on the part of the ecclesiastical rulers to avow the full purport of the Tridentine canons. Forster accordingly does not scruple to declare the truth as to the orthodox doctrine, nor was exception taken to his assertion by the authorities whose imprimatur the volume bears. The condemnation of those, he says, who rashly assert that marriage can be contracted by those in orders or bound by solemn vows of chastity is a dogma of faith, while the definition that virginity is better than matrimony is a dogma of morals—“Pro certo nos tenemus et ab omnibus Catholicis tenendum esse firmiter adserimus, Ecclesiam in laudato consilio recte omnino definiisse ... melius esse ac beatius manere in virginitate aut cœlibatu quam jungi matrimonio. Recte porro damnasse eos qui matrimonium a clericis in SS. Ordinibus constitutis, vel a regularibus castitatem solemniter professis, valide posse contrahi temere adsererent. Et hoc ultimum ad Dogma Fidei, illud prius ad Dogma Morum proculdubio pertinet” (op. cit. § xxxi. Dilingæ, 1782). In full accordance with this was the line of argument adopted by the advocates of the church in 1831, when it became necessary to overrule the decision which had authorized the marriage of the priest Dumonteil. They represented that to permit the civil marriage of a priest was, in fact, to persecute the church, because “qui veut une religion la veut avec ses dogmes, et la chasteté du prêtre est un de ceux de l’église Catholique” (Bouhier de l’Écluse, de l’État du Prêtre en France, p. 31).

I do not doubt that the peculiar dialectics by which Bishop Dupanloup explained away all that was shocking in the Syllabus of December, 1864 (La Convention et l’Encyclique, Paris, 1865), might make out a tolerably fair line of argument to prove that the Tridentine fathers did not do what they meant to do. In the subtle insincerity which pervades the formulas of the Latin church, allowing either side of a question to be affirmed as opportunity serves, the formulas of Trent constitute no exception. Thus if the rule of celibacy were to be abrogated, I presume that it could be readily accomplished by doing away with the vow of chastity and assuming that the administering of that vow is merely a matter of discipline. The papal power to dispense from vows is likewise too well established to be called in question, as was shown by the decision of the council of Trent on that very matter. The Latin church, in fact, has ample resources to enable it to adopt any line of policy that its rulers may consider adapted to the exigencies of the present or of the future; and if it should, at any time, consider sacerdotal and cenobitic celibacy undesirable, I am perfectly willing to concede that it would find no difficulty in setting aside or eluding the Tridentine anathemas; yet none the less would those anathemas remain to show us what was the position which it occupied in the sixteenth century. Meanwhile it may be suggested to the orthodox who regard celibacy as merely disciplinary that the church holds both marriage and ordination to be sacraments, and that a definition that the two are incompatible and a decision as to which of the two must give way to the other can hardly in the nature of things, or by any rational use of language, be regarded as merely a matter of discipline. Those, indeed, who are inclined to take such view, may well bear in mind the fate of Panzini, who, regarding celibacy as a point of discipline, was condemned, in 1860, by the Roman Inquisition to twelve years’ incarceration for merely writing an essay, which never was printed, arguing in favor of its impolicy.

INDEX.

Abbey lands, disposition of in Germany, 434, 437, 439 in England, 454, 482 in Scotland, 508 confiscated in France, 589 in Italy, 609-10

Abbo, St., of Fleury, his martyrdom, 153

Abbot of Langdon, case of, 451 of Crossed-Friars, case of, 457 of Walden, his marriage, 463

Abbots, their marriage, in Hungary, 401 execution of English, 457

Abelard, his description of monachism, 264 his marriage, 269 his “Sic et Non,” 316 his answer to Heloise, 348 on abuse of confessional, 350

Abingdon, Abbey of, 167

Absalom of Scania, 252

Absolution, purchasable, in Manichæism, 44 marketable value of, in Rome, 356, 428 mutual, of guilty priests, 428 by partner in guilt, 346, 575-7, 633

Abstinence from women in pagan priesthood, 49

Abstinentes, heresy of, 33

Abuse of confessional (see Confessional).

Abyssinian church, customs of, 92

Accomplice, immunity of, 291

Acephali, 109, 115

Adalbero of Metz ordains sons of priests, 154

Adam de la Halle on Alexander IV., 334

Adam de Marisco, his labors, 292

Adela of Flanders, seeks to enforce celibacy, 260

Adela of Flanders, miraculous cure of, 404

Adelaide of Savoy, her interposition asked, 203

Adolph of Nassau, Archb. of Mainz, 412

Adorateurs de Jésus, 613

Adrian I. asserts the morality of his clergy, 135

Adrian VI., his views on priestly marriage, 422 reproaches Diet of Nürnberg, 424 on Luther’s abrogation of celibacy, 432

Adulphe, frère, case of, 637

Adulterous wives of priests to be put away, 39 of Huguenot pastors, 498

Adultery, clerical, habitual, 247 immunity for, 447 toleration of, in Mexico, 565 less objectionable than marriage, 627

Ælfric, St., of Canterbury, his canons, 172

Æneas Sylvius (see Pius II.).

Africa, celibacy urged on, 66 introduction of celibacy in, 73 immorality in, 81 married bishops in, 89 Donatist monks in, 107

Agapetæ, scandals of, 41, 50, 54, 78 forbidden by Council of Elvira, 50 by Council of Ancyra, 54 by Council of Nicæa, 54 by Emp. Honorius, 55

Agde, Council of, in 506, 80

Age, minimum, for vows in early church, 100, 105 under Council of Trent, 587 in France, 585 in Tuscany, 587 under Pius IX., 611 for ordination under Council of Trent, 624 for resident women, 626

Agen, Manichæism in 1100, 207

Agnes, Empress, deprived of regency, 201

Agrippa, Cornelius, on the clergy, 415 on licenses to sin, 428 on character of Roman prelates, 429

Agudi, Father, case of, 607

Ain-Traz, Synod of, in 1835, 91

Aix, Council of, in 1850, 626

Aix-la-Chapelle, proportion of clergy in, 631 Council of, in 817, 138 in 836, 137

Alain de l’Isle on clerical morals, 321 on Waldenses, 374

Alberic, Cardinal, and the heretics, 370

Alberic of Marsico, his crimes, 153

Alberic of Ostia, Legate to England, 281

Albero of Liége permits priestly marriage, 247

Albero of Mercke, heresy of, 196

Albero of Verdun, his efforts at reform, 264

Albert II. (Emp.) fines concubinary priests, 396

Albert of Bavaria asks for clerical marriage, 531, 539

Albert of Brandenburg embraces Lutheranism, 366 founds kingdom of Prussia, 434

Albert of Hamburg on chastity, 181 his measures of reform, 189

Albert of Mainz seeks to restrain priestly marriage, 419 his proposed marriage, 434

Albigenses, heresy of, 207 attacked by St. Bernard, 331 their tenets, 367

Alby, extent of heresy in, 370 Council of, in 1850, 626

Alcobaça, Abbot of, head of Order of St. Michael, 365

Alcuin on disorders of Saxon nunneries, 165

Aldebert of Le Mans, licentiousness of, 264

Aldhelm, St., on virginity, 162

Alemanni, unchastity of, 118

Alexander II. seeks archbishopric of Milan, 209 his election to Papacy, 200 his estimate of Damiani, 186 suppresses the Liber Gomorrh., 188 he enforces the reform, 202 his discouragement, 204 he protects the Jews, 205 his two missions to Milan, 213 he authorizes war against marriage, 215 he sends legation to Milan, 217 his efforts in Spain, 303 his letter to William the Conqueror, 272 his death, 206 enforcement of celibacy attributed to him, 225

Alexander III. on married canons, 270 his efforts in England, 281 his endeavors at reform, 319, 321 he inclines to priestly marriage, 325 he confirms Order of St. James, 364 on hereditary transmission, 516

Alexander IV., his reforms, 333 on corruption of laity by priesthood, 350

Alexander VI., his character, 345 he grants marriage to Portuguese orders, 365 his patience with Savonarola, 386 he reforms the Benedictines, 403

Alexander VII. defines solicitation, 575, 576

Alexandria, disorderly monachism in, 106

Alfonso the Wise on origin of celibacy, 28 forbids priestly marriage, 308

Alfonso VI. (Castile) asks for a legate, 304

Alfonso VIII. of Leon, 306

Alfonso I. (Portugal) founds orders of Avis and St. Michael, 365

Alfonso I. (Naples) collects tax on concubines, 399

Alfred on chastity of nuns, 166

Allocution Acerbissimum, 609

Alphonso Liguori, St., on clerical corruption, 587

Altmann of Passau, his mission to Constance, 229 his enforcement of celibacy, 230

Alva, Duke of, enforces reception of Council of Trent, 553

Alvarez Pelayo, on Spanish clergy, 311

Amalfi (see Melfi).

Amandus of Maestricht, case of, 126

Amandus, papal legate to Spain, 304

Amboise, edict of, in 1562, 499

Ambrose, St., admits disregard of celibacy, 67 condemns Jovinian, 69 priestly marriage attributed to him, 250

Ambrose of Camaldoli, 393

America, Spanish church in, 563-66 (See, also, United States and Canada.)

Ammonius Saccas, 39

Ammonius, St., his fortitude, 188

Anabaptists, the, 438

Anaclet, antipope, enforces celibacy, 342

Anastasius (Emp.), revolts against, 107

Anathema, nature of, 640 for disbelief in celibacy, 536

Ancarano, his opinion as to priests’ concubines, 339

Anchorite, estimate of chastity of, 348

Ancyra, Council of, in 314, regulates priestly marriage, 51 forbids agapetæ, 54 on vows of celibacy, 97

Andrea of Vallombrosa on Milanese clergy, 210

Andreas of Lunden on concubines, 197

Andrew of Tarentum, case of, 123

Angelric of Vasnau, case of, 142

Angers, clergy of, their demoralization, 394

Anglican bishops, regulations for their marriage, 489

Anglican clergy, popular contempt for, 476 restrictions on their marriage, 489 flexibility of their faith, 490 evil influences on their marriage, 494 their position, 497

Anglican Church, the, 444-497 Queen Elizabeth’s estimate of, 491

Anglican priests, manual of confessional for, 634

Anglican ritual, marriage service in, 476

Anglo-Irish church, disorders of, 298

Anglo-Saxon church, celibacy enforced, 162 disorders of, in 10th century, 147, 167

Angoulême, case occurring in, 269

Anjou, Council of, in 453, 79 in 1262, 1291, 1312, 332, 350

Ann of Cleves, her marriage, 470

Annates, increase of, by the Popes, 412 withdrawn by Henry VIII., 450

Anomalies, ethical, 269, 347, 627

Anse, Council of, in 990, 156

Anselm, St., on sacraments of sinful priests, 195 his reforms, 273 his death in 1109, 278

Anselmo di Badagio (see Alexander II.).

Anselmo, St., of Lucca, his persecution, 222

Antealtaria, Abbot of, 308

Anthony, St., retires to the desert, 97

Anthony of Ephesus, crimes of, 85

Anthony of Prague enforces Tridentine canons, 534 heresy encouraged by corruption, 556

Antichrist, anticipation of, 394

Antidicomarianitarians, heresy of, 69

Antioch, Council of, 42

Antisacerdotalism of Vigilantius, 71 mediæval, 370 sqq.

Antoin, married canons of, 270

Antonelli, Cardinal, imprisons Panzini, 602 his daughter, 631

Antwerp, Synod of, in 1610, 557, 562

Apel, John, punished for marrying, 424

Apocalypsis Goliæ, 284

Apollinaris of Rhodes, 118

Apollo, celibacy of priestess of, 50

Apology for Confession of Augsburg, 436

Apostle, Junia the, 60

Apostolical canons on digami, 37 permit priestly marriage, 39 marriage honored in, 48

Apostolical constitutions on digami, 37 permit priestly marriage, 39 order of widows in, 42 honors rendered to marriage, 48

Apostolical Letter, Multiplices inter, 602

Apostoloci, heresy of, 97

Apotactici, heresy of, 33, 44

Appeals discountenanced at Trent, 538

Appeals to Rome, immunity caused by, 139 their effect, 322 forbidden by Alex. IV., 334

Ap Rice and the Abbot of Walden, 463

Aquinas, St. Thomas, on origin of celibacy, 28 on sacraments of sinful priests, 195 on vows, 321 on absolution by guilty confessors, 575

Arab monachism, nature of, 102

Arabic version of Nicene canons, 53

Aranda, Council of, in 1473, 400

Archembald of Sens, his evil courses, 153

Arechis of Beneventum, law of, 127

Aretino, abuses in church of, 147

Arfastus of Thetford, 272

Arialdo, St., seeks archbishopric of Milan, 209 raises question of priestly marriage, 211 is excommunicated, 212 procures excom. of Archbp. Guido, 216 his martyrdom, 217

Arianism, celibacy under, 120

Arith, Wm., on clerical disorders, 501

Arles, Council of, in 314, 51 in 441, 69,79, 105

Armagh, hereditary archbishops of, 296

Armagh, Council of, in 1854, 626

Armenia, hereditary priesthood in, 90

Armenia, Council of, in 1362, 90

Arnald of Brescia, heresy of, 195

Arnaldo de Peralta, his reforms, 309

Arnolfo, a reformer, fate of, 341

Arran, Regent, favors the Reformation, 507

Artemis, virgins for priestesses of, 50

Arthur of Britanny a canon of Tours, 307

Articles, Thirty-nine, clerical marriage in the, 490

Articles, Forty-two, clerical marriage in the, 475, 490

Articles, the Six, enacted by Parliament, 467 heretics burnt under them, 458 their modification, 471 repealed in 1547, 472 popular call for their restoration, 475 revived under Mary, 478 repealed under Elizabeth, 487

Artois, Council of, in 1025, 369

Arundel of Canterbury on Lollardry, 381

Asceticism, unknown to early Jews, 21 in Brahmanism and Buddhism, 23 in Essenism, 25 not encouraged by Christ, 25 tendency to, in Ebionism, 27 tendencies of St. Paul, 31

Asceticism, commencement of, in the church, 31 repressed by the church, 32 of heretics, 33 stimulated by the heresies, 34 and by influence of Buddhism, 35 growth of, in the church, 36 stimulated by neo-Platonism, 39 and by Manichæism, 45 combated by the church, 48 overcomes all resistance, 49 still voluntary in 4th century, 58 becomes obligatory, 59 reproved by Council of Gangra, 61 voluntary in the East, 84 severity of, in Armenia, 90 of monachism, 97 instances in 11th century, 227 spreads among the laity, 241 of Irish church, 160, 296 neglect of, in Spain, 307 mediæval, 347, 359 of military orders, 362 of Albigenses, 368 of Fraticelli, 377 of Wickliffe, 381 of Hussites, 383 exclusion of women from monasteries, 404 influence of, on solicitation, 574 in modern times, 612

Aschaffenburg, Council of, in 1292, 196

Ashera, worship of, 21

Assembly, National, secularizes church property, 589 legalizes clerical marriage, 590

Assermentés priests, 590

Assideans, 24

Astorga, Bishop of, on Council of Trent, 539

Athanasius on priestly marriage, 58

Athenagoras on morals of Christians, 33 on second marriage, 36 on asceticism, 103

Athravas, hereditary functions of, 23

Atto of Vercelli on female ministration, 60 on dilapidation of property, 146 on married priests, 152

Attys, worship of, 50

Augsburg, the Confession of, 436

Augsburg, Council of, in 10th century, 55 in 952, 149 in 1548, 514, 525 in 1567, 561 in 1610, 549

Augsburg, Diet of, in 1518, 416 in 1530, 435 in 1548, 441, 524 in 1551 and 1555, 443

Augsburg Formula of Reformation, 524, 526, 528

Augustin of Canterbury, 161

Augustin, St., on Jewish high-priesthood, 22 on marriage, 47, 314 on marriage of nuns, 104 on Manichæism, 46 his testimony as to Jovinian, 70 he enforces celibacy, 74 on temporary nature of vows, 97 on wandering monks, 102 on danger of female residence, 138

Augustin, Rule of, adopted by military orders, 362, 363

Augustinians of Gloucester, suppression of, 457 of Nürnberg, secularization of, 425 of Saxony, revolution of, 420

Aunts, residence of, forbidden, 138, 628

Aurelius, St., enforces celibacy, 73

Auricular confession, commencement of, 566

Ausch, Congrès fraternel in 1793, 593

Ausch, Council of, in 1851, 626

Australia, Council of, in 1844, 633

Austrasia, reforms in, 130

Austria, enforcement of celibacy in, 251 efforts for clerical marriage in, 601 civil marriage in, 605 monastic orders in 1859, 615

Autun, Council of, in 690, 80

Auvergne, Council of, in 535, 80

Auxerre, Council of, in 578, 80 persecution of celibacy in, 593

Availles, case occurring at, in 1817, 635

Avellano, monks of, 186

Avesbury, nunnery of, its morals, 282

d’Avesnes, case of the, 323

Avignon, residence of popes in, 342 Council of, in 1594, 560 in 1725 and 1849, 626

Avila, his casuistry, 578

Avis, order of, 365

Avranches, Council of, in 1172, 319

Ayenbite of Inwyt, 348

Azzo, Archbishop of Milan, 218

Babueus grants marriage in orders, 92

Babueus excommunicates Barsuma, 92

Bachelors ineligible to episcopate, 38

Badegisilus of Le Mans, 118

Baden, petitions for clerical marriage in 1828, 601

Bahia, Council of, in 1707, 626

Baithusin, hereditary priesthood of, 22

Bale, Bishop, his writings, 473, 480

Bâle, Council of, 395 reconciles the Hussites, 382 clerical marriage suggested in, 406 canons of, affirmed in Scotland, 1559, 505 revived in Germany, 528

Balsamon on legislation of Greek church, 87

Baltimore, Councils of, in 1829, 1843, 633 in 1840, 627 in 1866, 627, 633

Bamburg, troubles of, in 1431, 395 Synod of, in 1491, 196 morals of clergy in 1505, 431

Bandello, Bishop, his novels, 430

Bangor, morals of clergy of, 463, 494

Baptism by immoral priests invalid, 162 repetition of, refused, 163

Baptisma igneum, 438

Barbarians, the, and the Church, 117-25 superior morality of, 82

Bardsey, Culdees of, 301

Bari, military bishops of, 180

Barnabite college at Monza, case of, 621

Baronius on Gregory of Nazianzum, 58

Barrios, Bish. of Santafé, regulations of, 563

Barsuma of Nisibi, case of, 92

Barsumas, Abbot, at Ephesus, 107

Bartelot, John, case of, 457

Bartholomew of Bracara, his demand for reforms, 534

Basil, St., his strictness, 84

Basilica of Leo the Philosopher, 87

Basilides, heresy of, 34

Bastardy increased by celibacy, 629, 631

Bathing, promiscuous, 41, 42

Baumgartner, Aug., his speech at Trent, 518

Bavaria, marriage of nuns forbidden, in 772, 135 demand for clerical marriage in, 442, 531, 536 clerical marriage after C. of Trent, 554 immorality of clergy, 16th cent., 548 abuse of confessional in, 570 proportion of clergy in, 631

Beards, clergy insist on wearing, 553

Beatoun, Cardinal, his immorality, 503 his proclamation of 1540, 511

Bede on Aaron’s linen breeches, 65 on the rule of celibacy, 161

Beggars’ Petition, the, 453

Beggars, legislation against, under Henry VIII., 455

Begghards, the, 376

Beguines, condemnation of, 377

Belgium, monastic orders in, 615 clerical attacks on public schools, 623 clerical morality in, 629

Bellarmine on story of Paphnutius, 57 his defence of celibacy, 581

Beltis, 21

Benchor, oratory of, 295

Benedict VIII. enforces celibacy, 178

Benedict IX., character of, 179 he sells the papacy, 184 is reinstated as pope, 187

Benedict XIV. approves of Savonarola, 386 on abuse of confessional, 577

Benedict of Camin on clerical morals, 401

Benedict the Levite on residence of female relations, 138

Benedict, St., of Nursia, 111 his example followed, 246 salvation procured by him, 335 rule of, becomes universal, 131 supplemented by Louis-le-Débonnaire, 136 adopted by military orders, 362

Benedictine order, saints in, 113 its services to civilization, 357 its morals in 15th century, 403

Benefices held by tenure of chastity, 311 bestowal of, on servants, 515 hereditary (see Hereditary Transmission).

Benefit of clergy for married priests, 291 extended to concubines, 339

Benevento, Council of, in 1693, 574, 626

Benzo, his account of Hildebrand, 197 his use of the term Paterins, 212 on Nicolitism, 238

Berenger of Tours on priestly marriage, 256

Bernald of Constance on Paphnutius, 56

Bernard, St., reforms effected by him, 265 miracle wrought by him, 266 on barbarism of Ireland, 296 his hymn on St. Malachi, 297 on dissolution of priestly marriage, 316 his defence of marriage, 331 on influence of papal court, 346 on the Albigenses, 368 on the Petrobrusians, 370 on Manichæan abhorrence of marriage, 545

Bernard of Font-Cauld on Waldenses, 374

Bernard of Tiron preaches reform, 258

Bernhardi, Bart., marries in 1521, 419

Bernhardus Baptisatus, his sermon, 391

Bertrand, St., of Comminges, miracle by, 269

Berytus, Synod of, in 448, 82

Besançon, Synod of, in 1707, 562, 576

Beverege, John, burnt, 510

Beza, Theod., on marriage in Anglican church, 489

Bèze, charter to monastery of, 265

Bhagavad-gita, the, 92

Bhikshus and Bhikshunis, Bhuddist, 94

Bigamy of priests in 10th century, 167 in 11th century, 172, 181 in 12th century, 247 caused by celibacy, 278 penalties of, for clerical marriage, 598

Bigorre, legalized concubinage in, 197

Bilio, Card., author of the Syllabus, 604

Bisantio of Bari, 180

Bishops, marriage of (see Marriage).

Bishops to be husbands of one wife, 38 number of digamous, 37, 159 their morality in Coptic church, 93 witnesses required for their chastity, 131 they are nominated by the Merovingians, 118 are held responsible for diocesan property, 123 their power increased by institution of canons, 135 wer-gild for their godsons, 162 their military character in 10th century, 153 in 11th century, 180 they are attacked by Damiani, 198 their lukewarmness as to celibacy, 233 penalties for tolerating priestly marriage, 242 their wives rank as countesses, 259 their children eligible to ordination, 298 female intercourse forbidden to them, 303 they sell licenses to sin, 389, 432, 559 concubinary, punishment for, at Trent, 538 opposing clerical marriage exiled, 594 their restoration of celibacy in France, 595 Irish, poverty of, 297

Bishops, Anglican, regulation for marriage of, 489 position of their wives, 495

Bishoprics, hereditary, in Britanny, 259 in Ireland, 296 created from English monasteries, 459

Blacater, Bishop, persecutes Lollards, 501

Bloodletting of monks, 138

Bohemia, priestly marriage in 11th century, 243 enforcement of celibacy in, 246 marriage in post-Tridentine church, 554 Waldensian refugees in, 375 Begghards in, 377 Hussitism in, 383 Orthodox Brethren in, 385

Bois-le-duc, Synod of, in 1571, 562 in 1612, 558

Boisset, permission to marry refused to him, 597

Bologna, Cossa as Legate in, 344

Bologna, Council of Trent transferred to, 442, 521

Bonaventura, St., on absolution, 346 on abuse of confessional, 350 on dilapidation of church property, 407

Boniface IX., legalized simony under, 398 he relaxes the rule of Fulda, 404

Boniface of Canterbury, 290

Boniface of Lausanne, his fate, 341

Boniface, St., his scruples as to Frankish clergy, 128 he reforms the Frankish clergy, 131 attempts on his life, 133 on infanticide caused by celibacy, 137 on Anglo-Saxon church, 163 he founds Abbey of Fulda, 404

Bonizo of Piacenza, martyrdom of, 222

Bonn, Old Catholic Synod of, in 1878, 604

Bonner, Bishop, deprives married priests, 478 his visitation of London, 479 scandals concerning him, 486

Bonosus, his heresy, 68

Books of canon law burned by Luther, 418

Bora, Catharine von, marries Luther, 425

Bordeaux, Councils of, in 1583, 1624, 560 in 1850, 626

Borgia, Roderic, his character, 345

Boseteha, wife of Cosmo of Prague, 245

Bosnia, heretics of, 369

Bossaert d’Avesnes, case of, 323

Bossu d’Arras, Le, on Alex. IV., 334

Bossuet, his probable marriage, 582

Botoa, monastery of, 306

Bougaud, Abbé, on dangers to the church, 638

Bourges, Council of, in 1031, 179 in 1528, 515 in 1584, 560 in 1800, 595 in 1850, 626

Bourne, Sir John, complains of Chapter of Worcester, 491 his quarrel with Sandys, 496

Boussard, Geoffroi, on origin of celibacy, 29 on dispensing power, 407

Boutaric on droit de marquette, 355

Bouthors on droit de marquette, 355

Boyer on droit de marquette, 354

Bracton on position of concubines, 197

Braga, Councils of, in 563, 572, and 675, 80

Brahmanism, asceticism of, 23

Branda, Cardinal, his reforms, 392

Brazil, suppression of monasteries in, 609

Brecislas of Bohemia, 243

Bremen, Council of, in 1266, 253

Breslau, Council of, in 1279, 252 in 1416, 338 in 1580, 555

Brethren of the Cross, 385

Brethren, Orthodox, 385

Bribes to avert suppression of monasteries, 454

Brice, St., case of, 77

Bridfrith, his life of St. Dunstan, 166

Bristol, see of, created, 460

Britanny, church of, 120 priestly marriage in, 259 heresies in, 371

British clergy, their corruption, 159 church, discipline of, 160 in 9th century, 171

Brixen, schismatic Synod of, in 1080, 238 orthodox Synod, in 1603, 562

Brothels kept by prelates, 429 frequented by priests, 586

de Brou-Laurière, case of, 600

Bruges, Synod of, in 1693, 562

Brunhilda, appeal of Gregory I. to, 124

Bruno of Toul created pope, 187

Bruno St., reforms effected by, 265 founds the Grande Chartreuse, 404

Brunswick, chapter of, in 1476, 400

Brut y Tywysogion on married clergy, 171

Bruys, Pierre de, his heresy, 370

Bucer insists on priestly marriage, 441

Buddha, Sankhyism of, 23 his legend, 35 death of his mother, 68

Buddhism, its influence on Christianity, 34 its connection with Manichæism, 44 its system of monachism, 94

Bulgaria, Manichæism transmitted through, 207

Bulgarian church, rules for, 141

Bull, Papal, Exsurge Domine, 418 Ad canonum, 516 Cum primum, 548 Horrendum, 548 Ad Romanum, 549 Quæ ordini, 549 Postquam verus, 550 Quemadmodum sollicitus, 552 Cum sicut nuper, 568 Universi Dominici gregis, 569 Etiam pastoralis, 577 Sacramentum pœnitentiæ, 577 Auctorem fidei, 587 suppressing English monasteries, 447-9 excommunicating Henry VIII., 455 defining Cardinal Pole’s powers, 478 reconciling England, 483

Burckhardt of Worms on celibacy, 178 his instructions to confessors, 566

Bure, Idelette de, Calvin’s wife, 498

Burghley endeavors to restrain Q. Elizabeth, 492

Burgos, Council of, in 1080, 304

Burial, Christian denied to married priests, 192

Burial, Christian, denied to concubines, 310

Burmah, number of monks in, 95

Burnet, Bishop, on the English monasteries, 451 on the Beggars’ Petition, 453

Burning alive threatened for married priests, in 1524, 423

Butler, John, on marriage of clergy, 466

Cabassut on Apostolical canons, 49

Cadalus, his election as antipope, 200 his cause embraced by Milan, 215

Cadam, Transaction of, 439

Cadière, Catherine, case of, 579

Cæsarea, Synod of, about 360, 61

Cæsarius, St., of Arles, Rule of, 112 on marriage of nuns, 111

Cæsarius of Heisterbach on influence of priesthood, 346

Cain Patraic, the, 159 two classes of bishops in, 295

Caisho, priest of, his case, 485

Calabria, celibacy enforced in, 76, 320

Calatrava, knights of, marriage permitted to, 364

Calini, Archbp., his reports from Trent, 534

Calixtins, the, 383

Calixtus I., his laxity, 37

Calixtus II., on Manichæism, 208 he enforces celibacy in France, 267 his consequent unpopularity, 268 he declares marriage dissolved by orders, 313 on abuse of confessional, 567

Calixtus, his work on celibacy, 583

Calne, Council of, in 978, 170

Calvi, Donato, on religious orders, 96

Calvin, his confession of faith, 498 his marriage, 498

Calvinism, 498-513 its discipline, 498 clerical marriage a matter of course, 498, 510

Calvinist converts, marriage of, 499

Camaldoli, monks of, 183 their demoralization, 393

Cambrai, Manichæism in 1025, 207 Hildebrandine doctrine punished, 236 Council of, in 1025, 208 in 1550, 528 in 1565 and 1567, 559 in 1631, 560 in 1661, 576

Camin, Synods of, in 1454 and 1492, 402

Campeggi, Card., persecutes married priests, 423 heresy justified by clerical immorality, 430 assists in suppression of English monasteries, 449

Canada, duration of vows in, 613 modern Councils of, 626-7, 633

Canonical age for resident women, 626

Canons, Apostolical (see Apostolical).

Canons regular, institution of, 134 of Fécamp, expulsion of, 155 discussion concerning their marriage, 263

Canons are forced to cloistered life, 265 marriage of, in 12th century, 270 hereditary in England, 272 replace Culdees in Scotland, 300 laxity of their rule, 307 of Compostella, reform of, 305 demoralization of, in 15th cent., 399 their unclerical habits, Germany, 14th century, 340 of Brunswick in 1476, their morals, 401 of Lausanne, their demoralization, 429 of Munster, refuse to be reformed, 548 of Milan, their contest with St. Charles Borromeo, 550

Canterbury, Christ Church, in 11th cent. 171 number of married clergy in, 489

“Capacities” given to ejected monks, 455

Capito, Wolf. Fab., persecutes married priests, 420 is married, 423

Caprara, Legate, on married priests, 596

Capua, Council of, in 389, 68

Caraffa, Card., on need of reformation, 522

Cardinalate, childlessness a prerequisite, 550

Cardinal’s college, founded by Wolsey, 447

Carinthia, enforcement of celibacy in, 233

Carloman seeks to reform the church, 128, 130 enters Monte Casino, 134

Carlostadt advocates priestly marriage, 419 favors the Anabaptists, 438

Carlovingian alliance with the church, 128 civilization, its disappearance, 143

Carmelites, corruption of, 353, 587

Carnarvonshire, complaints of priests in, 400

Carpocrates, heresy of, 34

Carracioli, Bishop of Troyes, married, 499

Carterius, Bishop, case of, 37

Carthage, immorality in, 82 Council of, in 348, 100 in 390, 73 in 397, 73 in 398, 49, 73 in 401, 74 in 411, 107 in 419, 74

Carthusian asceticism, 359

Carthusians of London resist Henry VIII., 450

Cashel, Archb. of, on children of bishops, 297

Cashel, Council of, in 1171, 298 in 1853, 633

Cassander, G., on clerical marriage, 542

Cassianus, heresy of, 33

Cassianus, St., Rule of, 101, 110

Cassiodorus relates the story of Paphnutius, 57

Caste, priestly, dangers of creating, 225

Castel-Fuerte, Marques del, 565

Castration of Galli, 50

Castro, Alfonso de, heresy justified by clerical wickedness, 430

Casuistry applied to solicitation, 571, 575, 576 its effect on morality, 578

Catarini, Card., and the Vatican Council, 604

Catarino, Ambrogio, 418

Cathari, heresy of, 207, 367

Catharine von Bora, 425

Catherine de Medicis on reception of Council of Trent, 546 her efforts for clerical marriage, 559

Catholicism, observances borrowed from Buddhism, 35 from Mazdeism, 44

Catholics, persecution of, in Scotland, 512

Caumont, case of married priest of, 258

Cavour introduces civil marriage in Sardinia, 605 suppresses monasteries in Sardinia, 609

Céle-dé, or Culdee, 299

Celestin III. on vows and marriage, 321 on hereditary priesthood, 326

Celestin (pseudo) on abuse of confessional, 567

Celibacy, its influence on history, 19 its post-apostolical origin admitted, 27 not favored in Apost. Constitutions, 48 its enforcement by Council of Elvira in 305, 50 not required by Council of Nicæa, 53 its first enforcement, 64 opposition to it, 67 attributed to Gregory I., 124 and to Gregory VII., 224 its necessity to the church, 193, 225 deprecated by Alexander III., 325 its final enforcement, 330 its results, 331-361 Wickliffe’s opinion of it, 379 condemned by Lollards, 381 maintained by Hussites, 384 not observed by Orthodox Brethren, 385 nor by Brethren of the Cross, 385 evils attributed to, 394 is deprecated in 15th century, 405 is denounced by Luther, 418 is the main obstacle to reunion, 544 is made a point of faith in 1528, 515 and by Council of Trent, 536, 640 and by the Inquisition, 603 attacked in the 18th century, 582 persecuted in French Revolution, 593 reëstablished after the Terror, 595 modern policy of the church, 602-4 is likely to be maintained in the future, 607, 608 modern influence of, 638

Celibates, disabilities of, removed, 99

Celsus of Armagh, 296

Celtic churches, original purity of, 295

Cenobitic life, commencement of, 97

Ceres, celibacy of priestesses of, 50

Cereza, father, of Monza, 621

Cesarini, Cardinal, on revolt against church, 395

Ceylon, number of monks in, 95

Chalcedon, Council of, in 451, 107

Chalons, Council of, in 649, 80 in 813, 567 in 893, 142

Chantries, English, absorption of, 459

Charibert, his laws on forcible marriage, 120

Charity of the monastic orders, 358

Charity in modern church, 612, 616 religious organization of, in France, 615

Charlemagne, his efforts to reform the church, 134, 135

Charles, Archduke, asks for clerical marriage, 544

Charles Borromeo, St., his reforms, 550-2

Charles-le-Chauve on appellate jurisdiction of Rome, 139

Charles the Lame imposes fines on concubinage, 339

Charles Martel oppresses the church, 129 his punishment, 130

Charles IV. (Emp.) urges reform, 340

Charles V. (Emp.), his policy in 1530, 435 he temporizes with the Reformation, 439, 440 he issues the Interim, 441 he demands dispensations for married priests, 442 he accepts the Reformation, 443 his demands for Council of Trent, 519 he objects to its transfer to Bologna, 521 on the reforms of Paul III., 522 he seeks to reform the German church, 524

Charles VII. (France) fines concubinary priests, 396

Charles IX. (France) asks for clerical marriage, 533, 641

Charles de Valois intervenes in Flanders, 323

Charter-House, monks of, their fate, 450

Charter of Oswalde’s Law, 169

Charters of 1814 and 1830, 600

Chartier, Alain, on condition of church, 394

Chartreuse, strictness of rules of, 404

Chassidim, 24

Chastity, estimate of, by Cassianus, 102 feudal tenure by, 153, 311 gift of, to be obtained by seeking, 331, 530, 536 gift of, assured by Council of Trent, 624 sacrifice of, 21 vows of, their introduction, 41 their perversion, 127 required for holy orders, 179 in military orders, 362 maintained in the Six Articles, 468 papal dispensation for, 535, 642 never dispensed for, 611 prelates at Trent sworn to support, 533

Châtillon, Cardinal de, his marriage, 499

Chaucer on priest’s children, 338 on corrupting influence of priests, 351

Chavard, Abbé, case of, 601 on age of ordination, 624

Chelsea, Council of, in 787, 164

Chepstow, Abbess of, accuses Dr. London, 457

Cheregato, Legate, on priestly immunity, 424

Chertsey, monastery of, reformed, 169

Chester, see of, created, 460

Childebert, his laws on forcible marriage, 120

Child-bearing, importance of, among the Jews, 21

Child-bearing, St. Paul’s estimate of, 31

Children cause ineligibility to episcopate, 87 and to cardinalate, 550

Children of ecclesiastics (see Hereditary transmission). in tenth century, 145, 146, 148, 149 ordained by Adalbero of Metz, 154 disabilities of, in 11th century, 179 yet openly provided for, 181 ineligibility of, 184 refused preferment by Henry III., 187 admitted by Alexander II., 205 declared infamous in 1266, 253 openly acknowledged in Normandy, 258 have claims on paternal benefice, 265 disallowed in England in 1102, 274 their ordination permitted in 1107, 276 refused in 1144, 281 universal in 13th century, 285 forbidden in 1237, 288 universal in Spain, 304, 305, 311, 400 favored by dispensing power, 321 forbidden by Celestin III., 326 rendered heritable by Fred. II., 335 fruitless efforts to prevent it, 327-8 legislation of Clement VII., 616 papal dispensation for, 517 regulations in Scotland, 1559, 505 of Council of Trent, 538 of Pius V., 548 of Synod of Augsburg, 1610, 549 of Salzburg, 1616, 554 of Osnabruck in 1625, 558 of apostate priests in France, 500 of priests by slaves emancipated, 563 of knights of Spanish orders, 364 of Anglican priests legitimated in 1552, 476 legitimated under Elizabeth, 488 held illegitimate, 494, 496

China, development of Buddhism in, 95

Christ, his toleration of Essenism, 25

Christ Church College founded by Wolsey, 447

Christians, puritanism of early, 32

Christians, heretics of Bosnia, 369

Christianity, purifying influence of, 354

Chrodegang of Metz, Rule of, 134

Chrysostom, St. John, on virginity, 85

Church, morals of (see Morals). the Ante-Nicene, 31 the Latin, its influence, 17 its temporalities endangered by marriage, 63, 123 extension of its jurisdiction, 139 growth of its independence, 143 it is a protector of the weak, 182 necessity of celibacy to it, 193 its responsibility, 355 enmity against it in 15th cent., 394, 395 its growth under Pius IX., 608 its superiority to the State, 618 its modern claims, 639 lands, question of, in Reformation, 437, 439 fate of, in England, 454

Church lands, fate of, in Scotland, 508 in France, 589 in Italy, 609

Churches, confessions only to be heard in, 574

Churching of wives of priests forbidden, 595

Cincinnati, Council of, in 1861, 627

Cipriani, Gius., on clerical morality, 632

Circester, Synod of, in 1289, 350

Circumcelliones, 107, 109

Cirita, Juan, St., case of, 111

Cistercian order, relaxation of, 403

Cistercian Rule adopted by knights of Calatrava and Avis, 364, 365

Cities, monks not allowed to enter, 108

Civil marriage, 605-7 practical control of church over, 607

Civil power invoked to remove concubines, 559, 560

Civilization promoted by monachism, 113, 357

Clarembald, Abbot, his morals, 281

Clares, barefooted, in Paris, 612

Claude of Evreux essays reform, 560

Claude of Macon essays reform, 515

Claustrals, Franciscan, 402

Clemanges on condition of church, 343, 388, 389, 390, 394

Clement II. appointed by Henry III., 184 endeavors to suppress simony, 185

Clement III. on self-mutilation, 40 on children of bishops, 297 enforces the canons, 326

Clement IV. enforces celibacy in Austria, 251 and in Denmark, 253

Clement VII. maintains the claims of the church, 435 his bulls to Wolsey, 448 on hereditary transmission, 516

Clement III. (Antipope) on concubinage, 238 his death in 1100, 242

Clement of Alexandria on heresies, 33 on the Virgin, 68

Clement, Bishop, case of, 132

Clément of Versailles on clerical marriage, 594

Cléonique, frère, case of, 620

Clergy worse than laity, 168, 265, 282, 428-31, 530, 552 it corrupts the laity, 340, 353, 388, 504, 518, 532, 560, 629

Clergy, Anglican, position of, 497 French, become antagonistic to Revolution, 589 their present position, 637 Spanish, their rudeness, 302 resistance of, to celibacy, 202, 212, 222, 228, 231 statistics of, in modern times, 588, 593, 630

Clermont, Council of, in 1095, 263 in 1130, 314

Cleves, Duke of, demands clerical marriage, 531

Climène, frère, case of, 637

Clotair I., laws on forcible marriage, 120

Clotair II. on monastic excesses, 115

Clovesho, Council of, in 747, 164

Cnut the Great, his laws, 173

Cochin China, abuse of confessional in, 578

Cochlæus, John, on Confession of Augsburg, 542

Code civile, clerical marriage under, 597

Cœur de Jésus, society of, 613

Coklaw, Thomas, marriage of, 509

Colet, John, his work, 445

Colloquy of Poissy in 1561, 559

Cologne, Council of, in 1146, 208 in 1260, 338 in 1306, 377 in 1307 and 1310, 340 in 1423, 393 in 1527, 514 in 1536, 518 in 1548, 526 in 1549, 1550, 1551, 527 in 1651, 562 in 1662, 558, 562 in 1860, 1863, 627, 633 Manichæism in 1146, 207 condemnation of Lolhard in, 377 clerical marriage forbidden in 1548, 530 proportion of clergy in, 631 Archbishop of, asks for clerical marriage, 539

Coloman, King, enforces celibacy, 249

Columba, St., his labors, 126 his mission to Scotland, 160

Comedians forbidden to perform in nunneries, 527

Commendone, Legate, promises clerical marriage, 531

Comminges, miracle occurring in, 269

Communion, refusal of, in Belgium, 623

Communion in both elements in early church, 44 refused to laity, 45 demanded by the Hussites, 384 by Emperor Ferdinand, 530 by Bavaria, 536 by Charles IX., 641 granted to Germany, 541 withdrawn, 543

Comparative merits of virginity and marriage, 46, 47, 318, 347 settled by Council of Trent, 536, 641

Compiègne, marriage of priests in, 270

Compostella, Council of, in 1056, 303 in 1113, 303, 306 canons of, 302 their reform, 305

Compurgation, immunity gained by, 140

Concordat of 1516 with France, 428 of 1801, 595 clerical marriage under it, 596-98 monastic orders forbidden, 613

Concubinage, punishment of, by Justinian, 87 is worse than marriage in Milan, 210 is more venial than marriage in orthodoxy, 349, 627 is recognized as a necessity, 353, 389 its punishment under the Six Articles, 468 in Anglican Church, 494 its recognition asked for, 527 its punishment at Trent, 538

Concubinage in the modern church, 626-32 (See, also, Licenses to Sin.)

Concubinarians ineligible in Saxon Church, 162 proportion of, among the clergy, 519

Concubines of clergy in Spain, 121, 517 priests compelled to keep them, 310, 388 priests fined for not keeping them, 389 they acquire legal position, 339 they do not count in digamy, 349 are liable to death under the Six Articles, 468 are not punished at Trent, 539 secular aid invoked for their removal, 559, 560

Concubines, their position in middle ages, 196

Condom, persecution of celibacy, 593

Confessio Goliæ on celibacy, 290

Confession of Augsburg, 436, 443

Confession of Faith, Calvinistic, 498

Confession not good against accomplice, 291

Confession, auricular, commencement of, 566 dispensation from, 428

Confessional, abuse of, in middle ages, 311, 350, 352 in Germany, 16th century, 432 in nunneries, 523 acknowledged at Trent, 534 in post-Tridentine Church, 566-80 in Italy, 18th century, 586, 588 in modern times, 632-7 testimony of Ernest Renan, 625

Confessionals, regulations concerning, 574, 632

Confessors, guilty, absolution by, 575-7 protection accorded to them, 570, 633

Confiscation of estates of married priests, 87

Congregations, religious, subjected to the State, in 1760, 585

Conjo, convent of S. Maria of, 307

Conrad, King of Lombardy, 220

Conrad, Legate, holds Council of Mainz, 337

Conrad of Mainz on the Hussites, 384

Conrad of Prague, the Hussite, 384

Conrad of Wurtzburg on morals of clergy, 424, 431

Consenza, Council of, in 1579, 553

Conseyo de la Suprema on solicitation, 569, 571

Consilium de emendanda ecclesia, 516, 522, 549 put into the Index, 523

Constance, enforcement of celibacy in, 229 assembly of, in 1094, 243 Council of, in 1415, deposes John XXIII., 343 its failure, 390 Synod of, in 1567, 430, 562 in 1609, 557, 562 Bishop of, defends his clergy, 340

Constance of Burgundy, her influence, 304

Constantine assembles the C. of Nicæa, 52 encourages monachism, 99

Constantine Copronymus, persecution of monks by, 90

Constantine (Pope) threatens Witiza, 121

Constantine of St. Symphorian, 154

Constantinople, Council of, in 381, 84 in 400, 85 in 680, 88

Constitutions, Apostolical (see Apostolical).

Constitution of 1791, clerical marriage in, 591

Contarini, Cardinal, on need of reformation, 522 on evils of celibacy, 561

Continence overbalanced by pride, 32

Continence, vows of (see Chastity).

Convention, National, supports clerical marriage, 594

Convents (see Monachism).

Converts from Catholicism, marriage of, 499, 500

Convocation of 1547 approves of clerical marriage, 472 of 1554 enforces celibacy, 480 of 1557, its legislation, 485

Coptic Church, customs of, 92

Corella, affair of, 572

Corruption of laity by clergy, 265, 350, 518, 548

Cosmo of Prague, case of, 245

Cossa, Balthazar, his crimes, 343

Cotta, Landolfo, seeks archbishopric of Milan, 209 is excommunicated, 212 his life threatened, 213 his death, 215

Councils, revision of their proceedings at Rome, 628 of France, in 1797 and 1800, 595

Countesses, bishop’s wives rank as, 259

Cournand, Abbé, proposes clerical marriage, 590 his marriage, 591

Courtenay of Canterbury on Wickliffe, 379

Courtesans in Rome, necessity for, 550

Court of Augmentations, the, 454

Courts, mixed, for married priests, 257

Cowl, Luther’s wearing of the, 421

Cows as source of episcopal revenue, 297

Cox, Bishop, on Q. Elizabeth’s Injunctions, 492

Cozza, Card., on abuse of confessional, 575

Cranach, Lucas, his portraits of Catharine von Bora, 425

Cranmer on immunity for adultery, 447 intercedes for Thomas Patmore, 462 urges priestly marriage on Henry VIII., 463 opposes the Six Articles, 467 his marriages, 469 encourages priestly marriage, 472, 473 prepares the Forty-two Articles, 475 his children claimed as slaves, 190

Creed of Piers Ploughman, 352 on Carmelites, 353 on sacerdotal powers, 355 on Franciscans, 376

Cremona, reform of priesthood in, 217

Cromwell, bribes tendered to, 454, 460 he favors priestly marriage, 463 he mitigates the Six Articles, 470 his fall, 471

Crossed-Friars, case of Abbot of, 457

Culdees, 299 their disappearance, 300

Cullagium (see Licenses).

Culm, Synod of, in 1745, 562

Cumad espuc, or virgin bishop, 295

Cunegunda, St., her asceticism, 176

Cunha, Rod. à, on solicitation, 571

Cunibert of Turin, laxity of, 203

Cuno of Ratisbon, 184

Cuthbert of Canterbury reforms Saxon Church, 164

Cuthbert of London prohibits the Beggars’ Petition, 453

Cuyck, Bish., on corruption of Church, 557

Cynog, Book of, priestly marriage in, 294

Cyprian, St., on vows of continence, 41, 42 on martyrdom and virginity, 46

Cyril, St., his use of monachism, 106

Cyrillus converts Bohemia, 244

Dabralis of Spalatro, degradation of, 188

Daimbert of Sens, his negligence, 263

Dalmatia, priestly marriage in 10th century, 149 in 11th century, 188 relaxation of canons in, 204 enforcement of celibacy in, 250

Dalmatia, Synod of, in 1194, 250

Damasus I. asserts sacerdotal celibacy, 64 on marriage of nuns, 103

Damasus II., his pontificate, 187

Damhouder, Josse, on character of clergy, 557

Damiani, St. Peter, his early career, 186 his character, 193 on troubles of abbots, 154 he urges Clement II. to reform, 185 and Leo IX., 188 his Liber Gomorrhianus, 188 is forced to leave his retreat in 1057, 192 on sacraments of sinful priests, 195 he stigmatizes wives of priests, 196 he endeavors to reform the prelates, 198 he confutes the Tuscan chaplains, 199 on election of Cadalus, 200 on heresy of sacerdotal marriage, 201 his continued efforts, 202 his motives and arguments, 204 his mission to Milan, 213

Damnation for dissidence on celibacy, 640

Dampierre, case of the, 323

Dancing mania, cause assigned to, 351

Danes, effect of their incursions, 139

Danes, Pierre, his repartee at Trent, 413

Darius, Silvester, papal collector, 417

Daughters (see Children).

Davanzati, Bishop, favors clerical marriage, 583

Daviaux of Bordeaux prohibits clerical marriage, 597

David I., his reforms, 300

Dax, Council of, in 1585, 560

Daylight, confessions only to be heard during, 574

Deaconesses, ordination of, forbidden, 60 their marriage punished, 96

Deacons allowed to marry, 39 their marriage forbidden, 86

Deans of Friesland, 254

Death penalty for marrying a nun, 100 for marriage under Six Articles, 468 for celibacy in 1793, 593

Debra, Abbé, case of, 635, 637

Decretals, False, on clerical chastity, 136

Decretum Gratiani, compilation of, 317 denies apostolic origin of celibacy, 28

De la Croix, deputy, on unmarried priests, 592

De la Sallé, Abbé, 617

Demeter, worship of, in Athens, 50

Democratic element in the Church, 226

Denis, St., mistaken relics of, 217

Denmark, position of concubines in, 197 enforcement of celibacy in, 253

Dens, Peter, on Italian morality, 631

Denunciation, duty of, by seduced women, 576, 633

Denunciations, Edict of, 569

Desforges on clerical marriage, 582

Desiderius of Monte Casino, 180

Devonshire rebels demand the Six Articles, 469

Devotees permitted to return to the world, 41, 97

Diabolic possession of priests’ wives, 235

Diaconate, women admitted to, 60

Diaz de Luco, on dissolution of marriage, 317 on concubinage, 517 on abuse of confessional, 568

Diego Gelmirez, his reforms, 305

Diet, German, complaints of, in 1510, 411

Diet of Hungary, in 1498, 401

Diether of Mainz, case of, 412

Digami, ordination of, forbidden, 37, 86, 89, 123 their prevalence in British Church, 159 in 10th century, 148 condemned by Council of Spalatro, 149 ineligible in Anglo-Saxon Church, 162 recognition of, in 11th century, 202 not allowed in Milan, 210 condemned in Hungary, 249 condemned by some of the German reformers, 426

Digamy, concubines do not count in, 349 rule of, ridiculed by Luther, 418

Dilapidation of church property, 123, 145, 147

Dimitri of Dalmatia assumes the crown, 250

Dingolfing, Council of, in 772, 135

Dionysius of Corinth on asceticism, 34

Dionysius, King, founds Order of Jesus Christ, 365

Disabilities of married priests, 294

Dispensations, papal, evil influence of, 397 sale of, 321, 322, 345, 398, 516, 517, 522 power of, debated, 407 for unchastity, 131 for marriage, sale of, 522 for married priests, 442 from confession, 428 from vows of chastity, 535, 642 refused by Pius IX., 611 in favor of priests’ children, 505, 516, 549

Divorces of married priests in England, 470, 478

Dogma, celibacy, a matter of, 641

Döllinger and the Old Catholic movement, 604

Dominicans, influence of, 375

admitted to France in 1840, 614

Donati, Girolamo, attempts to murder St. Charles, 551

Donatist heresy condemned, 107 revived by Theodore of Canterbury, 162 by Nicholas II., 194 by Gregory VII., 227 by Innocent II., 246 condemned by Lucius III., 195 and by St. Anselm, 288 revived by the heretics, 368, 374, 379, 383

Döringk on sale of indulgences, 397

Dorothea of Denmark, marriage of, 434

Dortmund, Council of, in 1005, 155

Down, St. Malachi’s episcopate of, 296

Dracontius, case of, 58

Dress, clerical, regulated at Constance, 391

Drogo of Terouane persecutes Watten, 260

Droit de marquette, 354

Dualism in Manichæism, 43 of the Albigenses, 208, 367

Dublin, Councils of, in 1186 and 1217, 298

Du Fail, Noël, on clerical corruption, 561

Dumonteil, case of, 600, 641

Dunbar, Bishop, his immorality, 503

Dunstan, St., takes the vows, 166 his miraculous preservation, 171

Dupanloup, Bishop, on the Syllabus, 642

Du Pin, Louis Ellies, on clerical marriage, 581

Duprat, Cardinal, his efforts at reform, 515

Durand, William, advocates clerical marriage, 405

Durham, Council of, in 1220, 288

Eadmer on results of celibacy, 278

East Anglia, defence of monasteries in, 170

Eastern church, divergence of, 83 its rules as to celibacy, 86 its monachism, 106

Easter, different computations of, 161, 163

Ebionim, or Poor Men, 27 accused of immorality, 34

Ebrard, his history of Watten, 260

Ecclesiastical procedure, immunity caused by, 140

Ecclesiastics, children of (see Children). immorality of (see Morals).

Ecgberht of York, his Penitential, 163

Eck, Dr., his conference with Melanchthon, 440

Edgar the Pacific, penitence imposed on, 167 his reformatory zeal, 169

Edict of Denunciation, priestly marriage in, 536 solicitation in, 569

Edinburgh, Council of, in 1549, 504 in 1559, 505

Edith, Queen of Edward the Confessor, 175

Edmund I. on immorality of priests, 166

Education, monastic influence on, 358, 616-21 secularization of, in France, 623

Edward and Guthrun on immorality of clerks, 166

Edward the Martyr supports Dunstan, 170

Edward the Confessor, his virginity, 175

Edward, Bishop of Scaren, 279

Edward VI., his accession, 472 his funeral services, 477

Egara, Council of, in 614, 80

Eggard of Sleswick, his fate, 402

Eggs, punishment for eating, in Lent, 511

Egypt, purity required of priests, 50 neglect of celibacy in, 85

Egyptian monachism, commencement of, 97

Ejection of married priests, 594

Elect, Manichæan, 46

Election of popes limited to Roman clergy, 200

Eleuchadio, Abbot of Fiano, 180

Elfhere of Mercia supports the married priests, 170

Elfritha, her intrigues against Edward, 170

Elizabeth, Queen, her hesitation as to priestly marriage, 487 her assent to it, 488 her continued repugnance, 489, 493 her insolence to Mrs. Parker, 491 her Injunctions of Ipswich, 492

Elna, Council of, in 1027, 303

Elphege of Winchester and St. Dunstan, 166

Elvira, Council of, in 305, on digami, 37 celibacy introduced by, 50 on morals of nuns, 99

Emancipation of nuns in 1523, 425

Emancipatore Cattolico, the, 606

Embden, Count of, promotes marriage of nuns, 435

Embrun, Council of, in 1727, 626

Emanuel, King, grants marriage to military orders, 365

Emo of Wittewerum on priestly marriage, 254

Empire, Roman, licentiousness under, 32

Emser, Jerome, his epithalamium on Luther, 426

Encratitians, heresy of, 33, 44

Encyclical, papal, Mirari vos, 601 Qui pluribus, 602 Incredibili afflictamur, 609 Neminem latet, 611

Encyclicals of Leo XIII. on civil marriage, 605

Enforcement of celibacy in 4th century, 67-82 by Gregory I., 123 in 8th century, 131 attributed to Gregory VIII., 224 difficulties attending it, 229 in 12th century, 245 in Bohemia, 246 in Germany, 247 in Hungary, 249 in Poland, 251 in Sweden, 252 in Denmark, 253 in France, 255 in Normandy, 257 in Flanders, 261 by Calixtus II., 268 in England, 273 in Ireland, 296 in Scotland, 300 in Spain, 304 by Innocent III., 327 finally successful, 330 by Henry VIII., 468 by Queen Mary, 480 by Council of Trent, 536 after the Terror, 595

Engelheim, Council of, in 948, 149

England, disorders caused by Anglo-Saxon priests, 147 Saxon period, 159 celibacy at first enforced, 162 introduction of marriage in 9th century, 166 disorders in 10th century, 167 reformation attempted, 168 its failure, 172 church under Cnut the Great, 174 under Edward the Confessor, 176 position of concubines in, 197 heresy in 1166, 207 enforcement of celibacy in, 271 marriage still prevalent in 13th century, 285 hereditary benefices, 272, 281, 282, 285 excitement caused by introduction of celibacy, 289 priestly marriage becomes obsolete, 291 delay in enforcing the canons, 318, 320 marriage of priests’ children, 338 Hali Meidenhad, 347 Begghards in, 378 Wickliffe and Lollardry, 379 demoralization in 15th century, 394, 399 restrictions on papal power in 1517, 417 the reformation in, 444 sqq. Dr. Geddes’s modest apology, 584 case of Shaw v. Starr and Kennedy, 611 Council of Westminster in 1852, 626

English bishops in Sweden, 278 priests in Ireland, 298

Enham, Council of, in 1009, 172

Éon de l’Étoile, 371

Epaone, Council of, in 513, 60 in 517, 80

Ephraem Syrus on Manichæism, 44

Epiphanius on Ebionites, 27, 34 his Manichæan tendencies, 48 on agapetæ, 54 on female ministration, 60 on the Antidicomarianitarians, 69 on non-observance of celibacy, 84 on temporary nature of vows, 97

Episcopissa, 152

Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum, 413, 414, 415

Erasmus on religious immorality, 356 his relation to the reformation, 414 on indulgences, 417 on priestly marriage, 432 on abuse of confessional, 567

Erchenbald on infanticide, 137

Erfurt, Synod of, in 1074, 231

Eriberto of Milan, his episcopate, 208

Erlembaldo, St., popular chief of Milan, 209 assumes leadership of Paterins, 215 his death, 219

Ermeland, Synod of, in 1497, 402 in 1577, 562

Ernest of Magdeburg, his cynicism, 398

Erskine, Lord, characterized by Knox, 508

Escobar, his casuistry, 578

d’Espeisses, President, on Italian morals, 552

d’Espense, Claude, on virginity of the Virgin, 69 on clerical morality, 559

Essenes, asceticism of, 25

Ethelred the Unready, state of England under, 171

Ethelwold of Winchester, his reforming zeal, 168

Eucharist, modified by Manichæism, 44

Eucherius, St., his vision, 130

Eugenius II. on concubinage, 196

Eugenius III. dissolves marriage of priests, 315 convicts Éon de l’Étoile, 372

Eugenius IV. permits marriage to Knights of Calatrava, 364 orders Council of Bâle dissolved, 395

Eulalius condemns Eustathius, 61

Euphronius of Autun, 79

Euphronius of Tours, 119

Euron, Abbey of, its reform, 264

Eusebius condemns priestly marriage, 51

Eustathius, heresy of, 61

Eutychianism of monastic order, 107

Evangelical Doctor, Wickliffe the, 382

Evenus of St. Melanius, 259

Evreux, Synod of, in 1576, 560

Excalceati, heresy of, 33

Excommunication, effectiveness of, 134

Exemptions conferred on ecclesiastics, 99

Exeter, Bishop of, on children of priests, 286 case of subdeacons of, 320

Expilly on number of French clergy, 593

Expulsion of monks in early times, 101

Exuperius, St., favors Vigilantius, 71

Fabre, Bishop, of Montreal, 613

Fah-Hian, his account of Buddhist monachism, 95

Faith, celibacy as a point of, 515, 536, 603, 640 clerical marriage as a point of, 490

False Decretals on clerical chastity, 136

Faricius of Abingdon, case of, 227

Fasting in penance, 160

Fauchet of Bayeux on clerical marriage, 594

Faustinus on separation of wives, 74

Faustus the Manichæan, 46, 75

Fécamp reformed by Richard the Fearless, 155

Feini, civilization of, 295

Felix of Nantes, case of, 119

Fellows, University, celibacy of, 492

Felony, priestly marriage is, in Six Articles, 468

Ferdinand (Emp.) asks use of cup for Bohemia, 384 demands a general Council in 1522, 424 tolerates Protestantism, 439 on German monasteries, 452 on clerical immorality, 519, 529 his demands suppressed at Council of Trent, 535 asks for clerical marriage, 530-2, 539

Ferdinand of Aragon supports Ximenes, 402

Ferdinand IV. (Naples), his reforms, 583 enacts civil marriage, 607

Fermo, Council of, in 1726, 626

Ferrers, Alex., case of, 502

Ferry of Orleans, his murder, 334

Ferry, Jules, on political influence of monachal education, 618 enforces laws against unauthorized orders, 621 his secularization of education, 623

Feudal system, independence of, 182 tenure by chastity, 153

Fifteenth century, demoralization of, 388

Fischer, Fred., punished for marrying, 424

Fish, Simon, his Beggars’ Petition, 453

Flamen Dialis, second marriage forbidden to, 36

Flanders, enforcement of celibacy in, 259 case of Bossaert d’Avesnes, 323 character of post-Tridentine church, 557 troubles arising from solicitation, 576

Florence, Synod of, in 1057, 191 in 1573, 553 congregation of bishops in 1787, 587

Florentines reject their bishop in 1060, 195

Fluviano, Antonio, Grand Master of St. John, 366

Focaria, introduction of the term, 283

Fontaneto, Council of, in 1058, on priestly marriage, 212

Forcheim, Diet of, in 1077, 236

Formal vows dissolve marriage, 321

Formulas, insincerity of Latin, 642

Forret, Thomas, burnt, 510

Forster, Andreas, his defence of celibacy, 583 on celibacy as a point of faith, 641

Fortescue, Sir John, on priestly marriage, 318

Fox of Winchester unable to restore discipline, 447

France, celibacy first introduced in 384, 64 difficulty in enforcing it, 76 popular desire for it, 77 constant legislation required, 79 morals of, in 4th century, 81 monasticism in 7th century, 115 state of church under the Merovingians, 118 in 8th century, 128 in 9th century, 136 in 10th century, 146, 152, 155 Council of Bourges in 1031, 179 council of Rheims in 1049, 189 heresies in 11th and 12th centuries, 207, 367-75 enforcement of celibacy in, 255 morals of clergy in 12th century, 264 persistence of priestly marriage, 270, 318, 319, 320 efforts of Maurice de Sully, 322 results of celibacy, 331 demoralization in 15th cent., 394, 399 heresy of Jean Laillier, 408 Concordat of 1516, 428 the Sorbonne refuses a conference with Melanchthon, 440 condition of church in 16th cent., 515 clerical marriage asked of Council of Trent, 533, 641 reception of Council of Trent refused, 546 character of post-Tridentine church, 559 abuse of confessional, 570, 576 case of la Cadière, 579 question of marriage reopened in 18th century, 581 corruption in 18th century, 585 the church during the Revolution, 588-95 National Council in 1797, 595 clerical marriage under the Concordat, 596-8 varying policy as to clerical marriage, 599-601 monachism in modern times, 613-6 education by monachism, 617-20 reaction against monachism, 621-3 morality of clergy in, 625 modern councils held in, 626, 633 prosecution of clerical offenders, 635-6 position of clergy in, 637

Francis, St., of Assisi, on obedience, 103 his annual visits to Purgatory, 335 his exaltation of poverty, 376

Francis de Sales, St., on choice of confessor, 578

Francis I. favors League of Schmalkalden, 438 Melanchthon submits Articles to him, 440

Franciscans, their corruption, 350, 352, 353, 376 their influence, 375 reformed by Ximenes, 402 their resistance to Henry VIII., 451 of Bavaria on abuse of confessional, 570

Fraticelli, the, 376

Frederic of Lorraine created pope, 192

Frederic I. on sons of clergy, 326 his visit to Fulda, 404

Frederic II. on Milanese heresies, 211 on children of ecclesiastics, 335

Frederic of Saxony protects married priests, 419 acts as sponsor to child of priest, 422 still considers himself a Catholic, 423

Frères de la Sainte-Croix, 617-8

Frères des Écoles Chrétiennes, 617, 619-20

Frérots, the, 376

Fressanges, Mdlle., case of, 600

Freysingen, Council of, in 1440, 396

Frideswide, St., treatment of her remains, 484

Friesland, enforcement of celibacy in, 254

Fringe, John, case of, 318

Fritzlar, Council of, in 1246, 337

Froude, Mr., on Henry VIII. and the Six Articles, 468

Fructuosus, St., of Braga, his rule, 115

Fuero Juzgo, clerical celibacy in, 121

Fuess, Wolfgang, his marriage, 422

Fulbert of Chartres on military bishops, 152

Fulbert of Paris and Heloise, 269

Fulda, Abbey of, its strictness, 404

Future life, unknown to early Jews, 21 doctrine of, introduced, 24

Gaeidhil, conversion of the, 159

Gall, St., his labors, 126

Galli, castration of, 50

Gallicia, Council of, on discipline, 308 first nunnery in 1129, 307

Gangra, Council of, in 362, 61

Gardiner, Bishop, celebrates mass for Edward VI., 477 sits in judgment on married bishops, 479 scandals concerning him, 486

Gaudin, Abbé, defends clerical marriage, 583 his marriage, 591

Gaul (see France).

Gauthier of Ponthoise, 256

Gea Eurysternus, priestesses of, 50

Gebhardt of Constance, election of, 229

Gebhardt of Eichstedt created pope, 184, 191

Gebhardt of Ratisbon, 184

Gebhardt of Salzburg ordered to enforce celibacy, 227

Gebizo enforces celibacy in Dalmatia, 250

Geddes, Dr., on celibacy, 584

Gelasius I. on second marriages, 36 on marriage of nuns, 110

Gelasius of Cyzicus on Paphnutius, 57

Genebaldus of Laon, case of, 119

Genoa, civil marriage valid in, 606

Geoffrey of Chartres fails in his reforms, 265

Geoffrey of Llanthony, case of, 227

Geoffrey of Rouen enforces celibacy, 268

Geoffrey of Tuscany, his chaplains, 199

George of Saxony persecutes married priests, 419

Gerard of Angoulême, case of, 269

Gerard of Cambray on Manichæans, 208, 369

Gerard of Florence created pope, 192

Gerard of Lorsch, his inquiries, 148

Gerard of Munster assists Friesland deans, 254

Gerard of Nimeguen on clerical morality, 429

Gerard of Sabina, his reforms, 339

Gerbert of Aurillac on celibacy, 157

Germain, his charter to Bèze, 265

Germany, virtue of Teutonic tribes, 82 reforms attempted by Carloman, 128 condition of church in 10th century, 148, 154 Council of Mainz, in 1049, 189 heresies in 11th and 12th centuries, 207 enforcement of celibacy by Gregory VII., 230 triumph of schism in 11th century, 241 continuance of priestly marriage, 243 rebellion of Henry V., 244 impossibility of enforcing the canons, 247, 318 hereditary priesthood in 12th century, 326 children of ecclesiastics, 13th century, 336 testamentary provisions for, 337 condition of monachism, 15th century, 340 Marian, or Teutonic Order, 366 Waldensian heresy, 375 the Hussites, 382 Orthodox Brethren, 382 Brethren of the Cross, 382 Cardinal Branda’s reforms, 392 demoralization in 15th century, 393, 400 the Reformation, 410 demoralization in the 16th century, 429, 432 success of the Reformation, 443 morals of the monasteries, 452 reforms attempted by Charles V., 524-8 corruption of the clergy, 529-32, 542-3 demand for clerical marriage, 530-44 clerical marriage refused, 545 post-Tridentine immorality, 548-56 abuse of confessional, 570, 576 demand for clerical marriage in 18th century, 583 in 19th century, 601, 604 civil marriage, 605 monachism in Austria, 615 modern councils held in, 626-7, 633 census of ecclesiastics, 630-1

Geroch of Reichersperg on sacraments of sinful priests, 195 on disregard of canons, 317

Gerson on origin of celibacy, 29 on abuse of confessional, 350 on concubinage as a necessity, 353 on clerical immorality, 389

Gervilius of Mainz, case of, 130

Gervinus of St. Riquier, 176

Ghaerbald of Liége, his canons, 135

Gieus de Robin et de Marion, 351

Gilbert, papal legate in Ireland, 296

Gilbert of Chichester on abuse of confessional, 350

Gilbert de la Porrée, condemnation of, 315

Gildas, description of British clergy, 159

Giles Cantor, his heresy, 385

Giovanni Gualberto, St., 183

Giraldus Cambrensis on origin of celibacy, 28 on the Irish church, 297, 298 his struggle for St. David’s, 283 on married priests, 285 on dispensations, 322 he deprecates celibacy, 325 on residence of relatives, 332

Girard, Father, case of, 579

Girona, Council of, in 517, 80 in 1068, 303 in 1078, 304 in 1197, 373 in 1257, 1274, 310

Glastonbury, Abbey of, 167

Gloucester, Augustinians of, their suppression, 457 See of, created, 460

Gnesen, clerical marriage in, 251 Synod of, in 1577, 555

Gnostics, heresy of, 33, 43

Gobel of Paris, 594, 599

Godric, St., case of, 111

Godsons of bishops, wer-gild for, 162

Godstow, the last of English abbeys, 459

Golias Episcopus, 279

Gomorrhianus Liber, 188

Gonsalvo, Reginaldo, on solicitation, 569

Goodacre, Anne, case of, 512

Goslar, Manichæism at, in 1052, 207

Gotefrido of Tuscany installs Victor II., 191

Gotefrido, Archbishop of Milan, 218

Gotfrid of Wurtzburg, his will, 337

Goths, Spanish, their immorality, 120

Grace, the Pilgrimage of, 455

Gran, Synod of, in 1099, 249 in 1382, 1450, 1480, 401 in 1858, 627

Grandchildren cause ineligibility to episcopate, 87

Grandier, Urban, case of, 581

Gratian on origin of celibacy, 28 on dissolution of priestly marriage, 317 on nature of anathema, 640

Gratian of Rouen on clerical marriage, 594

Great Malvern, prior of, his offer, 454

Greece, influence of, on the Jews, 25

Greek church, its divergence from Rome, 83 its rules as to celibacy, 86 its present customs, 91 tolerated by Rome, 327, 328, 640 abuse of confessional in, 577 of Bohemia, 244

Grégoire of Blois, 598

Gregory I. on marriage, 47 his monastic reforms, 113 his enforcement of celibacy, 122 forged epistle of, 137 his conversion of England, 161 on indissolubility of marriage, 314 legend related by him, 349

Gregory II. forbids marriage of nuns, 127 his advice to Boniface, 128 on sacraments of sinful priests, 195

Gregory VI. purchases the papacy, 184 miracle at his obsequies, 187

Gregory VII. condemns the story of Paphnutius, 56 condemns the epistle of St. Ulric, 150 adopts the heresy condemned at Gangra, 61 accompanies Leo IX. to Rome, 187 his increasing influence, 191 his character and aims, 193 his activity under Nicholas II., 196 he refuses ordination to illegitimates, 205 his mission to Milan, 213 his excommunication, 219 he urges Erlembaldo to persevere, 220 his exertions in Lucca, 222 his election as pope, 223 his enforcement of celibacy, 227 his action in Dalmatia, 250 in France, 256 in Normandy, 258 in Britanny, 259 overlooks England in his reforms, 271 his efforts in Spain, 304 his death, 239 enforcement of celibacy attributed to him, 224 legends concerning him, 226 results of his theocracy, 345 his doctrine revived by the heretics, 368, 374, 379, 383

Gregory VIII. prevents abolition of celibacy, 325

Gregory IX. on Neapolitan clergy, 335

Gregory X. on corrupting influence of prelates, 351 deposes Henry of Liége, 336

Gregory XIII. complains of married priests, 554

Gregory XV. on abuse of confessional, 569

Gregory XVI. represses clerical marriage, 601

Gregory of Nazianzum on priestly marriage, 58

Gregory of Tours on nominations of bishops, 118 on enforcement of celibacy, 120

Gregory of Vercelli, case of, 190

Grey-Friars of Perth, their luxury, 509

Grillandus, case reported by, 431

Grindal, Archbishop, revives the Nicene canon, 494 on position of married clergy, 496

Grosseteste, Robert, his reforms, 292 on papal court, 342

Guala, Cardinal, constitutions of, 332

Gualo of Paris, his uncertainty, 263

Guarino of Modena, oath of chastity required by, 153

Guastalla, Council of, in 1106, 244

Guibert de Nogent, case of, 262

Guiberto of Ravenna on concubinage, 238 his death, 242

Guido, Cardinal, enforces celibacy in Austria, 251 and in Denmark, 253

Guido di Valate appointed to See of Milan, 209 penance imposed on him, 214 is driven from Milan, 216 resigns the archbishopric, 218

Gulielmus Appulus on Nicholas II., 197

Gunzo Grammaticus, 148

Gwentian code on sons of priests, 294

Gyrovagi, 109

Haarlem, Synod of, in 1564, 554

Habit, monastic, salvation insured by, 335

Hali Meidenhad, 286, 347

Halifax, Council of, in 1868, 627, 633

Hamburg, reform undertaken at, 189 Council of, in 1406, 335

Hamerer, Dr., on clerical corruption, 557

Hamilton, Patrick, the Scottish protomartyr, 506

Hamilton, Catherine, her escape, 506

Hamilton, Archbp., his character, 503, 505

Hanno of Cologne, his canonization, 201

Hardouin of Angers on morals of clergy, 394

Heads of colleges, position of their wives, 495

Helena of Adiabene, 22

Heliodorus of Trica, rigor of, 86

Helisacar, Abbot, strict rules of, 404

Heloise reforms Convent of St. Mary, 264 denies her marriage, 269

Helsen on clerical morality, 629 on abuse of confessional, 633

Helvidius, his heresy, 68

Henke, his edition of Calixtus, 583

Henrician heretics, 370

Henry II. (Emp.) on sons of priests, 155 his asceticism, 176 he enforces celibacy, 178

Henry III. (Emp.), his desire for reform, 184 urges Clement II. to reform, 185 creates Bruno of Toul pope, 187 makes Gebhardt of Eichstedt pope, 191 persecutes heretics, 207 appoints Guido di Valate, 209 his death, 192

Henry IV. (Emp.), accession of, 192 offers made to him in 1061, 200 his humiliation at Canosa, 219 he expels Altmann of Passau, 230 he protects married priests, 237 but condemns priestly marriage, 239 his triumph over the church, 241 his final overthrow, 244

Henry V. (Emp.), his successful rebellion, 244 failure of negotiations with him, 267

Henry I. (France), attempt to enforce celibacy under, 179

Henry III. (France), his edicts of pacification, 500

Henry I. (Eng.), his speculation in priestly marriage, 276, 280 he enforces celibacy, 278

Henry V. (Eng.), his persecution of Lollards, 381 he attempts a reform, 394

Henry VIII. favors League of Schmalkalden, 438 joins in suppression of monasteries, 448 assumes supremacy of the church, 450 completes suppression of monasteries, 454 is excommunicated by Paul III., 455 his plans for use of monastic property, 459 he maintains celibacy, 461, 466 negotiates with German reformers, 466 persecutes married priests, 467 is responsible for the Six Articles, 468 objects to council held at Mantua, 520 his death, 472

Henry of Lausanne, the heretic, 370

Henry III. of Liége, 336

Henry of Ravenna adheres to Cadalus, 201

Henry of Salzburg on priestly immorality, 247

Henry of Speyer, his remonstrances, 233

Hepburn, Bishop, his immorality, 502

Hera, celibacy of priestess of, 50

Heracles, Thespian, celibacy of priests of, 50

Héraudin of Châteauroux on clerical marriage, 594

Hercules, Gaditanian, chastity of priests of, 50

Hereditary tendency in Greek church, 91 in Latin church of 10th century, 105 its dangers, 225

Hereditary priesthood allowed by Alex. II., 205

Hereditary transmission, in Poland, 13th century, 252 in Friesland, 254 in Normandy, 12th century, 258 in Britanny, 12th century, 259 in France, 12th century, 265 forbidden by C. of Rheims in 1119, 267 in England, in 11th century, 272 in 12th century, 281, 282 in 13th century, 285 in Ireland, 296, 298 among Culdees, 299 in Spain, in 11th century, 304 its persistence in 12th century, 321, 322, 326 condemned by IVth Lateran Council, 327 persists in Livonia, 336 in Pomerania, in 15th century, 402 in 16th century, 505, 516 in post-Tridentine church, 549

Heresies, the, 367 encouraged by clerical immorality, 334

Heresy of sacerdotal marriage, 201 of concubinarians condemned in 1666, 558 abuse of confessional is, 568 opposition to celibacy is, 515, 603, 640 Lutheran, justified by clerical corruption, 430, 514, 516, 518, 527, 529, 548, 556 sqq.

Heretics, persecution of, in 4th century, 70 on corruption of priesthood, 352 to be condemned, not contented, 536

Herluca, her visions, 236

Hermann, Bishop of Prague, 243

Hermann von Wied of Cologne, 518

Hermann, King, condemns priestly marriage, 239

Heydeck, Baron of, his marriage, 434

High Commission, Court of, 490

Hilarion introduces monachism in Palestine, 97

Hildebert of Le Mans, his efforts at reform, 264

Hildebrand (see Gregory VII.).

Hildebrandine doctrine as to sinful priests, 224 its treatment at Cambray, 236 is enforced in 12th century, 246 becomes obsolete in 12th century, 248, 275 is adopted by the heretics, 368, 374, 379, 383 is condemned in 15th century, 382 but is enforced by laity, 392

Hildesheim, Synod of, in 1652, 562

Hilles, Richard, on the Six Articles, 471

Himerius of Tarragona on celibacy, 65

Hincmar of Rheims on appellate jurisdiction of Rome, 139 endeavors to enforce the canons, 141

Hiouen-Thsang on Buddhist monachism, 95

Hippolytus of Portus on digami, 37

Hof, immorality of priests of, 428

Holland, reception of C. of Trent in, 553

Homicide, unchastity punished as, 169

Honorius (Emp.) on residence of women, 55 he persecutes Jovinian, 70 his edict of 420, 77, 79

Honorius I. reproves Scottish clergy, 161

Honorius II. enforces celibacy in England, 279 morality of Rome under, 341

Honorius III. endeavors to reform the Scottish church, 301 confirms Order of St. James, 364

Honorius II. (antipope), his election, 200

Honorius of Autun on sacraments of sinful priests, 195

Hooper, Bishop, on effect of the Six Articles, 471 his visitation of Gloucester, 476

Horn, Bishop, on position of married clergy, 496

Horne on married clerks, 291

Hosius, Bishop, on celibacy, 529

Hospitallers, the, 362, 366 suppressed in England, 458

Hostility to the church in 15th century, 394, 395

Hoya, Bishop of Munster, 548

Hubert, Abbot, marriage of, 142

Huesca, Council of, in 598, 80

Hugh of Grenoble, his asceticism, 227

Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, on clerical morals, 282

Hugh of Lyons (Die) endeavors to enforce celibacy, 256 is reproved by Gregory VII., 258 his efforts in Britanny, 259

Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen, character of, 155

Hugh of Rouen on priestly marriage, 318

he controverts heresy, 371

Hugo of Constance, Zwingli’s demand on, 421

Hugo of Silva Candida at Council of Girona, 303

Hugo, Cardinal, his speech at Lyons, 342

Huguenots, priestly marriage among, 498 toleration of their marriages, 499

Humbert of Silva Candida on Greek errors, 191 on simony, 201

Humphrey, Lawrence, on Richard Smith, 474 on position of married clergy, 496

Hungary, introduction of celibacy in, 248 clerical immorality in 15th cent., 401 discussion of celibacy in 18th cent., 584 effort for clerical marriage in 1866, 603 National Synod of, in 1822, 626

Huss, John, on sacraments of sinful priests, 196 his heresy, 382 causes of its success, 395

Hutten, Ulric von, 415

Hyde, Council of, in 975, 170

Hydroparastitæ, 44

Hypatia, murder of, 106

Ibas of Edessa, case of, 82

Iceland, rights of illegitimates in, 197

Idelette de Bure, 498

Ignatius, St., on abstinence from marriage, 32

Illegitimates ineligible to priesthood in Coptic church, 93 in Latin church, 205

Illegitimacy of children of ecclesiastics, 86 of Anglican clergy, 494, 496

Immorality arising from vows of celibacy, 41 less reprehensible than marriage, 145, 201, 627 favors shown to, 320

Immorality of church (see Morals).

Immunity caused by appellate power of Rome, 139 by forms of ecclesiastical procedure, 140 for adultery by priests, 447

Impostures of relics and miracles, 458

Ina, King, Dooms of, 162

Incest caused by celibacy, 138, 278, 331, 555, 628 common in Ireland, 297, 298 price of absolution for, 428 diminished by marriage, 182 clerical marriage held to be, 628

Indelibility of priesthood, 314

India, influence of, on the Jews, 23

Indians, relations of priests with, 563 their hatred of Christianity, 564

Indulgences in Manichæism, 44 marketable value of, 356 sale of, 397 opposition to, 417

Infallibility decreed by Vatican Council, 608

Infanticide resulting from vows of continence, 42, 100, 137 tradition as to, 124

Infessura, his character of Sixtus IV., 344

Influence of celibacy on civilization, 225, 357 political, of modern monachism, 617-18

Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, 489

Innocent of Rhodez, 118

Innocent I. on priestly marriage of widows, 39 makes no reference to Nicene canon, 55 condemns the Bonosiacs, 68 condemns Vigilantius, 72 enforces celibacy in Calabria, 76 on marriage of nuns, 104

Innocent II. dissolves marriage of priests, 315 his enforcement of celibacy, 246

Innocent III. enforces celibacy 251, 252, 286, 327, 332 reforms convent of S. Agatha, 265 on hereditary benefices, 266, 286, 298 condemns Bossaert d’Avesnes, 323 decisions rendered by him, 324 on digamy, 349 confirms Order of St. James, 364 converts heretics of Bosnia, 369 his hesitation as to the mendicant orders, 375

Innocent IV. enforces celibacy in Sweden, 253 his judgment for d’Avesnes, 323 permits hereditary priesthood, 336 promotes Henry of Liége, 336 his enmity to Grosseteste, 342

Innocent VIII., his character, 345 orders visitation of English monasteries, 399

Inquisition, the, denounces priestly marriage, 556 condemns heresy of concubinarians, 558 abuse of confessional confided to, 568 its decrees on solicitation, 575 its modern procedure in such cases, 633 its tenderness to clerical delinquents, 570 case of Father Mena, 579 its merciful treatment of nuns, 588 its condemnation of Panzini, 602 it defines celibacy a matter of faith, 603, 642 its justification by the church, 618

Insabbatati, 373

Insermenté clergy, 590

Interdict laid on Milan, in 1074, 219

Interim, recognition of marriage in the, 441

Investitures, question of, 218

Ipswich, injunctions of, by Q. Elizabeth, 491

Ireland, character of its early church, 76, 159 enforcement of celibacy in, 295 monasticism of its church, 297 corruption introduced by the English, 298 priestly marriage in 16th century, 299 suppression of monasteries in, 461 morality of clergy in, 625 modern Councils of, 626, 633

Isabella of Castile supports Ximenes, 403

Isidor of Pelusium on neglect of celibacy, 86

Isidor, St., of Seville on monastic impostors, 115

Isidorian forgeries, relaxation of canon in, 136

Isis, vow of continence made by, 50

Italy, enforcement of celibacy in 384, 69 resistance to celibacy, 76 morals in 4th century, 81 St. Benedict of Nursia, 111 monachism reformed by Gregory I., 113 state of church in 6th century, 122 in 8th century, 127 Charlemagne and the Roman clergy, 135 state of church in 10th century, 144 Ratherius of Verona, 146, 150 Atto of Vercelli, 147, 152 Guarino of Modena and Alberic of Marsico, 153 Silvester II., 157 state of church in 11th century, 180 San Giovanni Gualberto, 183 Henry III. and the papacy, 184 St. Peter Damiani, 185 vain attempts at reform, 190 Damiani and Hildebrand, 192 Council of Melfi, in 1059, 197 schism of the Lombard clergy, 200 the antipope Cadalus, 201 failure of the reform, 204 the reform in Milan, 207-221 troubles in various cities, 222 Synod of Melfi, 242 Calabria, priestly marriage in 12th century, 320 Greek church in South, 328 children of ecclesiastics, 335 privileges accorded to concubines, 339 morality of papal court, 341 Savonarola, 386, 398 demoralization in 15th cent., 393, 399 in 16th century, 430, 549-52 clerical marriage proposed in 18th century, 583 corruption in 18th century, 586-8 case of Panzini, 602 civil marriage, 605 followed by clerical marriage, 606 suppression of monastic orders, 609 Barnabite college at Monza, scandal of, 621 modern councils held in, 626-7 number of clergy in, 630 morality of clergy, 631

Ivo of Chartres on the canons, 263 he reproves immorality, 264

Izeshne sacrifice, 44

Jacobines, number of, 92

Jainas, the, 35

Jalikiah, its church independent of Rome, 302

James of Jerusalem, a Nazirite, 25 the brother of Jesus, 68

James IV. (Scotland) protects Lollards, 501

James V. (Scotland), his parliament of 1542, 503

James VI. (Scotland), his baptism, 505

Jameson, Margaret, her marriage, 509

Jane of Flanders, 323

Janizaries, celibacy required of them, 19

Jarnsida, rights of illegitimates in, 197

Jean de Rély on morals of church, 399

Jephthah, daughter of, 21

Jerome, St., on the origin of celibacy, 28 on Buddha, 34 on Manichæism, 46 on marriage, 47 on agapetæ, 54 on heresy of Bonosus, 68 of Jovinian, 70 of Vigilantius, 72 on clerical morality, 78 on observance of celibacy, 85 on early monachism, 97 on immorality of nuns, 100 on difficulty of virginity, 624

Jerome of Prague on Huss, 382

Jerusalem, effect of its capture, 326

Jesuits, they protect their erring members, 579 their influence on morality, 578 their expulsion from New Grenada, 609 they endeavor to enter France, 614 their recent growth, 615 their suppression in France in 1880, 621

Jesus Christ, Order of, 365

Jews, their relation to asceticism, 21-6 their polygamy, 38

Jodocus of Lubec as deputy of papal legates, 442

John IV. on Anglo-Saxon monachism, 163

John XII., his vices, 144

John XIII. condemns priestly marriage, 150 ejects canons of Winchester, 168

John XXII. and the Fraticelli, 377 his taxes of the penitentiary, 428

John XXIII., his crimes and deposition, 343 convokes Council of Constance, 390 his sale of dispensations, 398

John, King (Eng.), speculates on priests’ wives, 283

John of Alexandria, his strictness, 123

John the Baptist, Essenism of, 25

John of Crema, his misadventure, 279 his Scottish reforms, 300

John the Evangelist condemns the Nicolites, 34

John of Frankfort, independence of, 397

John of Jerusalem, rule of, 101

John of Leyden permits polygamy, 438

John of Liége, his murder, 336

John of Lisieux fails in his reforms, 265

John Merlaw of Fulda relaxes the rules, 404

John of Nicklaushausen, his heresy, 405

John of Oberwesel, 407

John of Pirna, 378

John of Rouen enforces celibacy, 256

John of Salisbury reforms his canons, 265

John of Saxony, his treatment of monasteries, 435

John of Schweidnitz, his death, 378

John of Utrecht reforms the nunneries, 340

Jonas, Justus, on Luther’s marriage, 425

Joseph II. (Emp.), his reforms, 583

Jovian on marriage of nuns, 100

Jovinian on Manichæism, 46 his resistance to celibacy, 69

Judah and Tamar, 21

Judhaël of Dol, his marriage, 259

Julian (Emp.) on Syrian asceticism, 50

Julian, Cardinal, legate to Ireland, 298

Julius II. approves of Savonarola, 386

Julius III. defends Savonarola, 386 grants powers to Cardinal Pole, 478 his bull of indulgence to England, 482 he reconvokes the Council of Trent, 521 on treatment of Lutherans at Trent, 521

Julius of Wurzburg argues against clerical marriage, 535

Junia the apostle, 60

Junqua, Abbé, case of, 601

Jurisdiction, appellate, effects of, 140 temporarily surrendered, 334

Jus primæ noctis 354

Jus spolii enforced by Robert the Frisian, 260

Justification by works, doctrine of, 115 in Calvinism, 498 in Scotland, 506

Justin Martyr on morals of Christians, 33 denounces second marriages, 36 approves of mutilation, 40

Justinian, legislation of, 86 regulates monachism, 108

Katherine of Arragon divorced, 450

Katz, his work on celibacy, 584

Keledeus, or Culdee, 299

Killore, John, burnt, 510

King’s College enriched by Henry VIII., 448

Kirkaldy of Grange, 503

Kirkham, Walter, of Durham, prohibits marriage, 290

Knade, James, first married priest of Reformation, 419

Knox, John, his denunciation of Catholics, 506 he justifies Beatoun’s murder, 507 his Book of Discipline, 508 his disputation with Wynrame and Arbuckle, 510 his confession of faith, 512

Koch of Wiesbaden, case of, 601

Kokkius, Doctor, on clerical morals, 396

Kolderup-Rosenvinge, his text of Cnut’s laws, 174

Kopp, Leonhard, emancipates nuns, 425

Krishna, similarity of, to Christ, 92

Kyle, Lollards of, 501

Lacordaire obtains admission of Dominicans, 614

Lactantius condemns asceticism, 48 reprobates monachism, 98

Ladak, number of monks in, 95

Ladislas II. introduces celibacy in Hungary, 248

Lætitia, Madame, patroness of charitable orders, 613

Lagréze on droit de marquette, 355

Laillier, Jean, his heresies, 408

Laity corrupted by the clergy, 265, 346, 350, 429, 430, 518, 533, 586, 629 in favor of priestly marriage, 252, 423 in favor of celibacy, 235, 465, 496 require pastors to keep concubines, 310, 353, 388 their assistance invoked by the church, 194, 232, 256, 257, 261, 559, 560 their asceticism in 11th century, 241

Lambert of Artois enforces celibacy, 262

Lambertini, Countess, case of, 631

Lanciski, Synod of, in 1197, 251

Lands of Church in German Reformation, 434, 437, 439 in England, 454, 482 in Scotland, 508 in France, 589 in Sardinia, 609 in Italy, 610

Lanfranc, moderation of his reforms, 272, 273

Langdon, case of Abbot of, 451

Langdon, Rev. W. C., on clerical morality, 632

Langlande on foreign prelates, 290 on venality of officials, 293 on the church, 444

Languedoc, Manichæism in, 208

Lanssac, his instructions at Trent, 517 on clerical marriage at Trent, 533

Lanzo of Milan, 209

Laodicea, Council of, in 352, 36, 60

Laon, case of subdeacon of, 324

La Réole, monks of, kill St. Abbo, 153

Lasteyrie on clerical corruption, 585

Lateran, first Council of, in 1123, 313 second Council of, in 1139, 315 fourth Council of, in 1215, 327, 567 fifth Council of, in 1516, 413, 428

Latimer, Bishop, concerned in bribing Cromwell, 454 on unworthy promotions, 456 his imprisonment, 469

Latin clerks in Greek church, 329

Laurentius Gallus, 349

Lausanne, clergy of, drive out their bishop, 341 popular complaints in 1533, 429 case of clerical marriage in, 601

Lawney and the Duke of Norfolk, 469

Lay communion in both elements, 44 wine withdrawn from, 45 demanded by the Hussites, 384 demands for it in 16th century, 530, 536, 641 conceded to and withdrawn from Germany, 541, 543

Lazarists, 613-4

Lead, value of, in English monasteries, 459

League of Schmalkalden founded, 438

Le Bas, number of ecclesiastics of France, 593

Lebret, Président, absolves Girard, 580

Legacies to church restricted, 63

Legitimation of priests’ children, in 1552, 476 under Elizabeth, 488 letters of, in Scotland, 506

Leibnitz, his negotiations with Bossuet, 582

Leigh, Thomas, on morals of laity, 464

Leighton, Dr., his report of monasteries, 451

Leith, Articles of, 511

Le Mans, bishop of, the son of a priest, 205 Synod of, in 1248, 350

Leo I. on priestly marriage of widows, 39 on communion in one element, 44 he enforces celibacy, 76 on virginity of nuns, 104 on disregard of vows, 105 on concubinage, 196

Leo III. dispenses St. Swithin, 165

Leo. VIII. permits ordination of priests’ sons, 148 approves statutes of St. Martin of Tours, 404

Leo IX., his entry in Rome, 187 he commences reform, 188 endeavors to reform the Greek church, 191 on priestly marriage in Lucca, 222 his death and canonization, 190

Leo X., his character, 413 he honors Savonarola, 386 is replied to by Diet of Augsburg, 416 he excommunicates Luther, 418 his efforts at reform, 428 his thanks to Henry VIII., 463

Leo XIII. denounces civil marriage, 605

Leo and Anthemius, their laws on monachism, 108

Leo the Isaurian persecutes monks, 90

Leo Marsicanus on Alberic, 153

Leo the Philosopher, legislation of, 87 forbids marriage in orders, 90 on monachism, 109

Leon, Council of, in 1114, 307

Leonistæ, the, 67

Leopold of Tuscany endeavors to reform nunneries, 573, 586

Leptines, Synod of, in 743, 131

Lerida, Council of, in 523, 80

Leslie, Norman, murders Cardinal Beatoun, 503

Levirate marriage among the Jews, 21

Levites, hereditary functions of, 22

Levitical rule of virgin marriage, 38 maintained in Milan, 210

Leyden, John of, 438

Lhassa, number of monks in, 95

Liber Gomorrhianus, 188

Libya, married bishops in, 89

Licentiousness better than marriage, 145, 201, 628

Licenses to sin, first allusion to, in 1080, 257 sale of, in Denmark, 253 condemned by Lateran Council, 327 continued in England, 278, 280, 284, 289, 293 in France, 332 in Germany, 337 in Naples, 339 condemned by Council of Bâle, 396 continued throughout 15th century, 312, 389, 401 in 16th century, 428, 432, 433, 462, 526, 528, 559

Liége, Manichæism, in 1025, 207 priestly marriage in 12th century, 247 heretics in, 371 Bishop of, on clerical corruption, 530 Council of, in 1131, 246, 314 in 1548, 526, 530

Lignana, Girolamo, his attempt to murder St. Charles, 551

Lillebonne, Council of, in 1080, 257

Lima, Councils of, in 1552-1601, 563-5

Limitation on vows in France, 613

Lincoln, case of subdeacon of, 321

Lindet of Evreux, his marriage, 591

Link, Wences., his marriage, 422

Lippomani condemns Orzechowski, 541

Lisieux, case of archdeacon of, 349 Council of, in 1055, 256

Litchfield, Saxon Bishop of, 272 visitation of diocese of, 452

Livonia, hereditary priesthood in, 336

Livres de Jostice et de Plet, 321

Llorente on abuse of confessional, 569, 572-3

Lodi, turbulence of married priests at, 202

Loi Falloux of 1850, 614, 617

Lolhard, Walter, 377

Lollards, the, 381 of Kyle, 501

Lombardo-Venitia, number of clergy in, 630

Lombardy independent of Rome, 219 submits to Rome, 221

Loménie of Sens, his marriage, 591

London, Dr., his career, 457 on false relics, 458 on permission of marriage of nuns, 466 on ejected monks, 469

London, married priests deprived in 1554, 478 enumeration of married priests in, 489 Council of, in 1075, 272 in 1102, 273 in 1108, 277 in 1126, 279 in 1129, 280 in 1200, 288 in 1237, 288 in 1268, 291

Lords, House of, delays priestly marriage, 472

Loretto, Episcopal Convention of, in 1850, 626

Lorraine, Cardinal of, his instructions at Trent, 533 endeavors to enforce chastity, 559

Lothair (Emp.) aids to enforce celibacy, 246 visits Fulda, 404

Louis-le-Débonnaire on monastic impostors, 115 his reforms, 136 prohibits phlebotomy to monks, 138

Louis-le-Gros, his charter to St. Cornelius, 270

Louis IX. arbitrates for the d’Avesnes, 323

Louis XII. and relics of St. Denis, 217

Louis XV. reforms monastic orders, 585 his arrests of brothel-haunting priests, 586

Louis-Philippe adverse to monachism, 614

Louvain, University of, urges reform, 529 Synod of, in 1556, 541 in 1574, 561

Loyola, his reformation of Spain, 517

Luanus, monasteries founded by, 160

Lucca, priestly marriage in, 222

Lucius II. on hereditary priesthood, 281

Lucius III. on sacraments of sinful priests, 195 on hereditary benefices, 322 confirms the Order of the Temple, 363 condemns the Waldenses, 373

Lucretia Borgia, 345

Ludegna, Juan, his disputation on priestly marriage, 535

Luna, Doña Agueda de, 572

Lunden, Archbishop of, on priestly marriage, 252

Lupus of Troyes on celibacy, 79

Lupus, Christian, on Paphnutius, 57 on Tridentine canons, 640

Luther, his place in the Reformation, 413 his ninety-five propositions, 417 his gradual progress, 418 he hesitates as to priestly marriage, 420 he approves of priestly marriage, 422 his marriage, 425 his opinions on marriage, 426 he opposes the Anabaptists, 438 he fraternizes with Orthodox Brethren, 385 he reprints Caraffa’s “Concilium,” 523 Sir Thomas More’s assault on him, 440

Lutheranism caused by clerical immorality, 514, 516, 518, 527, 529 its spread in Bohemia, 384

Lutherans, the, adopt the Waldenses, 375 they object to Council held at Mantua, 520 their treatment at Trent, 521 they decline further participation, 522

Luxury, uses of, 358

Lyons, Poor Men of, 373

Lyons, effect of papal court on, 342 suppression of unauthorized orders in, 622 Council of, in 583, 80 in 1274, 328, 336, 351 in 1528, 515 in 1850, 626

Lyons, Huguenot Synod of, in 1563, 38, 499

Macaulay, Lord, on Anglican clergy, 497

Macedonia, celibacy enforced in, 86

Macliaus of Britanny, case of, 119

Macon, Council of, in 581, 80, 119

Mæsse-þegnes, wer-geld of, 173

Magdeburg Centuriators, their mistake, 162 Council of, in 1403, 353 troubles of, in 1431, 395

Mahavira, legend of, 35

Mahue of S. Sulpice, case of, 592

Maiden Bradley, prior of, his morals, 458

Maillard, Olivier, his sermon, 399

Mainardo, Card., his mission to Milan, 217

Mainerio Boccardo, will of, 221

Mainz, enforcement of celibacy in, 230 revolt against Rodolf of Swabia, 236 Diet of, in 1085, 239 annates of, 412 Archbishop of, asks for clerical marriage, 539 Council of, in 888, 138 in 1049, 189 in 1075, 231 in 1225, 337 in 1261, 338, 376 in 1527, 423 in 1549, 528

Majorian, laws of, respecting nuns, 105

Malachi, St., his reforms, 296 his death, 297

Malatesta, Carlo, interferes with concubinage, 339

Mallet, Abbé, case of, 635

Malone, Malachi, on dispensations, 541

Malta, Knights of, 362, 366 suppressed in England, 458

Manasses of Rheims, his violent measures, 261

Mancio of Chalons, his indecision, 142

Manes, career of, 43

Manfredonia, Council of, in 1567, 553

Manichæism, influence of, 43 indulgences and Eucharist in, 44 revival of, in 11th century, 207 prevalent in Milan, 211 opposed by St. Bernard, 331 of Albigenses, 367

Manigold of Veringen, case of, 235

Mansfeld, married priest of, 419

Mantua, Council of, in 1053, 190 in 1067, 202 Council of Trent to be held at, 519

Mapes, Walter, his satirical verses, 289

Mar Aba prohibits priestly marriage, 92

Marcellin, Abbé, on droit de marquette, 354

Marcian (Emp.) restricts monachism, 107

Marcion, heresy of, 33

Marcus, heresy of, 33

Margaret of Flanders, case of, 323

Margaret of Parma delays reception of Council of Trent, 547

Mariana on married clergy of Spain, 303

Marian Order, 366

Marien, frère, case of, 637

Marillac, Bishop Charles de, on clerical discipline, 559

Marino, a married priest, 180

Marino of Ostia condemns priestly marriage, 149

Marisco, Adam de, 292

Marozia, her power, 144

Marquardo dei Susani on celibacy, 547

Marquette, droit de, 354

Marriage exalted by Christ, 26 in Apostolic Constitutions and Canons, 48 abstinence from, among early Christians, 32 heresies condemning, 31 orthodox condemnation of, 45 depreciation of, by Chrysostom, 86 comparative merit of, 46, 47, 318, 347 abhorrence of, by Manichæans, 43 by Albigenses, 208, 367 orthodox embarrassment concerning, 369 disregard of, in 11th century, 182 in Ireland, 295, 297, 298 Wickliffe’s view of, 381 permitted to those under vows, 100 not dissolved by monastic vows, 114 indissoluble in early church, 314 dissolved by orders and vows in 12th century, 313 effect of vows upon, 321 worse than licentiousness, 145, 201, 628 clerical, is incest, 628 sacrament of, inferior to ordination, 642 of Martin Luther, 425 of Albert of Brandenburg, 434 of converts to Calvinism, 499 in orders forbidden, 39, 77 persisted in 80 forbidden in the East, 86 custom of Greek church, 89, 90 permitted among Nestorians, 92 anathematized at Trent, 536 in Spanish military orders, 363, 364

Marriage of abbots, Hungary, 15th century, 401

Marriage of bishops, prohibited in orders, 39 in 4th century, 58 in Greek church, 87, 91 practised in Africa, 89 in Frankish Gaul, 119 in Gothic Spain, 121 in 8th century, 132 in 10th century, 154, 155 in 11th century, 181, 189, 197, 198 separated from their wives in Hungary, 249 in Ireland, 295 treatment of, under Mary, 479

Marriage of deaconesses punished, 96

Marriage of monks permitted in 4th century, 58 forbidden by Justinian, 108 and by Gregory I., 113 St. Bernard on, 316 common in 9th century, 139 in 12th century, 324, 326 in 14th century, 340 in 15th century, 401, 403 in Reformation, 420 dispensations refused them, 442

Marriage of nuns a capital crime, 100 is binding, 103, 104, 105 common in 5th century, 110 in 7th century, 115 in Merovingian France, 120 in Gothic Spain, 121 in Italy, in 8th century, 127 forbidden in 8th century, 132, 135, 137 common in 9th century, 139 in 10th century, 163, 166 in 14th century, 340 in 15th century, 403 in Reformation, 425, 435 under Henry VIII., 466 in France in 1581, 500 in French Revolution, 593

Marriage of priests in early church, 27-30, 48 restricted to single marriage, 37 and with virgins, 38 forbidden in orders, 39 forbidden in Manichæism, 45 and by Council of Elvira, 50 but not by Council of Nicæa, 54 first prohibition, in 385, 64 prohibition gradually enforced in Western church, 66-82 custom of Eastern church, 89 common in Gothic Spain, 121 common in Italy in 6th and 8th centuries, 122, 127 in Merovingian France, 119-20 prohibited in 8th century, 133-5 reappears in 9th century, 142 common in 10th century, 148, 150, 152, 155, 158 in British church, 159 in Saxon England, 167, 169, 172 in Wales, 171 universal in 11th century, 181 in southern Italy, 197 in Tuscany, 199 creates a political party in 1061, 200 becomes a heresy, 201 struggle over, in Lombardy, 210-21 persecution of, 234 penalties inflicted on, 242 in Bohemia, 245 in Germany, 247 in Hungary, 248-9 in Dalmatia, 250 in Poland, 251 in Sweden, 252 in Denmark, 253 in Friesland, 254 in France, 255, 270 in Normandy, 256 in Britanny, 259 in Flanders, 260 in England, 272-91 in Wales, 294 in Ireland, in 16th century, 299 in Scotland, 299 in Spain, 303 delay in abrogating it, 305 forbidden by Alfonso the Wise, 308 irregular, continued, 311 St. Bernard on, 316 Gratian on, 317 advocated by Alexander III., 325 condemned by Wickliffe, 379 allowed by Lollards, 381 condemned by Hussites, 384 allowed by Brethren of the Cross, 385 and by Orthodox Brethren, 385 advocated in 15th century, 405 commencement of, in Reformation, 419 demanded by Zwingli, 421 accepted by Luther, 422 favored by the people, 423 persecuted by the church, 423 recognized by the Interim, 441 dispensations granted by Paul III., 442 recognized by Transaction of Passau, 443 advocated in England in 1530, 461 commencement of, in England, 462-5 refused by Henry VIII., 461-4 a capital offence under the Six Articles, 468 permitted under Edward VI., 472 popular repugnance for, 475, 476 suppressed under Mary, 478 admitted by Elizabeth, 488 a matter of Anglican faith, 475, 490 effects of its uncertainty on Anglican clergy, 497 a matter of course in Calvinism, 498, 510 dispensations for, sale of, 522 demanded of Council of Trent, 529-33 prevalence of, 531-2 disastrous consequences to church, 535 prejudged at Trent, 534-6 asked for by German princes and prelates, 539-43 condemned as heresy at Trent, 536, 640-2 papal dispensations for, 541 refused by Pius IV., 545 in post-Tridentine church, 554 denounced by Inquisition, 556 demand for, in 18th century, 582-4 in French Revolution, 590-4 under the Concordat, 596-8 varying policy in France, 599-601 attempted revival in modern times, 601, 606 accepted by Old Catholics, 604 in the United States, 607

Marriage of subdeacon valid, 324

Marriage, civil, 605-7

Marriage with Christ by taking the veil, 104

Marriages, second, commanded by St. Paul, 96 objected to, 33 regarded as adulterous, 36 forbidden to priesthood, 37 St. Augustin on, 74 legislation against, 86, 89 in 11th century, 202, 210

Married men, admission of, to orders, 76, 79

Married nuns, divorce of, 480

Married priests, their audacious demands in 8th century, 132 their divorce, 470 numbers ejected under Queen Mary, 480 penance inflicted on, 481 not permitted to leave the church, 424, 484 enumeration of, in England, 489

Marsico, priests of, defend their concubines, 339

Marsiglio of Padua on confessional, 350

“Marthas” of Franciscans, 353

Martin I., his advice to Amandus, 126

Martin V., his election, 391 his favors to John XXIII., 344 condemns the Begghards, 377 his attempts at reform, 392

Martin, St., on marriage, 47

Martin, case of, in 1817-21, 599

Martin of Battle Abbey, 282

Martin of Camin on clerical morals, 402 tries to reform his clergy, 496

Martin, St., of Leon, his dialectics, 371

Martin of Marseilles, marriage of, 592

Martin, Dr. T., at trial of Cranmer, 190 his treatise on celibacy, 480

Martyrdom, its comparison with virginity, 46 of English monks, 450

Marullus on Innocent VIII., 345

Mary, St., of Egypt, 98

Mary of Guise, her policy, 507

Mary, Queen, her obsequies of Edward VI., 477 her death, 486

Mass, disputation on, Scotland, in 1560, 507

Masses for the dead, copied from Mazdeism, 44 maintained by Henry VIII., 454

Masses of married priests to be rejected, 194, 227, 246, 256, 274

Massieu of Beauvais, his marriage, 591

Massipia, legalized concubines, 197

Materialism of Mosaic Law, 21

Maternity, dissuasions from, 347

Mathison, John, and the Anabaptists, 438

Matilda, Countess, and married priests of Lucca, 222

Matrimony, Tridentine canons on, 534-6, 640-1

Matthew Paris on Milanese heresies, 211

Matthew of Salzburg, his attempted reforms, 518

Matthias Corvinus on priestly morals, 401

Maud of Ramsbury, 281

Mauger of Rouen, his character, 156

Mauléon, Mdlle. Desvieux de, 582

Maultrot, his answer to Gaudin, 584

Maurice of Saxony, 441, 443

Maurice de Sully, powers granted to, 322

Maurilio, St., of Rouen, 156

Mauritanian nuns, case of, 104

Maximilian II. asks for clerical marriage, 543 his requests refused, 545

Maya, mother of Buddha, 35

Mayer, Dr., on clerical corruption, 557

Mayer’s dissertation on Cath. von Bora, 425

Mazdeism, character of, 22 its Messiah, 35 its Izeshne sacrifice, 44

Meat, abstinence from, not recommended, 48 use of, forbidden by Manes, 43 and by Albigenses, 208, 367

Meaux, Bishop of, his propositions condemned, 382

Mechlin, regulation of confessionals, 574 discussion as to solicitation in, 576 clerical morals in, 628 Synods of, in 1570 and 1607, 561

Medicine, incompatibility of, with priesthood, 227

Meinhard of Trèves, misfortunes of, 248

Melanchthon on Luther’s marriage, 425 prepares the Confession of Augsburg, 436 seeks conference with Sorbonne, 440 argues with Henry VIII., 466 remonstrates with him, 470

Melchoir of Wurzburg on condition of clergy, 528

Melfi, Council of, in 1059, 197 in 1089, 242 in 1284, 329, 339 in 1597, 553

Mélisse, frère, case of, 637

Melun, Assembly of, in 1579, 556

Men of Intelligence, 385

Mena, Father, case of, 579

Menco, Abbot, on priestly marriage, 254

Mendelsham, Vicar of, his marriage, 465

Mendicant Orders, the, 375

Mendicancy of Begghards condemned, 377

Mendicancy disapproved by Wickliffe, 379 forbidden in Reformation, 420

Mendieta on Spanish colonial church, 564

Merit, comparative, of virginity and marriage, 46, 47, 318, 347, 536, 641

Merseburg, priestly marriage demanded by people of, 441

Messiah, the, of Mazdeism, 35

Methodius converts Bohemia, 244

Metz, sons of priests ordained in, 154 Council of, in 895, 138 in 1604 and 1610, 562

Mexico, Councils of, in 1555 and 1585, 563, 565-6 corruption of its church, 563-6

Michelet on abuse of confessional, 573

Milan, struggle over celibacy in, 207-221 prevalence of Manichæism in, 211 its independence of Rome, 210 its submission to Rome, 213, 221 Synod of, in 1098, 221 in 1565 and 1582, 553 reforms of St. Charles Borromeo, 550-2 Episcopal Convocation, in 1849, 626

Military bishops in 10th and 11th centuries, 153, 180

Military Orders, the, 362

Military service enforced on monks, 99

Mill, Walter, his trial, 510

Milo of Rheims, case of, 129

Minden, Dean of, miracle occurring to, 266

Mingrat, Abbé, case of, 635

Minims, corruption of, 562

Minimum age for vows, 585, 587, 611 for ordination, 624 for resident women, 626

Ministers, Calvinist, strictness of rules, 499

Minors, irrevocable engagements by, 611

Minucius, Felix, on morals of Christians, 33 on second marriages, 36

Minuto, Cardinal, his mission to Milan, 217

Mirabeau advocates clerical marriage, 590

Miracles in support of celibacy, 170, 236, 334 by married priests, 180 to enforce morality, 266 false, 458

Misnia, the Brethren of the Cross, 385 priestly marriage in, 419

Missionary work of monachism, 113

Missions, abuse of confessional in, 578

Missions Étrangères, the, 614

Mithraic worship in Rome, 43

Mixed tribunal for married priests, 257

Modena, trouble with married priests in, 222

Molanus, his negotiation with Bossuet, 582

Monachism, 94 its Buddhist prototype, 95 commencement of, 97 originally temporary, 101 rules of Greek church, 107 difficulties of the West, 109 Western, practical character of, 112 rendered irrevocable by Gregory I., 113 benefits of, 113

Monachism, disorders of, under Carlovingians, 137, 139 reforms in 10th century, 152 in Irish church, 160, 295 Anglo-Saxon, 163, 173, 176 condition of, in France, 264 in early Scottish church, 299 degrading regulations of, 332 influence of, 357 demoralization in 15th century, 340, 392, 393, 399, 403 ridiculed by Erasmus, 415 opposition to, in Reformation, 421 position of, in Reformation, 437, 439 overthrown by Wolsey, 447 effort to enforce discipline, in 1549, 526 its description by Cassander, 543 its abolition recommended, 523, 573 its influence on solicitation, 573 corruption of post-Tridentine, 562 in Spanish Colonies, 565 corruption in 18th century, 585, 586 its abolition recommended, 587 subjected to the State, in 1760, 585 its modern vicissitudes, 608-21

Monasteries, residence in, enforced in the East, 107 not necessary in the West, 115 subjected to the bishops, 134 women excluded from, 403 treatment of, in Reformation, 435 English, their immorality, 451 suppression of, by Wolsey, 448 and by Henry VIII., 454 means used for, 457 financial results of, 460 suppression of, in Austria, 584 in France, 589 in Spain, 608 in Italy, 609 in South America, 609

Monastic habit, salvation ensured by, 335

Monks, persecuted by the Iconoclasts, 90 number of, in Coptic church, 93 subjected to military service, 99 wandering, described by Augustin, 102 and by St. Benedict, 110 and by Smaragdus, 115 political influence of, 106 confined to their convents, 107 their wives must become nuns, 114 punishment of unchastity, 103, 131 custom of letting blood, 138 secular life of, in 10th century, 152 as priests in Anglo-Saxon England, 174 married priests replaced with, 275 residence of, with nuns, in Spain, 305 ordered to sleep singly, 332 ridiculed by Von Hutten, 416 fate of English, 460 ejected, held to chastity, in England, 469 unfit to be confessors, 432, 569, 572, 577, 587 marriage of (see Marriage).

Monluc of Valence, his marriage, 499 his description of French clergy, 515

Montanists denounce second marriages, 36

Montariol, Abbey of, and droit de marquette, 354

Monte Casino, foundation of, 111 Carloman becomes a monk there, 133 Abbey of, in 10th century, 153 preservation of, in 1866, 609

Monza, clerical marriage in 1152, 221 Barnabite college at, case of, 621

Morales, Ambrosio, case of, 40

Morality, reformed by early Christians, 32 of Puritanism, 357 of Scottish Reformers, 509 artificial standard of, 269, 347, 349, 627

Morals, clerical, described by Cyprian, 41 by Tertullian, 42 reforms at Council of Nicæa, 54 how affected by introduction of celibacy, 78 as described by Salvianus, 81 by Council of Elvira, 99 by St. Jerome, 100 of monks, described by St. Augustin, 102 by St. Benedict, 110 by St. Isidor of Seville, 115 by Smaragdus, 115 of bishops in Merovingian France, 119 of clergy in Gothic Spain, 121 in Italy, in 8th century, 127 in France, in 8th century, 128 in 9th century, 136 in Italy, in 10th century, 145, 147, 153 in England, in 10th century, 167 in 11th century, 172 in monasteries, in 11th century, 188 of bishops, in 11th century, 198 of married clergy, in 11th century, 202 in Milan, 210 in Germany, in 12th century, 247 in France, in 12th century, 264 worse than laity, 265, 346, 350, 429, 430, 518, 533, 586, 629 in England, in 12th century, 281 in 13th century, 293 in Ireland, in 14th century, 299 in Scotland, in 13th century, 301 in Spain, in 14th century, 311 in church of 12th century, 321, 326 of 13th century, 331 in monasteries in 14th century, 340 in papal court, 341 in mediæval church, 350 in military orders, 364 in Bohemian church, 383 in 15th century, 388 in 16th century, 427, 515-33 in English church of 16th century, 447 in English monasteries, 451 of clergy of Bangor, 463 in Scottish church, 501 sqq. in German church described by Cassander and Wicelius, 542-3 after Council of Trent, 548 in Rome, in 16th century, 549 in post-Tridentine church of Italy, 550-3 in Bavaria and Bohemia, 554, 556 in the Low Countries, 557 in France, 559 in confessional, 566-77 affected by casuistry, 578 in 18th century, 585-8

Morals of monachal educators, 619-21 in the modern church, 624-37

More, Sir Thomas, his position, 445 appointed Chancellor, 449 on sheep-farming, 474

Morone, Cardinal, asked to aid in furthering clerical marriage, 541

Morrison, Sir Richard, on resumption of church lands, 483

Mortal sin, Wickliffe’s definition of, 379

Morton, Archbishop, his visitation, 399

Mosaic Law, materialism of, 21

Mothers, residence of, forbidden, 138, 331

Mount Lebanon, Synod of, in 1736, 91

Mozarabic ritual, contest over, 304

Mucius, his blind obedience, 102

Muhlberg, battle of, 441

Mulieres subintroductæ, forbidden by Council of Nicæa, 53 allowed in modern times, 626

Muncer and the Anabaptists, 438

Munster, Council of, in 1279, 575 in 1652, 558 impossibility of reform, in 16th cent., 548 proportion of clergy in, 631

Mutilation, practice of, 40

Mutilés de Russie, sect of, 41

Mylitta, 21

Mynecena, 173

Myrc, John, his Instructions, 400 on confessor and penitent, 574

Myrror of Justice on married clerks, 291

Mystic rewards of virginity, 347

Nalanda, Buddhist monastery of, 95

Namur, Synods of, in 1604 and 1639, 562 in 1698, 576 in 1742, 577

Nanno of Verona protects married priests, 151

Nantes, Council of, in 895, 138 Edict of, 500

Naples, children of ecclesiastics in, 335 position of priests’ concubines in, 339 tax on concubines in, 399 clerical marriage proposed in 18th century, 583 numbers of clergy in, 588, 631 civil marriage in, 606, 607 restrictions on monachism in 1820, 609 Council of, in 1576, 553 in 1699, 574

Napoleon I. reëstablishes religion, 595 prohibits clerical marriage, 597

Napoleon III. favors monachism, 614, 617-8

Narbonne, Council of, in 1551, 516 in 1609, 560

Nature, crimes against, 137, 332, 548

Nausea, Frederic, on priestly marriage, 423

Nazirate, the Jewish, 22

Neocæsarea, Council of, in 314, 36, 51

Neo-Platonism, influence of, 39

Nestorians, the, 91, 92

Netherlands, reception of Council of Trent, 547, 553 troubles of, caused by clerical corruption, 557 restrictions on monachism, 609

Neustria, reforms in, 132

New Grenada, corruption of church in, 563 abuse of confessional in, 572 suppression of monasteries in, 609

Nicæa, Council of, its relation to celibacy, 53 celibacy attributed to, 555

Nicæa, canon of, its enforcement, 84 renewed by Greek church, 91 enforced by Gregory I., 124 enforcement attempted in 744, 132 in 9th century, 136 in England, in 12th century, 277 by Council of Coyanza, in 1050, 303 in Anglican church, 494 applied to female relatives, 138, 331, 628 relaxation of, in 1536 and 1548, 518, 525 by Council of Trent, 538 efforts to enforce, in 17th century, 561 disregarded in modern times, 626

Nicetas Pectoratus, his defence of Greek church, 191

Nicholas de Clemanges (see Clemanges).

Nicholas I. enforces the rule of celibacy, 139 his relaxation of the rules, 141 on sacraments of sinful priests, 194

Nicholas II., his election, 192 his reforms, 194, 197, 199 he intervenes in Milanese troubles, 213 his canons on celibacy renewed, 227 he enforces celibacy in France, 255 his death, 200

Nicholas III., his efforts with Greek church, 328

Nicholas V., regulations of, 397

Nicholas the deacon, 34

Nicolites, heresy of, 34 priestly marriage ascribed to, 191, 201 married priests stigmatized as, 211 abjuration of, in Milan, 214 condemnation by C. of Piacenza, 221 in Germany, in 12th century, 318

Nigel of Ely, his revolt, 281

Niklaushausen, Hans of, 405

Nimptschen, escape of nuns from, 425

Nismes, residence of relatives forbidden, 332

Noailles, Cardinal, on absolution by guilty confessor, 576

Nobla Leyczon, La, 373, 374

Nomocanon of Photius, 87

Norbert, St., reforms effected by, 265

Nordhausen, Council of, in 1105, 244

Norfolk, married priests ejected in, 480

Norfolk, Duke of, suppresses the Pilgrimage of Grace, 456 introduces the Six Articles, 467

Normandy, condition of church in 10th century, 155 enforcement of celibacy in 12th century, 268, 319

North, Sir Edward, obtains the Charter-House, 451

Northmen, effect of their incursions, 139

Northumberland, Earl of, his insurrection in 1569, 496

Northumbrian priests, rules for, 168

Norway, rights of illegitimates in, 197

Nowell, Dean, on Council of Trent, 537

Nucius, Nicander, on English monasteries, 452, 458, 469

Nullity of marriage in orders introduced in 1123, 313 at Council of Trent, 536

Nunneries, disorders of, under Carlovingians, 137 in 10th century, 152 in 12th century, 264, 282, 318 in 13th century, 268 in 14th century, 340 in 15th century, 389, 393, 399 in 16th century, 451, 526, 527 abuse of confessional in, 572

Nuns, shaving of head prohibited, 104 punishment for unchastity, 131 seduction of, a capital offence, 136 their scandalous lives under Carlovingians, 137 test for their virtue, 292 their residence with monks, in Spain, 305 wives of monks must become, 324 ordered to sleep singly, 332 Lollard denunciations of them, 381 apostate, claimed by the church, 424 their emancipation, in the Reformation, 425, 427, 435 ejected, held to chastity in England, 469 their numbers in England, 471 married, divorce of, 480 their corruption by confessors, 523, 574, 586, 588 their trial by Inquisition, 588 secularized in Italy, 610 marriage of (see Marriage).

Nürnburg, Diet of, in 1522, 424, 431 in 1523, 69, 413, 424 secularization of Augustinians, 425 friars deprived of superintendence of nuns, 432

Nurses of priests’ children, their position, 306

Nursia, priest of, case of, 124

Oath of Knight Templars, 362 prescribed for French clergy, 589

Obedience, monachal, nature of, 102

Observances common to Catholicism and Buddhism, 35 and Mazdeism, 44

Odo of Canterbury, his indifference to celibacy, 166

Odo of Toul on relaxation of discipline, 326

Ogilby, Marion, 503

Old Catholics, schism of, 604

Olmutz, Synod of, in 1342, 338 in 1413, 383 in 1591, 555

Oral Law, development of, 24 burdens imposed by, 26

Orange, Council of, in 441, 60, 76

Ordeal, its use in ecclesiastical trials, 140

Ordericus Vitalis, 156, 176

Order of widows, apostolic, 96

Orders, military, the, 362 mendicant, the, 375

Orders, religious, their abolition recommended, 523, 587 unauthorized, suppressed in France, 621

Orders, holy, in Wickliffe’s reforms, 379

Ordination dissolves marriage, 313, 536 indelible under Wickliffe, 379 in modern France, 600-1 minimum age for, 624 sacrament of, attacked by Luther, 418 superior to marriage, 314, 642

Oriesis, St., rule of, 101

Origen, asceticism condemned by, 33 his self-mutilation, 40

Origenism, influence of, 86

Original sin, Council of Trent on, 640

Orihuella, Council of, in 1600, 557, 562, 574

Orleans, Council of, in 511, 80 in 533, 60, 80 in 538, 69, 80 in 541 and 549, 80

Ormanetto, Niccolo, his mission to Bavaria, 536

Orthodox Brethren, the, 375, 385

Orzechowski, Stanislas, case of, 540

Osber, Council of, in 1062, 201

Osbern, his life of St. Dunstan, 166

Osiander on virginity of the Virgin, 69

Osius of Cordova, influence of, 51

Osnabruck, Synods of, in 1625, 1628, 556, 558

Osorius on marriage of military orders, 365

Ossory, Council of, in 1320, 299

Oswald, St., his reforms, 169

Oswalde’s Law, charter of, 169

Otfrid of Watten, his troubles, 260

Othlonus, his temptations, 188

Otho I. deposes John XII., 144 condemns priestly marriage, 150 on sons of priests, 229

Otho IV., his league with John of England, 283

Otho of Constance, case of, 229

Otto of Ostia, his mission to Constance, 229

Otto, Cardinal, constitutions of, 288, 291

Ottoboni, constitutions of, 291 in Scotland, 301

Oxford, Council of, in 1222, 288 University of, on Wickliffe, 379 reform proposed by, 394 See of, created, 460

Paccanaristes, 613

Pachomius, rule of, 101

Paderborn, Synod of, in 1548, 528 proportion of clergy in, 631

Pagan priests, restrictions on, 49-50

Paleario, Aonio, on Council of Trent, 520

Palencia, Council of, in 1129, 308 in 1388, 311

Palermo, civil marriage valid in, 606

Palestine, monachism introduced in, 97

Panzini on condemnation of marriage, 47 on the suppression of religious orders, 610 on clerical morality, 632 is condemned as a heretic, 602, 642

Papacy, degradation of, in 10th cent., 144 in 11th century, 176 released from subjection, 192 election limited to Roman clergy, 200 distrust inspired by, 395 restrictions on it in England, 417, 517 opposition to it in England, 444 supremacy abolished in England, 450 restored in England, 482 dependent on celibacy, 536

Papal Court, its immorality, 341, 345 its rapacity, 412, 416 its repugnance for C. of Trent, 519, 522 it hesitates as to celibacy in 18th century, 584 number of women in, 1882, 628

Papal dispensations, their effect, 322, 397 sale of, 321, 322, 345, 398, 516, 517, 522 admitted by Council of Trent, 535, 642 for married priests, 407, 442

Papal infallibility in Vatican Council, 608

Papalists known as Paterins, 237

Paphnutius, story of, 56 quoted in the Reformation, 419

Paraguay, suppression of monasteries in, 609

Parajika rules, in Buddhism, 94

Paregorius, case of, 84

Paris, Council of, in 615, 114 in 1074, 256 in 1212, 270, 332 in 1323, 351 in 1521 and 1528, 515 Huguenot Synod of, in 1559, 498 diocese of, absolution in, 576 Parlement of, regulates monastic orders, 585

Parker, Archbishop, his marriage, 472 his rejoinder to Martin, 480 his promotion, 487 he obtains priestly marriage from Elizabeth, 488 his visitation of 1567, 491 he remonstrates with Elizabeth, 493 he evades an extradition question, 513

Parker, Mrs., Elizabeth’s insolence to, 491

Parkyns, his account of Abyssinian church, 93

Parlement of Paris regulates monastic orders, 585

Parliament (English) confirms supremacy of Henry VIII., 450 enacts the Six Articles, 467 modifies the Six Articles, 471 legalizes priestly marriage, 473 commands respect for it, 476 reactionary measures under Mary, 478 repeals the laws of Henry VIII., 482 on confessional manuals, 634

Parliament (Scotch) of 1542, 503 of 1560, 506

Parliamentary Abbots in 1539, 458

Parma, trouble with married priests in, 222

Partidas, Las Siete, marriage forbidden in, 309

Partner in guilt, absolution by, 575-8, 633

Paschal II., his efforts to enforce celibacy, 244 enforces celibacy in Denmark, 253 in Britanny, 259 in Flanders, 262 in Spain, 305 on ministration of married priests, 275 on children of priests, 276

Passau, enforcement of celibacy in, 230 Council of, in 1284, 338 troubles of, in 1431, 395 Transaction of, 443

Paterins, origin of the name, 211 their heresy, 207 their doctrines, 367 German papalists so called, 237

Patmore, Thomas, punishment of, 462

Patra, the Buddha’s begging-dish, 35

Patrician heresy, 45

Patrick, St., his classification of merit, 46 founds Irish church, 159 celibacy in his church, 76 Synod of, in 672, 160

Patronage, abuse of, France, 16th cent., 515

Paul, St., his liberalizing views, 26 his asceticism, 31 he enjoins abstinence from women, 49 on ministration of women, 60 his order of widows, 96

Paul III. prevents reconciliation with Lutherans, 441 grants dispensations for married priests, 442 excommunicates Henry VIII., 455 convokes Council of Trent, 520 attempts a reform of the church, 516, 522 obliged to abandon it, 523

Paul IV. pronounces Savonarola orthodox, 386 on English church-lands, 483 on abuse of confessional, 568 puts his own “Consilium” in the Index, 523

Paul V. on abuse of confessional, 569

Paul of Samosata, case of, 42

Paul the Thebæan, the first anchorite, 97

Paula, Francisco de, advocates clerical marriage, 602

Pauline Christianity, 27

Paupers, monastic vows taken only by, 168

Pavia, Council of, in 1022, 178 schismatic Synod of, in 1076, 219, 220

Payne, Peter, 382

Peasants’ War, the, 435

Peckham of Canterbury, efforts of, 291

Pedro de Luna, legate to Spain, 310

Pekin, number of Buddhist monks in, 95

Pelagius I. endeavors to enforce the canons, 123 separates wives of subdeacons, 124

Pelagius II., his relaxation of rules, 122

Peñafiel, Council of, in 1302, 310

Penance of married priests under Mary, 481 term of, for infraction of canons, 80, 157, 160 for unchastity, 169

Penitential of Theodore on marriage, 48

Penitentials, coarseness of, 566, 634

Penitentiary, taxes of the, 428

Pepin d’Heristel, policy of his house, 127

Pepin-le-Bref reforms the clergy, 132 his policy, 134

Pères de la Foi, 613

Périgord, Manichæism in, in 1147, 207

Persecution of Manichæans, 43

Persecution of monks by Leo the Isaurian, 90 by Valens, 99 of married priests, 234, 423 of Catholics in Scotland, 512 of celibacy under the Terror, 593

Perth, monasteries destroyed in, 508

Peru, corruption of church of, 564-5

Perushim, 25

Peter, St., his view of Christ’s mission, 26

Peter d’Ailly on corruption of priests, 350 on nunneries, 389 he condemns Men of Intelligence, 385

Peter of Antioch, 107

Peter Cantor on clerical morals, 265 on false accusations, 369

Peter of Capua, Cardinal, enforces celibacy in Poland, 251

Peter, Cardinal, exhorted to suppress marriage, 203

Peter Comestor deprecates celibacy, 325

Peter Martyr, tumult in Oxford against, 474 exhumation of his wife, 484

Peter the Venerable, miracle related by, 266 he refutes the Petrobrusians, 370

Peter de Vinea on official venality, 284

Peter Waldo, his career, 372

Peterboro’, the first bishop of, 454 See of, created, 460

Petrarch, his opinion of papal court, 342

Petrobrusian heresy, 370

Petronio, Marco, on clerical morality, 631

Peutwitz, escape of nuns from, 425

Peyrinnis, Laurent de, regulations of, 562

Pfaffenkind, 336

Pharisees, 25

Philibert of Sedan on clerical marriage, 594

Philip of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht, 429

Philip of Savoy, his career, 290

Philip II. prevents the granting of clerical marriage, 544 his policy with regard to Council of Trent, 547, 553 he supports St. Charles Borromeo, 551

Philippe, frère, of the Écoles Chrétiennes, 617, 620

Philo on Therapeutæ, 26

Phlebotomy of monks prohibited, 138

Phœbe the deacon, 60

Photinus, 39 his heresy as to the Virgin, 68

Physicians, prelates not to be, 227

Piacenza, Bishop of, aids to elect Cadalus, 200 Council of, in 1095, 221 trouble in, 222

Pibo of Toul inquires as to sacerdotal marriage, 243

Picardi, 385

Pictish church, character of, 160

Piedmont, priestly marriage in, 202 monastic orders suppressed in, 609 number of clergy in, 630

Pier-Leone, antipope, his character, 341

Pierre de Bruys, 370

Piers Ploughman, Vision of (see Langlande).

Piers Ploughman, Creed of, 352 on Franciscans, 376

Pietro Igneo excommunicates married priests, 222

Pietro, schismatic Bishop of Lucca, 222

Pietro de Santa Maria enforces celibacy in Bohemia, 246

Pignan, disorders of canons of, 573

Pilgrimage of Grace, the, 455

Pilgrims, female, dangers to, 164 deterred from visiting Rome, 145

Pinytus of Gnosus, his asceticism, 34

Pisa, Council of, failure of its reforms, 413

Pistoia, trouble with married priests in, 222 state of convents of, 586 Council of, in 1786, 587

Pius II. on the origin of celibacy, 29 he favors clerical marriage, 406 he increases the annates of Mainz, 412

Pius III. his Bull of Reformation, 523

Pius IV. on the origin of celibacy, 29 he admits the story of Paphnutius, 56 he reconvokes the Council of Trent, 521 he temporizes with demand for clerical marriage, 531 he swears his prelates to support vows of chastity, 533 he approves his legates’ tergiversation, 535 he concedes the cup to German laity, 541 his treatment of Orzechowski, 541 he inclines to grant clerical marriage, 544 but at length refuses, 545 he orders reception of C. of Trent, 547 on abuse of confessional, 568

Pius V. admits that heresy is justified by clerical immorality, 430 his accession, 547 his reforms, 548-50 he suppresses the Umiliati, 552 his Bull Contra Sodomitas, 578 is stigmatized as a Lutheran, 641

Pius VI. on abuse of confessional, 578

Pius VIII. offers to permit clerical marriage, 598

Pius IX. on dissolution of priestly marriage, 317 he resists clerical marriage, 601 his organization of the Vatican Council, 603 he denounces civil marriage, 605 growth of church under him, 608 his policy on monastic vows, 610-11 on absolution for solicitation, 633

Podiebrads, the, of Bohemia, 384

Poissy, Colloquy of, on virginity of the Virgin, 69 its result, 559

Poitiers, Council of, in 1000, 157 in 1078, 256 Huguenot Synod of, in 1560, 559 Bishop of, on degradation of clergy, 638

Poland, enforcement of celibacy in, 251 its alliance with Bohemia, 384 its complaints of papal exactions, 397 clerical celibacy questioned in 15th century, 409 clerical marriage demanded in 1556, 529 case of Orzechowski, 540 reception of Council of Trent, 547 celibacy discussed in 18th century, 584

Pole, Cardinal, on need of reformation, 522 his legatine powers, 478 is installed as legate, 482 he enforces celibacy, 483 he orders exhumation of Peter Martyr’s wife, 484 he forbids withdrawal of married priests, 485 his death, 486

Political importance of celibacy, 201 influence of married priests in 1061, 200 of monachism, 106 of Belgian clergy, 623 teaching of monachism, 617-8

Pollution of priests among the Jews, 22

Polygamy of Jews and Christians, 38 of priesthood, 172, 181, 247 permitted by John of Leyden, 438

Pomerania, clerical morals in 15th cent., 401

Pomeranius on Luther’s marriage, 425

Pontanus on Alexander VI., 345

Pontigny, Abbot of, punished, 404

Poor Men of Lyons, 373

Poor-laws, English, commencement of, 460

Poor, relief of, in Scotland, 508

Pope (see Papal).

Pope, Simon, case of, 479

Poppo of Brixen created pope, 187

Popular desire for clerical celibacy, 77, 234 invoked by the church, 227, 232

Population, influence of celibacy on, 360

Port of Spain, Council of, in 1854, 626, 633

Portalis promises clerical marriage under the Concordat, 596 forbids it, 597

Portugal, military orders in, 365 abuse of confessional in, 569

Poverty not required in primitive monachism, 101, 112 enforced in rule of Tetradius, 112 in rule of military orders, 362 of Irish church, 297 of Scottish church, 508 of Waldenses, 374 of Franciscans, 376

Poynette, Bishop, his writings, 473, 480

Præmunire for recognizing papal authority, 456

Pragmatic Sanction of 1438, 396

Prague, enforcement of celibacy in, 246 Univ. of, condemns Wickliffe, 382 Councils of, in 1405-7, 383 in 1565, 554, 556 in 1860, 627, 633 clerical marriage in 1578, 555 Confession of Faith of 1432, 384

Pratimoksha, the, 94

Predestinarianism of Huss, 382

Prelates not to be physicians, 227

Prélibation, droit de, 354

Premontré, order of, 264

Priests, children of (see Children). divorces of (see Divorces). marriage of (see Marriage). immorality of (see Morals). forbidden to bear arms, in 1049, 189 compelled to keep concubines, 310, 388, 389 privileges of their concubines, 339 reconciled, treatment of, in England, 484, 485 their position, in French Revolution, 590-2 obliged to join in wolf-hunts, 303 purgation of, in Saxon England, 174 punishment of, for unchastity, 131 responsible for parish property, 123 their position in modern France, 637 sinful, their ministrations, 194, 368, 374, 379, 383 their influence, 346 mutually absolve each other, 428 adulterous wives of, to be put away, 39 their wives in Italy, in 8th century, 127 disorders caused by, 147, 175 stigmatized as concubines, 196 reduced to slavery, 242 assumed to be women in service, 489 their resistance to celibacy, 202, 212, 222, 228, 231 their power and privileges, 355 they corrupt the laity, 265, 346, 350, 429, 430, 518, 530, 533, 586, 629

Priesthood, hereditary (see Hereditary). becomes indelible, in 12th century, 314 is incompatible with medicine, 227

Priestly caste, danger of creating, 225

Primitive church, asceticism in, 31 marriage permitted in, 28

Privileges accorded to priests’ concubines, 339

Procedure, ecclesiastical, gives practical immunity, 140

Procopius, St., his marriage, 181

Procopius the Hussite, 384

Prodicus, heresy of, 33

Promotion dependent on celibacy, 75, 76

Property, church, threatened by priestly marriage, 123 dilapidation, in 10th cent., 145, 147 in France before 1789, 589

Property, monastic, in England, 459 confiscated in Germany, 434, 437, 439 in France, 589 in Italy, 609

Prosecution of clerical offenders in France, 636

Prostitution encouraged by celibacy, 629

Prota, Dr., on civil marriage, 606

Protection accorded to clerical criminals, 635

Provence, Waldenses in, 375

Prussia, foundation of kingdom of, 434 acknowledges clerical marriage, 604 proportion of clergy in, 630

Prussia, West, morals of clergy, in 15th century, 402

Public school system of France, 623

Punishment, mildness of, for solicitation, 571

Purgation of Anglo-Saxon priests, 174 of married priests, 277

Purgatory maintained by Henry VIII., 454

Puricelli on marriage of Eriberto of Milan, 209 on Ambrosian tradition, 210

Puritanism, influence of, 357

Purity required of pagan priests, 49

Quebec, Councils of, in 1851 and 1854, 626, 633

Quedlinburg, Diet of, in 1085, 239

Quimper, diocese of, hereditary descent in, 259

Quinisext in Trullo, 88

Quito, Council of, in 1869, 627

Radulphus Ardens on Manichæism, 208 on clerical morals, 265

Rainbaldo of Fiesole, 180

Ranald and Raymond, case of, 146

Rapacity of papal court, 412, 416

Rasfeldt, Bishop, his misadventures, 548

Ratherius of Verona on hereditary transmission, 146 his priests all married, 148 his contest with his clergy, 150

Ratisbon, Council of, in 13th century, 248 in 1512, 429 Assembly of, in 1524, 423 Diet of, in 1532, 439 in 1541, 440 Bishop John of, 429

Ratramnus of Corvey on Nicene canons, 55

Rauscher, Cardinal, denounces civil marriage, 605

Ravenna, Council of, in 967, condemns priestly marriage, 150 in 997, 157 in 1568, 553 in 1855, 627

Raymond of Gallicia, 307

Raymond du Puy founds Knights of St. John, 362

Recared I. enforces celibacy, 121

Reconciliation of Imperialist clergy, in 1106, 245 of Anglican clergy, 484, 485 of England to Rome, 482

Reformation, the, in Germany, 410-43 caused by clerical corruption, 430, 514, 516, 518, 527, 529, 548, 556 sqq. in England, 444-97 in France, 498-500 in Scotland, 501-13

Reforms proposed at Constance, 391 undertaken at Bâle, 395 attempted at Trent, 538

Réfractaires priests, 590

Regency, Council of, in 1523, 424

Reggio, trouble with married priests in, 222

Reginald of Canterbury, his life of St. Malchus, 275

Regino of Pruhm on residence of female relatives, 138 on legalized concubinage, 196

Regnier the Albigensian, 367

Relatives, residence of (see Residence).

Relaxation for abuse of confessional, 569

Relics, false, sold by monks, 102 ridiculed by Erasmus, 414 impostures of, in England, 458

Renan, Ernest, on morality of clergy, 625

Renaud of Rheims protects Flemish priests, 261

Residence of relatives forbidden, 138, 331, 555, 560 its danger, 628 of women, canon of Nicæa on, 53 Emperor Honorius on, 55 prohibition enforced, 84 in Greek church, 91 by Gregory I., 124 forbidden, in 744, 132 legislation on, 136 tolerated in Spain, 303, 307, 309 regulated in 1536, 518 over forty years old permitted, 525 permitted by Council of Trent, 538 regulations for, 554, 560, 561 in Spanish colonies, 563 modern rules for, 626, 628

Resistance of clergy to celibacy, 202, 212, 222, 228, 231

Responsibility of the church, 355 thrown upon God, 536, 624

Restoration, monachism under the, 613

Restrictions on monachism by Valens, 99 by Majorian, 105 in the East, 107 in modern times, 608, 613, 621 on clerical marriage by Elizabeth, 489

Results of celibacy, 330

Reuchlin and the theologians, 413

Revolution, French, its treatment of the church, 588-94 tolerates Sisters of Charity, 613 of 1830, its influence on monachism, 614

Rhea, worship of, 50

Rheims, Council of, in 874, 141 in 1049, 189 in 1119, 267 in 1130, 314, 315 in 1148, 315 in 1408, 350 in 1564, 559 in 1583, 560 in 1849, 626

Rhodes, Knights of, 362, 366, 458

Ribadeneira, his life of Loyola, 517

Ricci, Scipione dei, 587

Richard of Albano appealed to, 261

Richard of Dover on suppression of monasteries, 455, 456 on starving out of monasteries, 457 on false relics, 458 intercedes for ejected monks, 460

Richard the Fearless reforms Fécamp, 155

Richard Fitz-Neal, his advancement, 281

Richard of Marseilles, papal legate to Spain, 304

Richmond, Thos., case of, 382

Richstich Landrecht, children of clerks in, 336

Riculfus of Soissons on incest, 138

Ridley, Bishop, prepares the Forty-two Articles, 475

Rigobert, St., of Rheims, 129

Ritualists, Anglican, on marriage, 476

Rivera on toleration of adultery, 566

Robber Synod at Ephesus, 107

Robert d’Arbrissel, his reforms, 258, 265

Robert of Artois, case of, 261

Robert, Cardinal, his constitutions, 332

Robert the Frisian enforces celibacy, 260

Robert the Good (Naples) remits fines on concubinage, 339

Robert the Hierosolymitan of Flanders, 261

Robert the Pious, his neglect of celibacy, 179 he burns heretics, 207

Robert of Rouen, his character, 155

Robles, his life of Ximenes, 403

Roderic of Spain repeals Witiza’s laws, 122

Rodolf of Bourges on residence of female relatives, 138

Rodolf of Swabia, his coronation at Mainz, 236

Rodolphus Glaber on simony, 185

Rodriguez on seduction in confessional, 570

Roman clergy, papal election by, 200

Roman Law, concubinage under, 196

Roman Republic, abrogation of monastic vows in 1849, 609

Rome, Council of, in 384, 64, 103 in 721 and 722, 127 in 745, 132 in 826, 196 in 1051, 189 in 1052, 196 in 1057, 192 in 1059, 194 in 1063, 196, 202 in 1066, 216 in 1074, 227 in 1075, 231 in 1076, 229, 232 in 1079, 56 in 1725, 626 pseudo-council under Silvester, 55, 122 avarice of, 397, 412 brothels kept by prelates in, 429 England reconciled to, 482 Germany oppressed by, 412 heretics forbidden in, 70 its influence extended to Ireland, 296 to Spain, 303 jurisdiction of, its limits, 84 its demoralizing effect, 139, 322, 345 surrendered by Alexander IV., 334 morals of Pagan, 32 of Christian, 81, 181, 341, 549, 587 modern political opinions of, 618 number of clergy in, 630 pilgrims deterred from visiting, 145 reforms of Pius V., 550 revision of modern councils at, 628 rule respecting the subdiaconate, 124 supremacy over Milan asserted, 213 toleration of attacks, 15th cent., 387, 417 of sacrilege and lust, 431 of Greek discipline, 640

Romuald the priest, case of, 127

Romuald, St., 186

Rosceline on priests’ children, 276

Rota, priest of, his fate, 236

Rothius on the Nicolites, 34

Rouen, Archbishops of, in 10th cent., 155 Council of, in 1072, 256 in 1148, 372 in 1189, 322 in 1581, 500 in 1850, 626, 633

Roussillon, Edict of, in 1564, 499

Rules of monachism, early, 101 of St. Benedict, 112 of St. Cassianus, 101, 110 of St. Chrodegang, 134 of St. Columba, 160 of St. Oriesis, 101 of St. Pachomius, 101 of St. Tetradius, 112

Rupert of Duits on priestly marriage, 247

Ruremonde, Synod of, in 1570, 562

Russel, Lord, suppresses insurrection in Devon, 475

Russian church, customs of, 91

Rusticus of Narbonne, 76

Sabatati, 373

Saccofori, 44

Sacerdotalism, necessity of celibacy to, 225 popular antagonism to, 368

Sachsenspiegel, children of clerks in, 336

Sacrament of marriage inferior to ordination, 313, 315, 642 of sinful priests, 194, 368, 374, 379, 383

Sacrilege and lust, tolerance for, 431

Sadducees, conservatism of, 24

Sadoleto, Card., on need of reformation, 522

Saignet, his advocacy of clerical marriage, 353, 406

St. Albans, Abbey of, its disorders, 399

St. Caterina di Pistoia, Abbess of, 586

St. Cornelius, church of, charter to, 270

St. Denis, Council of, in 995, 154 Abbey of, its disorders, 264

St. Esprit, Society of, 613

St. Fara, monastery of, its disorders, 264

St. Gildas de Ruys, Abbey of, 264

St. Iago of Compostella, church of, 306

St. James of the Sword, Order of, 363

St. John, Knights of, 362, 366, 458

St. Louis, Council of, in 1858, 627

St. Marco, preservation of, in 1866, 609

St. Martin of Tours, Abbey of, 404

St. Mary of Argenteuil, Convent of, 264

St. Michael, Order of, 365

St. Omer, Synod of, in 1099, 261 in 1583, 560 in 1640, 562

St. Peter of Sens, Abbey of, 153

St. Riquier, Abbey of, its strictness, 404

St. Sabina, Cardinal of, enforces celibacy in Sweden, 253

St. Stephen, church of, in Aretino, 147

St. Ursmar, married canons of, 270

St. Vitus, monks of, reformed by Gregory I., 114

Saintes, monastic school at, case of, 619

Saints in Benedictine Order, 113

Salamanca, Council of, in 1335, 310

Salerno, Council of, in 1596, 553

Salona, Archbishop of, degraded, 188

Salvianus on condition of morals, 81

Salzburg, disorders in 12th century, 247 Archbishop of, demands suppression of clerical marriage, 530 asks for clerical marriage, 539 impossibility of reform, 16th century, 548, 554 XXXth Council of, 350 in 1537, 518 in 1549, 527 in 1562, 531

Sampson, Thos., on position of married clergy, 496

Samson, Nazirate of, 22

Samuel, Nazirate of, 22

Sanadon of Oléron on clerical marriage, 594

Sanders on Cranmer, 470, 474 on delay in authorizing priestly marriage, 488 on Elizabethan clergy, 494

Sandys, Bishop, on delay of priestly marriage, 488 his quarrel with Sir J. Bourne, 496

Sanghadisesa rules, in Buddhism, 95

Sangharamas, Buddhist, 94

Sangreal, the, 35

Sankhya school, 23

Sannazaro on Innocent VIII. and Alexander VI., 345

Sannyasis, class of, 23

Sanseverino, Council of, in 1597, 553

Santafé, Council of, in 1556, 563

Saoshyans, the Zend Messiah, 35

Sarabaitæ, 107, 109, 115

Saragossa, Council of, in 381, 98, 100 in 592, 80

Sarah, Abbess, her fortitude, 188

Sardinia, civil marriage enacted, 605 suppression of monasteries, 609

Sarpi, Fra Paolo, on Tridentine points of faith, 641

Satan, his estimate of chastity, 348 his gratitude to the church, 351 venerated by Begghards, 377

Saturnilus, heresy of, 33

Saurin vs. Starr and Kennedy, 611

Savonarola, 386 on priestly morals, 399 on morals of nunneries, 403 on abuse of confessional, 567

Savoy, priestly marriage in, 203 in the Revolution, 592

Saxon bishops ejected by Normans, 271 married priests in Ireland, 298 (See, also, Anglo-Saxon.)

Saxony, commencement of priestly marriage in, 419

Sbinco of Prague, his reforms, 383

Scandal more dreaded than sin, 518, 565, 567, 568, 571, 577, 579, 619, 628, 634-5

Scandals of agapetæ, 41

Scandinavia, morals of bishops, 389

Scania, demand for priestly marriage in, 252

Scaren, plunder of bishopric of, 279

Schening, Council of, in 1548, 253

Schism of 1061, influence of celibacy on, 200

Schmalkalden, League of, its founding, 438 its overthrow, 441 its negotiations with Henry VIII., 466

Schmidt, Conrad, his heresy, 385

Schmidt, Johann, Bishop of Vienna, 439

School system, public, in France, 623

Schools of monastic orders in France, 617-21

Scotland, its church, founded by Columba, 160 claim of York on, 161 celibacy in early church of, 161 position of concubines in, 197 enforcement of celibacy in, 299 Council of, in 1225, 301 the Reformation in, 501-13

Scribes, their influence, 24

Scythianus, precursor of Manes, 44

Sebastian of Portugal on papal dispensations, 517

Second marriages (see Marriage).

Secular power invoked to regulate monachism, 100 protects married priests, 151, 152 its assistance invoked, 178, 203, 293, 294, 309, 559, 560 celibacy subject to, 583

Secularization of church property in Germany, 427, 435, 437 in England, 454-60 in France, 589 in Italy, 609 of education in France, 623

Seduction of nuns a capital offence, 136

Segenfrid of Le Mans, evil courses of, 152

Sendomir, Agreement of, 385

Sens, Council of, in 1850, 626

Seraphin of Gran on marriage, 249

Sergius III., his immorality, 144

Serfs, ordination of, 155

Servant, priest’s wife assumed to be a, 489

Servitude of sons of priests, 155 of their wives, 189, 242, 309

Severus repeals Majorian’s laws, 106

Seville, Council of, in 590, 80 in 1512, 400 dress of concubines regulated, 517 abuse of confessional in, 569

Sextus Philosophus on mutilation, 40

Shaving, resistance of clergy to, 553

Shaxton, Bishop, opposes the Six Articles, 469

Sheep-farming, discontent caused by, 474

Shrewsbury, hereditary benefices in, 272

Sicily, monachism reformed by Gregory I., 114 celibacy of subdeacons, 124 children of ecclesiastics in, 335 civil marriage valid, 606 episcopal convention of, in 1850, 626

Sickingen, Franz von, 421

Siedeler, Jacob, fate of, 419

Siegfrid of Mainz, his troubles with celibacy, 231

Siete Partidas on origin of celibacy, 29 celibacy enjoined in, 309

Sigismund (Emp.) advocates clerical marriage, 406

Silesia, heresy of John of Pirna, 378 marriage in post-Tridentine church, 555 clerical marriage asked for in 1831, 601

Silvester I. on abuse of confession, 567 forged canons of, 122, 137

Silvester II. on celibacy, 157

Silvester III., election of, 183

Simon, Jules, opposes secularized education, 623

Simoniacal priests, sacraments of, 195

Simony, in 11th century, 185, 214 its repression by Leo IX., 189 by Gregory VII., 229 papal, 398

Simple vows prevent marriage, 321

Simplicius, St., of Autun, case of, 78

Sin (see Scandal). its influence on sacraments, 194 Wickliffe’s definition of, 379

Siricius makes no reference to Nicene canon, 55 commands celibacy, 65, 72 on heresy of Bonosus, 68 of Jovinian, 69 on disregard of vows, 100 on monastic unchastity, 103

Sister, residence of (see Residence).

Sisters of Charity, 612-3

Sithieu, Abbey of, its strictness, 404

Sitten, Synod of, in 1500, 402

Six Articles (see Articles).

Sixtus III. on marriage, 47 his trial, 82

Sixtus IV., his vices, 344 his sale of preferments, 398

Sixtus V. on children of cardinals, 550

Skopsis, sect of, 41

Slave children of priests emancipated, 563

Slavery for wives of priests, 189, 242, 389 for their sons, 155

Slaves, female, their union with priests, 249

Slavonic church, its connection with the Greek, 244 adherence to priestly marriage, 251

Sleidan on organized concubinage, 353

Sleswick, clerical morals in 15th cent., 402

Smaragdus on monastic impostors, 115

Smith, Dr. Richard, on clerical matrimony, 474

Smith, Sir Thomas, on celibacy, 497

Socrates on the story of Paphnutius, 56 on observance of celibacy, 86

Soissons, Synod of, in 744, 132 Manichæism in 1114, 207

Solicitation (see Confessional).

Somerset the Protector encourages the reformers, 472

Sons of priests (see Children).

Sorbonne, the, condemns Hildebrandine doctrine, 382 condemns Jean Lallier, 408 refuses conference with Melanchthon, 440

Sormitz, escape of nuns from, 425

Sousa, Ant. de, on solicitation, 571

Sozomen relates the story of Paphnutius, 56

Spain, celibacy first enforced in, 50, 66 disregarded in 375, 65 legislation in 400, 75 continued efforts required, 80 morals of, in 4th century, 81 monasticism in 7th century, 115 celibacy in Arian church, 120 reforms attempted by Catholicism, 121 church property guarded, 123 concubines, position of, 196, 197 enforcement of celibacy in, 302 priestly marriage universal, 303 delay in abrogating priestly marriage, 305 immorality of clergy, 311 military orders, 363 demoralization in 15th century, 400 Ximenes and the Franciscans, 402 morals in 16th century, 517 priestly marriage demanded, 556 concubinage of ecclesiastics, 557 the Colonial church, 563 abuse of confessional, 568-74 case of Father Mena, 579 census of the church in 1764, 588 civil marriage agitated, 605

Spalatin, his record of priestly marriages, 422

Spalatro, Council of, in 925, 149 in 1185, 250

Spaldwick, Vicar of, scandal caused by, 485

Spandel, Chris., on corruption of clergy, 556

Spanish church, its independence of Rome, 302 colonies, corruption of church in, 563

Spelman on Anglo-Saxon monachism, 173

Spifame, Bishop of Nevers, 499

Spiti, number of monks in, 95

Spotswood claims extradition of Baron’s wife, 513

Sraddha, 23

Standards of morality, 269, 347, 349, 627

State, permission of the, required by monastic orders in 1760, 585 its subjection to the church, 618, 639

Statistics of abuse of confessional, 573, 636 of Buddhist monachism, 95 of clergy in France, 593, 637 in Germany, 630-1 in Italy, 630 in Naples, 631 of Company of Jesus, 615 of monachism in Austria, 615 in Belgium, 615 in France, 614, 615, 617

Stephen IX. forces episcopate on Damiani, 186 his efforts at reform, 192 intervenes in Milanese troubles, 212

Stephen, King (England), his siege of Devizes, 281

Stephen of Halberstadt on the Imperialists, 239

Sterckx, Archbishop, his “Petronilla,” 629

Stipends of married priests guaranteed, 594

Stokesley of London on suppression of monasteries, 454 on priestly marriage, 462

Storck and the Anabaptists, 438

Strassburg, popular protection of married priests, 423 Synod of, in 1549, 528 in 1687, 562

Strype, his description of English clergy, 476

Sturmius, Balt., his marriage, 421

Subdeacons allowed to marry, 39 their marriage forbidden in 530, 86 separated from their wives, 124 marriage of, forbidden in 952, 149 subjected to the canon, 196, 204 when married, removed from benefice, 242 their celibacy in Dalmatia, 250 their marriage in Hungary, 250 and in Austria, 1267, 251 their celibacy in Denmark, 253 rules in England, 274 exceptions in favor of immorality, 320 their marriage permitted, 324

Suchuen, abuse of confessional in, 578

Suczinsky, Dean, his marriage, 604

Suffolk, Duke of, suppresses insurrection, 455

Suger of St. Denis imprisons Éon de l’Étoile, 372

Suidger of Bamberg created pope, 184

Sulpicius Severus, St., favors Vigilantius, 71

Sulpitius of Bourges, 118

Suppression of monasteries in Germany, 427, 435 in England, 448, 454 means adopted for, 457 financial results of, 460 by Joseph II., 584 in France, 589 in recent times, 608-9

Suzor of Tours on clerical marriage, 594

Swabia, enforcement of celibacy in, 233

Sweden, position of concubines in, 197 enforcement of celibacy in, 252 Englishmen as bishops, 278 morals of bishops, 389

Swithin, St., marriage of, 165

Switzerland, celibacy at Constance, 229 clerical morals of, 13th century, 340 organized concubinage in, 353 Zwingli’s movement, 421 demoralization in 16th century, 429 clerical marriage in modern times, 601

Syllabus of 1864 on dissolution of marriage, 317 its political teachings, 618 argued away by Dupanloup, 642

Symmachus prohibits marriage of nuns, 111 on confessors and penitents, 567

Synesius, case of, 85

Taas, Hussite victory of, 382

Taborites, the, 383

Tacitus on morality of Germans, 118

Taillard on origin of celibacy, 30

Talasius of Angers on celibacy, 79

Talesperianus of Lucca, charter of, 127

Talleyrand secularizes church property, 589

Talon, Omer, on marriage of apostates, 501

Tamar and Judah, 21

Tanner, Dr., on number of ejected priests, 480

Tapas, character of, 24

Tarento, Archb. of, advocates marriage, 631

Tarragona, Council of, in 516, 80 in 1591, 562 in 1717, 626

Tatianus, heresy of, 33

Taxes of the Penitentiary, 428, 517

Teachers, character of monastic, 618

Teaching, political, of monachism, 618

Tedaldo, Archbishop of Milan, 219

Templars, military order of, 362

Temporal possessions (see Secularization).

Temporalities of church endangered by marriage, 63, 407 of married clerks, seizure of, 258

Tenure of chastity, benefices held by, 311

Terbinthus, teacher of Manes, 44

Terouane, marriage of priests in, 262

Terror, the, position of priests under, 590 persecution of celibacy, 593 Sisters of Charity tolerated, 613

Tertullian denounces second marriages, 36 on virginity of the Virgin, 68 on merits of widows and virgins, 96 on accusations against Christians, 208

Test, clerical marriage as a, 592

Tetradius, St., Rule of, 112

Tetzel, sale of indulgences by, 413

Teutonic Knights, order of, 366 marriage of, 434 tribes, virtue of, 82

Thane-right, 173

Theatricals in nunneries, 527

Theocracy proposed by Gregory VII., 223

Theodatus of Corvey, success of, 227

Theodore of Canterbury, his penitential, 48, 162 on sacrament of sinful priests, 195

Theodore Studita on monastic morals, 109

Theodoric of Verdun, his remonstrances, 233

Theodoric a Niem on John XXII., 344 on Swedish bishops, 389

Theodosius the Great suppresses polygamy, 38 prohibits shaving of nuns, 104 restricts monachism, 108

Theodosius of Jerusalem, 107

Theodulf of Orleans on incest, 138

Theodwin and Albert at Council of Avranches, 319

Theophilus of Alexandria, rigor of, 349

Theophylact on “unius uxoris vir,” 38

Therapeutæ, 26

Thessalonica, celibacy enforced in, 86

Thibaut of Oxford on priests’ children, 276

Thomas Aquinas (see Aquinas).

Thomas à Becket on simony, 284

Thomas of Cantinpré on corrupting influence of priesthood, 350

Thomas of Walden on Wickliffe, 379

Thomas, Wm., on English monasteries, 452

de Thou, on refusal to grant clerical marriage, 544

Thuringia, the Brethren of the Cross, 385

Thurles, Council of, in 1850, 626, 633

Tibet, number of monks in, 95

Tibullus on purity required for sacrifice, 49

Timotheists, their heresy, 376

Tithes, seizure of, by the laity, 258

Toledo, Council of, in 398, 196, 566 in 400, 75, 105 in 531, 80 in 589, 80, 120 in 597 and 633, 80 in 653, 80, 121 in 655, 121 in 675, 80 in 1565 and 1582, 562, 574 discipline of, in Spanish church, 302

Toleration of attacks by Rome, 386, 415, 417

Toleration, condemned by the church, 618

Tonsure, differences as to, 161, 163

Toribio, St., of Peru, 564

Torné of Bourges, his marriage, 591

Tortosa, Council of, in 1429, 311, 364

Torture not allowed in trials for solicitation, 571

Toul, hereditary transmission in, 266 relaxation of discipline in, 326

Toulouse, Council of, in 1056, 255, 304 in 1119, 208, 267 in 1850, 626, 633 spread of heresy in, 207, 370

Tournay, Synod of, in 1520, 575 in 1574, 560

Tournon, Cardinal, his efforts at reform, 515

Tours, Council of, in 460, 80 in 567, 80, 120 in 925, 146 in 1060, 198, 255 in 1096, 263 in 1163, 319 in 1583, 560 in 1849, 626

Trani, married bishop deposed, 197 civil marriage valid in, 606

Transaction of Cadam, 439 of Passau, 443

Transsubstantiation, Wickliffe’s error on, 378

Treason, English monks punished for, 451, 457

Treglia, Andrea, case of, 606

Tréguier, residence of relatives forbidden, 332

Trent, Council of, 514-45 expectations with regard to it, 441, 443 it authorizes dispensations for married priests, 442 its canons on matrimony, 534-6 on adultery, 566 its non-reception in France, 546 its reception elsewhere, 547 failure of its reforms, 548 sqq. enforcement of its canons, 552, 553, 554 it avoids reference to abuse of confessional, 568 on power of absolution, 575 on age of ordination, 624 on gift of chastity, 624 on residence of women, 626, 628 on celibacy as matter of faith, 640

Trèves, persecution of married clergy in, 234 morals of clergy, in 12th century, 248 Archbp., asks for clerical marriage, 539 effort for clerical marriage, in 1833, 601 proportion of clergy in, 631 Synod of, in 1548, 525 in 1549, 526 in 1678, 562

Trialogus, Wickliffe’s, 380

Tribunal, mixed, for married priests, 257

Tribur, assembly of, in 1076, 237

Trinidad and Mercede, Orders of, 311

Trithemius on Benedictine saints, 113 on monastic immorality, 404

Tropea, sister of Pier-Leone, 342

Trosley, Council of, in 909, 141

Troyes, Synod of, in 1107, 245 in 1128, 362

Tsadukim, hereditary priesthood of, 22 their conservatism, 24

Tuam, Council of, in 1854, 633

Tudeschi, Nich., advocates clerical marriage, 406

Turin, Council of, in 401, 75

Turner, John, penance of, 481

Turquoing, suppression of unauthorized orders in, 622

Tuscany, priestly marriage defended in, 199 clerical morals in 18th century, 586

Tyndale advocates priestly marriage, 462

Ulric, St., of Augsburg on priestly marriage, 149

Ulric of Bohemia founds Abbey of Zagow, 181

Ulric of Tegernsee on bigamy, 181

Umbilicani, 24

Umiliati, their struggle with St. Charles Borromeo, 551

Unchastity, forgiveness for, in False Decretals, 136 punished as homicide, 169

United States, priestly marriage in, 607 morality of clergy in, 625 recent Councils of, 626-7, 633

University Fellows, celibacy of, 492

Urban II. on sacraments of sinful priests, 195 creates Conrad King of Lombardy, 220 reconciles the Milanese clergy, 220 holds Council of Piacenza, 221 enforcement of celibacy attributed to, 225 not recognized in Germany, 241 his enforcement of celibacy, 242 protects Flemish priests, 261 declares marriage incompatible with Orders, 313

Urban III. enforces celibacy in Dalmatia, 250

Urban VIII. on abuse of confessional, 573

Urbicus of Clermont, case of, 73

Urbino, Council of, in 1569, 553 in 1859, 627

Urraca, Queen, 306

Useria, supposed wife of Eriberto of Milan, 209

Utopia, Sir Thomas More’s, 446

Utraquists, the, 384

Utrecht, condition of nunneries, 14th century, 340 reception of Council of Trent in, 553 Synods of, in 1561 and 1565, 554 in 1865, 627, 633

Vagabond monks, 102, 109, 115

Vagabondage, Tudor laws on, 455, 460

Valence, Council of, in 374, 100, 103

Valencia, Council of, in 1255, 309 in 1565, 562

Valens, his restrictions on monachism, 99

Valentinian on clerical morals, 63

Valentinus, heresy of, 33

Valesians, sect of, 40

Valladolid, Council of, in 1322, 310, 364

Vallombrosa, monks of, 183

Vanaprasthas, class of, 23

Varahran I. persecutes Manichæism, 43

Vatican, Council of, in 1870, 603 its decree of infallibility, 608 number of women in, 1882, 628

Vaudois, the, 373

Vedas, doctrine of Tapas in, 24

Vega, Fray Juan de la, 572

Veil, taking the, a marriage with Christ, 104

Velda, Dr., case of, 570

Venality of officials, 253, 278, 284, 293, 312, 321, 327, 332, 337, 339, 345, 396, 401, 433, 517, 522

Venantius of Syracuse, case of, 113

Venezuela, suppression of monasteries in, 609

Venice, relaxation of the canon in, 205 number of priests in, 588 Council of, in 1859, 627

Vercelli, troubles of married priests in, 152

Verdun, reform of monks of, 264

Veringen, Count of, case of, 235

Verneuil, Synod of, in 755, 134

Vernon, Council of, in 845, 139

Verona, trouble with married priests, 151

Vertfeuil, extent of heresy in, 370

Vestal Virgins, 50

Vestments, monastic, salvation ensured by, 335

Veuillot, Louis, on droit de marquette, 355

Vicenza, Council of Trent transferred to, 520

Victimes de l’Amour de Dieu, 613

Victor II., his efforts at reform, 191 enforces celibacy in France, 255

Victor III. on Italian church, 180

Victricius opposes Vigilantius, 71

Vienna, Council of, in 1267, 251 in 1858, 627, 633

Vienne, Council of, in 1060, 198 in 1311, 376

Vigilantius, his resistance to celibacy, 70

Vihara, Buddhist monastery, 94

Villa, father, of Monza, 621

Villiers, Abbé, defends celibacy, 582

Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, 366

Vincent, St., de Paul, 612

Vintimiglia, Nunzio, his negotiations with Maximilian II., 543

Virgil, Polydor, on celibacy in England, 273

Virgin Mary, heresies concerning, 68 her message to Gregory VII., 226

Virginal, Curé of, his opinions, 623

Virginity, extravagant praises of, 45, 347, 349 by Chrysostom, 86 importance attributed to, 98 by the Fraticelli, 377 by Wickliffe, 380 compared with marriage, 46, 47, 96, 318, 347 superiority of, a Tridentine dogma of morals, 536, 641 St. Jerome on its rarity, 624 perpetual, of the Virgin, 68 vows of (see Vows).

Virgins, priests to marry none but, 38 number of, in early church, 98 professed (see Nuns).

Visconti, Nunzio, on marriage at Trent, 535

Visitation of monasteries by Archbishop Morton, 399 by Archbishop Warham, 447 ordered by Henry VIII., 451 its effect, 453

Vitalis of Mortain preaches reform, 258

Vitry, Jacques de, case of, 398

Vladislas II. on clerical immorality, 401

Vows of chastity, introduction of, 41 not favored in early church, 48 their temporary character, 41, 97 their increasing permanency, 105 rendered irrevocable by Gregory I., 113 infanticide caused by them, 100 are ordered for subdeacons, 124 their perversion, 127 made a prerequisite to holy orders, 179 work dissolution of marriage, 313 difference between simple and formal, 321 are denounced by Lollards, 381 by Luther, 421 are maintained in the Six Articles, 469 prelates at Trent sworn to support them, 533 their observance a point of faith, 641 papal dispensation for, 535, 642 never granted by Pius IX., 611 minimum age for, defined by Pius IX., 611 limited to five years in France, 613

Vows, monastic, rendered indissoluble in the East, 107 of the military orders, 362

Vrie, Theodoric, on clerical immorality, 389

Wahu, Dr., on monastic schools, 619 on cases of clerical prosecution, 636

Wake, Archbishop, his correspondence with Du Pin, 582

Waldemar II. on concubines, 197

Walden, Abbot of, his marriage, 463

Waldo, Peter, 372

Waldenses, the, 373

Waldeck, Count of, his treatment of monks, 435

Wales, celibacy in early church, 163 state of church in 9th century, 171 priestly marriage in 13th century, 285 its persistence, 294

Walter of Orleans on residence of female relatives, 138

Warham, Archbishop, his visitation, 447

Wartburg, Luther’s confinement in, 419

Watten, Priory of, its troubles, 260

Wealth of church, its growth, 63

Wedlock (see Marriage).

Wenceslas of Bohemia, his reforms, 383

Wendt, Rev. Mr., case of, 636

Wer-gild of priest, 173 of children of clerks, 336

Western monachism, character of, 109, 112

Westminster, Council of, in 1127, 280 in 1138, 281 short-lived bishopric of, 460 canons of, ejected, 479

Westmoreland, Earl of, his insurrection in 1569, 496

Weston, Dr., story of, 477

Wexford, married priests of, 298

Whitby, Synod of, in 664, 161

Wiburn, Percival, on marriage of Anglican clergy, 495

Wicelius, George, on clerical marriage, 542

Wickliffe on sacraments of sinful priests, 196 his reforms, 378

Widowhood, vows of, license caused by, 127

Widows, priests not to marry, 39 order of, in early church, 42, 96 comparison of, with virgins, 46, 96, 347 professed, marriage of, 110

Wied, Hermann von, his attempts at reform, 518

Wiesbaden, clerical marriage in 1821, 601

Wilfreda, St., 167

William of Bavaria on church corruption, 527

William of Cantilupe enforces celibacy, 288

William of Cologne forbids marriage of monks, 340

William the Conqueror enforces celibacy in Normandy, 257 permits marriage in Britanny, 259 neglects reform in England, 271

William of Hilderniss, 385

William the Lion on concubines, 197 persecutes the clergy, 301

William of Malmesbury on Anglo-Saxon church, 176

William of Paderborn, his failure to reform, 340

William of Sabina, legate to Spain, 310

William of Strassburg excommunicates married priests, 424

Willibrod, St., his labors, 126

Wills, ecclesiastical, providing for children, 337

Winchester, reform of monastery of, 168, 169 Council of, in 1070, 272 in 1076, 273 in 1139, 371 hereditary transmission in, 286

Windsor, Synod of, in 1070, 272

Wine of Eucharist in early church, 44 abstinence from, not recommended, 48

Wishart, George, his trial, 510

Wisigothic laws on clerical celibacy, 121 on church property, 123

Wisigoths of Spain, state of church under, 120

Witgar of Mendlesham, 282

Witiza, his licentious laws, 121

Witnesses, use of ordeal for, 140 married priests not admitted as, 294 four required to prove solicitation, 571

Wittenberg, books of canon law burned at, 418 Synod of, in 1522, 420

Wives, demerit of, 46 adulterous, to be put away, 39 of Huguenot pastors, 498 of Anglican clergy, their position, 496 of bishops, their retention, 85, 88 to be separated, 89 under the Franks, 119 in Gothic Spain, 121 they rank as countesses, 259 their position in Anglican church, 495 consent of, requisite for episcopate, 249 for diaconate, 250, 251 for monastic vows, 324 of monks to become nuns, 114, 205, 324 of priests, their cohabitation permitted, 28, 48 forbidden by Council of Elvira, 50 permitted by Councils of Ancyra and Neocæsarea, 51 and by Council of Nicæa, 53, 54 and through the 4th century, 55, 58, 61, 79 forbidden by Damasus, 64 and by Siricius, 65 forbidden in Gaul and Spain, 75 and in Africa, 73 permitted in the East, 86, 89 custom in modern Russia, 91 their position under the Franks, 120 legislation in Gothic Spain, 121 are to be treated as sisters, 124 in Italy, in 8th century, 127 they cause dilapidation of property, 147 Anglo-Saxon denunciation of, 175 are stigmatized as concubines, 196 their fidelity, 202 their sufferings, 235 are declared slaves of church, 189 are reduced to slavery, 242, 309 their seizure threatened, 261 treatment of, in England, 274, 277, 287 they assist at altar in Germany, 318 are liable to death under the Six Articles, 468 legislation under Queen Mary, 485 are assumed to be serving women, 485 of subdeacons to be separated, 124

Wolff, Christian, on Paphnutius, 57 on Council of Trent, 640

Wolfgang of Ratisbon exhorts to chastity, 152

Wolf-hunts, priests obliged to join in, 303

Wolsey, Cardinal, attacks monastic orders, 447 his fall, 449

Women, abstinence from, in pagan priesthood, 49 not admitted in temple of Hercules, 50 admitted to monasteries, 101 their exclusion from monasteries, 403 their ministration forbidden, 60 their teaching forbidden, 60 discredited as witnesses, 571 rules for, in visiting bishops, 119 residence of (see Residence).

Wood, T., on position of Anglican clergy, 497

Worcester, reformation of monks in, 169 Chapter of, disorders of, 491

Works, merits of, in Catholicism, 115 in Calvinism, 498 justification by, in Scotland, 506 in Knox’s confession, 512

Worms, Diet of, in 1076, 234

Wurtzburg, Council of, in 1446, 377 in 1548, 528 character of clergy, in 1521, 431 clerical marriage in, 555

Wu-Tsung, his persecution of Buddhism, 95

Wyatt’s rebellion, suppression of, 478

Ximenes reforms the Franciscans, 402

Yoga system, asceticism of, 23

York, its claim on Scottish church, 161 Council of, in 1195, 288 Wolsey’s reformation at, 447 married priests ejected in, 480

Ypres, Synod of, in 1629, 562 abuse of confessional in 1768, 577

Yves of Chartres (see Ivo).

Zabarella, Cardinal, advocates clerical marriage, 406

Zabolcs, Synod of, in 1092, 248

Zaccaria on origin of celibacy, 29 on the Nicene canon, 55 on Gregory of Nazianzum, 58 on dissolution of priestly marriage, 317 his defence of celibacy, 583-4

Zachary, Pope, on Frankish church, 130 on Saxon church, 164

Zaga Zabo, his account of Coptic church, 93

Zagow, Abbey of, foundation of, 181

Zurich, priests of, defend their women, 340

Zwilling, Gabriel, preaches against monasticism, 421

Zwingli demands priestly marriage, 421

* * * * *

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR

STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY.

The Rise of the Temporal Power—Benefit of Clergy—Excommunication—The Early Church and Slavery.

Second edition, revised. In one large royal 12mo. volume of 603 pages. Cloth, $2.50. Just issued.

No part of this learned and authoritative work has escaped revision. The new matter strengthens, illustrates more copiously, and enlivens with anecdote the original argument, and, by adducing modern instances, brings the work up to date.—N. Y. Nation, May 24, 1883.

The author is preëminently a scholar; he takes up every topic allied with the leading theme and traces it out to the minutest detail with a wealth of knowledge and impartiality of treatment that compel admiration. The amount of information compressed into the book is extraordinary, and the profuse citation of authorities and references makes the work particularly valuable to the student who desires an exhaustive review from original sources. In no other single volume is the development of the primitive church traced with so much clearness and with so definite a perception of complex or conflicting forces.—Boston Traveller, May 3, 1883.

Mr. Lea is facile princeps among American scholars in the history of the Middle Ages, and, indeed, we know of no European writer who has shown such research, accuracy, and grasp in investigating important and out-of-the-way topics connected with the history of Europe in the Middle Ages.—N. Y. Times, April 30, 1883.

It is some years since we read the first edition of this work by Mr. Lea, and the impression made by it on us at the time is confirmed by reperusal of it in this enlarged and improved form, namely, that it is a book of great research and accuracy, full of varied information on very interesting phases of church life and history. It discusses each subject with a rare fulness of dates and instances, and a curious conscientiousness of verification and citation of authorities.—Edinburgh Scotsman, June 2, 1883.

SUPERSTITION AND FORCE.

Essays on The Wager of Law, The Wager of Battle, The Ordeal, and Torture.

Third revised and enlarged edition. In one handsome royal 12mo. volume of 552 pages. Cloth $2.50.

This valuable work is in reality a history of civilization as interpreted by the progress of jurisprudence. In “Superstition and Force” we have a philosophic survey of the long period intervening between primitive barbarity and civilized enlightenment. There is not a chapter in the work that should not be most carefully studied; and, however well versed the reader may be in the science of jurisprudence, he will find much in Mr. Lea’s volume of which he was previously ignorant. The book is a valuable addition to the literature of social science.—Westminster Review, Jan. 1880.

This is a book of extraordinary research. Mr. Lea has entered into his subject con amore, and a more striking record of the cruel superstitions of our Middle Ages could not possibly have been compiled. As a work of curious enquiry into certain outlying points of obsolete law, “Superstition and Force” is one of the most remarkable works we have met with.—London Athenæum, November 3, 1866.

The appearance of a third edition of Mr. Henry C. Lea’s “Superstition and Force” is a sign that our highest scholarship is not without honor in its native country.—N. Y. Nation, August 1, 1878.

Mr. Lea’s curious historical monographs, of which one of the most important is here reproduced in an enlarged form, have given him an unique position among English and American scholars. He is distinguished for his recondite and affluent learning, his power of exhaustive historical analysis, the breadth and accuracy of his researches among the rarer sources of knowledge, the gravity and temperance of his statements, combined with singular earnestness of conviction, and his warm attachment to the cause of freedom and intellectual progress.—N. Y. Tribune, August 9, 1878.

HENRY C. LEA’S SON & CO., PHILADELPHIA.

IMPORTANT RELIGIOUS BOOKS.

Rev. James Freeman Clarke.

Ten Great Religions. 8vo., $3.00.

Ten Great Religions. Part II. Comparison of all Religions. 8vo., $3.00.

Common Sense in Religion. 12mo., $2.00.

Prof. J. Lewis Diman.

The Theistic Argument as Affected by Recent Theories. Crown 8vo. gilt top, $2.00.

Orations and Essays, with selected Parish Sermons. With Memorial Address by Prof. J. O. MURRAY and Portrait. 8vo. gilt top, $2.50.

Rev. Washington Gladden.

The Lord’s Prayer. Seven Essays on the Meaning and Spirit of this universal Prayer. 16mo. gilt top, $1.00.

Rev. Samuel Johnson.

Oriental Religions, and their Relation to Universal Religion. I. India, 8vo., $5.00. II. China, 8vo., $5.00. III. Persia, 8vo. (_In Press._)

Lectures, Essays, and Sermons. With a Portrait and Memoir by Rev. SAMUEL LONGFELLOW. Crown 8vo. gilt top, $1.75.

Rev. Elisha Mulford.

The Republic of God. An Institute of Theology. 8vo., $2.00.

Rev. T. T. Munger.

On the Threshold. Familiar Lectures to Young People. 16mo. gilt top, $1.00.

The Freedom of Faith. A volume of Sermons. 16mo. gilt top, $1.50.

J. A. W. Neander.

General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Translated from the German by Rev. JOSEPH TORREY. With an Index volume. The set, six volumes, $20.00. The Index volume separate, $3.00.

Edward Robinson, D.D., LL.D.

Harmony of the Four Gospels, in Greek. 8vo., $1.50.

The Same, in English. 12mo., 75 cents.

Biblical Researches in Palestine. With Maps. In three volumes, 8vo., $10.00.

Physical Geography of the Holy Land. Supplement to “Biblical Researches in Palestine.” 8vo., $3.50.

Gesenius. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, including the Biblical Chaldee. 8vo. half Russia, $6.00.

English-Hebrew Lexicon: Being a complete Verbal Index to Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon, as translated by Prof. EDWARD ROBINSON. By JOSEPH LEWIS POTTER, A.M. 8vo., $2.00.

_For sale by all booksellers. Sent, post-paid, on receipt of price by the Publishers_, HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO., BOSTON, MASS.

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. 305_a_).

[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. 12_a_.)

[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.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us