Chapter XXXI: Part 31

[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.

[931] Thus, a council held at Cologne in 1306, in denouncing the mendicancy of the Begghards, quotes Gen. III. 18: “In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane tuo,” and proceeds: “Quod ad fortes et sui compotes moraliter intelligitur esse dictum: et tales in ocio victum vendicantes, eleemosynas rapiunt, quæ infirmis et debilibus fuerant pauperibus ministrandæ.” And in objecting to their views of celibacy, “Ajunt etiam: Nisi mulier virginitatem in matrimonio deperditam doleat et dolendo deploret, salvari non potest: quasi matrimonium sit peccatum, cum tamen ipsum ante peccatum in loco sancto a sanctorum sanctissimo fuerit institutum: quæ virginitas in fœtum sobolis compensatur, per quam humana natura stabilitate perdurat,” which contrasts strangely with the teachings quoted above from “Hali Meidenhad.” Great stress, moreover, is laid upon the indissolubility of the marriage vow and the wickedness of separating husband and wife:—“Quomodo spiritu Dei agantur qui contra spiritum Dei agunt, prohibentis virum ab uxore, et e converso sine causa dimitti?”—Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1306 cap. i., ii. (Hartzheim IV. 100-101). The good fathers of the council were discreetly blind to the antagonism of their teachings to the received doctrines and practices of the church.

[932] A collection of documents illustrating the history of this singular and powerful sect will be found in Baluze and Mansi III. 206 et seq.

How persistent and profound was the conviction which created the heresy is shown by its prolonged existence. Even as late as 1421 Martin V. found it necessary to issue a Bull denouncing it (Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1421 No. 4); and in Germany the council of Wurzburg in 1446 revived the old denunciations against the Begghards and Beguines (Hartzheim V. 336).

[933] Their customary salutation and password was an invocation of the fallen angel—“Salutet te injuriam passus.”—“May the wronged one preserve thee!”—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1315.

[934] Trithem. loc. cit.—Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1318 No. 44.—Hartzheim Concil. German. IV. 630.

[935] Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 55-56.

[936] Inter omnia monstra quæ unquam intraverunt ecclesiam, monstrum horum fratrum est seductivius, infundabilius, et a veritate ac a charitate distantius.—Univ. Oxon. Litt. de Error. Wicklif. Art. 103 (Wilkins III. 344).

[937] Trialogi Lib. IV. cap. 15.