Chapter XXXII: Part 32

[938] A Wickliffite tract (“De Officio Pastorali,” published by Prof. Lechler, Leipzig, 1863) takes strong ground on this point. Speaking of unchaste priests, it says (P. I. cap. viii. pp. 16-17), “Talis sic notorie sustentans curatum dat imprudenter elemosinam contra Christum ... periculosum peccatum est crimini consentire; sed sic faciunt qui taliter curato in temporalibus subministrant.” And again (P. I. cap. xvii.), “Subditi enim non debent audire missam talium sacerdotum, et per consequens non debent dare sibi oblaciones vel decimas, ne videantur consencientes crimini sic notorio in curatis.”

[939] Si Deus est, domini temporales possunt legitime ac meritorie auferre bona fortunæ ab ecclesia delinquente.—Conclus. Magist. Johan. Wycliff. Art. vi. (Wilkins III. 123).

Licet regibus auferre temporalia a viris ecclesiasticis ipsis abutentibus habitualiter. Ibid. Art. xvii.

So in the proceedings conducted by Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury, against Wickliffe in 1382, among the articles presented as extracted from his writings were—

Art. 4. Quod si episcopus vel sacerdos existat in peccato mortali, non ordinat, consecrat nec baptizat.

Art. 16. Quod nullus est dominus civilis, nullus est episcopus, nullus est prælatus dum est in peccato mortali (Wilkins III. 157).

Even “verbum otiosum” and “ira quantumlibet levis” were denounced by him as mortal sins according to the University of Oxford.—Litt. de Error. Art. 210, 211 (Wilkins III. 347).

[940] Arnold’s Select English Works of John Wyclif, Vol. II. p. v.—Vol. I. p. 364.

[941] “God ordeyned prestis in the olde lawe to have wyves, and nevere forbede it in the newe lawe, neither bi Crist ne bi his apostlis, but rathere aprovede it. But now, bi ypocrisie of fendis and fals men, manye binden hem to presthod and chastite, and forsaken wifis bi Goddis lawe, and schenden maydenes and wifis and fallen foulest of alle.”—Of Weddid Men and Wifis, cap. i. (Arnold’s Wyclif, III. 190; also in Vaughan’s Tracts of John de Wyckliffe p. 58).—See also The Seven Deadly Sins, cap. xxx. (Arnold, Vol. III. p. 163).

In the tract “De Officio Pastorale,” alluded to above, there is a similar passage—“conjugium secundum legem Christi eis licitum odiunt ut venenum, et seculare dominium eis a Christo prohibitum nimis avide amplexantur” (P. II. cap. xi. pp. 50-51).

It is to be borne in mind that at this period no one assumed that clerical celibacy had been ordained of Christ or the Apostles.

[942] Trialogi Lib. III. c. 22, 23; Lib. IV. 16 (Ed. Lechler, Oxford 1869).—Cf. Apology for Lollard Doctrines, p. 38 (Ed. Camden Soc.).

[943] Wilkins III. 229,—Trialogi Lib. IV. c. 20.

[944] Conclusiones Lollardorum (Wilkins III. 221-3).

[945] Wilkins III. 248.

[946] In 1426, ten years after the execution of Lord Cobham, a Franciscan named Thomas Richmond was brought before the council of York for publicly preaching the high Wickliffite doctrine “Sacerdos in peccato mortali lapsus, non est sacerdos. Item quod ecclesia nolente vel non puniente fornicarios, licitum est sæcularibus eosdem pœna carceris castigare, et ad hoc astringuntur vinculo charitatis” (Wilkins III. 488). This practical application of the Hildebrandine principle did not suit the church of the fifteenth century. It was pronounced heretical, and Friar Thomas was forced to recant.

Equally offensive to the memory of Gregory was the decision of the Sorbonne in 1486, condemning as heretical the propositions of the puritan Bishop of Meaux—“3. Un prêtre fornicateur ne doit pas dire Dominus vobiscum ni reciter l’office en aucun lieu sacré. Ce qui est faux et suspect d’heresie.”—“4. Les sacremens administrez ou l’office dit par un tel prêtre ne valent pas mieux que les cris des chiens. Proposition fausse et erronée dans la premiere partie, héretique scandaleuse et offensant les oreilles pieuses dans la seconde.”—Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CXVI. No. 39.

[947] When, after the fearful disaster of Taas, the council of Bâle, in 1432, commenced the conferences which resulted in the nominal reconciliation of the Hussites, the fathers of the council were much scandalized at hearing the Bohemian deputies reverently quote Wickliffe as the Evangelical Doctor. In fact, Peter Payne, his disciple, who did so much to promulgate his doctrines in Bohemia, was one of the disputants (Hartzheim V. 762-4). Even as early as 1403 the errors of Wickliffe were formally condemned by the University of Prague, on presentation by the Ordinary of the diocese, showing that they were already spreading and attracting attention (Höfler, Concil. Pragensia, p. 43.—Prag, 1862).

[948] Artic. Damnat. Joannis Husz, No. viii. x. xi. xii. xiii. xxii. xxx. (Concil. Constantiens. Sess. xv.)—On his examination Huss declared that these articles were exaggerated. See the proceedings in Von der Hardt, T. IV. pp. 309-11. But on the next day he defended a proposition which was virtually identical (Ibid. p. 321).

[949] Poggii Florent. Descript. Hieron. Prag. (Von der Hardt, T. III. p. 69).

[950] Statut. Synod. ann. 1405; 1406 No. 1; 1407 No. 3 (Höfler Concil. Pragens. pp. 50, 54, 69).

[951] Pluquet, Diet. des Hérésies, s. v. Huss.—Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1413 can. 1. “asserentes etiam ... quod bona clericorum male viventium possunt rapere et eos spoliare sine pœna excommunicationis ... Ex eadem radice et hæretica pravitate dicunt alii, quod sacerdos in mortali existens peccato non possit conficere corpus Christi” (Hartzheim V. 39, 40).

[952] Conciliab. Pragens. ann. 1420 can. xii., xiii.—At this time the Hussites had full sway in Bohemia; the council was held by Conrad, Archbishop of Prague, who had adopted their faith, and its canons were intended for the internal regulation of their own church (Hartzheim V. 198). In the long conferences, extending from 1431 to 1438, which resulted in their reunion with the Catholic church, there is no allusion to the subject of celibacy. The four points on which they insisted were, 1st, the communion in both elements; 2d, the reformation of morals by abrogating ecclesiastical immunity; 3d, free preaching of the Scripture; and 4th, the secularization of church property (Ibid. 760-73). How little, in fact, they differed in doctrinal points from Rome is seen in the confession of faith agreed upon at Prague in 1432 (Johan, de Ragus. de Reduct. Bohem. _ap._ Monument. Concil. General. Sæc. xv. pp. 182 sq.).

This did not, however, save them from the customary accusations of immorality. Thus, a contemporary describes the indulgence of indiscriminate intercourse as one of the rules of the sect (Joann. Fistenportii Chron. ann. 1419.—Hahn. Collect. Monument. T. I. p. 403), and, in 1431, Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz, in convoking a council to take action against them, says of the sect “exterminavit clerum et omnem cœlibatum commercio nephando stupravit.”—Gudeni Cod. Diplom. IV. 185.

[953] Epist. Procopii Art. VIII. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 25).

[954] Petit. Cæsaris No. 12 (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. V. 348).

[955] Conciliab. Pragens. ann. 1420 can. viii.

[956] Camerarii Hist. Narrat. de Fratrum Orthodox. Ecclesiis in Bohemia, etc. pp. 100, 109-10, 114, 121, 128.

[957] Consensus in Fide inter Ecclesias Evangelicas, etc. Haidelbergæ, 1605.

[958] The spirit of the sectaries of Schmidt is shown by one of their doctrines—“Propter sacerdotum nequitiam, licentiavit Deus et abjecit sacerdotium evangelicum,” and by their argument for abolishing masses for the dead “nihil prosint defunctis, sed sint solatia vivorum et repleant marsupia clericorum.”—Gobelin. Person. Cosmodrom. Ætat. VI. cap. xciii.—Cf. Theod. Vrie, Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib. III. Dist. viii.

[959] See the proceedings in Baluze and Mansi, I. 288-93. As usual, the Men of Intelligence were accused of indulging in promiscuous intercourse.

[960] Even soon after Savonarola’s martyrdom, Julius II. refused to listen to those who desired a condemnation of his memory. Leo X. honored him by celebrating the Epiphany of 1515 in his convent of San Marco. Julius III. declared that he would deem heretical any one who should attack him. Paul IV. assembled a congregation for the purpose of examining and deciding upon his works, and after six months’ labor they reported that his writings were unexceptionable, though a portion which reflected too vigorously on the papal court were declared to be unfitted for general perusal.—Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, Paris 1856, pp. 296-7.

[961] See Baluze et Mansi I. 584-5 for the letters to the Emperor of Germany and King and Queen of Spain. Perrens (op. cit. p. 375) also gives the one addressed to the King of France, while those to the Kings of England and Hungary have apparently been lost.

[962] Taceo de fornicationibus et adulteriis, a quibus qui alieni sunt probro cæteris ac ludibrio esse solent, spadonesque aut sodomitæ appellantur; denique laici usque adeo persuasum habent nullos cœlibes esse, ut in plerisque parochiis non aliter velint presbyterum tolerare nisi concubinam habeat, quo vel sic suis sit consultum uxoribus, quæ nec sic quidem usquequaque sunt extra periculum.—Nic. de Clemangis de Præsul. Simoniac. (Bayle, Dict. Hist. s. v. Hall).

[963] Nic. de Clamengiis Disput. super Mater. Concil. General.

[964] Nic. de Clamengiis de Ruina Ecclesiæ cap. xxii., xxxvi.—Conf. Theobaldi Conquest. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XIX. p. 909).

[965] P. de Alliaco Canones Reformat, cap. iv. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. VI. p. 425).

[966] Gersoni Declarat, defect, viror. ecclesiast. lxv., lxvi.

[967] Dicimus quod de duobus malis minus est incontinentes tolerare sacerdotes quam nullos habere.—Gersoni Dial. Sophiæ et Naturæ Act. IV.

[968] Ejusd. Sermo de Vita Clericorum.

[969] Theod. a Niem Nemoris Unionis Tract. V. cap. XXXV.

[970] Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib. II., III. (Von der Hardt T. I.).

[971] Nic. de Clamengiis, Disput. sup. Mat. Conc. General. This work was written in 1416, after the council had been in session for nearly two years.

[972] Theobaldi Conquestio (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XIX. p. 904).

[973] Item, fistulatores, tubicenæ, joculatores, 516; item, meretrices, virgines publicæ, 718.—Laur. Byzynii Diar. Bell. Hussit. A Catholic contemporary, however, reduces the number of courtezans to 450 and that of jugglers and minstrels to 320 (Joann. Fistenportii Chron. ann. 1415.—Hahn. Collect. Monument. I. 401).

[974] Bernhardi Baptisati Sermo (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XVIII. pp. 884-5).

[975] Concil. Constant. Sess. XLIII. can. de Vita et Honestate Clericorum.

[976] De Ecclesiæ Reformat. Protocoll. cap. xxxiii. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. x. pp. 635-6).

[977] Reformatorii Constant. Decretal. Lib. I. Tit. v. (Ibid. p. 679).

[978] Ibid. Lib. III. Tit. x. cap. 20 (p. 722).

[979] For instance, as regards the religious houses—“In nonnullis quoque monasteriis ... norma disciplinæ respuitur, cultus divinus negligitur, personæ quoque hujusmodi, vitæ ac morum honestate prostrata, lubricitati, incontinentiæ, et aliis variis carnalis concupiscentiæ voluptatibus et viciis non sine gravi divinæ majestatis offensa tabescentes, vitam ducunt dissolutam.”—Martin V. ad Brandam § iii. (Ludewig Reliq. Msctorum. XI. 409).

[980] Usque adeo nonnullorum clericorum corruptela excrevit, ut morum atque honestatis vestigia apud eos pauca admodum remanserint.—Constit. Brandae § 1 (Op. cit. XI. 385). This condition of affairs was not the result of any abandonment of the attempt to enforce the canons. Local synods were meeting every year, and scarcely one of them failed to call attention to the subject, devising fresh penalties to effect the impossible. The result is shown in the lament of the council of Cologne in 1423—“Quia tamen, succrescente malitia temporis moderni, labes hujusmodi criminis in ecclesia Dei in tantum inolevit, quod scandala plurima in populo sunt exorta, et verisimiliter exoriri poterunt in futurum, et ex fide dignorum relatione percepimus quod quidam ecclesiarum prælati et alii, etiam capitula ... tales in suis iniquitatibus sustinuerunt et sustinent.” So far, however, were the decrees of the council from being effective, that the Archbishop was obliged to modify them and to declare that they should only be enforced against those ecclesiastics who were notoriously guilty, and who kept their concubines publicly.—Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1423 can. i. viii. (Hartzheim V. 217, 220).

[981] Ambrosii Camaldulensis Lib. V. Epist. xii. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. III. 119-21). This was not the only case of abbots whose scandalous lives were treated with equal forbearance. See Epistt. xiii., xiv.

[982] Harduini Andegav. Epist. Statut. Præf. (Martene Thesaur. IV. 523-4).

[983] Alan. Charter. Lib. de Exilio (Johan. Mariæ Lib. de Schismat. et Concil.).

[984] Nic. de Clamengiis de Lapsu et Reparat. Justitiæ (Ed. 1519 pp. 13-14).

[985] Wilkins III. 364-5.

[986] Æneæ Sylvii Comment. de Gest. Conc. Basil. ad calcem (Opp. Basil. 1551 pp. 66-70).—Cf. Sigismundi Imp. Avisam. ann. 1433 (Goldast. III. 427 sqq.).

[987] Concil. Basiliens. Sess. xx. (Jan. 22, 1435).

[988] Pragm. Sanct. ann. 1438 cap. 31 (Goldast. I. 403).

[989] Quoniam nostri temporis clerici sunt, heu, affectu crudeles, affatu mendaces, gestu incompositi, victu luxuriosi, actu impii, et sub vacuo sanctitatis nomine sancti nominis derogant disciplinæ (Hartzheim V. 266). The council contented itself with repeating the canons of Bâle.

[990] Lib. III. Tit. i. c. 3, in Septimo.

[991] Quicunque alii concubinas et mulieres hujusmodi, contra præsentem prohibitionem tenere præsumentes, inhabiles censeantur ad beneficia obtinenda, et in dicta curia officia hujusmodi exercenda, nec illorum capaces efficiantur, nisi inhabilitatem suam antea per dictæ sedis literas obtinuerint aboleri.—Ubi sup.

[992] Comp. Doeringii Chron. passim. Döringk was minister or head of the powerful Franciscan order in Saxony, and therefore may be considered an unexceptionable witness.

In the Polish diet of 1459, one of its leading members brought forward a series of propositions which showed the feelings entertained by the people towards papal exactions—“The Bishop of Rome has invented a most unjust motive for imposing taxes—the war against the infidels.... The Pope feigns that he employs his treasures in the erection of churches; but in fact he employs them to enrich his relations,” etc.—Krasinski, Reformation in Poland I. 96.

The councils of Constance and Bâle had produced, for a time, a spirit of great independence. John of Frankfort does not hesitate to declare that the papal authority is not binding when in opposition to the law of God—“Unde patet quod nec papalis vel et imperialis constitutio legi Dei obvians possit dici recta; nec aliquis ipsorum potest licite mandare quod sua constitutio servetur a subditis” (Johann. de Francford. contra Feymeros). According to the decisions of the Decretalists, this was rank heresy, and yet John of Frankfort was one of the leading minds of the period, and of unquestioned orthodoxy. He was a popular preacher, a doctor of theology, chaplain and secretary of the Count Palatine of the Rhine, and a bold disputant against the Hussites. He records with his own hand that, as inquisitor, he convicted and burned, July 4th, 1429, at Lüders, an unfortunate heretic who denied the propriety of invoking the Virgin and the saints. Under the skilful management, however, of Nicholas V. and Pius II. this spirit of independence died away, to again revive, in the next century, in a more determined form.

[993] Ludewig Reliq. Msctorum. XI. 415.—Under Boniface IX., at the commencement of the century, claims arising from simoniacal transactions were constantly and openly prosecuted in the court of the Papal Auditor.—Theod. a Niem de Vit. Joann. XXIII.

[994] Concil. Constantiens. Sess. XI.

[995] Steph. Infessuræ Diar. Roman, ann. 1484 (Eccard. Corp. Hist. III. 1939-40).

[996] “Si vous saviez tout ce que je sais! des choses dégoûtantes! des choses horribles! vous en frémiriez! Quand je pense à tout cela, à la vie que mènent les prêtres, je ne puis retenir mes larmes.” And again, “Ma peggio ancora. Quello che sta la notte con la concubina, quell’ altro con il garzone, e poi la mattina va a dire messa, pensa tu come la va. Che vuoi tu fare di quella messa?”—Jérome Savonarole d’après les Documents Originaux, par F. T. Perrens, pp. 71-2. Paris, 1856.

[997] _Ap._ Chavard, Le Célibat, des Prêtres, p. 400.

[998] Masselin, Journal des États de Tours, pp. 197-99.

What were the teachings and the influence on the people of such a priesthood may be guessed from a remark in one of the sermons of Oliver Maillard, a celebrated Franciscan preacher of the period. “Sunt ne ibi mulieres et sacerdotes qui dicunt quod mulieres comedentes venenum ad expellendum materiam de matrice sua, ne fœtus veniat ad partum, antequam anima rationalis introducatur, non peccant mortaliter?”—Ap. H. Estienne, Apol. pour Herodote Liv. I. chap. vi.

[999] 1 Henr. VII. 4.

[1000] Wilkins III. 630-33.

Yet in the letter of Archbishop Morton to the abbot reciting all these enormities, he is not even threatened with deposition, but only invited to mend his ways.

[1001] Froude’s History of England, Ch. III.

[1002]

Or gef hym self had done a synne
By the prestes sybbe kynne,
Moder or suster, or hys lemmon
Or by hys doghter gef he had on.

John Myrc’s Instructions for Parish Priests, p. 26 (Early English Text Society, 1868).

[1003] Concil. Arandens. ann. 1473 c. ix. (Aguirre V. 345-6).

[1004] Concil. Hispalens. ann. 1512 can. xxvi., xxvii. (Aguirre V. 371-2).

[1005] Statut. Eccles. in Braunschweig. cap. 75 (Mayer, Thes. Jur. Eccles. I. 124).

[1006] Synod. Strigonens. ann. 1382, 1450, 1480 (Batthyani III. 275, 481, 557).

[1007] Galeoti Martii de dictis et factis Matthiæ Regis cap. xi. (Schwandtneri Rer. Hungar. Script.).

[1008] Synod. Reg. ann. 1498 c. 16 (Batthyani I. 551).

[1009] Wiæ Hist. Episc. Camin. c. 41.—These irregularities were not of recent introduction. The canon referred to is copied almost literally from a synod held nearly forty years before by Bishop Henning. In fact, from the description given by the latter of the drinking, gambling, trading, and licentiousness of the ecclesiastics of Camin, there was little of the clerical character about them.—Synod. Camin. ann. 1454 (Hartzheim V. 930).

[1010] Wiæ Hist. Episc. Camin. c. 42.—Synod. Sedinens. c. 5.

In West Prussia, in 1497, the synod of Ermeland expresses itself as scandalized by the priests taking their companions publicly to fairs and other gatherings, and, to put a stop to the practice, it offers to secret informers one-half of the fine imposed on such indiscretions.—Synod. Warmiens. ann. 1497 c. xxxix. (Hartzheim V. 668).

[1011] Boissen Chron. Slesvicens. ann. 1494.

[1012] Robles, Vida del Card. Ximenes de Cisneros, cap. xii., xiii.—Robles was chaplain to Ximenes, and presumably derived his information from the cardinal himself.

[1013] Rursus in certis monasteriis dicti ordinis, ipsæ moniales apertis claustris, indifferenter omnes homines etiam suspectos intromittunt, ac extra monasteria in curiis, castris et plateis vagantes, plura scandala committunt.... Similiter religiosi qui in sacris ordinibus constituti non sunt, relicto habito regulari, matrimonium contrahere dicuntur.... Præterea omnes et singulos monachos et moniales regulam S. Benedicti hujusmodi expresse vel tacite professos, qui habitum monasticum sine dispensatione legitima reliquerunt aut matrimonia contraxerunt, ad monasteria, _si illa exiverunt_, redire et habitum monasticum ac velum nigrum reassumere dicta auctoritate compellatis.—App. ad Chron. Cassinens. Ed. Dubreul, pp. 902-3.

The words italicized would seem to indicate that monks and nuns occasionally married without even quitting their monasteries.

[1014] Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, p. 84.

[1015] Statut. Ord. Cisterc. ann. 1516 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 1636-7).

[1016] Thus, in 1193, the general chapter of the order promulgated the rule—“Si contigerit mulieres abbatiam ordinis nostri ex consensu intrare, ipse abbas a patre abbate deponatur absque retractatione. Et quicumque sine conscientia abbatis introduxerit, de domo ejiciatur, non reversurus, nisi per generale capitulum.”—(Capit. General. Cisterc. ann. 1193 cap. 6—apud Martene Thesaur. IV. 1276.) The strictness with which this was enforced is illustrated by the proceedings in 1205 against the abbot of the celebrated house of Pontigny, because he had allowed the Queen of France and her train to be present at a sermon in the chapel and a procession in the cloisters, and to spend two nights in the infirmary. He adduced in his defence a special rescript of the pope and a permission from the head of the order in favor of the queen, but these were pronounced insufficient, and sentence was passed that he merited instant deposition “quia tam enorme factum sustinuit, in totius ordinis injuriam,” but that in consequence of the powerful intercession of the Archbishop of Rheims and other bishops, he was allowed to escape with lighter punishment.—(Hist. Monast. Pontiniac.—Martene Thesaur. III. 1245.)

This rule, indeed, was almost universal in the ancient monasteries. The great abbey of St. Martin of Tours preserved it inviolate until the incursions of the Northmen rendered the house an asylum for the inhabitants of the surrounding territory, and the prohibition was subsequently revived and formally approved by Leo VII. in 938 (Leonis PP. VII. Epist. vi.). In that of Sithieu, from the time of its foundation early in the seventh century, it was preserved without infraction for more than three centuries. Even the license of the Carlovingian revolution did not cause its inobservance; and when, amid the disorders of the tenth century, the Counts of Flanders became lay abbots of the convent, and discipline was almost forgotten, the mediation of two bishops was required to obtain permission, about the year 940, for Adela, Countess of Flanders, prostrated with mortal sickness, to be carried in and laid before the altar, where she miraculously recovered.—(De Mirac. S. Bertin. Lib. II. c. 12—Chron. S. Bertin. c. 23, 24.)

So when Boniface founded the abbey of Fulda, he prohibited the entrance of women in any of the buildings, even including the church. The rule was preserved uninfringed through all the license of the tenth and eleventh centuries, and when, in 1132, the Emperor Lothair came to Fulda to celebrate Pentecost, his empress was not allowed to witness the ceremonies. So when Frederic Barbarossa, in 1135, spent his Easter there, he was not permitted to enter the town, because his wife was with him. In 1398 Boniface IX., at the request of the Abbot John Merlaw, relaxed the rule and permitted women to attend at the services of the church—shortly after which it was destroyed by lightning, as a warning for the future.—(Paullini Chron. Badeslebiens. $ viii.)—An equally convincing indication of the favor with which this regulation was regarded by Heaven was afforded when Abbot Helisacar, about the year 830, introduced it in the celebrated monastery of St. Riquier, and immediately the number of miracles worked by the relics of the Saint increased in a notable degree (Chron. Centulensis Lib. III. cap. iv).—At the Grande Chartreuse, founded by St. Bruno towards the end of the eleventh century, women were not even allowed to enter on the lands of the community.—Chart. S. Hugon. Gratianopolit. (Patrolog. T. 166, p. 1571).

[1017] Anon. Carthus. de Relig. Orig. cap. XL. (Martene Ampliss. Coll. VI. 93).

[1018] Johan. de Trittenheim Lib. Lugubris de Statu et Ruina Monast. Ordinis cap. iii.

[1019] Annuntia populo fideli meo, et dic quod Filius meus avaritiam, superbiam et luxuriam clericorum et sacerdotum amplius sustinere nec possit nec velit. Unde nisi se quantocius emendaverint, totus mundus propter eorum scelera periclitabitur.—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1476.

[1020] Quum pene in omnibus conciliis et a plerisque Romanis pontificibus super cohibenda et punienda clericorum incontinentia, et eorum honestate servanda multa hactenus emanaverint constituta; et nullatenus ipsorum reformari quiverit correctio morum: ... videretur pensandum an expediret et posset provideri quod in ecclesia Occidentali, quantum ad votum continentiæ, servaretur consuetudo ecclesiæ Orientalis, quantum ad promovendos, potissime quum tempore Apostolorum consuetudo ecclesiæ Orientalis servaretur.—Durand. de Modo General. Concil. P. II. rubr. 46 (Calixtus, p. 537).

[1021] Card. Zabarellæ Capit. Agend. in Concil. Constant. cap. xii. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. ix. p. 525).

[1022] Zaccaria, Nuova Giustificaz. pp. 121-2.—Milman, Latin Christ. Book XIII. chap. 12.

[1023] Not having the works of Tudeschi to refer to, I give his remarks as quoted by Villadiego (Fuero Juzgo, p. 177, No. 85) from Gloss. in cap. olim, de cleric. conjug.—“Quod deberet ecclesia facere sicut bonus medicus, ut si medicina, experientia docente, potius officit quam prodit, cam tollat; sic corum voluntati relinqueretur, ita ut sacerdos qui abstinere noluisset, posset uxorem ducere, cum quotidie illicito coitu maculentur.”

[1024] Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias, majori restituendas videri.—Platina in Vit. Pii II.

[1025] Æneæ Sylvii de Concil. Basil. Lib. II.

[1026] De Continentia Sacerdotum, Nürnb. 1510, Prop. 6, 7.

[1027] Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1479.

[1028] Serrarii Hist. Rer. Mogunt. Lib. I. c. 34.

[1029] Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CXVI. No. 30-38.

[1030] Krasniski, Reformation in Poland, I. 110.

[1031] Gravamina German. Nationis, No. VII.—Remed. contra Gravamina (Freher. et Struv. II. 677-8).

In the previous century some remonstrances against grievances had been uttered, but in a very different tone from this.

[1032] Avisamenta ad Cæsar. Majest. (Ibid. p. 680).

[1033] When Diether was elected Archbishop of Mainz, in 1459, his envoys sent to obtain his confirmation from Pius II. were stupefied with a demand for 20,506 florins—more than double the amount of annates previously assessed on the see. He refused to yield to the demand, but by a little sharp practice between the Apostolic Chamber and the Roman bankers he became entangled, and on his persistent refusal he was prosecuted for the amount, deposed by the pope, and Adolph of Nassau appointed in his place, leading to a bloody war and the devastation of city and territory.—Appell. Dom. Dytheri (Senckenberg. Selecta Juris T. IV. p. 393).—Cf. Helwich de Dissidio Moguntino (Rer. Moguntiac. Script. T. II.). This is probably the fraud alluded to by the Diet of 1510, where it was complained that the annates of the see of Mainz were raised from 10,000 florins to 25,000; and this latter sum was exacted seven times in one generation, resulting in taxation on the peasantry so severe that an insurrection against the clergy was threatened.—Remed. contra Gravam. (Freher. et Struv. II. 678).

In the complaint made to Adrian VI., in 1523, by the Diet of Nürnberg, it is asserted that three generals of the mendicant orders at Rome had purchased the cardinalate with gold wrung from Germany.—Gravam. Nationis German, cap. lxxiii.—_ap._ Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 203.

The general popular opinion of the Roman court is manifested in the Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum, when speaking of the quarrel between Reuchlin and the theologians, which had been carried before the papal tribunal—“Si Papa est pro theologi, tunc non timeo; etiam audivi ab uno notabili viro, qui est officialis curiæ, qui dixit. Quid nobis hic cum literis? Si Reuchlin habet pecuniam, mittat huc: quia in curia oportet habere pecunias, alias nihil potest expedire.”

That this estimate of the papal curia was shared by the orthodox is shown in the story told of Pierre Danes, Bishop of Vaur, who in 1545 was sent as ambassador by Francis I. to the Council of Trent. In debate a French theologian was inveighing against the corruptions of the Rota, when an Italian ecclesiastic sneeringly cried out, “Gallus cantat.” Danes promptly rejoined, “Utinam illo gallicinio Petrus ad resipiscentiam et fletum excitetur.”—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VII. 224.

[1034] The Epist. Obseur. Viror. probably reflects the general sentiment of the conservatives of the time in denouncing Erasmus and the learned wits as heretics. “Quia juvenes volunt se æquiparare senibus, et discipuli magistris, et juristæ theologis, et est magna confusio, et surgunt multi hæretici et pseudochristiani, Iohann. Reuchlin, Erasmus Roterodamus: Bilibaldus nescio quis, et Ulricus Huttenus, Hermannus Buschius, Jacobus Wimphelingus, qui scripsit contra Augustinenses, et Sebastianus Brandt, qui scripsit contra prædicatores, etc.”

So, at a later date, after Luther had arisen, the “Conciliabulum Theologistarum” classes them together “Habeo etiam ego unum spiritum familiarem; illum ego volo mittere ad Lutherum et Erasmum de nocte in lectum, ut eos tribulet et vexet.”

[1035] Erasmi Colloq. Confabulatio Pia.

[1036] Ibid. See also the Encomium Moriæ.—“Nam quid dicam de iis qui sibi fictis scelerum condonationibus suavissime blandiuntur, ac purgatorii spatia veluti clepsydris metiuntur, secula, annos, menses, dies, horas, tanquam e tabula mathematica citra ullum errorem dimentientes?”

[1037] Confabulatio Pia (Colloquia).

[1038] Speaking of the Virgin’s milk and the countless relics of the cross everywhere exposed to the adoration of the pious, he exclaims, “O matrem filio simillimam! ille nobis tantum sanguinis reliquit in terris; hæc tantum lactis quantum vix credibile est esse posse uni mulieri uniparæ, etiamsi nihil bibisset infans.... Idem caussantur de cruce Domini, quæ privatum ac publice tot locis ostenditur, ut si fragmenta conferantur in unum, navis onerariæ justum onus videri possint; et tamen totam crucem suam bajulavit Dominus”—to which he makes a pious interlocutor reply, “Novum fortasse dici possit; mirum nequaquam, quum Dominus, qui hæc auget pro suo arbitrio, sit omnipotens.”—Colloq. Peregrinat. Religionis.

[1039] Supplement. Epist. M. Lutheri, No. II. (Halæ, 1703).

[1040] The popular view of the priesthood is well summed up by Erasmus in the following dialogue: “COCLES, Cur mavis sacerdotium quam uxorem?—PAMPHAGUS, Quia mihi placet otium. Arridet Epicurea vita.—Co. At mea sententia suavius vivunt, quibus est lepida puella domi, quam complectantur, quoties libet.—PAM. Sed adde, nonnunquam quum non libet. Amo voluptatem perpetuam. Qui ducit uxorem, uno mense felix est: cui contingit optimum sacerdotium, in omnem usque vitam fruitur gaudio.—Co. Sed tristis est solitudo, adeo ut nec Adam suaviter victurus fuerit in Paradiso nisi deus illi adjunxisset Evam.—PAM. Non deerit Eva cui sit opulentum sacerdotium,” etc.—Erasmi Colloq. de Captandis Sacerdotiis.

It is, however, perhaps, in the “Encomium Moriæ” that he gives fullest rein to his bitter satire. His own sad experience of conventual life gave him special opportunity of declaiming against the monks “qui se vulgo religiosos ac monachos appellant, utroque falsissimo cognomine, quum et bona pars istorum longissime absit a religione, et nulli magis omnibus locis sint obvii.” Their habit, their observances, their discipline, their ignorance, idleness, vices, are recounted at great length and with the most stinging ridicule, and he makes Folly dismiss them with the contemptuous valediction, “Verum ego istos histriones, tam ingratos beneficiorum meorum dissimulatores quam improbos simulatores pietatis libenter relinquo.” The secular priesthood, the bishops, and even the pope himself, are treated with little more respect, and every class of the ecclesiastical body is stigmatized as endeavoring to thrust upon others the care of the flock and industrious only in shearing the sheep.

The “Encomium Moriæ” had an immediate and immense success. Numberless editions were required to supply the avidity of the learned, and it was immediately translated into almost every language of Europe for the benefit of the unlearned. It appeared in 1509; the Colloquies in 1516.—When these works had produced their result, their dangerous tendencies were discovered, and they enjoyed the honor of being included in the first Index Expurgatorius (App. Concil. Trident). Cardinal Caraffa, indeed, in 1538, had urged upon Paul III. the propriety of excluding the Colloquies from use in schools as a text-book for students.—Concil. de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 602).

[1041] The “Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum” was certainly published before 1516, probably in 1515 (Ebert, Bibliog. Dict. s. v.).—It is equally severe upon the monks—“Tunc ille dixit: ego distinguo de monachis, quia accipiuntur tribus modis. Primo, pro sanctis et utilibus, sed illi sunt in cœlo. Secundo, pro nec utilibus nec inutilibus, et illi sunt picti in ecclesia. Tertio modo pro illis qui adhuc vivunt, et illi multis nocent, etiam non sunt sancti, quia ita superbi sunt sicut unus sæcularium. Et ita libenter habent pecunias et pulchras mulieres,” etc. And again, “Ubi enim diabolus pervenire vel aliquid officere non potest, ibi semper mittit unam malam antiquam vetulam vel unum monachum.”

[1042] De Vanitate Scientiarum cap. lxi., lxii., lxiv.

[1043] Orat. in Comit. Augustan. (Freher. et Struv. II. 702.)

[1044] Bartholini Comment. de Comit. Augustens. ann. 1518 (Senckenberg. Selecta Juris T. IV. pp. 669-70).

[1045] Rymer, Fœdera XIII. 586-7.

[1046] Even in this, Luther was by no means the first. Erasmus had exposed the wickedness of the system with fully as much fervor in the “Encomium Moriæ.”—“Hic mihi puta negotiator aliquis, aut miles, aut judex, abjecto ex tot rapinis unico nummulo, universam vitæ Lernam semel expurgatam putat, totque perjuria, tot libidines, tot ebrietates, tot rixas, tot cædes, tot imposturas, tot perfidias, tot proditiones existimat velut ex pacto redimi, et ita redimi ut jam liceat ad novum scelerum orbem de integro reverti.”—And in the “Epistolæ Obscurorum Vivorum” the falseness of its promises was unflinchingly asserted.

[1047] Ranke, Reformation in Germany, B. II. chap. 3.

[1048] Lutheri Opp. T. I. fol. 335_a_ (Jenæ, 1564).

[1049] Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. 1692, I. 614.

[1050] De Captiv. Babylon. Eccles. (Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, 1581, II. fol. 283_a_).

[1051] Artic. et Errores Libb. Jur. Canon. No. 18 (Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, 1581, II. fol. 318_a_).

[1052] Ibid. fol. 319_b_.

[1053] Ibid. fol. 362_a_, 374_a_.

[1054] Krasinski, op. cit. I. 112-3.

[1055] Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, 1581, T. II. fol. 438, 440.

[1056] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1521.

[1057] Lutheri Epistt. Jenæ, 1545, T. II. fol. 38, 39.

[1058] Synod. Vuitemberg. (Lutheri Opp. II. 470).

[1059] Lutheri Opp. II. 477 sqq.—In this edition the tract is dated 1522 in the index and 1521 in the text. Henke and Ranke, however, agree in assigning it to a period subsequent to his return from Wartburg.

[1060] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1523.—The fact that Spalatin recorded whether he wore the cowl or not, shows the importance which Luther’s friends attached to his example with respect to it.

[1061] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1522.

[1062] Supplement. Epistt. M. Lutheri No. 31 (Halæ, 1703).

[1063] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1523.—Thammii Chron. Colditens.—Link married a daughter of Suicer, a lawyer of Oldenburg in Misnia, and the bride’s example was shortly afterwards followed by her two sisters, one of whom was united to Wolfgang Fuess, parish priest of Kolditz, and formerly a monk of Gera; while the other accepted the addresses of the parish priest of Kitscheren. (Spalatin, ubi sup.)

[1064] Spalatin, ubi sup.—How these innovations were regarded in Rome is manifested in a minatory epistle addressed, in 1522, by Adrian II. to the Elector Frederic of Saxony. “Et cum ipse sit apostata ac professionis suæ desertor, ut plurimos sui faciat similes, sancta illa Deo vasa polluere non veretur, consecratasque virgines et vitam monasticam professas extrahere a monasteriis suis, et mundo imo diabolo, quem semel abjuraverunt, reddere ... Christi sacerdotes etiam vilissimis copulat meretricibus etc.” (Hartzheim VI. 192.)

[1065] See the address of Frederic Nausea, surnamed Blancicampianus, afterwards Bishop of Vienna, at the Council of Mainz in 1527.—Synod. Mogunt. ann. 1527 (Hartzheim VI. 207).

[1066] Reformat. Cleri German. ann. 1524 c. 26 (Goldast. Constit. Imp. III. 491).

[1067] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1524.

[1068] Respons. S. R. I. Ordinum Norim b. cap. 18 (Goldast. op. cit. I. 455).—With this the Legate Cheregato professed himself to be content, but he bitterly complained of an intimation that if these apostate priests and nuns transgressed the laws in any other way, the secular tribunals would punish them. He held that, though apostates, they were still ecclesiastics, only amenable to the courts Christian, and he protested against any violation of the privileges and jurisdiction of the church such as would be committed in bringing them before a civil magistrate. (Ibid. p. 456.)

[1069] Spalatin. ann. 1523.

[1070] Edict. Norimb. Convent, ann. 1523 c. 10, 18, 19 (Goldast. II. 151).—This illustrates well the vacillating conduct of the Council of Regency during this period.

[1071] Chron. Torgaviæ—Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1523. He conveyed them at once to Wittenberg, and Luther writes to Spalatin asking him to collect funds for their support until they can be permanently provided for.

[1072] Spalatin. ubi sup.

[1073] Spalatin. ann. 1524.

[1074] Melanchthon to Camerarius (_ap._ Mayeri Dissert. de Cath. Lutheri conjuge. pp. 25-6).—Melanchthon can only suggest that it was a mysterious act of Providence.—“Isto enim sub negotio fortassi aliquid occulti et quiddam divinius subest, de quo nos curiose quærere non decet.”—The whole letter is singularly apologetic in its tone.

[1075] Spalatin. ann. 1525.

Pomeranius, a priest of Wittenberg, in writing to Spalatin, gives as the reason of Luther’s marriage—“Maligna fama effecit ut Doct. Martinus insperato fieret conjunx;” and Luther, in a letter to the same, admits this even more distinctly—“Os obstruxi infamantibus me cum Catherina Borana.” That his action was not generally approved by his friends is apparent from his asking Michael Stiefel to pray that his new life may sanctify him—“Nam vehementer irritantur sapientes, etiam inter nostros.”—Spalatin. ubi sup.

That surprise should have been aroused is singular, when he had already proclaimed the most extreme views in favor of matrimony. As early as 1522 he delivered his famous “Sermo de Matrimonio,” in which he enjoins it in the strictest manner as a duty incumbent upon all. Thus, in considering the impediments to marriage, he treats of vows, concerning which he says: “Sin votum admissum est, videndum tibi est, ut supra memoravi, num tribus eviratorum generibus comprehendaris, quæ conjugio ademit Deus, ubi te in aliquo istorum uno non repereris, votum rescindas, monasticen deseras oportet; moxque ad naturalem sociam adjungas te matrimonii lege.”—P. I. c. 8 (Opp. Ed. Vuitemberg. V. 121). To this must be added his decided opinions on the subject of conjugal rights, as developed in the well-known passage which has excited so much animadversion, and which, if we are to interpret it literally, conveys a doctrine which sounds so strangely as the precept of a teacher of morality. In treating of the causes of divorce, he remarks: “Tertia ratio est, ubi alter alteri sese subduxerit, ut debitam benevolentiam persolvere nolit, aut habitare cum renuerit. Reperiuntur enim interdum adeo pertinaces uxores, qui etiam si decies in libidinem prolabentur mariti pro sua duritia non curarent. Hic oportunum est ut maritus dicat ‘Si tu nolueris, alia volet.’ Si domina nolit, adveniat ancilla, ita tamen ut antea iterum et tertio uxorem admoneat maritus, et coram aliis ejus etiam pertinaciam detegat, ut publice et ante conspectum ecclesiæ, duritia ejus et agnoscatur et reprehendatur. Si tum renuat, repudia eam, et in vicem Vasti, Ester surroga, Assueri regis exemplo” (Ibid. p. 123).

One conclusion, at least, can safely be drawn from this, that the morality of the age had impressed Luther with the belief that the self-restraint of chastity was impossible.

That the Catholics should make themselves merry over the marriage of the apostate monk and nun was to be expected, and Jerome Emser did not think it beneath him to write an epithalamium on the wedding of his former friend, of which the following may be taken as a specimen—

Ad Priapum Lampsacenum
Veneramur, et Silenum
Bacchumque cum Venere
cum jubilo.

Septa claustri dissipamus,
Sacra vasa compilamus
Sumptus unde suppetat
cum jubilo.

Mayeri Dissert. p. 22, 23.

[1076] Mayeri de Cath. Luth. conjug. Dissert. 4to. Hamburgi, 1702. Cranach, as we have seen, was one of the three witnesses present at the marriage.

[1077] Lutheri Opp. (Jenæ, 1564, T. I. fol. 496-500).

[1078] Supplement Epistt. M. Lutheri No. 212 (Halæ, 1703).

[1079] Avisamentum de Concubinariis non absolvendis, 4to. 1505.—The author devotes a long argument to prove that incontinence in a priest is worse than homicide. His conclusion is “Omnis sacerdos fornicando est sacrilegus et perjurus; et gravius totiens quotiens peccat quam si hominem occidat.”

[1080] Wideman. Chron. Curiæ ann. 1505.

[1081] Neque superiorum tolerantia, seu prava consuetudo, quæ potius corruptela dicenda est, a multitudine peccantium, aliave quælibet excusatio eis aliquo modo suffragetur.—Concil. Lateran. V. ann. 1514 Sess. IX.

[1082] Quia vero in quibusdam regionibus nonnulli jurisdictionem ecclesiasticam habentes, pecuniarios quæstus a concubinariis percipere non erubescunt, patientes eos in tali fœditate sordescere.—Concil. Lateran. V. ann. 1516 Sess. XI.—Cf. Cornel. Agripp. De Vanitate Scient, c. lxiv.—Agrippa even states that it was a common thing for bishops to sell to women whose husbands were absent the right to commit adultery without sin.

[1083] Taxæ Sacræ Pœnitentiariæ, Friedrich’s Ed. p. 38; Gibbings’s, p. 3; Saint-André’s, p. 8.

[1084] Gerardi Noviomagi Philippus Burgundus (Mathæi Analect. I. 230).

[1085] Statut. Synod. Joan. Episc. Ratispon. ann. 1512 (Hartzheim VI. 86).

[1086] Art. 18e “Item. Mais, Nous nous plaignions d’aucuns chanoines qui nous gâtent nôtre bordeau de la ville, car il y en a qui le tiennent en leurs maisons, privément, pour tous venans.”—Quoted from a contemporary MS. by Abraham Ruchat in his “Histoire de la Reformation de la Suisse,” T. I. p. xxxiii.-v. (Genève, 1727). According to Cornelius Agrippa, the Roman prelates derived a regular revenue from this source, the right to keep definite numbers of strumpets in the public brothels being partitioned out between them.—De Vanitate Scient, c. lxiv.

[1087] See, for instance, Novelle, P. III. Nov. lvi.

[1088] Reformat. Cleri German. (Hartzheim VI. 198).—“Hanc perditissimam hæresin ... non parvam habuisse occasionem, partim a perditis moribus et vita clericorum etc.”

There was no scruple in confessing this fact by those who spoke authoritatively for the Catholic church, and it long continued to be alleged as the cause of the stubbornness of the heretics. Thus the Bishop of Constance, in the canons of his Synod of 1567—“Estote etiam memores, damnatam et detestandam cleri vitam huic malo in quo, proh dolor! versamur, majori ex parte ansam præbuisse.... Omnes sapientes peritique viri unanimi sententia hoc asserunt, hocque efflagitant penitus, ut prius clerus ecclesiarumque ministri ac doctores a vitæ sordibus repurgentur, quam ulla cum adversariis nostris de doctrina concordia expectari queat.” And then, after describing in the strongest terms the vices of the clergy and their unwillingness to reform, he adds “Quæ sane morum turpitudo, vehementer et tantopere imperiti populi animos offendit ut subinde magis magisque a catholica nostra religione alienior efficiatur, atque sacerdotium una cum sacerdotibus doctrinam juxta atque doctores, execretur, dirisque devoveat: ita ut protinus ad quamvis sectam deficere potius paratus sit quam quod ad ecclesiam redire velit.”—Synod. Constant. ann. 1567 (Hartzheim VII. 455).

Pius V. himself did not hesitate to adopt the same view. In an epistle addressed to the abbots and priors of the diocese of Freysingen, in 1567, he says—“Cum nobiscum ipsi cogitamus quæ res materiam præbuerit tot tantisque pestiferis hæresibus ... tanti mali causam præcipue fuisse judicamus corruptos prælatorum mores, qui ... eandemque vivendi licentiam iis, quibus præerant permittentes et exemplo eos suo corrumpentes, maximum apud laicos odium contemptionem et invidiam non immerito contraxerunt.” (Hartzheim. VII. 586).

Alfonso de Castro in 1556 declares that the priesthood was one of the efficient causes of the spread of heresy. It would be difficult for orthodoxy to maintain itself without the direct interposition of God, in view of the scandalous lives, and general worthlessness of all orders of ecclesiastics, whose excessive numbers, ignorance, and turpitude exposed them to contempt.—Alph. de Castro de Just. Punit. Hæres. Lib. III. c. 5.

[1089] Reformat. Cleri German, cap. xv.—So when, in 1521, Conrad, Bishop of Wurzburg, issued a mandate for the reformation of his clergy, he described them as for the most part abandoned to gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, quarrelling, and lust.—Mandat. pro. Reformat. Cleri. (Gropp, Script. Rer. Wirceburg. I. 269).—In 1505 the Bishop of Bamberg, in complaining of his clergy, shows us how little respect was habitually paid to the incessant repetition of the canons.—“Condolenter referimus vitam et honestatem clericalem adeo apud quamplures nostrarum civitatis et dioceseos clericos esse obumbratam ut vix inter clericos et laycos discrimen habeatur: et ipsa statuta nostra synodalia in ipsorum clericorum cordibus obliterata et a pluribus non visa aut perlecta vilipendantur: nullam propter nostram, quam hactenus pii pastoris more tolleravimus patientiam, capientes emendationem.”—(Hartzheim VI. 66.)

[1090] Grillandi Tract. de Sortilegiis Quæst. xvii. No. 1.

[1091] Gravamin. Ordin. Imperii cap. xxi., lvii., lxx. (Goldast. I. 464).

When such complaints were made by the highest authority in the empire, it is not difficult to understand the reasons which led the senate of Nürnberg—which city had not yet embraced the Reformation—to deprive, in 1524, the Dominicans and Franciscans of the superintendence and visitation of the nuns of St. Catharine and St.. Clare; nor do we need Spalatin’s malicious suggestion—“cura et visitatione, pene dixeram corruptione.”—Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1524.

[1092] Adriani PP. VI. Instructio data Fr. Cheregato, Nov. 25, 1522 (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 146).

[1093] Adriani PP. VI. Breve ad Frid. Saxon. (Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 542_b_.—Le Plat, II. 134).

[1094] Erasmi Lib. XXXI. Epist. 43.

Notwithstanding the sarcasm, popularly attributed to Erasmus, on the occasion of Luther’s union with Catharine von Bora—that the Reformation had turned out to be a comedy, seeing that it resulted in a marriage—he continued to raise his voice in favor of abolishing the rule of celibacy. Thus he writes, in October, 1525, “Vehementer laudo cœlibatum, sed ut nunc habet sacerdotum ac monachorum vita, præsertim apud Germanos, præstaret indulgeri remedium matrimonii” (Lib. XVIII. Epist. 9). And again, in 1526, “Ego nec sacerdotibus permitto conjugium, nec monachis relaxo vota, ni id fiat ex auctoritate Pontificum, ad ædificationem ecclesiæ non ad destructionem.... In primis optandum esset sacerdotes et monachos castitatem ac cœlestem vitam amplecti. Nunc rebus adeo contaminatis, fortasse levius malum erat eligendum” (Lib. XVIII. Epist. 4).

Yet, in his “Liber de Amabili Ecclesiæ Concordia,” written in 1533 in the hope of reuniting the severed church, while awaiting the promised general council which was to reconcile all things, Erasmus did not hesitate to give utterance to the opinion that those who fell away in heresy or even schism were worse than those who lived impurely in the true faith.

[1095] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1525.

[1096] Ibid. ann. 1526.

[1097] Henke Append. ad Calixt. p. 595.—Serrarii Rerum Mogunt. Lib. v. (Script. Rer. Mogunt. I. 831, 839). As Albert, though Primate of Germany, was only thirty-five or six years of age, the proposition was not an unreasonable one.

[1098] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1526.

[1099] Thammii Chron. Coldicens.

[1100] Chron. Waldeccense (Hahnii Collect. Monument. I. 851).

[1101] Confess. Augustanæ P. II. Art. ii., vi.

In his Apology for the Augsburg Confession, however, even the coldness of Melanchthon is warmed in describing the hideous licentiousness caused by the law of celibacy (Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, T. IV. p. 252-3).

[1102] Deliberat. de Concordia etc. c. iii., v. (Goldast. I. 509).

[1103] See Letter of Bergenroth to Romilly, from Simancas, June 14th, 1863 (Cartwright’s Memoir of Bergenroth, London, 1870, p. 124).

[1104] Sentent. Caroli V. § 5 (Ibid. I. 510).—Rescript. Caroli V. § 5 (Ibid. III. 512). Henke, Append. ad Calixt. pp. 595-6.

[1105] Kerssenbroch Bell. Anabaptist. cap. 15, 31.

[1106] How little the situation was comprehended is amusingly shown in a letter from an enlightened and liberal prelate, Johann Schmidt, Bishop of Vienna, to Ferdinand, in 1540, concerning some proposed negotiations then on foot for a reconciliation between the churches. He lays down as a condition precedent to reunion that all the church lands confiscated by the Protestants shall be restored, and the monastic orders reëstablished. The mesne profits, he admits, cannot be collected, but some composition for them should be made.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 649.

[1107] An elaborate series of documents relating to these transactions may be found in Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 511, III. 172-235. Also in Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. Vol. II.

[1108] Artic. Melanch. ad Regem Franciæ, No. X., XI. (Le Plat, op. cit. II. 785-7).

[1109] Lib. ad Rationem Concord. ineundam Art. XXII. § 13 (Goldast. II. 199).

[1110] Respons. Protestant. Art. X. § 3 (Ibid. II. 206). This was still more strongly insisted on in a paper subsequently drawn up by Bucer and presented in the name of the Protestants.—Respons. Protestant. c. 11-14 (Ibid. p. 213).

[1111] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. III. 152-3.

[1112] Et quanquam cum Apostolo sentiendum eum qui cœlebs est curare quæ sunt Domini etc. (I. Cor. vii.) eoque magis optandum multos inveniri clericos qui cum cœlibes sint vere etiam contineant, tamen quum multi qui ministerii ecclesiastici functiones tenent, jam multis in locis duxerint uxores, quas a se dimittere nolint; super ea re generalis concilii sententia expectetur, cum alioqui mutatio in ea re, ut nunc sunt tempora, sine gravi rerum perturbatione nunc fieri non possit.—Interim cap. XXVI. § 17.

Charles must have entertained the expectation that a change would be authorized by the council of Trent, or prudence would have dictated the policy of not leaving the matter open with the consciousness that the difficulty could only become daily greater by tolerance.

[1113] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 19-25.

[1114] Pallavicini, Storia del Concilio di Trento Lib. XII. c. 8. Zaccaria (Nuova Giustificaz. pp. 145, 266), while admitting the fact, states that the original of this document has been sought for in vain; though it had long before been published by Dom Martene (Ampliss. Collect. VIII. 1203). In appointing, however, Jodocus, Bishop of Lubec, as a substitute to exercise their powers, the legates require that priests thus restored shall abandon their wives—a condition not expressed in the original bull (Ibid. p. 1211).

Both from this and from the language of the Interim, it appears that even the Catholic priesthood had begun to arrogate for themselves the right of marriage. That such was the case to a great extent will be seen hereafter.

[1115] Le Plat, T. IV. p. 27.

[1116] Recess. ann. 1551 c. 10 (Goldast. II. 341).

[1117] Transac. Pataviens. Artic. de Relig. (Ibid. I. 573).

[1118] Ibid. I. 574.

[1119] Vision of Piers Ploughman, Wright’s ed., pp. 300, 303.

[1120] Ibid. p. 325.—According to David Buchanan, Langlande was also author of a tract “Pro conjugio sacerdotum.” (Ibid. Introduction, p. x.)

[1121] In a sermon before the Convocation of 1512, Colet is very severe upon the vices of the church—“we are troubled in these days by heretics—men mad with strange folly—but this heresy of theirs is not so pestilential and pernicious to us and the people as the vicious and depraved lives of the clergy”—and he urges the prelates to revive the ancient canons, the enforcement of which would purify the church. (Seebohm’s Oxford Reformers of 1498, p. 170. London, 1867.)

The title of this work seems to me a misnomer. Neither Colet nor Erasmus had the aggressive spirit of martyrdom which was essential to the character of a reformer in those fierce times. They could deplore existing evils, but lacked all practical boldness in applying remedies, and their influence is only to be traced in the minds which they unwittingly trained to do work which they themselves abhorred.

[1122] Thus, in his Epigrams, he ridicules the bishops as a class:—

“Tam male cantasti possis ut episcopus esse,
Tam bene legisti, ut non tamen esse queas.
Non satis esse putet, si quis vitabit utrumvis,
Sed fieri si vis præsul, utrumque cave.”

T. Mori Opp. p. 249. Francofurti, 1689.

And he addresses a parish priest:—

“Quid faciant fugiantve tui, quo cernere possint,
Vita potest claro pro speculo esse tua.
Tantum opus admonitu est, ut te intueantur, et ut tu
Quæ facis, hæc fugiant: quæ fugis, hæc faciant.”

Ibid. p. 247.

See also his epigrams “In Posthumum Episcopum,” “In Episcopum illiteratum,” “De Nautis ejicientibus Monachum,” etc.

[1123] Responsio ad Lutherum, _passim_: “Pater, frater, potator Lutherus,” seems to be a favorite expression, but is mild in comparison with others—“novum inferorum Deum,” “Satanista Lutherus,” “pediculoso fraterculo.” Luther’s friends are “nebulonum, potatorum, scortatorum, sicariorum, senatum,” and More winds up his theological argument with—“furiosum fraterculum et latrinarium nebulonem cum suis furiis et furoribus, cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque relinquere.”

Luther was himself a master in theological abuse, but More’s admiring biographer, Stapleton, boasts that the German was appalled at the superior vigor of the Englishman, and for the first time in his life he declined further controversy—“magis mutus factus est quam piscis.” (Stapletoni Vit. T. Mori cap. iv.) As More, however, published the tract under the name of “William Rosse, an Englishman who had recently died in Rome, Luther’s reticence is more easily to be accounted for”.

[1124] In one passage More describes his Utopians as considering virtue to consist in living according to nature. “Nempe virtutem definiunt, secundum naturam vivere: ad id siquidem a Deo institutos esse nos.... Vitam ergo jucundam, inquiunt, id est voluptatem, tanquam operationum omnium finem, ipsa nobis natura præscribit: ex cujus præscripto vivere, virtutem definiunt” (Utopiæ Lib. II. Tit. de Peregrinatione). In another passage, however, he describes two sects or heresies, the one consisting of men who abstained from marriage and the use of flesh, the other of those who devoted themselves to labor, marrying as a duty and indulging in food to increase their strength, and says of them “Hos Utopiani prudentiores, at illos sanctiores reputant” (Ibid. Tit. de Religionibus).

[1125] Respons. ad Lutherum Perorat.

It should be borne in mind that this was written after his friend Erasmus had publicly given in his adhesion to marriage as the only remedy for sacerdotal corruption.

[1126] Ibid. Lib. I. cap. iv.

[1127] Froude’s England, Ch. x.

[1128] Wilkins III. 669, 678.

[1129] Card. Eboracens. Epist. v. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. III. 1289).

[1130] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, T. I. App. p. 19.

[1131] Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. II. ch. v.

[1132] Rymer’s Fœdera, XIV. 15.

[1133] Wilkins III. 704.—Bishop Burnet says that Wolsey’s design in procuring this Bull was to suppress all monasteries, but that he was persuaded to abandon his purpose on account of opposition and dread of scandals.—Hist. Reform. Vol. I. p. 20 (Ed. 1679).

[1134] Rymer, XIV. 24.—Confirmed by the king, January 7, 1525 (Ibid. p. 32).

[1135] Ibid. pp. 156-6, 172-5.

[1136] Ibid. pp. 240-44, 250-58. See a letter of the English ambassadors at Rome to Wolsey, describing a conference on this subject with the Pope, wherein he freely acknowledged the propriety of destroying those houses which were nothing but a “Scandalum religionis.”—Strype, Eccles. Memorials, I. App. 58.

[1137] Rymer, XIV. pp. 270-1.

[1138] Rymer, XIV. 272-3.

[1139] Ibid. 273-5.

[1140] Ibid. 291-3.

[1141] Ibid. 345-6. A document showing one phase of the struggle may be found in Strype’s Memorials I. Append. p. 89. It is to the credit of Wolsey that he retained his interest in his colleges even after his fall. See his letter to Gardiner of July 23rd, 1530 (Ibid. p. 92).

[1142] Pecock’s Records of the Reformation No. 276 (Vol. II. p. 259).

[1143] Wilkins III. 755-62.

[1144] Ibid. 770-82, 789.—Parliamentary Hist. of England, I. 525. In 1532 Henry had complained to his Parliament that the clergy were but half subjects to him, in consequence of their oaths to the pope, and he desired that some remedy should be found for this state of things (Ibid. p. 519).

[1145] Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 195.

[1146] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 40 (Camden Soc.).—Strype, op. cit. p. 197.

[1147] Strype, op. cit. pp. 277-8.

[1148] Burnet I. 182.

[1149] Wilkins III. 787.

[1150] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 175.

[1151] Hist. Reform. I. 190-1.

[1152] Le Plat V. 244-5.

[1153] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 112.

[1154] Eccles. Memorials, I. 256-7.

[1155] Suppression of Monasteries, Nos. xvii., xxi., xxiv., xlii., xlv., xlvii., xcviii., &c.

[1156] Ibid. No. cxx.

[1157] Travels of Nicander Nucius, pp. 68-71 (Camden Soc.).

[1158] Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 249.