Chapter XXXIII: Part 33

[1159] As published in the Harleian Miscellany, the Beggars’ Petition bears the date of 1538, but internal evidence would assign it to a time anterior to the suppression of the monasteries, and Burnet attributes it to the period under consideration, saying that it was written by Simon Fish, of Gray’s Inn, that it took mightily with the public, and that when it was handed to the king by Ann Boleyn, “he lik’d it well, and would not suffer anything to be done to the author” (Hist. Reform. I. 160). Froude, indeed, assigns it to the date of 1528, and states that Wolsey issued a proclamation against it, and further, that Simon Fish, the author, died in 1528 (Hist. Engl. Ch. VI.), while Strype (Eccles. Memorials1. 165) includes it in a list of books prohibited by Cuthbert, Bishop of London, in 1526. In the edition of 1546, the date of 1524 is attributed to it.

The tone of that which was thus equally agreeable to the court and to the city, may be judged from the following extracts, which are by no means the plainest spoken that might be selected.

“§ 13. Yea, and what do they more? Truly, nothing but apply themselves by all the sleights they may to have to do with every man’s wife, every man’s daughter, and every man’s maid; that cuckoldry should reign over all among your subjects; that no man should know his own child; that their bastards might inherit the possessions of every man, to put the right-begotten children clean beside their inheritance, in subversion of all estates and godly order.

Ҥ 16. Who is she that will set her hands to work to get three-pence a day, and may have at least twenty-pence a day to sleep an hour with a friar, a monk, or a priest? Who is he that would labour for a groat a day, and may have at least twelve-pence a day to be a bawd to a priest, a monk, or a friar?

“§ 31. Wherefore, if your grace will set their sturdy loobies abroad in the world, to get them wives of their own, to get their living with their labour, in the sweat of their faces, according to the commandment of God, _Gen._ iii., to give other idle people, by their example, occasion to go to labour; tye these holy, idle thieves to the carts to be whipped naked about every market-town, till they will fall to labour, that they may, by their importunate begging, not take away the alms that the good Christian people would give unto us sore, impotent, miserable people your bedemen.”

[1160] Articles devised by the Kinges Highnes Majestie, ann. 1536 (Formularies of Faith, Oxford, 1856 p. xxxi.).

[1161] Burnet I. 193-4, 222-4;—Parl. Hist. I. 526-7. To our modern notions, there is something inexpressibly disgusting in the openness with which bribes were tendered to Cromwell by those who were eager to obtain grants of abbey lands (Suppression of Monasteries, _passim_). On the other hand, the abbots and abbesses who feared for their houses had as little scruple in offering him large sums for his protection. Thus the good Bishop Latimer renders himself the intermediary (Dec. 16th, 1536) of an offer from the Prior of Great Malvern of 500 marks to the king and 200 to Cromwell to preserve that foundation; while the Abbot, of Peterboro’ tendered the enormous sum of 2500 marks to the king and £300 to Cromwell (Ibid. 150, 179). The liberal disposition of the latter seems to have made an impression, for, though he could not save his abbey, he was appointed the first Bishop of Peterboro’—a see erected upon the ruins of the house.

[1162] “They be very pore, and can have lytyll serves withowtt ther capacytes. The bischoyppys and curettes be very hard to them, withowtt they have ther capacytes.”—The Bishop of Dover to Cromwell, March 10th, 1538 (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 193). These “capacities” empowered them to perform the functions of secular priests. The good bishop pleads that certain poor monks may obtain them without paying the usual fee.

[1163] 27 Henry VIII. c. 25, renewed by 28 Hen. VIII. c. 6.—Parliament. Hist. I. 574.

[1164] Burnet I. 227-34; Collect. 160.—Wilkins III. 784, 792, 812.—Rymer XIV. 549.

[1165] 28 Henry VIII. c. 10.—Parl. Hist. I. 533.

[1166] Burnet I. 235-7. These pensions were not in all cases secured without difficulty, even after promises had been made and agreements entered into (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 126).

[1167] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 170.—Strype’s Eccles. Memor. I. 262.

[1168] Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. ix.

[1169] Suppression of Monast. pp. 194, 203.

[1170] A letter from John Bartelot to Cromwell shows that the abbot purchased secrecy by distributing thirty pounds to those who detected him, and promising them thirty more. This latter sum was subsequently reduced to six pounds, for which the holy man gave his note. This not being paid at maturity, he was sued, when he had the audacity to complain to Cromwell, and to threaten to prosecute the intruders for robbery and force them to return the money paid. Bartelot relates his share in the somewhat questionable transaction with great naïveté, and applies to Cromwell for protection.—Suppression of Monasteries, Letter xxv.

[1171] This may have been true, for Dr. London was one of the miserable tools who are the fitting representatives of the time. His desire to discover the irregularities of the monastic orders arose from no reverence for virtue, for he underwent public penance at Oxford for adultery with a mother and daughter (Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 376); and his zeal in suppressing the monasteries was complemented with equal zeal in persecuting Protestants. In 1543 he made himself conspicuous, in conjunction with Gardiner, by having heretics burned under the provisions of the Six Articles. His eagerness in this good work led him to commit perjury, on conviction of which he was pilloried in Windsor, Reading, and Newbury, and thrust into the Fleet, where he died.—Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. 26, 27.

In fact, Henry’s capricious despotism rendered it almost impossible that he could be served by men of self-respect and honor.

[1172] Burnet I. 238-43.—See also Froude’s Hist. Engl. III. 285 et seq. During his visitation (Aug. 27th, 1538), the Bishop of Dover writes to Cromwell, “I have Malkow’s ere that Peter stroke of, as yt ys wrytyn, and a M. as trewe as that” (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 212). In a report of Dec. 28th, 1538, Dr. London observes, with dry humor, “I have dyvers other propre thinges, as two heddes of seynt Ursula, wich bycause ther ys no maner of sylver abowt them, I reserve tyll I have another hedd of herse, wich I schall fynd in my waye within theese xiiii. days, as I am creadably informyd” (Ibid. p. 234). Dr. Leighton writes in the same spirit to Cromwell—“Yee shall also receive a Bag of Relicks wherein ye shall see Stranger Things as shall appear by the Scripture. As God’s Coat, or Ladie’s Smock; Part of God’s Supper, In cœna Domini; Pars petræ super qua natus erat Jesus in Bethlehem. Besides there is in Bethlehem plenty of Stones and sometimes Quarries, and maketh their mangers of Stone. The scripture of every thing shall declare you all. And all these of Mayden Bradley. Where is a holy Father Prior; and hath but six Sons and one Daughter married yet of the goods of the Monastery. And he thanketh God, he never meddled with married women; but all with Maidens, the fairest could be gotten. And always married them right well. The Pope, considering his fragility, gave him license to keep a w——: and hath good writing, sub Plumbo, to discharge his conscience” (Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 253).—Nicander Nucius (op. cit. pp. 51-62) relates some of the stories current at the time of the miracles engineered by the monks to stave off their impending doom.

[1173] Parl. Hist. I. 535.

[1174] 31 Henry VIII. c. 13 (Parl. Hist. I. 537).

[1175] 32 Hen. VIII. c. 24 (Ibid. 543-44).

[1176] Burnet I. 262-3.

[1177] Rymer XIV., XV.

[1178] 37 Hen. VIII. c. 4 (Parl. Hist. I. 561).

[1179] Parl. Hist. I. 537. Such hospitals, chantries, &c., as were spared by Henry VIII. were speedily swept away, as soon as Edward VI. succeeded to the throne, by the act 1 Edw. VI. c. 14 (Parl. Hist. I. 583).

[1180] This may readily be considered no exaggeration. A letter from John Freeman to Cromwell values at £80,000 the lead alone stripped from the dismantled houses (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 290).

[1181] Such is the substance of a memorandum in Henry’s own hand-writing (Suppression of Monasteries, No. 131, p. 263).

[1182] 31 Hen. VIII. c. 9 (Parl. Hist. I. 540).

[1183] Burnet I. 300.

[1184] Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 345.

[1185] See letters of the Lord Chancellor Audley and the learned Sir Thomas Elyot to Cromwell.—Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 263-5.

[1186] Op. cit. I. 392-403; II. 258-63.

[1187] 5-6 Edw. VI. c. 2 (Parl. Hist. I. 596).

[1188] 1 Edw. VI. c. 3.—Parl. Hist. I. 583.—Burnet II. 45. In 1538 the Bishop of Dover interceded with Cromwell for licenses to enable some ejected friars to abandon their monastic gowns, “For off trewthe ther harttes be clene from the relygyon the more parte, so they myght change ther cotes, the whyche they be not abull to paye for, for they have no thenge” (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 197).

[1189] Fœdera, T. XIV. p. 551.

[1190] Froude, Hist. Engl. IV. 543.

[1191] Thus “An Exposition into the sevenith Chapitre of the firste Epistle to the Corinthians” seems to have been almost entirely devoted to an argument against celibacy, adducing all manner of reasons derived from nature, morality, necessity, and Scripture, and describing forcibly the evils arising from the rule. The author does not hesitate to declare that “Matrimony is as golde, the spirituall estates as dung,” and the tenor of his writings may be understood from his triumphant exclamation, after insisting that all the Apostles and their immediate successors were married—“Seeing that ye chose not married men to bishoppes, other Criste must be a foole or unrighteous which so did chose, or you anticristis and deceyvers.”

The “Sum of Scripture” was more moderate in its expressions. “Yf a man vowe to lyve chaste and in povertie in a monasterie, than yf he perceyve that in the monastery he lyveth woorse than he did before, as in fornication and theft, then he may leve the cloyster and breke his vowe without synne.”

Tyndale in “The Obedience of a Cristen Man” is most uncompromising. “Oportet presbyterem ducere uxorem duas ob causas.” ... “If thou bind thy self to chastitie to obteyn that which Criste purchesed for the, surely soo art thow an infidele.”

The “Revelation of Anticriste” carries the war into the enemy’s territory in a fashion somewhat savage. “Keping of virginitie and chastite of religion is a devellishe thinge” (Wilkins III. 728-34).

[1192] Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book III. Chapter 34.

[1193] For instances of these practices, see Froude’s England, Ch. III.

[1194] Wilkins III. 778.—Strype, in his “Memorials of Cranmer,” Bk. I. Chap. 18, gives this proclamation as dated Nov. 16, in the 30th year of Henry VIII. which would place it in 1538, and Bishop Wilkins also prints (III. 696) from Harmer’s “Specimen of Errors” the same with unimportant variations, as “given this 16th day of November, in the 13th year of our reign,” which would place it in 1521. It is impossible, however, at a time when even the Lutherans of Saxony had scarcely ventured on the innovation, that in England priestly marriage could already have become as common as the proclamation shows it to be. The bull of Leo X., thanking Henry for his refutation of Luther, was dated Nov. 4th, 1521, and we may be sure that the king’s zeal for the faith would at such a moment have prompted him to much more stringent measures of repression, if he had ventured, at that epoch, to invade the sacred precincts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction—a thing he would have been by no means likely to do. The date of 1521 is therefore evidently an error.

For the same reasons I have been forced to reject a discussion in convocation of the same year (Wilkins III. 697), in which the question of sacerdotal marriage was decided triumphantly in the affirmative. The proceedings are evidently those of Dec. 1547, in the first year of Edward VI.

[1195] Burnet’s Collections I. 319.

[1196] MS. State Paper Office (Froude, III. 65). Ap Rice’s report to Cromwell is sufficiently suggestive as to the interior life of the monastic orders to deserve transcription. “As we were of late at Walden, the abbot there being a man of good learning and right sincere judgment, as I examined him alone, showed me secretly, upon stipulation of silence, but only unto you as our judge, that he had contracted matrimony with a certain woman secretly, having present thereat but one trusty witness; because he, not being able, as he said, to contain, though he could not be suffered by the laws of man, saw he might do it lawfully by the laws of God; and for the avoiding of more inconvenience, which before he was provoked unto, he did thus, having confidence in you that this act should not be anything prejudicial unto him.”

[1197] MS. State Paper Office (Froude, III. 372). It is not to be assumed, however, that the clergy were worse than the laity. During the visitation of the monasteries, Thomas Leigh, one of the visitors, says, in writing to Cromwell, Aug. 22, 1536, concerning the region between Coventry and Chester “For certain of the knights and gentlemen, and most commonly all, liveth so incontinently, having their concubines openly in their houses, with five or six of their children, and putting from them their wives, that all the country therewith be not a little offended, and taketh evil example of them” (Miscellaneous State Papers, London, 1778, I. 21). It perhaps would not be easy to determine the exact responsibility of the clergy for this immorality of their flocks.

[1198] Strype, Eccles. Memorials, Vol. I. Append. p. 176.

[1199] Burnet’s Collect. I. 362.

[1200] Formularies of Faith, Oxford, 1856.—Wilkins III. 826.

[1201] Suppression of Monasteries, pp. 160-1.

[1202] He made one exception. Nuns professed before the age of 21 were at liberty to marry after the dissolution of their houses, whereat, according to Dr. London, they “be wonderfull gladde ... and do pray right hartely for the kinges majestie” (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 214).

[1203] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. I. 320.

[1204] Burnet I. 254-55; Collect. 332, 347.

[1205] “Nothing has yet been settled concerning the marriage of the clergy, although some persons have very freely preached before the king upon the subject.”—John Butler to Conrad Pellican (Froude III. 381).

[1206] Burnet, Collect. I. 329.

[1207] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. I. 339, 343.

[1208] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. I. 344.—Wilkins III. 847.

[1209] Yet the moderate party ventured to submit to parliament “A Device for extirpating Heresies among the People,” among the suggestions of which was a bill for abolishing ecclesiastical celibacy, legalizing all existing marriages, and permitting the clergy in general “to have wives and work for their living”—Rolls House MS. (Froude III. 381).

[1210] Burnet I. 258-9.—31 Henry VIII. c. xiv. Mr. Froude endeavors to relieve Henry of the responsibility of this measure, and quotes Melanchthon to show that its cruelty is attributable to Gardiner (Hist. Engl. III. 395). He admits, however, that the bill as passed differs but slightly from that presented by the king himself, with whom the committee which framed it must have acted in concert. According to Strype, “The Parliament men said little against this bill, but seemed all unanimous for it; neither did the Lord Chancellor Audley, no, nor the Lord Privy Seal, Cromwel, speak against it: the reason being, no question, because they saw the king so resolved upon it.... Nay, at the very same time it passed, he (Cranmer) stayed and protested against it, though the king desired him to go out, since he could not consent to it. Worcester (Latimer) also, as well as Sarum (Shaxton), was committed to prison; and he, as well as the other, resigned up his bishopric upon the act”—(Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. 19). This shows us how the royal influence was used. Cranmer, indeed, in his reply to the Devonshire rebels, when in 1549 they demanded the restoration of the Six Articles, expressly asserts “that if the king’s majesty himself had not come personally into the Parliament house, those lawes had never passed” (Ibid. App. No. XL.).

[1211] 31 Henry VIII. c. 6 (Parl. Hist. I. 536-40).

[1212] Parl. Hist. I. 540.

There is a story current that soon after the passage of the Act, the Duke of Norfolk, who had had so much to do with it, on meeting a former chaplain of his named Lawney, jocularly said to him “O, my Lawney (knowing him of old much to favor priests’ matrimony), whether may priests now have wives or no?” “If it please your grace,” replied he, “I cannot well tell whether priests may have wives or no; but well I wot, and am sure of it, for all your act, that wives will have priests.”—Strvpe’s Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. viii.

[1213] Dr. London chronicles the troubles of this class. “I perceyve many of the other sortt, monkes and chanons, whiche be yonge lustie men, allways fatt fedde, lyving in ydelnes and at rest, be sore perplexide that now being prestes they may nott retorn and marye” (Suppression of Monasteries, p. 215).

Nicander Nucius asserts that many did marry openly—“ἂλλους δδὲ γυναῖκας ἐννόμως συνεύνους εἰσαγομένους” (Op. cit. p. 71).

[1214] His first marriage was entered into while he was still quite young, and before he had taken orders. The second, however, shows that he acted with some independence, for it took place in 1531, before Henry’s open rupture with Rome, and while he was ambassador to the Emperor. At that time he was King’s chaplain and archdeacon of Taunton, and his nuptials therefore were plainly an indication of heresy.—Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Book I. Chap. iii., Book III. Chap. xxvii.

[1215] Burnet I. 256-7. It was not until 1543 that he ventured to confess this to the king (Ibid. p. 328). At his trial in 1556 his two marriages were one of the points of accusation against him (Ibid. II. 339).

Sanders, in commenting upon Cranmer’s time-serving disposition, which enabled him to accommodate himself to Henry’s capricious opinions, and yet to enter fully into the reformatory ideas predominant under Edward VI., does not fail to satirize his connubial propensities. “Unum illud molestissime tamen ferens, quod meretricem quandam suam non poterat palam uxoris loco libere habere, quia id non laturum Henricum sciebat, sed partim domi eam occultare, partim cum foras prodiret, cista quadam ad id affabre facta inclusam, secum una circumferre cogeretur. Iste ergo jam desiit esse Henricianus, et tam ex immatura regis Edouardi ætate quam ex Protectoris in sectas summa propensione, suæ statim simul et libidini et hæresi habenas laxandas statuit; nam et scorto suo mox est publice pro uxore usus, et catechismum Edouardo dedicatum, falsæ impiæque doctrinæ plenum, in lucem edidit.”—De Orig. et Prog. Schismatis Anglicani, p. 193 (Ed. 1586).

[1216] Melanchthon. Epist. Ed. 1565 p. 34.

[1217] 2-3 Edw. VI. c. 21 (Parl. Hist. I. 586).

[1218] 32 Hen. VIII. c. 10.—Burnet I. 282.—Parl. Hist. I. 575.

Richard Hilles, writing in 1541 to Henry Bullinger, assumes that this modification of the Six Articles only applied to those who were guilty of incontinence, and that it did not “appear to the king at all extreme still to hang those clergymen who marry or who retain those wives whom they had married previous to the former statute” (Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 205)—but both Burnet and the Parliamentary History make no such distinction, and in the abstract of the bill as printed in the Statutes at Large (I. 281) it is described as applicable to “priests married or unmarried.”

[1219] [see transcriber’s notes] Hooper to Bullinger.—Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 36.

[1220] Thus Dr. Parker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was married on June 24th, 1547, within six months after Henry’s death, to Margaret, daughter of Robert Harlston of Mattishall. As he had been in priest’s orders since 1527, he assumed a liberty which was not even asked of Parliament until nearly eighteen months later (see his autobiographical memoranda in his Correspondence, pp. vii., x., Parker Soc., 1853).

[1221] 1 Edw. I. c. I, 12 (Parl. Hist. I. 582-4).—Wilkins IV. 16.—Burnet, II. 40, 41; III. 189.

[1222] 2-3 Edw. VI. c. 21 (Parl. Hist. I. 586).—Burnet II. 88-9.

[1223] Wilkins IV. 26.—Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 59. Wilkins and Cardwell date this in 1547, which is evidently impossible. Burnet (II. 102) alludes to it under 1549, which is much more likely to be correct.

[1224] Sanderi Schisma Anglic. pp. 214-5.

[1225] Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. II. chap. 14.—Smith subsequently at Louvain continued to urge the necessity of celibacy and was answered by Peter Martyr. Strype calls him a filthy fellow, notorious for lewdness, and his championship of chastity excited some merriment. There is an epigram upon him by Lawrence Humphrey—

“Haud satis affabre tractans fabrilia Smithus
Librum de vita cœlibe composuit
Dumque pudicitiam, dum vota monastica laudat,
Stuprat, sacra notans fœdera conjugii.”

(Ibid. Chap. 25.)

[1226] The vast growth of the sheep-farms had long been a subject of complaint. Even as early as 1516, Sir Thomas More describes with indignant energy the misery caused by the ejectment of the agricultural population in order to form enormous sheep-walks, which were found more profitable to the landlords than ordinary farming. He declares that the sheep “tam edaces atque indomitæ esse cœperunt, ut homines devorent ipsos, agros, domos, oppida vastent ac depopulentur.”—Utopia, Lib. I.

[1227] Burnet II. 117-9.

[1228] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, II. 420.

[1229] Burnet II. Collect. 217. In the Latin version, “ Episcopis, presbyteris et diaconis non est mandatum ut cœlibatum voveant; neque, jure divino coguntur matrimonio abstinere” (Wilkins IV. 76).

[1230] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, II. 355.

[1231] Ibid. p. 445.—“Our curate is naught, an Assehead, a Dodipot, a Lack-Latine, and can do nothing.”

[1232] 5-6 Edw. VI. c. 12 (Parl. Hist. I. 594).—Burnet II. 192.

It is curious to observe that the modern “Ritualistic” portion of the English clergy adopt the same line of argument from the marriage service of the Anglican ritual, and apply it not only to the priesthood but to the whole body of believers. See “The Church and the World,” edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, 2d edition, 1866, p. 161.

[1233] Reform. Legg. Eecles. Tit. de Hæresibus. cap. xx. (Cardwell’s Ed., Oxford, 1850, p. 20).—Cf. Tit. de Matrimonio c. ix. (p. 44).

[1234] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 20. This story derives additional piquancy from the fact that this Dr. Weston was somewhat notorious for uncleanness and was subsequently deprived of the Deanery of Windsor for adultery (Ibid. pp. 111-2).

[1235] 1 Mary c. 2 (Parl. Hist. I. 609-10).—Burnet II. 255.

[1236] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, III. 52.

[1237] Burnet II. Append. 264. According to Strype, Bonner’s impatience did not wait for the royal injunctions, for in February he deprived of their livings all the married priests in his diocese of London and commanded them to bring all their wives within a fortnight in order that they might be divorced.—Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. III. chap. 8.

Julius III. issued a Bull, March 8th, 1554, defining Cardinal Pole’s legatine powers, among which was that of removing the excommunication from married clerks and legitimating their children, the fathers being removed from function and benefice, separated from their wives, and subjected to penance (Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 131). This was the course adopted for a time, but as the kingdom was not yet formally reconciled to Rome, the action had was under the local authorities.

[1238] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. Append. 33.—In the same place (p. 31) may be found a copy of the summons served upon offenders of this class.

[1239] Burnet II. 275 and Append. 256.—Rymer (T. XV. pp. 376-77) gives a similar commission dated March 9th, issued to Stephen Gardiner to eject the canons and prebendaries of Westminster in the same summary manner. The proceedings throughout England were doubtless framed on these models.

[1240] Burnet II. Append. 260.

[1241] Bishop Poynette wrote a book entitled “An Apologie on the Godly Marriadge of Priestes,” in rejoinder to Martin’s “Traictise declaryng and plainly prouyng that the pretensed marriage of priestes and professed persones is no marriage,” which was a reply to Poynette’s previous work. Bale also issued a bitter attack on Bonner’s Articles (Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 135) and Dr. Parker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, published a voluminous rejoinder to Martin.

[1242] Wilkins IV. 96-7.

[1243] Burnet II. 276; III. 225-6.

[1244] A specimen of the form of restitution subscribed by those who were restored on profession of amendment and repentance has been preserved—“Whereas ... I the said Robert do now lament and bewail my life past, and the offence by me committed; intending firmly by God’s grace hereafter to lead a pure, chast, and continent life ... and do here before my competent judge and ordinary most humbly require absolution of and from all such censures and pains of the laws as by my said offence and ungodly behavior I have incurred and deserved: promising firmly ... never to return to the said Agnes Staunton as to my wife or concubine, &c.”—(Wilkins IV. 104).

[1245] Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. III. chap. 8.—Nov. 14th, 1554, we find a record of four priests doing penance in white shirts and holding candles at Paul’s Cross, London, while Harpsfield preached a sermon.—Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 203.

[1246] Parl. Hist. I. 616.

[1247] The Bull is dated December 24, 1554 (Wilkins IV. 111).—Parliament repealed the attainder of Cardinal Pole, November 22d, and on the 24th he arrived in London as legate (Burnet II. 261-2).

[1248] 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary c. 8 (Parl. Hist. I. 624). The title of the bill shows that, though the Parliament was almost exclusively Catholic, it was disposed to make its obedience to Rome the price for obtaining confirmation of the abbey lands—“A Bill for repealing all statutes, articles, and provisoes made against the See Apostolique of Rome, since the 20th of Henry VIII., and for the establishment of all spiritual and ecclesiastical possessions and hereditaments conveyed to the laity.”

[1249] 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary, c. 4 (Parl. Hist. pp. 626-8).

[1250] Mag. Bull. Roman. T. I. p. 809.

[1251] Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 149.

[1252] Parl. Hist. I. 626; II. 342.

[1253] Card. Poli Constit. Legat. Decret. V. (Wilkins IV. 800).

[1254] Strype’s Parker, Book II. chap. vi. In 1561 the remains were exhumed from the stables of Dr. Marshall, the previous dean of Christ’s Church, and reburied in the church, the precaution being taken of mingling them with the bones of St. Frideswide, so as to prevent any future profanation in case of another revolution of religion. The affair excited considerable attention at the time, and produced the following epigram:

Femineum sexum Romani semper amarunt:
Projiciunt corpus cur muliebre foras?
Hoc si tu quæras, facilis responsio danda est:
Corpora non curant mortua, viva petunt.

[1255] “That none of those priests that were, under the pretence of lawfull matrimony, married, and now reconciled, do privilie resorte to their pretensed wives, or suffer the same to resorte unto them. And that those priests do in no wise henceforth withdrawe themselves from the mynisterie and office of priesthodde under the paine of the lawes”—Pole’s Injunctions in Diocese of Gloucester (Wilkins IV. 146).

[1256] Wilkins IV. 157. Thus in the visitation of the diocese of Lincoln, the vicar of Spaldwick was presented for scandalizing his flock by carrying in his arms his child by a wife from whom he had been separated. At the same time a priest of Caisho named Nix was subjected to penance for consorting with his former wife, but was permitted to resume his functions—Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 293.

[1257] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 111-12.

[1258] Wilkins IV. 169.

[1259] 1 Eliz. c. 1, 2, 4 (Parl. Hist. I. 646-76).

[1260] Burnet, II. 386-95.

[1261] Parker’s Correspondence, p. 66.—Sanders does not fail to make the most of this refusal to legalize priestly marriage by act of Parliament, and of the hesitation which rendered the final decision a mere toleration and not an approval. “Clerus enim in Anglia novus, partim ex apostatis nostris, partim ex hominibus mere laicis factus, ut est valde spiritualis, primo quoque tempore de nuptiis cogitabat; multumque sategit, ut conjugia Episcoporum Canonicorum et cæterorum ministorum legibus approbarentur; sed obtineri non potuit, quia vel turpe videbatur ministerio, vel reipublicæ perniciosum. Edovardus quidem sextus omnes canonicas et humanas prohibitiones circa clericorum aut etiam religiosorum connubia lege comitiali seu parlamentaria sustulerat; eam legem mox abrogavit Maria, nunc restituendam ac renovandam clamitant isti, sed non exaudiuntur: omnes tamen per totum fere regnum quia de dono [castitatis] (ut loquuntur) non sunt certi, non secundum leges, sed secundum indulgentiam; vel (ut illi dicunt) secundum scripturas, sed ad libidinem suam compositas, ineunt prima, secunda, vel etiam tertia conjugia, contra canones et morem non solum Latinorum sed etiam Græcorum; et prole ita abundant, ut ad illam sustentandam opibusque augendam, et populus supra modum gravetur, et ipsi misere beneficia sua expilent.”—De Schismate Anglicano, Lib. III. (Ingoldstatii, 1586, p. 299).

[1262] Strype’s Annals, I. 81.

[1263] Royal Injunctions of 1559, Art. XXIX. “Although there be no prohibition by the word of God, nor any example of the primitive church, but that the priests and ministers of the church may lawfully, for the avoiding of fornication, have an honest and sober wife, and that for the same purpose the same was by act of Parliament in the time of our dear brother King Edward the Sixth made lawful, whereupon a great number of the clergy of this realm were married and so continue; yet, because there hath grown offence and some slander to the church, by lack of discreet and sober behavior in many ministers of the church, both in chusing of their wives and undiscreet living with them, the remedy whereof is necessary to be sought; it is thought therefore very necessary that no manner of priest or deacon shall hereafter take to his wife any manner of woman without the advice and allowance first had upon good examination by the bishop of the same diocese and two justices of the peace of the same shire dwelling next to the place where the same woman hath made her most abode before her marriage; nor without the goodwill of the parents of the said woman if she have any living, or two of the next of her kinsfolks, or for lack of the knowledge of such, of her master or mistress where she serveth. And before she shall be contracted in any place, he shall make a good and certain proof thereof to the minister or to the congregation assembled for that purpose, which shall be upon some holy-day where divers may be present. And if any shall do otherwise, that then they shall not be permitted to minister either the word or the sacraments of the church, nor shall be capable of any ecclesiastical benefice. And for the marriages of any bishops, the same shall be allowed and approved by the metropolitan of the province and also by such commissioners as the Queen’s Majesty thereunto shall appoint. And if any master or dean or any head of any college shall purpose to marry, the same shall not be allowed but by such to whom the visitation of the same doth properly belong, who shall in any wise provide that the same turn not to the hindrance of their house”—(Wilkins IV. 186).

See also a letter of Theodore Beza, Zurich Letters, p. 247 (Parker Soc. Publications).

[1264] Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 309.

[1265] Strype’s Parker, Book II. chap. v.—In 1569 the returns for the Archdeaconry of Canterbury show 135 married clergymen to 34 licensed preachers, and there is no mention of any unmarried men (Ib. III. xxiv.).

[1266] In the English version, as given by Burnet (Vol. II. Append. 217), there are 42 articles, of which this is the 31st. In the Latin edition (Wilkins IV. 236), there are but 39 articles, this being the 32d, which is the arrangement according to the standard of the Anglican church.

[1267] Wilkins IV. 189-91.—This commission was the commencement of the Court of High Commission, which played so lamentable a part in the troubles of the succeeding reigns. The result of its visitation in 1559 shows how little real conviction existed among the clergy who had been exposed to the capricious persecutions of alternating rulers. Out of 9400 beneficiaries in England under Mary, but 14 bishops, 6 abbots, 12 deans, 12 archdeacons, 15 heads of colleges, 50 prebendaries, and 80 rectors of parishes had abandoned their preferment on account of Protestantism (Burnet Vol. II. Append. 217), and of these it is fair to assume that the higher dignitaries at least had not been allowed to retain their positions.

[1268] Wilkins IV. 253.—Strype’s Parker, App. liii.

[1269] In 1576 she declared to Grindal, then Archbishop of Canterbury, “that it was good for the church to have few preachers, and that three or four might suffice for a county; and that the reading of the Homilies to the people was enough.”—Strype’s Life of Grindal, p. 221.—See also Strype’s Parker, Book II. chap. xx.

[1270] Strickland, Life of Queen Elizabeth, Chap. IV.

[1271] Strype’s Annals, I. 364-5.

[1272] Parker’s Correspondence, pp. 146-8.

[1273] Ibid. p. 152.

[1274] Parker’s Correspondence, pp. 156-8.

[1275] Wilkins IV. 269.

[1276] Parker’s Correspondence, p. 259.

[1277] Qui autem istis darent filias suas, ne protestantes quidem fere inveniebantur, nedum Catholici: primum quia existimant id esse per se infame, ut sint vel dicantur uxores presbyterorum. Secundo, quia juxta leges regni non sunt adhuc vera sed adulterina conjugia, ac proinde proles illegitima. Tertio quia non accrescit his uxoribus aut liberis suis ex maritorum loco aut honore in Republica ulla dignitas aut existimatio, quod est contra naturam veri matrimonii. Non enim Archiepiscopus, Episcopus, aliusve hodie prælatus in Anglia si sit conjugatus, tribuit quicquam ex eo honoris vel præeminentia uxori suæ, non magis quam si esset ejus tantum concubina. Hinc sit ut nec eas Elizabetha in aulam, nec principum uxores in consortium ullo modo admittant, ne Archiepiscoporum quidem vocatas conjuges; sed debent eas mariti domi continere, pro vasis tantem libidinis aut necessitatis suæ. Quæ istis ergo conditionibus, vel summis prælatis conjungerentur, cum honestiores paucæ aut nullæ reperiebantur, quas poterant habere accipere fuit necesse. Sed et aliis modis utcumque istorum hominum cupiditati per magistratum civilem impositum est frænum. Nam et Collegiorum alumni qui in Anglicanis universitatibus admodum multi erant, otioque ac saturitate panis abundabant, ac admodum provecti ætate erant, cupiebant et ipsi habere uxores; sed videbatur inconveniens, et id privilegii Collegiorum tantum Rectoribus concessum est, cum hac tamen exceptione, ut conjuges seorsim plerunque extra Collegia constituant, rariusque eas intromittant.—De Schismate Anglicano Lib. III. (Ingoldstat. 1586, p. 300).

See also Florimund. Raemund. Histor. Memoral. Lib. VI. cap. xii.

Of course much allowance must be made for the statements of so keen a partisan as Sanders, and one who had suffered so much from those whom he satirized, yet he was a man of too much shrewdness to make statements which his contemporaries could recognize as entirely destitute of foundation.

Even to this day the position of the wives of the Anglican prelates is made a subject of ridicule by Catholic polemics. A recent Italian tract entitled “Il Celibato del sacerdozio Cattolico” remarks “Osservate piuttosto le mogli de’ vescovi e degli arcivescovi Anglicani, tenute esse in conto di concubine non hanno posto alcuno nella civile società.”—Panzini, Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 472.

[1278] Zurich Letters, Second Series, p. 359 (Parker Society, 1845). Wiburn was deprived for non-conformity in 1564, so that this must have been written subsequently (Strype’s Life of Grindal, p. 98).

[1279] Zurich Letters, First Series, pp. 164, 179.

[1280] “That, concerning Virginity and the Single Life, he handled the case so finely that to his thinking, if he should have believed him, he could not find three good Virgins since Christ’s time. And that so he left the Matter with an Exhortation to all to Mary, Mary. Further, That he said in that Sermon that single-living Men, that is to say unmaried, and especially unmaried priests, lived naught. And that there in that City were lately presented five or six unmaried priests that kept five or six whores apiece; though there were not above four unmaried priests in the City in all.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 349.

[1281] “Where he alledgeth that he never called Priests Wives _Whores_, it is untrue. For three Women going through his Park, wherein is a path for footmen, he supposing they had been Priests Wives called unto them, _Ye shall not come through my Park and no such Priests Whores_.”—Ibid. p. 358.

[1282] See a tract published against the rebels, attributed by Strype to Sir Thomas Smith, which ridicules the advocates of celibacy with a vigor reminding us of the Beggars’ Petition.—“This is a quarrel wholly like the old Rebels Complaint of Enclosing of Commons. Many of your _Disordered and evil disposed_ Wives are much agrieved that Priests, which were wont to be Common be now made Several. _Hinc illæ lachrymæ._ There is Grief indeed, and Truth it is, and so shall you find it. Few Women storm against the marriage of priests, calling it unlawful and incensing Men against it, but such as have been Priests Harlots or fain would be. Content your Wives yourselves and let Priests have their own.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 558.

[1283] A causidico, medicastro, ipsaque artificum farragine, ecclesiæ rector aut vicarius contemnitur et fit ludibrio. Gentis et familiæ nitor sacris ordinibus pollutus censetur: fœminisque natalitio insignibus unicum inculcatur sæpius præceptum, ne modestiæ naufragium faciant, aut (quod idem auribus tam delicatulis sonat) ne clerico se nuptas dari patiantur.—T. Wood, Angliæ Notitia (Macaulay’s Hist. Engl. Chap. III.).

Lord Macaulay attributes the degraded position of the clergy to their indigence and want of influence. These causes doubtless had their effect, but the peculiar repugnance towards clerical marriage ascribed to all respectable women had a deeper origin than simply the beggarly stipends attached to the majority of English livings.

[1284] Rahlenbeck, L’Église de Liége, p. 49. The stern and self-centred soul which won for Idelette the hand of Calvin was unshaken to the last, as may be seen by his curious account of her death-bed, in a letter to Farel (Calvini Epistolæ, p. 111. Genevæ, 1617). His grief was doubtless sincere, but his friends were able to compliment him on his not allowing domestic affliction to interfere with his customary routine of labor (Ibid. p. 116).

[1285] I have not access to the original, but quote the following from Quick’s “Synodicon in Gallia Reformata,” London, 1692—“Art. XXIV..... We do also reject those means which men presumed they had, whereby they might be redeemed before God; for they derogate from the satisfaction of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ. Finally, We hold Purgatory to be none other than a cheat, which came out of the same shop: from which also proceeded monastical vows, pilgrimages, prohibition of marriage and the use of meats, a ceremonious observation of days, auricular confession, indulgences, and all other such matters, by which Grace and Salvation may be supposed to be deserved. Which things we reject, not only for the false opinion of merit which was affixed to them, but also because they are the inventions of men, and are a yoke laid by their sole authority upon conscience” (Quick I. xi.).—See also the Confession written by Calvin in 1562, to be laid before the Emperor Ferdinand (Calvini Epist. pp. 564-66).

[1286] Discip. Chap. XIII. can. xxviii. (Quick, I. liii.).

[1287] Ibid. Chap. I. can. xlvii.

[1288] Chap. IV. Art. xii., Chap. XVI. Art. xiv. (Quick, I. 32, 38).

[1289] Prelates of high position were not wanting to the list of married men. Carracioli, Bishop of Troyes, and Spifame, Bishop of Nevers, were of the number. Jean de Monluc, Bishop of Valence (brother of the celebrated Marshal Blaise de Monluc, whose cruelties to the Huguenots were so notorious), married without openly apostatizing, and died in the Catholic faith. Cardinal Odet de Châtillon, Bishop of Beauvais, and brother of the Admiral, became a declared Calvinist, married Mdlle. de Hauteville, and called himself Comte de Beauvais. He seems to have retained his benefices, and was still called by the Catholics M. le Cardinal, “Car il nous estoit fort à cœur,” says Brantôme (Discours 48), “de luy changer le nom qui luy avoit esté si bien seant.”

[1290] Édit de Roussillon, Art. 7 (Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises, XV. 172). This edict was cited in the proceedings of the case of Dumonteil, about the year 1830, of which more hereafter.

[1291] Édit de 1576, Art. 9.—Édit de Poitiers, Art. Secrets, No. 8 (Isambert, T. XV. pp. 283, 331).

[1292] Concil. Rotomag. ann. 1581 cap. de Monasteriis § 32 (Harduin. X. 1253).

[1293] Édit de Nantes, Art. Secrets, No. 39 (Isambert, T. XVI. p. 206).

[1294] Grégoire, Hist, du Mariage des Prêtres en France, pp. 58-9.

[1295] A decision rendered on the argument of the distinguished avocat général Omer Talon expressly states “que la prohibition du mariage des personnes constituées dans les ordres etant une loi de l’État aussi bien que de l’Église, un prêtre malgré sa profession de Calvinisme, était demeuré sujet aux lois de l’État, et dès lors n’avait pas pu valablement contracter mariage.”—Bouhier de l’Écluse, de l’État des Prêtres en France, Paris, 1842, p. 12.

[1296] Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, p. 3 (Ed. 1609).

[1297] Knox, pp. 15-16.—Calderwood’s Historie of the Kirk of Scotland, I. 83-5 (Wodrow Soc.).

[1298] Knox, pp. 16-17.

[1299] Buchanan. Rer. Scot. Hist. Lib. xv.—Robertson, Hist of Scot. B. II.—Knox, 71-2.—Calderwood I. 222.

[1300] Buchanan. Lib. xv.

[1301] Wilkins IV. 207.

[1302] Concil. Edinburgens. ann. 1549 can. 1, 2 (Wilkins IV. 48).

[1303] Wilkins IV. 207-10.—Knox, p. 129. It should be borne in mind in estimating these penalties that they are expressed in pounds Scots, which were about one-twelfth of the pound sterling. These canons, it appears, were not adopted without opposition. According to Knox, “But herefrom appealed the Bishop of Murray and other prelates, saying That they would abide the canon law. And so they might well enough do, so long as they remained Interpretors, Dispensators, Makers and Disannullers of the law ” (Op. cit. 119). It was doubtless on some such considerations that the Archbishop of St. Andrews relied when he consented to waive his exemption in this matter. His personal reputation may be estimated from the remark of Queen Mary when, in December, 1566, he performed the rite of baptism on James VI. She forbade him to use the popular ceremony of employing his saliva, giving a reason which was in the highest degree derogatory to his moral character (Sir J. Y. Simpson, in Proceedings of Epidemiological Society of London, Nov. 5th, 1860).

[1304] Robertson, Hist. Scot. Bk. II.

[1305] Thus the Parliament of 1560, which effected a settlement of the Reformed Religion, was urged to its duty by a Supplication presented in the name of “The Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, and other true Subjects of this Realm, professing the Lord Jesus within the same,” which, among its arguments against Catholicism, does not hesitate to assert—“Secondarily, seeing that the sacraments of Jesus Christ are most shamefully abused and profaned by that Romane Harlot and her sworne vassals, and also because that the true Discipline of the Ancient Church is utterly now among that Sect extinguished: For who within the Realme are more corrupt in life and manners than are they that are called the Clergie, living in whoredom and adultery, deflouring Virgins, corrupting Matrons, and doing all abomination without fear of punishment. We humbly, therefore, desire your Honors to finde remedy against the one and the other”—Knox, p. 255.

[1306] This doctrine bore its full share in the history of the Scottish reformation. Two years after the execution of the protomartyr, Patrick Hamilton, in 1528, his sister Catharine was arraigned on account of her belief in justification through Christ. Learned divines urged upon her with prolix earnestness of disputation the necessity of works, until her patience gave way, and she rudely exclaimed, “Work here and work there, what kind of working is all this? No work can save me but the work of Christ my Saviour.” By the connivance of the king she was enabled to escape to England.—Calderwood’s Historie, I. 109.

[1307] Knox, p. 283.

[1308] Knox, p. 119.—Calderwood, I. 423.

[1309] Thus the assembly of the church in 1562 drew up a remonstrance to the queen, in which they requested that “in every Parish some of the Tythes may be assigned to the sustentation and maintenance of the poor within the same: And likewise that some publike relief may be provided for the poor within Burroughs”—Knox, p. 339.

[1310] Ibid. p. 278. The Book was signed at Edinburgh, Jan. 27, 1561, but only after the adoption of a proviso—“Provided that the Bishops, Abbots, Priors and other Prelates and Beneficed men, which else have adjoyned themselves to us, brooke the revenues of their Benefices during their lifetimes.”—Worldly wisdom certainly was not lost sight of in the ardor of a new and purer religion.

[1311] Knox, 136.

[1312] Calderwood’s Historie, I. 123-4.

[1313] Knox, p. 65.—Knox’s characteristic comment on this is—“When he had said these words, they were all dumb, thinking it better to have ten concubines than one wife.”

[1314] Calderwood I. 231 sqq.

[1315] Knox, p. 130.—Calderwood I. 337 sqq.—Burnet vol. II. The implacable character of Scottish persecution is aptly illustrated by a proclamation issued by Cardinal Beatoun in 1540 for the purpose of spiting Sir Ralph Sadler, the English envoy at Edinburgh. It was during Lent, and the proclamation declared “that whosoever should buy an egg or eat an egg within those dioceses should forfeit no less than his body to be burnt as a heretic, and all his goods confiscate to the king”—Froude, Hist. Engl. IV. 54.

It was a life and death struggle, in which quarter could neither be asked nor given.

[1316] Knox, p. 263.

[1317] Ibid. p. 304.

[1318] Strype’s Parker, Book II. ch. xviii.

[1319] The orator of the council of Cologne in 1527 sharply reminded the assembled prelates that they must set the example of obeying their own statutes, and that they could not expect the people to reverence the true church so long as it notoriously bade defiance to the laws of God and man. “Quasi præscribatur lex cujus sancitor voluerit esse exlex. Parendum enim est legi quam quisque sancit.... Audis præterea non licere plurimas habere uxores, quæ animum tuum alliciant; non decere domi alere tot scorta tot Veneres, quæ te continue exedunt, tuamque substantiam disperdunt.... His et aliis datur scandalum populo; præbetur offendiculum vulgo, cui hac tempestate vilet et contemptui est ordo quilibet sacer. Vilis plebs te sacerdotem nunc cachinnis atque ludibriis incessit et odit, qui calumniandi ansam ultro præbueris. Dicit namque: tot hic, aut ille, scorta domi suæ ex patrimonio Crucifixi nutrit, quo non sordida scorta, sed pauperes Christi forent sustentandi”—Concil. Colon. ann. 1527 (Hartzheim VI. 210-213).

So at the council of Augsburg, in 1548, the orator dwelt upon the advantage which the heretics derived from the sins of the clergy—“Non estis nescii, quemadmodum nos hæretici apud populum perpetuo traducant: nos scortatores, nos ambitiosos, nos avaros, nos ignavos, et rudes esse, nos otio semper, luxui et ventri servire, identidem vociferantur.... Superbe itaque illi: sed utinam non nimium sæpe vere: nam si vera potius hoc loco, quam plausibilia, dicenda sint; negare certe non possumus, quin maximam ad nos accusandos occasionem sæpe dederimus”—Concil. Augustan. ann. 1548 (Hartzheim VI. 388).

[1320] Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1521 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1018).

[1321] Quisquis igitur contra sacrorum conciliorum et patrum decreta, sacerdotes, diaconos aut subdiaconos lege cœlibatus non teneri docuerit aut liberas illis concesserit nuptias, inter hæreticos, omni tergiversatione rejecta numeretur.—Concil. Paris. ann. 1528, Decret. 8.

This, I think, is the first authoritative promulgation of Damiani’s doctrine, which, as we shall hereafter see, was adopted and extended by the council of Trent.

[1322] Ibid. can. 3, 27.

[1323] Pierre de la Place, Estat de Rel. et Rep. Liv. III.

[1324] Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1551 can. 22 (Harduin. X. 468).

[1325] Consilium de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 598).

[1326] Bull, ad Canonum (Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. 1692, I. 682).

Alexander III., in prohibiting the sons of priests from enjoying their fathers’ benefices, had permitted it if a third party intervened, and a dispensation for the irregularity were obtained. The letter of this law was frequently observed, but its spirit eluded by nominally passing the preferment through the hands of a man of straw, and it was this abuse which Clement desired to eradicate.

[1327] Consilium de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 599).

[1328] Wilkins IV. 209.

[1329] Le Plat, V. 88. The opinion which was held of the venality of the Roman Court in such matters is forcibly expressed in the instructions given to Lanssac, the French ambassador at Trent. He is ordered to press the abolition of the Papal power of dispensation “attendu que nul n’en est refusé s’il a argent.”—Ibid. p. 153.

[1330] Ejus sanctitati lex non sit præscribenda.—Ibid. p. 385.

[1331] Tax. Sac. Pœnitent. Ed. Gibbings, p. 13.—This was only one carlino (the tenth part of a ducat, equal to about fourpence), more than the charge for the bastard of a layman.

[1332] In 1526 or 1527, the authorities of Seville endeavored to regulate this by forbidding certain articles of dress to concubines, whether of ecclesiastics or laymen.—Wahu, Le Pope et la Société Moderne, Paris, 1879 p. 395.

[1333] Ribadeneira Vit. Ignat. Loyol. Lib. II. cap. v.

Ribadeneira was one of Loyola’s early disciples, and is therefore good authority. His description would show that permanent unions were formed, respected by the people but not recognized by the church, in the same manner as those alluded to by Bishop Pelayo, two centuries earlier.

[1334] Diaz de Luco, Practica Criminalis Canonica cap. lxxiii. (Venetiis, 1543).

[1335] Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1536, P. II. c. 28. Six years later, in 1542, Bishop Hermann embraced Lutheranism, married, and in 1546 was driven from his see and retired to his county of Wied, where he died some years afterwards, at the ripe age of 80 years.

[1336] Concil. Salisburg. XLI. (Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. pp. 296-322).

[1337] Acta Concil. Trident. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1063-9).

[1338] Sarpi, Istor. del Concilio Trident. Lib. VI. (Ed. Helmstad. II. 140).—Cf. Le Plat, V. 337-8.

[1339] Le Plat, V. 235.

[1340] Charles was careful to put on record his ceaseless endeavors with Clement and Paul to obtain the convocation of a council and the numberless promises made to him, for the evasion of which reasons were always found.—Commentaires de Charles-Quint, pp. 96-7 (Paris, 1862).

[1341] Select. Harl. Miscell., London, 1793, p. 137.

[1342] The temper with which the Protestants now viewed the council is well expressed in a letter from Aonio Paleario written in 1542 or 1545, from Rome to Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin, urging them by no means to sanction the assembly with their presence—(Published by Illgen, 4to. Leipzig, 1833).

[1343] There is something very amusingly suggestive in the guarded manner in which Charles alludes to the translation of the Council—“O ditto Papa Paulo por respeitos, que o moveram (os quaes Deus permitta que forsem bons) tratton de avocar e transferir a Bolonha”—(Commentaires, p. 98).

[1344] That the complaints of the Protestants were well founded, is evident from the secret instructions given, Feb. 20th, 1552, by Julius III. to the Bishop of Monte Fiascone, when sending him as legate to Charles V. He was to explain to the emperor that the Council would not discuss the propositions of the heretics “nimirum quod judex non respondet parti, ne ex judice se partem constituat;” and he is further to explain that “petentes commune concilium hæretici et schismatici repellendi sunt a onciliis universalibus ... nullo modo commmunicandum esse concilium cum hæreticis et schismaticis, qui sunt extra ecclesiam ... sed bene possunt admitti, ut possint interesse pro convincendis etiam pluries eorum erroribus.”—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. T. IV. p. 534-5.

[1345] The feeling entertained by Pius towards the council is shown by his remark, in Dec. 1561, to M. de Lisle, the French ambassador, that it had been called simply for the benefit of France—“dautant que ledit concile, qui est de peu de besoin pour le reste de la chrestienté, superflu aux Catholiques et non desiré des papes” (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 742).

[1346] The characteristic correspondence is in Le Plat, IV. 678-87.

[1347] Charles declares that at the commencement of his pontificate Paul was earnestly desirous of reforming the abuses of the church, but that his zeal rapidly diminished and he followed the example of Clement in contenting himself with empty promises.—“Com tudo despois com o tempo aquellas mostras e ardor primeiro se foi esfriando, e seguindo os passos e exemplo do Papa Clemente, com boas palavras prolongon e entretene sempre a convoçáō e ajuntamento do concilio” (Commentaires, p. 97).

[1348] Per serrar la bocca agl’ heretici i quali non facevano altro in voce et in scritto che dir male della corte di Roma.—Carraciolo, Vita di Paolo IV. MS. Br. Mus. (Young, Life and Times of Aonio Paleario, I. 261).

[1349] Concilium de Emendanda Ecclesia (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 601, 602).