Chapter XXXIV: Part 34

[1350] It has been customarily stated by Catholic writers that this proceeding of Paul IV. was directed not against his own work, but against the heretically commentated editions, but this, I believe, has been refuted by Schelhorn. See Gibbings’s “Taxes of the Penitentiary,” p. xlix.

[1351] Published by Clausen, Copenhagen, 1829.

[1352] Lib. ad Ration. Concord. ineundam Art. XXII. § 13 (Goldast. II. 199).

[1353] Formul. Reformat, cap. XVII. § 4 (Goldast. II. 335).

[1354] Ibid. cap. III. § 1, cap. V. § § 7, 9.

[1355] Synod. Augustan. ann. 1548 c. 10.

[1356] Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1548.

[1357] Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1548 cap. ii.

[1358] Synod. Trevirens. II. ann. 1549 cap. xi., xix.

[1359] Mandat. de abjic. Concub. (Hartzheim VI. 353).

[1360] Ibid. p. 358. A Diocesan Synod was also held at Liége, Nov. 15, which gave offending clerks fifteen days to part with their concubines (Ibid. VI. 395).

[1361] Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1549 cap. Quibus possint.—Cap. de Monach. conjugat.—Cap. de Concub. Monach.—Cap. Comœdias.

[1362] Hartzheim VI. 767, 781.

[1363] Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. pp. 328, 337 (Concil. Salisburg. XLIV. can. vii.).

[1364] Gropp, Collect. Script. Wirceburg. I. 311.—Hartzheim VI. 359, 417. In the epistle convoking his council, Bishop Melchior of Wurzburg alluded passionately to the evils everywhere existing: “Videtis percussum pastorem; videtis oves dispersas; videtis impudentem peccandi licentiam; videtis adversus pietatem audaciam tum loquendi tum disputandi impiissimam, et indies scelerata gliscere schismata” (Ibid. X. 753).

[1365] Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1549 c. 82, 102.

[1366] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1550 (Hartzheim VI. 654).

[1367] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 611.

[1368] Consult. Imp. Ferdinand. (Le Plat, V. 235). It would be impossible to conceive a darker picture of clerical life than is given in this document. “Ejici autem nunc clerum, conculcari pedibus, pro nihilo haberi et tanquam publicum offendiculum devoveri diris aut paulo plus, tam verum est quam minime falsum, cleri mores insulsos esse, vanos esse, turpes esse, æque ecclesiæ perniciosos ac Deo execrabiles”—Ibid. p. 237.

[1369] Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 190, 285.

[1370] Hosii Dialogus de ea, num Calicem Laicis et Uxores Sacerdotibus permitti etc. Dilingæ, 1558.

[1371] Pallavicini, Storia del Concil. di Trento, Lib. XIV. c. 13.

Twelve years before, his uncle, the Bishop of Liége, in promulgating the Augsburg formula of reformation, had made a similar assertion—“Preterquam quod hoc infœlici sæculo, quo omnis caro corrupit viam suam, præsertimque ordo clericorum et ecclesiasticorum, nimium degenerant, plus quam unquam est necessaria”—Concil. Leodiens. ann. 1548 (Hartzheim VI. 392). The increased emphasis of Ferdinand is a measure of the success which had attended the reformatory movements of Charles V. during the interval.

In such a condition of ecclesiastical morality it is no wonder that even in orthodox Vienna the most popular theme on which preachers could expatiate was the corruption of the church.—See the Emperor Ferdinand’s secret instructions to his envoy in Rome, March 6th, 1560, in Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 622.

[1372] Pallavicini, loc. cit. That the Catholic church of Germany had become widely infected with this Lutheran heresy is also shown by the fact that in 1548 the Archbishop of Cologne had found it necessary to prohibit throughout his province all marriages of priests, monks, and nuns, and had pronounced illegitimate the offspring of such unions.—Hartzheim VI. 357.

[1373] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 644.

[1374] Pallavicini, Lib. XV. c. 5.—The duke, though no bigot, was a good Catholic.

[1375] Pallavicini, Lib. XVII. c. 4. At the request of Duke Albert, the question was also mooted at the provincial synod of Salzburg, held in 1562 for the purpose of sending delegates to Trent.—Hartzheim VII. 230.

[1376] Articuli de Reform. Eccles. No. 14, 15, 18.—Goldast. II. 376.

[1377] Consultat. Imp. Ferdinandi (Le Plat, V. 249, 252).

[1378] Considerat. Cæsar. Majest. sup. Matrim. Sacerd. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 (Goldast. II. 382-3—Le Plat, VI. 315).

[1379] Le Plat, V. 154, 208, 211.

[1380] Le Plat, V. 562-3.

[1381] Capi dati da’ Francesi cap. 1—(Baluz. et Mansi IV. 374) Comp. Zaccaria pp. 133-4.

[1382] Votum castitatis sacris ordinibus conjunctum, atque vota quæ in probatis religionibus emittuntur, et alia quæcunque rite suscepta, fideliter sunt observanda.—Le Plat, IV. 649.

[1383] Ibid. IV. 756, 760, 761, 765.—The 182 articles which, according to Archbishop Bartholomew, required reform in the internal discipline of the church form as damaging a commentary upon its condition as any of the attacks of the Protestants.

[1384] Art. v.—Lettere del Arcivesc. Calini (Baluz. et Mansi IV. 295).—Le Plat, V. 674.

[1385] Lettere di Calini (Ibid. 326).

[1386] See the apologetic letter of the nuncio to the emperor, Jan. 19th, 1562 (Le Plat, op. cit. V. 320). Ferdinand remonstrated earnestly, but did not venture to rebel against their decision (Ibid. 351-60).

[1387] Ibid. p. 388.

[1388] Lettere del Nunzio Visconti (Baluz. et Mansi III. 453).

[1389] Disputat. Joann, de Ludegna (Harduin. X. 359). The learned doctor presents his argument in the form of a colloquy between himself and Calvin, and its spirit may be gathered from the first speech of Calvin, in which he is made to declare that he is endeavoring to find arguments with which to defend himself and his apostate strumpets.

[1390] Sarpi, Lib. VII. (Opere, II. 280, Helmstat, 1761).

[1391] Sarpi (loc. cit.).

[1392] Pallavicini, Lib. XVII. c. 4.

[1393] Sarpi, Lib. VIII. p. 315.

[1394] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Sacrament. Matrimon.

Can. IX. Si quis dixerit clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutos, vel regulares castitatem solemniter professos, posse matrimonium contrahere, contractumque validum esse, non obstante lege ecclesiastica vel voto; et oppositum nihil aliud esse quam damnare matrimonium; posseque omnes contrahere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiamsi eam voverint, habere donum; anathema sit; quum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus tentari.

Can. X. Si quis dixerit statum conjugalem anteponendum esse statui virginitatis vel cœlibatus, et non esse melius ac beatius manere in virginitate aut cœlibatu, quam jungi matrimonio, anathema sit.

[1395] The feelings which the Council excited among the Protestants are expressed with more vigor than elegance by Alexander Nowell, at that time Dean of St. Paul’s—“No Sir, your Prelats sat not there about conning of Articles of Religion, or to Dispute with Hereticks to vanquish them. A few louzy Friars, whom no Man would fear but in his Pottage or Egg-py, did serve that Turn well enough. And your great Prelates devised the while by that long Consultation, how by Sword and Fire they might most cruelly murder all true Christians, whom they call Hereticks; and now do labour to put in Execution such their bloody Devices.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 377.

[1396] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXV. Decret. de Reformat. cap. 14,15.

[1397] Ma noi facciamo quello che ci si permette di fare, non quello che vorremmo.—Examinatore, Firenze, 1868, p. 15.

[1398] Lett. No. LXIX. (Ed. Amsterd. II. 299). This and the concluding letters are not in Mansi’s edition.

[1399] Pallavicini, Lib. XXII. c. 10.

[1400] Goldast. II. 380.—Le Plat, VI. 310, 312.

It is observable from this that many priests left the church and married without formally embracing the Lutheran faith, and a return of these was anticipated from a relaxation of the canons. Others, as may be gathered from various references above, married and still performed their regular duties. Of these, some no doubt acted in virtue of dispensations granted by the nuncios of Paul III., after the promulgation of the Interim, but many did so in utter contempt of discipline. An illustrative example of the latter class may be found in the well-known Stanislas Orzechowski, whose marriage, notwithstanding his prominent position, shows the laxity of opinion which prevailed on the subject. As priest and canon of Przemysl in Poland, his marriage naturally gave great offence to his colleagues, which was not diminished by a dissertation which he wrote in favor of priestly marriage. This, he subsequently claimed, had been prepared for the purpose of laying before the council of Trent, and its publication had arisen from the indiscretion of a friend to whom he had entrusted it. Somewhat contaminated with the new ideas by his education at Wittenberg, he sturdily refused to give up either his wife or his position. His consequent excommunication he disregarded, though according to his own account he gave up on marrying his benefices and the ministry (Lettera a Guilio III. trad. di B. Leoni, Milano, anno. VI.), and notwithstanding this he had a very narrow escape from the death-penalty, and his condemnation excited a commotion throughout Poland that was very favorable to the spread of the reformed opinions (Orichovii Annales, pp. 71-84, 108, Ed. 1854). At length the feeling against the pretensions of the church became so strong that the Diet of 1552 removed all the civil and temporal penalties of excommunication, so that he triumphed for the time. When in 1556, the legate Lippomani held a synod at Lovictz, he called to account those who had connived at so great an irregularity. They denied granting the dispensation, saying that they had only suspended the censures until the pleasure of the pope should be known; but at the same time many prelates used all their influence with Lippomani to obtain one. Lippomani declared that he had no power to grant it, nor would he do so if he could, seeing that Orzechowski defended himself on heretical grounds (Concil. Lovitiens.—Labbei et Coleti Supp. T. V. p. 702). In 1561 Orzechowski, in his address to the synod of Warsaw, admitted that he had sinned, but claimed that he had been punished sufficiently—“Si quis igitur a me quærat; Num uxorem sacerdos duxerim? Duxisse me fatebor. Peccasti igitur? Peccavi. Pœnas ergo peccati debes? Debui et persolvi” (Doctrina de Sacerd. Cœlibatu, Varsaviæ, 1801). He therefore complained of the persecutions to which he was exposed on account of his wife, and he petitioned both the pope and the council of Trent for a dispensation. While the Tridentine fathers refused it, some authors assert that it was granted by Pius IV. to him as an exceptional case “tibi soli Orichovio,” but careful investigation has failed to discover the Bull, and, according to Zaccaria the pope merely sent secret orders to his legate Commendone not to allow Orzechowski to be molested, but at the same time to give no publicity to an act of tolerance in contravention of the canons of the council of Trent (Grégoire, Hist du Mariage des Prêtres en France, pp. 51-55).

In his answer to Fricius, Orzechowski assumes that he was absolved from his excommunication by the Legate—“Præterea a sententia excommunicationis, qua eram a Joanne Episcopo Premisliensi, ob hanc eandem uxorem, ex ecclesia pulsus, a Legato Romani Petri absolutus cum sim, nihil feci contra ilium” (_ap._ Doctrin. de Sacerd. Cœlibat. p. 24). He also alleges the extraordinary excuse that he abandoned the priesthood before his marriage.

The history of Orzechowski, with probably a less fortunate result, is no doubt that of innumerable others, whose obscurity has prevented their sufferings from being known beyond their own narrow circle.

Strype (Annals, I. 485-6) asserts that after the accession of Queen Elizabeth the Catholic emissaries in England had a general dispensation to marry, in order to assist their concealment and to further the design of creating schism in the Anglican church. He gives as his authority one Malachi Malone, a converted Irish friar.

[1401] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VI. 331.

[1402] This was not his first attempt of this kind. In 1540 he had called upon John Cochlæus to examine the Confession of Augsburg and report as to what points were reconcilable with Catholicism and what were not. Cochlæus responded in an elaborate dissertation, wherein he took strong ground against abandoning celibacy, but admitted that he was utterly unable to suggest any remedy for the evils resulting from it,—especially the “scandalosus presbyterorum in seculo concubinatus, præsertim apud plebanos in pagis, qui communiter cum ancillis rem domesticam gubernare necessitate quadam coguntur.”—Le Plat, II. 667.

[1403] G. Cassandri Consult, XXIII., XXV. (Le Plat, VI. 761-2, 783-4).

[1404] Wicelii Via Regia, De Conjug. Sacerd.

Both these tracts were printed with other controversial matter, by Hermann Conring, 4to. Helmstadt, 1569.

[1405] Goldast. II. 381.

[1406] Le Plat, VI. 335.

[1407] De Thou, Lib. xxxvii.

[1408] In 1560 Ferdinand addressed to Pius IV. an earnest request that a special dispensation might be granted to Maximilian, then king of Bohemia, authorizing him to receive the communion in both elements. In this he stated that his son’s scruples of conscience on the subject were so strong that he had abstained for three years from taking the sacrament. In the secret instructions to the Imperial ambassador accompanying this request, the latter is furnished with elaborate reasons to prove that the suspicions entertained at Rome of Maximilian’s orthodoxy were unfounded.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 619-23.

[1409] Le Plat, VI. 336.

[1410] Struvii Corp. Hist. German. II. 1097.

[1411] Bernardi Sermo. 66, in Cantica, cap. i.

[1412] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. V. 340.

[1413] The council of Trent has never been received in France. For a résumé of the efforts made to obtain its adoption and their uniform lack of success, see Chavart, Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 507-12.

[1414] In August, 1564, Philip II. had ordered its publication in the Low Countries, but Margaret of Parma had hesitated to obey in consequence of the intense opposition excited by its interference with local liberties and franchises, as it completed and crowned the centralizing policy which rendered the papacy supreme over all local churches. It was not until Dec. 18, 1565, that it was finally promulgated, under imperative commands from Philip. It is characteristic of Philip’s habitual double-dealing, however, that while his public orders commanded the reception of the Council without exception, he secretly reserved the rights of himself and his subjects (Le Plat, Concil. Trident. VII. Præf. p. vi.).

[1415] By a Bull dated July 18, 1564, Pius IV. fixed May 1, 1564, as the time when the Tridentine canons became the law of the church. His letter to the Archbishop of Bremen with an official copy and directions as to its promulgation, is dated Oct. 3d of the same year (Hartzheim VII. 25).

It would seem to be a work of supererogation for a learned Italian lawyer to write an elaborate treatise, dedicated to Pius IV., against the abolition of celibacy, yet Marquardo dei Susani thought it worth while to do this in his “Tractatus de Cœlibatu Sacerdotum non abrogando,” 4to. Venice, 1565.

[1416] Bull. Cum primum § 12 (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 180).

[1417] “Plerosque ... abjecto Dei timore et sine ulla hominum verecundia, concubinas palam habere, easque perinde, ac si legitimæ eorum uxores essent, in ecclesiis et aliis locis publicis conspici, vulgo iisdem, quibus illi vocantur, officiorum et dignitatum nominibus appellatas; eoque hæreses tantopere crevisse, ac multiplicatas fuisse; quod ecclesiastici tam turpiter et nequiter vivendo, omnem plane existimationem amiserint, et in summam non apud hæreticos modo, sed etiam Catholicos contemptionem venerint.... Nisi enim tam nefandum concubinatus vitium extirpetur, nullam spem reliquam esse videmus reprimi posse hæreses. Sed timemus (quod Deus avertat) ne brevi tempore istæ, quæ supersunt, Catholicorum reliquias amittantur, et omnis prorsus Catholicæ religionis cultus apud vos extinguatur.”—Breve Pii V. ad Archiep. Salzburg. (Hartzheim VII. 231).

[1418] Bull. Horrendum (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 267).

[1419] Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. p. 556.

[1420] De Thou, Hist. Univers. Lib. XXXVIII. ann. 1566.

[1421] Bull. Quæ ordini.—How difficult was the task thus undertaken is admitted in the Bull itself—“Quia vero difficile nimis esset, præsentes quocumque illis opus erit proferre” (Ibid. II. 323-4).

[1422] Bull. Ad Romanum. (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 325).

[1423] Synod. August. ann. 1610 P. III. c. iii. § 1 (Hartzheim IX. 59).

[1424] In hac etiam urbe meretrices ut matronæ incedunt per urbem, seu mula vehuntur, quas affectantur de media die nobiles familiares cardinalium clericique. Nulla in urbe vidimus hanc corruptionem, præterquam in hac omnium exemplari, habitant etiam insignes ædes: corrigendus etiam hic turpis abusus.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 604.

[1425] De Thou, Lib. XXXIX.

[1426] Bull. Postquam verus (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 567)—“Certum nequeat suæ testimonium continentiæ exhibere.”

[1427] Fleury, Liv. CLXXI. chap. 104 et seq.

[1428] Muratori, Annal. ann. 1569.—Henrion, Hist. des Ordres Religieux I. 196.—Fleury, Liv. CLXXI. chap. 26.—De Thou, Lib. L.—The calm Muratori stigmatizes the Umiliati as “troppo scorretto e corrotto ordine,” and Henrion, who cannot certainly be regarded as a prejudiced authority, declares that “les excès des Humiliés surpassoient ceux des laïques les plus débauchés.” Pius V., in his Bull suppressing the order, is equally emphatic, and vouches for the truth of the miracle by which the life of St. Charles was preserved.—Bull. Quemadmodum sollicitus (Mag. Bull. Rom. II. 326).

[1429] Vû que par toute l’Italie on le vit reconnoitre pour l’usage et observations de toutes les ordonnances, on n’en voit une seule entretenue de celles qui concerne la reformation de la vie et mœurs des ecclésiastiques.... Et ce peut dire pour ce regard que l’église n’est en autre lieu de la Chrétienté si déréglée et difforme qu’ès pays où le pape a commandement et puissance absolu.—Le Plat, VII. 259.

[1430] Concil. Mediolanens. ann. 1565 P. II. Const. xiv. (Harduin. X. 661)—Concil. Mediolanens. ann. 1582 Const. xiv. (Ibid. p. 1117).

[1431] Concil. Sipontin. ann. 1567 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric.—Concil. Ravennat. ann. 1568 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. v.—Concil. Urbinat. ann. 1569 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. vi.—Concil. Florent. ann. 1573 Rubr. XXXVII. c. 3, 4.—Concil. Neapol. ann. 1576 cap. XXII.—Concil. Consentin. ann. 1579 Sess. IV.—Concil. Salernit. ann. 1596 cap. XVIII.—Concil. S. Severin. ann. 1597 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric.—Concil. Amalfitan. ann. 1597 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. v.—(Labbei et Coleti Supplement. T. V. pp. 827-1331).

[1432] The documents are in Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VII. 199-201. For the condition of morals in the church of Holland, see Synod. Harlem. ann. 1564; Synod. Ultraject. ann. 1564; Concil. Ultraject. ann. 1565 (Hartzheim VII. 5, 22, 137). It was to the publication of the council of Trent that William of Orange attributed the inevitable revolution which followed (Stradæ de Bell. Belgic. Lib. iv.).

[1433] Synod. Salisburg. ann. 1569 Const. XXVII. cap. xviii., xix., xx., xxi., xxii. (Hartzheim VII. 306-8).

[1434] Concil. Salisburg. XLVII. (Dalham, Conc. Salisb. p. 583).

[1435] Visitat. Salisburg. ann. 1616 Tit. I. cap. vi. (Hartzheim IX. 266).

[1436] Decret. Reformat. Pragens. (Hartzheim VII. 53).

[1437] Statut. Rural. Julii Wirceburg. P. III. c. iv. (Gropp Script. Rer. Wirceburg. I. 471-4). It is somewhat remarkable that Bishop Julius attributes the prohibition of marriage to the Council of Nicæa. After describing the custom of the Greek church, he proceeds, “Permissio vero et consuetudo illa duravit usque ad Nicænum concilium, in quo generali decreto abrogata est, statutumque ne aliquis habens uxorem consecretur sacerdos”—a falsification which is equally singular, whether it proceeded from ignorance or fraud, and an admission that celibacy was not of apostolic origin which was rare in a Catholic prelate of that period.

[1438] Synod. Gnesnens. c. xxxiii. (Hartzheim VII. 891).

[1439] Synod. Wratislav. ann. 1580 (Hartzheim VII. 890).

[1440] Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1591 c. xiii. (Hartzheim VIII. 352).

[1441] Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1628 (Hartzheim IX. 431).—As usual, a distinction is drawn between those who thus formed permanent, though illicit connections, and others who indulged in promiscuous license—“alii vaga dissoluti lascivia, tanquam equi emissarii, ad incontinentissimum quodque scortum aut adulteram adhinniunt trahuntque ingentes liberorum spuriorum greges. Hæc in propatulo sunt; quæ vero in occulto fiunt ab ipsis, turpe est et dicere.”

[1442] Llorente, Histoire Critique de l’Inquisition d’Espagne, Chap. XXVIII. Art. iii. No. 7.

[1443] Statut. Diœces. Pragens. ann. 1565 (Hartzheim VII. 26).

[1444] Synod. Salisburg. ann. 1569 (Hartzheim VII. 407).

[1445] Le Plat, VII. 238.

[1446] Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap. xxxviii. (Aguirre, VI. 457).

[1447] Henr. Cuyckii Speculum Concubinariorum Sacerdotum, Monachorum ac Clericorum; Coloniæ, 1599.

[1448] Synod. Constant. ann. 1609 (Hartzheim VIII. 838). Another orator, Dr. Mayer, S. J., though more cautious in his deductions, was equally outspoken in his denunciations of the wickedness of the clergy (Ibid. p. 831).

[1449] Synod. Antverp. ann. 1610 (Hartzheim VIII. 979).

[1450] Damhouder. Rerum Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. No. 25 (Antverp. 1601).

[1451] Synod. Boscodunens. II. ann. 1612 (Hartzheim IX. 200).

[1452] Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1625 cap. v., x. Hartzheim IX. 350.—Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1628 (Ibid. p. 428).

[1453] Synod. Monasteriens. ann. 1652 (Hartzheim IX. 786-7).

[1454] Synod. Colon. ann. 1662 P. III. Tit. I. cap. 1 § iii. (Hartzheim IX. 1006).

[1455] Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. Luxemb. 1742, T. VI. App. p. 2.

[1456] Pierre de la Place, Estat. de Relig. etc. Liv. III.

[1457] Quick, Synod. Gall. Reform. I. 18.

[1458] Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CLVII. Nos. 37-42.

[1459] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 401.

[1460] Concil. Remens. ann. 1564, Stat. XVII. (Harduin. X. 477).

[1461] Concil. Camerac. ann. 1565, Rubr. VIII. c. 3.—At this council, which was held in June, 1565, the council of Trent was formally adopted. As forming part of _Flandre Française_, Cambray may properly be considered as French, though Francis I., by the treaty of Madrid in 1526, had been compelled to surrender his sovereignty, and till a hundred years later it continued under Spanish dominion.

[1462] Concil. Camerac. ann. 1567 c. iii. (Hartzheim VII. 216).

[1463] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1631 Tit. XVIII. c. xiv. (Ibid. IX. 562).

[1464] Claudii Episc. Ebroicens. Statut. cap. III. § 1 (Migne’s Patrol. Tom. 147 pp. 244-5.)

[1465] Concil. Remens. ann. 1583 cap. xviii. § 5 (Harduin. X. 1293).

[1466] Concil. Turon. ann. 1583 cap. xv. (Ibid. p. 1481).

[1467] Concil. Avenionens. ann. 1594 can. xxxii. (Ibid. p. 1854).

[1468] Concil. Burdigalens. ann. 1624 cap. xiii. § 2. (Harduin. XI. 96).

[1469] Synod. Tornacens. ann. 1574 Tit. xii. c. 5, 6, 7 (Hartzheim VII. 780).—Synod. Audomarens. ann. 1583 Tit. xvi. c. 2 (Ibid. VII. 947). Concil. Burdigalens. ann. 1583 can. xxi. (Harduin. X. 1360).—Concil. Bituricens. ann. 1584 Tit. xlii. can. 1-4 (Ibid. X. 1503-4).—Concil. Aquens. ann. 1585 cap. de Vit. et Honestate Cleric. (Ibid. X. 1547).—Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1609 cap. xli. (Ibid. XI. 96).

[1470] Du Fail, whose high official position in the Parlement of Rennes precludes the supposition of any tendency to Calvinism, devotes one of his discourses (Contes et Discours d’Eutrapel No. xx.) to the evils entailed by celibacy on the church and on society, quoting the exclamation of Cardinal Contarini to Velly the French ambassador, “O quæ mala attulit in ecclesia cœlibatus ille!” It is true that such stories as “Frater Fecisti” are not historical documents, yet they have their value as indicating the drift of public feeling and the convictions forced upon the minds of the people by the irregularities of the clerical profession. The same lesson is taught by Boccaccio, Piers Ploughman, Chaucer, Poggio, the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles, and all the other records of the interior life of the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries.

[1471] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VII. 136.—Collect. Synod. Mechlin. Tom. I. pp. 39, 57.—Synod. Mechlin. ann. 1570 Tit. xiv. (Ibid. I. 118).—Synod. Lovaniens. ann. 1574 (Ibid. I. 191).—Synod. Provin. Mechlin. ann. 1607 Tit. XVIII. c. viii. (Ibid. I. 395).—Synod. Diœces. Mechlin. ann. 1607 Tit. XVII. c. vi. (Ibid. II. 237).—Congregat. Archipresbyt. ann. 1613 (Ibid. II. 271).—Tertia Congregat. Episc. ann. 1624 (Ibid. I. 466).—Ibid. I. 514.

Synod. Augustan. ann. 1567 P. III. c. ii. (Hartzheim VII. 182).—Synod. Constant. ann. 1567 P. II. Tit. i. c. 9 (Ibid. VII. 541).—Synod. Ruremond. ann. 1570 (Ibid. VII. 653).—Synod. Boscodunens. ann. 1571 Tit. xiv. c. ii. (Ibid. VII. 723).—Synod. Warmiens. ann. 1577 c. i. (Ibid. VII. 871).—Synod. Mettens. ann. 1604 c. xlviii., liii., lxii. (Ibid. X. 768-70).—Synod. Brixiens. ann. 1603 De discip. cler. c. xviii. (Ibid. VIII. 576).—Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1604 Tit. VIII. c. vi. (Ibid. VIII. 623).—Synod. Constant. ann. 1609 P. II. Tit. xvii. c. 7 (Ibid. VIII. 906).—Synod. Mettens. ann. 1610 Tit. XI. c. xi. (Ibid. VIII. 962).—Synod. Antverp. ann. 1610 Tit. XVII. c. vi. (Ibid. VIII. 1003).—Statut. Visitat. Salisburgens. ann. 1616 Tit. I. c. vi. (Ibid. IX. 266).—Synod. Iprens. ann. 1629 c. xx. (Ibid. IX. 496).—Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1639 Tit. XIX. c. ix., x. (Ibid. IX. 592-3).—Synod. Audomar. ann. 1640 Tit. XIV. c. vii. (Ibid. X. 802).—Synod. Colon. ann. 1651 P. II. c. ii. § 1 (Ibid. IX. 742).—Synod. Hildesheim. ann. 1652 (Ibid. IX. 805-6).—Synod. Colon. ann. 1662 P. III. Tit. ii. c. 1, 2, 3 (Ibid. IX. 1008-11).—Statut. Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1678 c. xi., xii., xiii., xiv. (Ibid. X. 60).—Statut. Synod. Argentinens. ann. 1687 De clericis addit. I. (Ibid. X. 180).—Synod. Brugens. ann. 1693 Tit. v. § 2 (Ibid. X. 202).—Cod. Canon. Mettens. ann. 1699 Tit. x. c. xviii. (Ibid. X. 245).—Synod. Bisuntin. ann. 1707 Tit. II. c. xxv. (Ibid. X. 291).—Synod. Culmens. et Pomesan. ann. 1745 c. ix. (Ibid. X. 517).

Concil. Toletan. ann. 1565 Act. II. cap. xxii.; Act. III. cap. xix., xxv. (Aguirre V. 396, 405-6).—Concil. Valentin. ann. 1565 Tit. II. cap. xviii., xix. (Ib. 425).—Concil. Toletan. ann. 1582 Act. III. Decret. xxxv. (Ib. VI. 12).—Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 1591 Lib. I. Tit. viii.; Lib. III. Tit. ii. (Ib. 256, 271-3).—Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap xxxiii. (Ib. 456).

[1472] Ratio est quia tunc non dimittit habitum ut periculose vagetur, sed ut commodius fornicetur, vel liberius furetur.—Apud C. Chabot, Encyclopédie Monastique p. 24 (Paris, 1827).

[1473] Spatharius, Aurea Methodus corrigendi regulares, 1625, p. 57—“atque mea sententia, in totalem ordinis ruinam et destructionem singularum religionum” (Apud Chabot, op. cit. p. 95).

[1474] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. lvii.—The first and second Mexican Councils are not contained in Aguirre’s collection, but were printed, together with the third, by Archbishop Lorenzana, in two folio volumes, Mexico, 1769. The Third Council has also been reprinted in Mexico, in 1858, as a manual of existing local ecclesiastical law.

[1475] Constituciones Sinodales de Santafé, 1556 cap. IV. (Groot, Hist. Eccles. y Civil del Nuevo Reino de Granada, T. I. Append, ii. p. 497).

[1476] Synod Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xi., lxvii. (Aguirre, VI. 193, 198).

[1477] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. li.—Concil. Mexican. III. ann. 1585 Lib. V. Tit. x. § 8.

[1478] Aguirre, VI. 51, 55.—The canons of the council directed against concubinage &c. are Act. III. c. 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 (Ibid. pp. 40-41).

[1479] Synod. Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xxxvi.—Synod. VIII. ann. 1594 cap. xxxvi.—Concil. Provin. Limens. III. ann. 1601 Act. II. Decret. iv. (Aguirre, VI. 197-8, 436, 479).

[1480] Mendieta, Historia Eccles. Indiana, Lib. IV. cap. xlvi. (Mexico, 1870).

[1481] Memorias de los Vireyes del Perú, Lima, 1859, T. III. pp. 63-70.

[1482] Synod. Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xli.—V. ann. 1588 cap. ix. (Aguirre VI. 198, 216).

[1483] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. lxxxi.

[1484] Concil. Mexican. III. ann. 1585 Lib. V. Tit. x. § 7.

[1485] Notes 57 and 229, pp. 452, 549.

[1486] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Reform. Matrim. c. viii.—It requires some artful special pleading on the part of Rivera and of the authorities on whom he relies to reconcile this Mexican laxity with the instructions of the council of Trent.

[1487] For the brutal details of the questions which the confessor was required to ask of his penitents, female as well as male, see Burchardi Decretorum Lib. XIX. c. v. I dare not give even a specimen.

[1488] Concil. I. Toletan. ann. 398 can. vi. For the custom of the early church in the matter of the confession of sins, see Socrates, H. E. V. xix., and Sozomen, H. E. VII. xvi.—In the ninth century it was still an open question whether sacerdotal confession was necessary, v. Concil. Cabillon. II. ann. 813 c. xxxiii. (Cf. c. xxv. xxxii.). It was finally settled and auricular confession made obligatory by the Council of Lateran in 1215 (Concil. Lateranens. IV. ann. 1215 c. xxi.).

[1489] Gratian. Caus. xxx. q. i. can. 8—I accept this decretal as genuine on Jaffé’s authority, though its authenticity seems to me more than doubtful.

[1490] Gratian. Caus. xxx. q. i. can. 9, 10.

[1491] See ante, passim, especially p. 350.

[1492] Calixti II. Serm. I. de S. Jacob. (Migne’s Patrolog. T. 163 p. 1390).—The genuineness of these sermons has been doubted, but they are unquestionably, if not by Calixtus, by a writer nearly contemporary.

[1493] Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, p. 71. See also Cornelius Agrippa, De Vanitate Scientiar. c. lxiv.

[1494] Limborch Hist. Inquisitionis p. 34.

[1495] Bernard. Diaz de Luco Pract. Crimin. Canon. cap. LXXV., LXXVI. (Ed. 1543, pp. 72-3).

[1496] Llorente, Hist. de l’Inquisition d’Espagne, Ch. XXVIII. Art. i. No. 4.

[1497] Bull. Cum sicut nuper (Mag. Bull. Rom. II. 4. Ed. 1742).

[1498] Reg. Gonsalvii Montan. Inquisit. Hispan. Exemplis Illustrata, pp. 184 sqq. (Ed. Heidelbergæ, 1567).

[1499] Llorente, loc. cit. Nos. 6-8.

[1500] Bull. Universi Dominici Gregis. (Mag. Bull. Rom. III. 484).

In Spain, by the Carta Acordada of Aug. 3d, 1629, the Bull of Gregory XV. was to be referred to in the Edict of Denunciation; and by the Carta of Sept. 12th, 1634, a clause was to be added to the Edict to the effect that notwithstanding the Bull, the offence was reserved exclusively to the Inquisition.—Breve Resumen de las Cartas Acordadas antiquas y modernas, dispuesto por Abecedario, s. v. Solicitante (MS. Bib. Reg. Hafniens. No. 218_b_, p. 264). That the Court of Rome kept faith in the matter of solicitation would seem to be proved by a case occurring in 1695 when Dr. Augustin Velda, rector of La Sallana in Valencia was accused before the Inquisition, and fled to Rome, where he presented himself to the Sacred Congregation and was ordered to return. This he did, but with what result is not noted (Ibid. p. 339). [This exceedingly interesting MS. is a manual for use in one of the tribunals of the Spanish Inquisition, compiled about the year 1670, with notes bringing it down to the middle of the 18th century. I take this occasion of expressing my obligations to the gentlemen in charge of the Royal Library of Copenhagen, of the Bodleian Library of Oxford, and of the Royal Library of Munich, for their courtesy in communicating to me a number of MSS.]

[1501] Referred to in a Decree of 1745 (Bullar. Benedicti XIV. T. I. p. 291).

[1502] Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience, Paris, 1741, T. I. p. 862.—Amort, Diet. Selectt. Casuum Conscientiæ, Aug. Vind. 1733, T. I. pp. 704-5. From the latter we learn that a few years previously the Franciscans of Bavaria had agreed to receive the Bull in so far as to prohibit any of their confessors from absolving a penitent who had been solicited by those of their own order, unless she would permit him to denounce the culprit to the Superior—an example which the writer wishes were followed elsewhere, as it would be very useful in repressing many scandals which afflicted the German church.

[1503] Rodriguez, Nueva Somma de ’Casi de Coscienza, P. I. cap. LIII. No. 10.

[1504] Rod. à Cunha pro SS. D. N. PP. Pauli V. Statuto nuper emisso in Confessarios Feminas solicitantes Quæst. XXII. No. 3; XXIII. No. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14 (4to. Benavente 1611).

[1505] Ant. de Sousa Opusc. circa Constit. Pauli PP. V. in Confessarios allicientes etc. 4to. Ulyssip. 1623, Tract. I. cap. xviii.

[1506] Ibid. Tract. II. cap. xviii. No. 9-12.

[1507] MS. Bib. Reg. Hafniens. No. 218_b_, p. 264.

[1508] Ibid. pp. 264-5.

[1509] Llorente, Chap. XXVIII. Art. i. Nos. 20, 23.

[1510] Ibid. Art. ii.

[1511] Ibid. Ch. XL. Art. ii. Nos. 2-14.

[1512] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 602.—Caraffa and his coadjutors, indeed, went so far as to suggest the entire suppression of the conventual orders (Ibid. 601).

[1513] A printed copy of this Bull occurs in some voluminous pleadings between the church of Cordova and the Inquisition, in 1643.—MS. Bibl. Bodl. Arch. S. 130.

[1514] De Potter, Vie de Scipion de’Ricci, T. I. pp. 87 sqq. 258 sqq.

[1515] Michelet, La Sorcière, Ch. IX.

[1516] Llorente, Chap. XXVIII. Art. i. No. 14.

[1517] The dangerous suggestiveness of the questions asked in the confessional was recognized, and confessors were sometimes warned to be careful.—Synod. Diœces. Mechlin. II. ann. 1609 Tit. v. cap. i.

[1518] See, for instance, Concil. Toletan. ann. 1582, Decret. XXVIII., XXIX. (Aguirre, VI. 11).—Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap. xix. (Ib. p. 450).—Synod. Beneventan. ann. 1693 Tit. LIV. c. iii. (Collect. Lacens. I. 94).—Synod. Neapol. ann. 1699 Tit. XI. c. i. No. 11 (Ib. p. 232). Also a curious list of twenty abuses of the confessional in a letter from the Bishop of Antwerp to the Archbishop of Mechlin in 1624 (Synodicon Mechliniense, T. I. p. 474).

[1519] Instructions for a Parish Priest, p. 27 (Early Eng. Text Soc. 1868).

[1520] As specimens of this, I may refer to Cardinal Cozza’s “Dubia Selecta emergentia circa Sollicitationem in Confessione Sacramentali juxta Apostolicas Constitutiones” Lovanii, 1750—and the similar works by à Cunha and de Sousa, quoted above.

[1521] Cozza, op. cit. Dub. XVII. No. 112.

[1522] Mag. Bull. Roman. Tom. VI. App. p. 1.

[1523] Occasional references to this practice may be found in earlier times. See, for instance, Concil. Monasteriens. ann. 1279 c. xv. (Hartzheim III. 649)—Suppression of Monasteries, No. XVII. (Camden Soc.).—Synod. Tornacens. ann. 1520 c. vii. (Hartzheim VI. 156).

[1524] V. Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience, I. 836.

[1525] Conc. Trident. Sess. XIV. De Pœnitent. c. vi.

[1526] Del Bene de Offic. S. Inquisit. P. II. Dub. CCXXXVII. § ix. No. 6.

[1527] Cozza, op. cit. Dub. XXXIII.

[1528] Mag. Bull. Roman. Tom. VI. App. p. 1.

[1529] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1661 c. xi. (Hartzheim IX. 888).—Synodicon Mechliniense II. 319.

[1530] Ibid. I. 559.

[1531] Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1698 c. xxviii. (Hartzheim X. 219).

[1532] Synod. Bisuntin. ann. 1707 Tit. XIV. c. xiv. (Ibid. 323).

[1533] Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience Paris, 1741, T. I. p. 837.—From the German edition of Amort (Dict. selectt. Casuum Conscientiæ, Aug. Vind. 1733) we learn that the state of the canon law on this subject was the same in Germany as in France.

[1534] Bull. Sacrament. Pœnitent. § 4 (Bullar. Benedicti XIV. T. I. p. 23).—In 1742 he extended the provisions of this constitution over the Greek churches subject to Rome.—Bull. Etsi pastoralis § IX. No. v. (Concil. Collect. Lacens. II. 518).

[1535] Benedict. XIV. Const. CXX. § 3 (Bullar. I. 219).

[1536] Ibid. p. 291.

[1537] Llorente, Chap. XVIII. Art. i. No. 13.

[1538] Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1742 c. iv. (Hartzheim X. 487).

[1539] Instruct. Pastoral. ann. 1768 c. xcvii. (Ibid. 638).

[1540] Instruct. S. Inquisit. Roman. ann. 1867 (Collect. Lacens. III. 554).—Litt. Past. Episc. Caradrens. XXVII. 2, 3 (Ibid. VI. 646-7).

[1541] Ap. Helsen, Abus du Célibat des Prêtres, p. 87.

[1542] See, for instance, the manner in which Escobar (Theolog. Moralis Tract. I. Ex. viii. cap. 3 No. 80) and Avila (De Censuris Eccles. P. VII. Disp. IV. Dub. vii. in fin.) explain away the Bull of Pius V. contra clericos sodomitas.

[1543] Factum pour Marie Catherine Cadière, La Haye, 1731, pp. 142-44.

[1544] Michelet, La Sorcière, Chap. X., XI., XII.—After reading the pleadings on both sides (published at the Hague in 1731), I can entertain no doubt as to the guilt of Girard. The case at the time attracted general attention throughout Europe.

[1545] When Grandier was arrested and tried for sorcery, his papers were seized, and among them was found an essay against sacerdotal celibacy. Under torture, he confessed that he had written it for the purpose of satisfying the conscience of a woman with whom he had maintained marital relations for seven years (Hist. des Diables de Loudun, pp. 85, 191). The manuscript was burnt, with its unlucky author, but a copy was preserved, which has recently been printed (Petite Bibliothèque des Curieux, Paris, 1866). In it, Grandier shows himself singularly bold for a man of his time and station. The law of nature, or moral law, he holds to be the direct exposition of the Divine will. By it revealed law must necessarily be interpreted, and to its standard ecclesiastical law must be made to conform. He evidently was made to be burned as a heretic, if he had escaped as a sorcerer. The promise of chastity exacted at ordination he regards as extorted, and therefore as not binding on those unable to keep it; while he does not hesitate to assume that the rule itself was adopted and enforced on purely temporal grounds—“de crainte qu’en remuant une pierre on n’esbranlat la puissance papale; car hors cette considération d’Estat, l’Eglise romaine pense assez que le célibat n’est pas d’institution divine ni nécessaire au salut, puisqu’elle en dispense les particuliers, ce qu’elle ne pourrait faire si le célibat avoit esté ordonné d’en haut” (pp. 34-5).

[1546] Notwithstanding his Sorbonic degree, Du Pin is said to have been secretly married, and to have left a widow, who even ventured to claim the inheritance of his estate. He was engaged in a correspondence with William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, with a view to arrange a basis of reconciliation of the Anglican Church with Rome, and, according to Lafitau, Bishop of Sisteron, in that correspondence he assented to the propriety of sacerdotal marriage.

[1547] I cannot pretend to decide the controversy as to the alleged marriage between Bossuet and Mdlle. Desvieux de Mauléon, nor to determine whether it is true that she and her daughters claimed his fortune after his death. Much has been written on both sides, and I have not the materials at hand to justify a positive opinion, though the extracts from La Baumelle’s “Mémoires de Madame de Maintenon” given by the Abbé Chavard (Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 474 sqq.) would seem to show that there were good grounds for asserting the marriage. I believe, however, that there is no doubt of Bossuet engaging with Leibnitz and Molanus in a negotiation as to the terms on which the Lutherans could reënter the Roman communion, and that he promised, in the name of the pope, that Lutheran ministers admitted to the priesthood or episcopate should retain their wives. It is asserted that the proposed arrangement was nearly agreed to on both sides, when the pretensions of the House of Hanover to the English crown caused Leibnitz to withdraw from the undertaking.

[1548] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 314-5.—Davanzati, Bishop of Canosa, was also in favor of abrogating the rule of celibacy.

[1549] This view of the competence of the temporal power to regulate the question seems to have been widely received at this period. An anonymous work published in 1769 under the title of “Recherches sur l’État Monastique et Ecclésiastique,” written by a good Catholic, asserts (p. 204), “Si le cas de donner des citoyens à la pàtrie devenoit urgent, le législateur, en autorisant le mariage des prêtres, n’entreprendroit rien sur le sacrement de l’Ordre.”

[1550] Zaccaria, in the introduction to his “Nuova Giustificazione” (p. ix.), denies that the papal court entertained any idea of making the concession; but, in considering the question as to the power or duty of the pope to alter the law of celibacy (Diss. IV. cap. 6), his remarks show clearly that the subject was discussed in a tone to afford the partisans of marriage reasonable grounds for hope. Among the threatening proceedings of the emperor was the suppression of no less than 184 monasteries (Lecky, Hist. of Rationalism, chap. vi.).

[1551] Vetus et Constans in Ecclesia Catholica de Sacerdotum Cœlibatu Doctrina. Varsaviæ, 1801.

[1552] “A Modest Apology for the Catholics of Great Britain,” published anonymously in 1800—a work singularly moderate and candid in its tone. Dr. Geddes had been suspended from his functions in consequence of a translation of the Bible which he had published. See Allibone’s Dictionary, I. 657.

[1553] Dupin, Manuel du Droit Pub. Ecclés. Français. 4_e_ Ed. Paris, 1845, p. 274.—Édit de Mars 1768, concernant les Ordres Religieux (Isambert, XXIII. 476).

[1554] See Lasteyrie’s Hist. of Auricular Confession, translated by Cocks, London, 1848, Book II. chap. iv., vi.

[1555] Bouvet, De la Confession et du Célibat des Prêtres, Paris, 1845, p. 504.

[1556] Archives of Florence—Segreterio di Stato nella Reggenza, Filza 194 No. 6.

[1557] De Potter, Mémoires de Scipion de’ Ricci, I. 284 sqq.

[1558] Atti e Decreti del Concilio di Pistoja dell’ anno 1786, Pistoja, 4to. pp. 237, 239.

[1559] Acta Congr. Archiep. et Episc. Hetruriæ Sess. XVIII. (Bambergæ 1790, T. I. p. 453).—Bull. Auctorem fidei ann. 1794 § § 80-84.

[1560] Chiesi (Rivista Cristiana, Dic. 1876 p. 470).—Concil. Trident. Sess. XXV. De Reg. et Mon. cap. xv.

[1561] Panzini, Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 333.

[1562] Vie de Scipion de’ Ricci I. 289: II. 373 sqq.

[1563] Prattica del Modo da procedersi nelle cause del S. Offitio cap. xxv. (MS. Bibl. Reg. Monacens. Cod. Ital. 598).

[1564] Esaminatore, Firenze, Ap. 15th, 1867, p. 100. In Spain, an official return made in 1764 estimated the number of ecclesiastics, regular and secular, at 281,160 souls (Castillo y Mayone, Historia de los Frailes, III. 144).

[1565] “D’être fidèle à la nation, à la loi, au roi, et del veiler exactement sur le troupeau confié à leurs soins.” It was not only the objections of the king and of the pope that rendered this oath unpalatable, but also the fact that it gave adhesion to the law for the secularization of ecclesiastical property and of the monastic orders. It was ordered in the _Constitution civile du Clergé_, Tit. II. Art. 21, 38, adopted July 12 and promulgated Aug. 24, 1790.

[1566] I have before me one of the pamphlets issued about this time (Le Mariage des Prêtres, Paris, Laclaye, 1790, 8vo. pp. 102), addressed to the Assembly. It is a tolerably calm and well-reasoned argument, basing its demand upon the usages of the primitive church, the precepts of Scripture, the rights of nature, and public utility. The author asserts himself to be a priest well advanced in life, and he assumes that the corruption of society disseminated by the licentiousness of ecclesiastics is generally recognized and understood.

[1567] This speech is printed in full from a MS. in the public library of Geneva, by the Abbé Chavard (Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 483-500).

[1568] La loi ne reconnait ni vœux religieux, ni aucun autre engagement qui serait contraire aux droits naturels ou à la constitution.

[1569] Desmaze, Pénalités Anciennes, p. 222, Paris, 1866.

[1570] I have not found it easy to form a satisfactory estimate of the number of French ecclesiastics previous to the Revolution. Le Bas (Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de l’Histoire de France, V. 218) gives a table, showing an aggregate of 418,206 souls, of whom 235,147 may be considered as attached to the secular service, and 183,059 to the regular orders and canons. Of these latter, 100,451 were men and 82,608 were women. On the other hand, M. Sauvestre (Congrégations Religieuses, pp. 5, 6) quotes from the Abbé Expilly a statement that in 1765 there were 79,000 monks and 80,000 nuns; while he shows that other contemporary authorities reduce the number of members of religious orders in 1789 to 52,000 of both sexes. M. Charles Chabot (Encyclopédie Monastique, p. x., Paris, 1827) computes, after elaborate tabulation, the number of ecclesiastics, regular and secular, at 407,753 persons, enjoying a revenue of 127,610,576 francs.

[1571] Lett. Encyc. 15 Mars, 1795, art. IX. (Grégoire, p. 109).

[1572] This speech of Portalis _père_ is an admirable commentary on the Concordat, developing its causes and consequences with a rigidity of logic and an enlightened spirit of faith which are equally creditable to the head and heart of the distinguished orator. From the portion devoted to the subject of marriage, I quote the following, as embodying a clear exposition of the intentions of those who negotiated the Concordat.

“Quelques personnes se plaindront peut-être de ce que l’on n’a pas conservé le mariage des prêtres.... En effet, d’une part nous n’admettons plus que les ministres dont l’existence est nécessaire à l’exercice du culte, ce qui diminue considérablement le nombre des personnes qui se vouaient anciennement au célibat. D’autre part, pour les ministres mêmes que nous conservons, et à qui le célibat est ordonné par les réglements ecclésiastiques, la défense qui leur est faite du mariage par ces réglements n’est point consacrée comme _empêchement dirimant_ dans l’ordre civil: ainsi leur mariage, s’ils en contractaient un, ne serait point nul aux yeux des lois politiques et civiles, et les enfans qui en naîtraient seraient légitimes; mais dans le for intérieur et dans l’ordre religieux, ils s’exposeraient aux peines spirituelles prononcées par les lois canoniques: ils continueraient à jouir de leurs droits de famille et de cité, mais ils seraient tenus de s’abstenir de l’exercice du sacerdoce. Conséquemment, sans affaiblir le nerf de la discipline de l’église, on conserve aux individus toute la liberté et tous les avantages garantis par les lois de l’état; mais il eût été injuste d’aller plus loin, et d’exiger pour les ecclésiastiques de France, comme tels, une exception qui les eût déconsidérés auprès de tous les peuples Catholiques, et auprès des Français mêmes, auxquels ils administreraient les secours de la religion” (Dupin, Manuel du Droit Public Ecclés. Français, 4ème éd. pp. 196-8).

[1573] Code Civil, Liv. I. Tit. v.

[1574] In an address to the Council of State, Dec. 20th, 1813, Napoleon said, “Le sacerdoce est une sorte de mariage; le prêtre étant uni à l’église comme l’époux à son épouse, il n’y aurait aucun inconvénient à appliquer au prêtre qui se marierait la peine de la bigamie: un tel ecclésiastique ne mérite aucun sorte de considération”—Bouhier de l’Écluse, de l’État des Prêtres en France, Paris, 1842, p. 17.—Chavard (Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 409-10) quotes Dean Stanley as asserting, on the authority of the elder Duc de Broglie, that Pius VIII. spontaneously offered to Napoleon to permit sacerdotal marriage, but that the Emperor declined the proposal. I cannot but think, however, that there must be some mistake in this statement.

[1575] For many of the above details I am indebted to the curious but ill-digested little work—“Histoire du Mariage des Prêtres en France,” published by Grégoire in 1826. Grégoire, though a priest of the _ancien régime_, was a sincere and consistent republican. A member of the States General, of the Convention, and of the Council of Five Hundred, elected Bishop of Blois by the voice of a people who knew and respected him, he preserved his ardent faith through all the excesses of the Revolution, and his democratic ideas in spite of the injuries inflicted on his class in the name of the people. The sincerity and boldness of his character may be estimated by a single example. When, on the 7th of November, 1793, Gobel, Bishop of Paris, appeared before the Convention with twelve of his vicars and publicly renounced his sacred functions on the ground that hereafter there should be no other worship than that of liberty and equality, almost all the ecclesiastics in the Convention followed his example. To hold back at such a moment was dangerous in the extreme, yet Grégoire had the hardihood to utter a defiant protest. “I am a Catholic by conviction and by feeling, a priest by choice, a bishop by the voice of the people, but not from the people nor from you do I derive my mission, and I will not be forced to an abjuration.” To him perhaps more than to any one else is attributable the skilful management which carried the church through the storms and persecutions of the Revolution, but the same inflexibility which maintained his Catholicism through the ordeal of 1793 and 1794 caused him to stand by his republicanism long after it had gone out of fashion. He was not to be bought or bullied; the Legitimist was less tolerant than the Terrorist, and under the Restoration he was reduced almost to absolute indigence. Together with the other constitutional bishops, he had been compelled to resign his bishopric by order of the pope after the Concordat of 1801, and he was too dangerous a man to be rewarded for his invaluable services to religion. He died in 1831.

[1576] Grégoire, op. cit. p. 102.

[1577] Bouhier de l’Écluse, op. cit. It was apparently this case which led to the publication, under date of Monaco, 1829, of the “Considerazioni imparziali sopra la legge del Celibato Ecclesiastico, proposte dal Professore C. A. P.”—a tolerably well written summary of the arguments against the rule.

[1578] Talmadge’s Letters from Florence, p. 166.

[1579] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 525-30.

[1580] J. M. Cayla, Les Curés mariés par le Concile, Paris, 1869.

[1581] Encyc. Mirari vos.

[1582] Encyc. Qui pluribus.

[1583] Litt. Apostol. Multiplices inter.

[1584] Panzini, pp. 16, 58, 102, 143, 201, 401.

[1585] Ibid. p. 123.

[1586] Naples was, perhaps, the first kingdom in Europe to promulgate a civil marriage law, and to withdraw matrimonial cases from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This was one of the reforms of the minority of Ferdinand IV. about the year 1760. See Colletti’s History of Naples, Horner’s Translation, I. 107.

[1587] Conc. Vatican. ann. 1870 Const. Dogmat. I. cap. iv. I use Cardinal Manning’s version.

[1588] Castillo y Mayone, II. 247, 254.—Panzini, pp. 358-63.—Alloc. Acerbissimum, 27 Sept. 1852.—Encyc. Incredibili afflictamur, 17 Sept. 1863.—Chavard, op. cit. p. 263.

[1589] Panzini, pp. 596-7.

[1590] Esaminatore, Firenze 15 Dic. 1867, p. 396.

[1591] Encyc. Neminem latet, 19 Mar. 1857.—Panzini, pp. 535-6.

[1592] Panzini, p. 123. An example of this is to be seen in the case of Saurin vs. Starr and Kennedy, which excited so much interest in England in 1869 by its curious revelations of the petty tyrannies and sordid miseries which sometimes at least form a feature of conventual life.

[1593] Yet, to meet the spiritual wants of all classes, there are still congregations which practise the most severe ascetic austerities. Thus, in 1883, a description of the Barefooted Clares in Paris shows that, out of eighteen members, but four are more than twenty-two years of age, the severity of discipline causing nearly all who enter to die young. No fire is allowed, even that in the kitchen being arranged to prevent access; sleep is only had on a narrow board, meat is only eaten on Christmas Day, and silence is enforced until some of the nuns lose the power of forming connected sentences.

[1594] The _Pères de la Foi_, also known as _Adorateurs de Jésus_ and _Paccanaristes_, were Jesuits in disguise; the _Société des Victimes de l’Amour de Dieu_ were Quietists. For the Report of M. Portalis, recommending their suppression, see Dutilleul, Hist. des Corporations Religieuses en France, Paris, 1846, pp. 411 sqq. For an exceedingly interesting sketch of modern French monachism, see also Ch. Sauvestre’s “Les Congrégations Religieuses” (Paris, 1867)—a work to which I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness for much that follows.

[1595] Décret du 18 Fév. 1809 Sect. II. Art. 8 (Dupin, Droit Ecclés. p. 295). This regulation, I believe, is still in force, and the members of these bodies are accustomed to renew their engagements every five years. From the position taken by Bishop Fabre, of Montreal, in April, 1883, in the case of a young woman who desired to leave her convent, I presume that the same regulation is in force in the Dominion of Canada.

[1596] For details, see Dupin, op. cit. pp. 285-298.

[1597] Chabot, Encyclopédie Monastique, p. xi. (Paris, 1827).

[1598] N. Y. Nation, May 29th, 1879. It is to the Paris correspondence of this journal that I am indebted for most of the details respecting the recent struggle between the religious orders and the state.

[1599] “Règle 91.—Qu’il ne laisse entrevoir aucune opinion, soit politique, soit théologique ou religieuse, contraire aux opinions du saint-siége.”—Sauvestre, op. cit. 215.

[1600] Le Pape et la Société Moderne, Paris, 1879, pp. 416-437.

[1601] Sauvestre, op. cit. pp. 123-4.

[1602] N. Y. Nation, April 21st, 1881.

[1603] Noli metuere ne omnes virgines fiant; difficilis res est virginitas, et ideo rara quia difficilis. Incipere plurimorum est, perseverare paucorum.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 36.

[1604] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Sacrament. Matrim. c. ix.

[1605] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIII. De Reform. c. xii. The Abbé Chavard relates (Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 269) that he once asked the directors of a seminary whether the age for assuming the burdens of the priesthood ought not to be postponed to the fortieth year, and he was told that the church must have priests and that there were few indeed who would submit to its conditions after the age of illusions was passed.

[1606] Souvenirs d’Enfance et de Jeunesse, Paris, 1883, p. 139. “Le fait est que ce qu’on dit des mœurs cléricales est, selon mon expérience, dénué de tout fondement. J’ai passé treize ans de ma vie entre les mains des prêtres, je n’ai pas vu l’ombre d’un scandale; je n’ai connu que de bons prêtres. La confession peut avoir, dans certains pays, de graves inconvénients. Je n’en ai pas vu une trace dans mon jeunesse ecclésiastique.”

[1607] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXV. De Reform. cap. xiv.

[1608] Convent. Episcc. Mediolanenss. ann. 1849 Sess. III. No. 18 (Collect. Lacens. VI. 717).—Concil. Roman. ann. 1725 Tit. XVI. c. iii. (Ib. I. 372).