Skip to main content

Full text of "History of sacerdotal celibacy in the Christian church"

See other formats



* NOV 22 1907 * 

:^6(CAL 'Sm 


Division a5^*' 
Section . L 43 







Sacerdotal Celibacy 





Ou jap dsou i(TTi XIV eiu Itcc ra Tcapa (poacv 

Athenagor^ pro Christianis Legatio 



mew l^otk 





Demoralisation of the sacerdotal body ... 1 

1418 Futile efforts of the Council of Constance . . , 3 
1422 Efforts of Martin V. 6 

Undiminished corruption and symptoms of revolt . 7 

1423 — 1430 The Council of Basle attempts a reform . . ,10 

Impotence of the Basilian canons — Venality of the 

papal court . . . . . . . .13 

1484 — 1500 Condition of the Church in Italy, France, England, 

Spain, Germany, and Hungary . . . .15 

I486 Relaxation of monastic discipline .... 22 

1476 John of Nicklaushausen ...... 24 

Sacerdotal marriage advocated as a remedy . . 27 
1479 John of Oberwesel ....... 28 

1485 Heresy of Jean Laillier ...... 29 


Irreverential spirit of the sixteenth century 
1510 Complaints of the Germans against the Church 

Immobility of the Church .... 

Popular movement — Luther and Erasmus 
1518 Official opposition to the abuses of the Church . 

1517 — 1520 Luther neglects the question of celibacy — his gradual 
progress ....... 

1521 First examples of sacerdotal marriage 
Approved by Carlostadt — Disapproved by Luther 

1522 Zwingli demands sacerdotal marriage — Luther adopt 


1523 Efforts of the Church to repress the movement . 
Popular approbation — Protection in high quarters 








1523 — 1524 Emancipation of nuns and monks 

1525 Marriage of Luther ...... 

Causes of popular acquiescence in the change . 

Extreme immorality of the clergy — Papal Dispensa 
tions .'....., 

Admitted by the Catholics to justify heresy 
1522 — 1526 Erasmus advocates clerical marriage 

Assistance from ambition of temporal princes . 
1530 Efforts at reunion — Confession of Augsburg 

Failure of reconciliation — League of Schmalkalden 

The Anabaptists ...*.. 
1532 — 1540 Partial toleration — Difficulties concerning the Abbey 
lands ........ 

1541 Attempt at reconciliation .... 

1548 The Interim — Sacerdotal marriage tolerated 

1552 The Reformation established by the Transaction of 

Passau ........ 


Conservative tendencies of England . 
1500—1523 John Colet and Sir Thomas More . 
1524 Difficulties of the situation — Wolsey undertakes th 

destruction of monachism .... 
1528 General suppression of the smaller houses 

1532 Henry VIII. 's quarrel with Rome 

1535 General visitation of monasteries, and suppression of 

most of them ...... 

Popular opinions — The Beggars' Petition . 

1536 Popular discontent — The Pilgrimage of Grace 
1537 — 1546 Final suppression of the religious houses and founda 

tions . . . . . . - . 

Fate of their inmates .... 

1535 — 1541 Irish monastic establishments destroyed 
Henry still insists on celibacy . 
Efforts to procure its relaxation 

1537 Uncertainty of the subject in the public mind 

1539 Henry's firmness — Act of the Six Articles 
Persecution of the married clergy 

1540 Modification of the Six Articles 




1547 Accession of Edward VI. — Repeal of the Six Articles 11 6 

1548 — 1549 Full liberty of marriage accorded to the clergy . 118 

Armed opposition of the people . . . .119 

1552 Adoption of the Forty-two Articles .... 121 
Difficulty of removing popular convictions . .122 

1553 Accession of Queen Mary — Legislation of Edward 

repealed . . . . . . . .123 

1554 The married clergy separated and deprived . .124 
Suffering of the clergy in consequence . . .128 
England reconciled to Rome — Church lands not 

recalled 129 

1555 Cardinal Pole's Legatine Constitutions . . .132 

1557 More stringent legislation required — Revival of the 

old troubles . . . . . . . .133 

1558 Accession of Queen Elizabeth . . . . .135 

1559 Delay in authorising marriage — Uncertainty of the 

married clergy . . . . . . .137 

Elizabeth yields^ but imposes degrading restrictions 
on clerical marriage . . . . . .139 

1563 The Thirty-nine Articles — Increased emphasis of per- 

mission to marry . . . . . . .140 

Elizabeth maintains her prejudices . . . .141 

Disrepute of sacerdotal marriage — Evil effects on the 
Anglican clergy . . . . . . ,145 


1512 Lefevre d'Etaples 150 

1559—1640 The Huguenot Churches 151 

The Reformation in Scotland . . . . .154 

Corruption of the Scottish Church in the sixteenth 
century . . . . . . . .155 

1542 — 1559 Efforts at internal reform — their fruitlessness . ,158 
Marriage assumed as a matter of course by the Pro- 
testants . . . . . . . .160 

Temporal motives assisting the Reformation . . I6I 
Poverty of the Scottish Church establishment . .163 
Influence of celibacy on the struggle . . . 1 66 

1560 No formal recognition of clerical marriage thought 

necessary . . . . . . . . I69 

VOL. II. b 





1524 — 1536 Efforts at internal reform . .... 

Universal demand for a general council — Convoked 

at Mantua in 15^6 

1542 — 1547 Assembles at Trent — it labours to separate, not to 

reunite the churches ..... 
1551 — 1552 Reassembles at Trent — is again broken up 

1562 Again assembles for the last time 
1536 Paul III. essays an internal reform without result 
1548 Charles V. tries to reform the German Church . 
1548 — 1551 Local reformatory synods — their failure . 
1560 Clerical marriages demanded as a last resort 

Clerical corruption urged as the reason 

1563 The French court joins in the demand 
1560 The question prejudged ..... 
1562 — 1563 Negotiations for priestly marriage and Communion 

in both Elements ...... 

1 563 The council makes celibacy a point of faith 

Attempts a reformation ..... 

1563 — 1564 The German princes continue their efforts 
Essays of Cassander and Wicelius 
Successful opposition of Philip II. . 

1 566 Peremptory action of Pius V. . 


1566 — 1572 Pius V. endeavours to effect a reform 
1568 — 1570 Labours of St. Charles Borromeo at Milan 
1565 — 1597 Reforms vainly attempted by Italian councils 
1569 — 1668 Condition of the church in Central Europe 
Provisions for the children of priests 
Clerical immorality still a justification of heresy 
1560 — 1624 Condition of the Church in France . 
The residence of women conceded . 
Celebration of Mass by Concubinarians 
The Church in the Spanish Colonies . 




Reception of the Council of Trent except in France 221 




Abuse of the Confessional prior to the Reformation 251 

Heretic attacks call for more vigorous action . . 254 

1547 — 1791 Introduction of Confessionals ..... 255 
1559 — 156*1 Jurisdiction conferred on the Spanish Inquisition — 

Its activity 257 

Resistance of the Regular Orders .... 260 

Difficulty of defining the Crime .... 26l 

1622 Bull of Gregory XV,, Universi Dominici Gregis . 264 
Tardy acceptance by Spain — Rejection by France 

and Germany ....... 265 

Solicitation becomes merely a technical offence — 

Indecency in the Confessional .... 267 

Duty of Penitents to denounce Offenders . . 270 
Absolution of Partners in Guilt . . . .271 

Demand for name of Accomplice in Sin . . . 276 

Passive Solicitation— Flagellation .... 277 
Results of the papal Decrees — France, Germany, 

Italy, Spain — Favour shown to the Accused . . 279 

Avenues of escape open ...... 285 

Mildness of punishment ...... 287 

Spontaneous Self- Accusation . . . . .291 

Preponderance of culprits in the Religious Orders . 294 
Divorceof Morals and Religion — Absolution facilitated 295 


Sacerdotal marriage obsolete — Grandier, Du Pin, 

Bossuet . 297 

1758 — 1800 The eighteenth century — Controversy reopened . 298 
1783 Joseph II, proposes to permit sacerdotal marriage 300 

1760 — 1787 Clerical immorality undiminished . . . .301 

1789 The French Revolution 306 

1789 — 1790 Confiscation of church property — Suppression of 

monachism . . . . . . . .309 

1791 Celibacy deprived of legal protection — Marriage of 

priests ......... 310 

1793 Marriage becomes a test of good citizenship . .311 

Persecution of the unmarried clergy . . .314 






Resistance of the great body of the clergy 
Married clergy repudiated by their bishops 
Celibacy restored by the Concordat . 
Clerical marriage continues — Napoleon 
against it ..... . 






1815 — 1883 Vacillating policy in France as to clerical marriage . 322 

1821 — 1866 Various movements in favour of clerical marriage . 323 

Immobility of the Church ..... 326 

1878 The Old Catholics adopt clerical marriage . . 329 

Civil marriage laws opposed by the Church . . 330 

1820 — 1867 Suppression of monastic orders .... 335 

Influence of celibacy on clerical morality . . 339 

Solicitation in modern times ..... 342 

Influence of celibacy on the social organisation . 358 





Neither the assaults of heretics nor the constant efforts 
at partial reform attempted by individual prelates had thus 
far proved of any avail. As time wore on, the Church 
sank deeper into the mire of corruption, and its struggles 
to extricate itself grew feebler and more hopeless. We 
have seen that, early in the fifteenth century, Gerson 
advised an organised system of concubinage as preferable 
to the indiscriminate licentiousness which was everywhere 
prevalent. Even more suggestive are the declarations of 
Nicholas de Clamenges, Rector of the University of Paris 
and Secretary of the anti-pope Benedict XIII. He does 
not hesitate to say that the vices of the clergy were so 
universal that those who adhered to the rule of chastity 
were the objects of the most degrading and disgusting 
suspicions, so little faith was there in the possible purity 
of any ecclesiastic. He also records the extension of a 
custom to which I have already alluded when he states 
that in a majority of parishes the people insisted on their 
pastors keeping concubines, and that even this was a pre- 
caution insufficient for the peace and honour of their 
families.^ Elsewhere he describes the mass of the clergy 
as wholly abandoned to worldly ambition and vices, op- 
pressing and despoiling those subjected to them, and 

1 Taceo de fornicationibus et adulteriis, a quibus qui alieni sunt probro caeteris 
ac ludibrio esse solent, spadonesque aut sodomitae appellantur ; denique laici usque 
adeo persuasum habent nullos coelibes esse, ut in plerisque parochiis non aliter velint 
presbyterum tolerare nisi concubinam habeat,quo vel sic suis sit consultum uxoribus, 
quae nee sic quidem usque-quaque sunt extra periculum. — Nic. de Clamengis de 
Praesul. Simoniac (0pp. Lug. Bat. 1G13, p. 165). 



spending their ill-gotten gains in the vilest excesses, while 
they ridiculed unsparingly such few pious souls as endea- 
voured to live according to the light of the gospel. ^ Another 
tract which passes under his name declares that in most 
of the dioceses the parish priests openly kept concubines, 
which they were permitted to do on payment of a tax to 
their bishops. Nunneries were brothels, and to take the 
veil was simply another mode of becoming a public piJos- 
titute.^ Cardinal Peter dAilly declares that he does not 
dare to describe the immorality of the nunneries.^ In a 
similar indignant mood Gerson stigmatises the nunneries 
of his time as houses of prostitution, the monasteries as 
centres of trade and amusement, the cathedral churches as 
dens of ravishers and robbers, and the priesthood at large 
as habitual concubinarians.* That he felt these evils to be 
inseparable from the condition of the Church is evident 
when, in an argument to prove the necessity of celibacy, 
he is driven to the assertion that it is better to tolerate 
incontinent priests than to have no priests at all.^ He 
argues that the clergy are worthy of as many sentences of 
damnation as they seduce souls to perdition by their cor- 
rupt example, and he asks, when he who destroys himself 
by his own sins is to be condemned, whether he who draws 
with him numerous others is not still more worthy of per- 
dition.^ Theodoric a Niem represents the bishops of 
Scandinavia as carrying with them their concubines on 
their pastoral visitations, and as inflicting penalties on such 
of the parish priests as they found living without similar 
companions, while these women habitually took precedence 

1 Nic. de Clamengiis Disput. super Mater. Concil. General. 

2 Nic. de Clamengiis de Ruina Ecclesise cap. xxii., xxxvi.— Conf. Theobaldi Con- 
quest. (Von der Hardt T. T. P. vi. XTX. p. 909.) 

3 P. de Alliaco Canunes Eeformat. cap. iv. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. vi. p. 425.) 

4 Gersoni Declarat defect, viror. ecclesiast. Ixv., Ixvi. 

B Dicimus quod de duobus malis minus est incontinentes tolerare sacerdotes quam 
nullos habere. — Gersoni Dial, Sophias et Naturae Act. iv. 
6 Ejiisd. Sermo de Vita Clericorum. 


in church of the wives of the neighbouring gentry — and he 
adds that the clergy of the south of Europe were no better.^ 
Theodoric Vrie, a learned and pious Churchman of Saxony, 
is equally unsparing in his denunciations of the Teutonic 
clergy^ — and, indeed, the testimony of the writers of the 
period is so unanimous that their descriptions of clerical 
vices cannot be regarded as the mere rhetorical declamation 
of disappointed reformers. 

It was evident that the efforts of local synods were 
fruitless to eradicate evils so general and so deeply rooted, 
while the necessity for some reform became every day 
more apparent. Though LoUardry had been crushed in 
England under the stern hand of Henry V., yet it was 
reappearing in Bohemia in a form even more threatening. 
The Council of Pisa had not succeeded in healing the Great 
Schism, and there arose a general demand for an (Ecumenic 
Council in which the Church Universal should assemble for 
the purpose of purifying itself, of eradicating heresy, and 
of settling definitely the pretensions of the three claimants 
to the papacy. John XXIII. yielded to the pressure, and 
the call for the Council of Constance went forth in his name 
and in that of the Emperor Sigismund. 

So powerful a body had never before been gathered 
together in Europe. It claimed to be the supreme repre- 
sentative of the Church, and though it acknowledged 
John XXIII. as the lawful successor of St. Peter, it had 
no scruples in arraigning, trying, condemning, and deposing 
him — an awful expression of its supremacy, without 
precedent in the past and without imitation in succeeding 
ages. As regards heresy, it did the best it could, according 
to the fights of its age, by burning John Huss and Jerome 
of Prague. Its functions as a reformer, however, required 
for their exercise more nerve than even the condemnation 

1 Theod. a Niem Nemoris Unionis Tract. V. cap. xxxv. 

2 Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib, ii., in. (Von. der Hardt T. I.). 


of a pope. Many members were thoroughly penetrated 
with the conviction that reform was of instant necessity, 
and such men as Gerson, Peter d'Ailly of Cambrai, and 
Nicholas de Clamenges were prepared to shrink from none 
of the means requisite for so hallowed an end. In the 
existing corruption, however, of the body from which 
representatives were drawn, such men could scarcely form 
a controlling majority. After the council had been in 
session for nearly two years, the reformers began to despair 
of effecting anything, and Clamenges did not hesitate to 
assert that nothing was to be expected from men who 
would regard reform as the greatest calamity that could 
befall themselves ;^ while another of the members of the 
council declared that every one wanted such a reform as 
should allow him to retain his own particular form of 
iniquity.^ These estimates, indeed, of the character of the 
majority of the good fathers of Constance are borne out by 
the contemporary accounts of the multitudes who flocked 
to it to ply their trades among the assembled dignitaries of 
the Church, showing that they were by no means all devoted 
to mortifying the flesh. ^ 

The feelings of those who sincerely desired reform, as 
they saw the prospect rapidly fading before their eyes, 
may be estimated by a sermon of a sturdy Gascon abbot, 
Bernhardus Baptisatus, preached before the council in 
August 1517, about three months before the conservatives 
succeeded in carrying their point by electing Martin V. 
He denounces the members of the council as Pharisees, 
falsely pretending to be devout in order to elude the 
punishment due to their crimes. The masses and pro- 

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

2 Theobaldi Conquestio (Von der Hardt T. I. P. xix. p. 904). 

3 Item, fistulatores, tubicenae, joculatores, 516 ; item, meretrices, virgines pub- 
licae, 718. — Laur. Byzynii Diar. Bell. Hussit. A Catholic contemporary, however, 
reduces the number of courtesans to 450 and that of jugglers and minstrels to 320 
(Joann. Fistenportii Chron. ann. 1415. — Hahn. Collect. Monument. I. 401). 


cessions, which were the main business of the assemblage, 
he declares to be valueless in the eyes of God, for most 
of those who so busily took part in them were involved 
solely in worldly cares, laughing, cheating, sleeping, or de- 
mioralising the rest with their ungodly conversation. The 
Holy Spirit did not hold the acts of the council acceptable, 
nor dwell with its unrighteous members.^ Such a convo- 
cation could have but one result. 

It is easy therefore to understand the influences that 
were brought to bear to defeat the expectations of the 
reformers : how the subject could be postponed until after 
the questions connected with the papacy and with heresy 
were disposed of; and how, after the election of Martin V., 
those who shrank from all reform could assume that it 
might safely be entrusted to the hands of a pontiff so able, 
so energetic, and so virtuous. In all this they were 
successful. The council closed its weary sessions, 
22 April, 1418, and during its three years and a half 
of labour it had only found leisure to regulate the dress 
of ecclesiastics, the unclerical cut of whose sleeves was 
especially distasteful to the representative body of Chris- 

Still, the reformers had made a stubborn fight, and had 
procured the appointment of a commission to consider all 
reformatory propositions and prepare a general scheme for 
the adoption of the council. This body laboured as dili- 
gently as though its deliberations were to be crowned with 
practical results, and various projects of reform proposed 
by it have been preserved. In one of these the severest 
measures of repression were suggested to put an end to the 
scandal of concubinage which was openly practised in the 
majority of dioceses. Under this scheme, while all the 
canonical punishments heretofore decreed were maintained 

1 Bernhardi Baptisati Sermo (Von der Hardt T. I. P. xviii. pp. 884-5). 

2 Concil. Constant. Sess. XLIII. can. de Vita et Honestate Clericorum. 


in full vigour, deprivation was pronounced against all holders 
of ecclesiastical preferment, from bishops down, who 
should not within one month eject their guilty partners ; 
their positions were declared vacant ipso jure, and their 
successors were to be immediately appointed. Those who 
did not hold benefices were similarly to be declared in- 
eligible to preferment. It appears that scandals had arisen 
in many places from the Hildebrandine and Wickliffite 
heresy, whereby parishioners declined the ministrations of 
those who were living in open and notorious sin ; and to 
avoid these, while the commission declined to pass an 
opinion on the propriety of such action, it advised that such 
private judgment should not be exercised.^ In another 
elaborate system of reform, which bears the marks of 
mature deliberation, the attempt was made to eradicate 
the long-standing abuse of admitting to preferment the 
illegitimate children of ecclesiastics, and it was declared 
that papal dispensations should no longer be recognised 
except in cases of peculiar fitness or high rank.^ The same 
code of discipline struck a significant blow at the inviola- 
bility of the monastic profession when it endeavoured to 
check the prevailing and deplorable licentiousness of the 
nunneries by decreeing that no woman should be admitted 
to the vows beneath the age of twenty, and that all vows 
taken at a younger age should be null and void.^ These 
projects are interesting merely as indicating the direction 
in which the reforming portion of the Church desired to 
move, and as showing that even they did not propose to 
remove the celibacy which was the chief cause of the evils 
they so sincerely deplored. 

Martin V. had assumed the responsibility of reforming 
the Church, and he did, in fact, attempt it after some 

1 De Ecclesije Keformat. Protocoll. cap, xxxiii. (Von der HardI, T. I. P. x. 
pp. 635-6. ) 

2 Reformatorii Constant. Decretal. Lib. i. Tit. v. (Ibid. p. 679). 

3 Ibid. Lib. III. Tit. x. cap. 20 (p. 722. ) 


fashion, though he apparently took to heart Dante's 
axiom — 

Lunga promessa, con I'attender corto 
Ti fara trionfar neV alto seggio. 

In 1422 Cardinal Branda of Piacenza, his legate, when 
sent to Germany to preach a crusade against the Hussites, 
was honoured with the title of Reformer General, and full 
powers were given to him to effect this part of his mission. 
The letters-patent of the Pope bear ample testimony to the 
depravity of the Teutonic Church,^ while the constitution 
which Branda promulgated declares that in a portion of the 
priesthood there was scarcely left a trace of decency or 
morality. According to this document, concubinage, 
simony, neglect of sacred functions, gambling, drinking, 
fighting, buffoonery, and kindred pursuits, were the preva- 
lent vices of the ministers of Christ ; but the punishments 
which he enacted for their suppression — repetitions of those 
which we have seen proclaimed so many times before — 
were powerless to overcome the evils, which had become 
part and parcel of the Church itself.^ This condition of 
affairs was not the result of any abandonment of the 
attempt to enforce the canons. Local synods were meeting 
every year, and scarcely one of them failed to call attention 
to the subject, devising fresh penalties to effect the im- 
possible. The result is shown in the lament of the Council 
of Cologne in 1423.^ 

1 For instance, as regards the religious houses — "In nonnallis quoque monas- 
teriis . . . norma disciplinae respuitur, cultus divinus negligitur, personse quoque 
hujusmodi, vitse ac morum honestate prostrata, lubricitati, incontinentise, et aliis 
variis carnalis concupiscentise voluptatibus et viciis non sine gravi diviuae majestatis 
offensa tabescentes, vitam ducunt dissolutam." — Martin V. ad Brandam § iii. (Lude- 
wig Reliq. Msctorum XI. 409.) 

2 Usque adeo nonnullorum clericorum corruptela excrevit, ut morum atque 
honestatis vestigia apud eos paaca admodum remanserint. — Constit. Brandse § 1 (Op. 
cit. XI. 385.) 

3 " Quia tamen, succrescente malitia temporis moderni, labes hujusmodi criminis 
in ecclesia Dei in tantum inolevit, quod scandala phirima in populo sunt exorta, et 
verisimiliter exoriri poterunt in futurum, et ex fide dignorum relatione percepimus 
quod quidam ecclesiarum praelati et alii, etiam capitula . . . tales in suis iniquita- 


What was the condition of clerical morals in Italy soon 
after this may be learned from a single instance. When 
Ambrose was made General of the austere order of 
Camaldoli he set vigorously to work to reform the laxity 
which had almost ruined it. One of his abbots was noted 
for abounding licentiousness ; not content with ordinary 
amours, he was wont to visit the nunneries in his district 
to indulge in promiscuous intercourse with the virgins 
dedicated to God. Yet Ambrose in taking him to task 
did not venture to punish him for his misdeeds, but 
promised him full pardon for the past and to take him 
into favour, if he would only abstain for the future — a 
task which ought to be easy, as he was now old, and 
should be content with having long lived evilly, and be 
ready to dedicate his few remaining years to the service 
of God.^ When a reformer, who enjoyed the special 
friendship and protection of Eugenius IV., was forced 
to be so moderate with such a criminal, it is easy to 
imagine what was the tone of morality in the Church at 

While the Armagnacs and Burgundians were rivalling 
the English in carrying desolation into every corner of 
France, it could not be expected that the peaceful virtues 
could flourish, or sempiternal corruption be reformed. 
Accordingly, it need not surprise us to see Hardouin, 
Bishop of Angers, despondingly admit, in 1428, that 
licentiousness had become so habitual among his clergy 
that it was no longer reputed to be a sin ; that concubinage 
was public and undisguised, and that the patrimony of 

tibus sustinuerunt et sustinent." So far, however, were the decrees of the council 
from being effective, that the Archbishop was obliged to modify them and to declare 
that they should only be enforced against those ecclesiastics who were notoriously 
guilty, and who kept their concubines publicly. — Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1423 can. i. 
viii. (Hartzheim V. 217, 220). 

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


Christ was wasted in supporting the guilty partners of the 
priesthood. That gambhng, swearing, drunkenness, and 
all manner of unclerical conduct should accompany these 
disorders, is too probable to require the concurrent testi- 
mony which the worthy bishop affords us.^ Alain Chartier, 
Archdeacon of Paris and Secretary to Charles VI. and 
Charles VII., confirms this in a more general way, when 
he attributes to enforced celibacy and the temporal endow- 
ments of the Church the vices and crimes which rendered 
the clergy so odious and contemptible to the laity that he 
looks forward to the speedy advent of Antichrist to wipe 
out the whole system in universal ruin.^ Apparently its 
corruption was too deep-seated to hope for any milder 
means of reformation. To this we may at least partially 
attribute the utter loss of respect for sacred things which 
rendered the churches and their pastors a special mark for 
pillage and persecution during the dreary civil wars of the 

In England, which had enjoyed comparative immunity 
from civil strife, matters were quite as bad. At the 
request of Henry V., in 1414, the University of Oxford 
prepared a series of articles for the reformation of the 
Church, whose shortcomings were vehemently attacked by 
the Lollards. It is not easy to imagine a more humiliating 
confession than is contained in the 38th article, directed 
against priestly immorality. The carnal and undisguised 
profligacy of ecclesiastics is declared to be a scandal to the 
Church, and its impurity to be a dangerous temptation to 
others. It is therefore recommended that all public forni- 
cators be suspended for a limited time from the ministry of 
the altar, and that some corporal chastisement be inflicted 
on them, in place of the trifling pecuniary mulct, which, 

1 Harduini Andegav. Epist. Statut. Praef. (Martene Thesaur. IV. 523-4.) 

2 Alan. Charter. Lib. de Exilio (Johan. Marise Lib. de Schismat. et Concil.). 

3 Nic. de Clamengiis de Lapsu et Keparat. Justitiae (Ed. 1519, pp. 13-14). 


levied in secret, had no effect in deterring them from their 
evil courses/ 

This was the outcome of the great general council, on 
which such hopes had been built by Christendom, but the 
good fathers of Constance, conscious of their shortcomings 
in the matter of reform, had adopted the canon Frequens, 
ordering the assembly of another general council in five 
years, to be followed by successors every seven years there- 
after. One was accordingly convoked at Siena in 1423, 
to be summarily dissolved in 1424 by the presiding papal 
legate, when the demand for effective measures of reform 
in the head and members of the Church grew too unman- 
nerly to be further evaded. The next general council was 
due in 1431, but Pope Martin took no steps for its assem- 
bling until at the end of 1430 it was made plain to him 
that Europe was determined to find, with him or without 
him, some means of attempting a purification felt to be 
necessary as a safeguard against a revolutionary uprising 
of the laity.^ Yet scarcely had the fathers fairly gathered 
in the Council of Basle, when Eugenius IV., who had mean- 
while succeeded to the chair of St. Peter, sent orders for 
its dissolution to his legate, Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini. 

The legate, who had better opportunity than his master 
of estimating the temper of Christendom, refused obedience, 
and his letter explaining the reasons of his contumacy 
affords a curious picture of the internal condition of the 
Church and of the relations existing between it and the 
laity. The extreme corruption of ecclesiastical morals 
had been the principal object of convoking the council, and 
had given rise to a feeling of fierce hostility towards the 
Church. To this was attributable the success which had 
attended the Hussite movement, and unless the people 

1 Wilkins III. 364-5. 

2 Jo. de Kagusio Init. et Prosec, Con. Basil. (Monumentt. Con. Gen. Ssec. XV. 
T. I.).— Concil. Senensis (Harduin. VIII. 1025-6).— Ad. Concil. Basil. (Harduin. VIII. 
1108-10).— Raynald. Annal. ann. 1425, n. .3, 4. 


could have reason to anticipate amendment, there was 
ample cause to fear a general imitation of the Hussites. 
So many provincial synods were daily held without result 
that confidence was no longer felt in the ordinary ecclesi- 
astical machinery ; the state of the public mind grew con- 
stantly more threatening as fresh scandals were wrought 
by the clergy, and the hopes entertained of the council 
were the only restraint which prevented the breaking out 
of a widespread revolt. As a proof of his assertions, the 
legate refers to various local troubles. Magdeburg had 
expelled her archbishop and clergy, was preparing waggons 
with which to fight after the Bohemian fashion, and was 
said to have sent for a Hussite to command her forces. 
Passau had revolted against her bishop, and was even then 
laying close siege to his citadel. Bamberg was engaged in 
a violent quarrel with her bishop and chapter. These cities 
were regarded as the centres of formidable secret con- 
federacies, and were believed to be negotiating with the 
Hussites.^ The good fathers evidently recognised the full 
magnitude of the danger. The results of the inaction of 
the Council of Constance were full of pregnant warnings. 
The reformers could no longer be brought to trust the 
papacy, and those who might secretly deprecate reform 
were fully alive to the threatening aspect of affairs. They 
therefore addressed themselves resolutely to the removal 
of the cause. All who were guilty of public concubinage 
were ordered to dismiss their consorts within sixty days 
after the promulgation of the canon, under pain of depriv- 
ation of revenue for three months. Persistent contumacy 
or repetition of the offence was visited with suspension 
from functions and stipend until satisfactory evidence 
should be afforded of repentance and amendment. Bishops 
who neglected to enforce the law were to be held as 

1 iEneae Sylvii Corament. de G-est. Cone. Basil, ad caJcem (0pp. Basil. 1551, pp. 
66-70).— Cy. Sigismundi Imp. Avisam. ann. 1433 (Goldast ill. 427 sqq.). 


sharing the guilt which they allowed to pass unpunished ; 
and those prelates who were above the jurisdiction of local 
tribunals or synods were to be remanded to Rome for trial. 
The council deplored the extensive prevalence of the 
" cullagium," by which those to whom was entrusted the 
administration of the Church did not hesitate to enjoy a 
filthy gain by selling licences to sin. A curse was pro- 
nounced on all involved in such transactions : they were 
to share the penalties of the guilt which they encouraged, 
and were, in addition, to pay a fine of double the amount 
of their iniquitous receipts.^ In the Pragmatic Sanction, 
moreover, agreed upon in 1438 between the Emperor 
Albert II. and Charles VII. of France, the regulation 
confiscating three months' revenues of concubinary priests 
was embodied.^ 

Honest, well-meant legislation this ; yet the fathers of 
the council or the princes of Christendom could hardly 
deceive themselves with the expectation that it would 
prove effectual, even if the Basilian canons had been con- 
firmed by the Holy See and accepted by the Church at 
large. If legislation could accomplish the desired result, 
there had already been enough of it since the days of 
Siricius. The compilations of canon law were full of 
admirable regulations, by which generation after generation 
had endeavoured to attain the same object by every 
imaginable modification of inquisition and penalty. In- 
genuity had been exhausted in devising laws which were 
only promulgated to be despised and forgotten. Some- 
thing more was wanting, and that something could not be 
had without overturning the elaborate structure so skilfully 
and laboriously built up by the craft and enthusiasm of 
ten centuries. 

How utterly impotent, in fact, were the efforts of the 

1 Concil. Basiliens. Sess. xx. (Jan. 22, 1435.) 

2 Pragm. Sanct. ann. 1438 cap. 31 (Goldast. I. 403). D'Argentre, Collect. Judic. 
de novis Erroribus, I., II., 234). 


council, is evident when, within five years after the adoption 
of the BasiUan canons. Doctor Kokkius, in a sermon 
preached before the Council of Freysingen, could scarcely 
find words strong enough to denounce the evil courses of 
the clergy as a class ;^ and when, within fifteen years, we 
find Nicholas V. declaring that the clergy enjoyed such 
immunity that they scarcely regarded incontinence as a 
sin — which is perhaps no wonder, when he prohibited the 
members and officials of the Curia from keeping concubines, 
under pain of forfeiture of office and disability for prefer- 
ment, unless they should previously have obtained letters 
of absolution from the Holy See — the perennial font of 
corruption which meets us at every turn.^ 

Shrouded under a thin veil of formality, this in sub- 
stance indicates the degrading source of revenue which 
was so energetically condemned in inferior officials. The 
pressing and insatiable pecuniary needs of the papal court, 
indeed, rendered it impotent as a reformer, however 
honest the wearer of the tiara might himself be in desiring 
to rescue the Church from its infamy. Reckless expendi- 
ture and universal venality were insuperable obstacles to 
any comprehensive and effisctive measures of reforma- 
tion. Every one was preoccupied either in devising or in 
resisting extortion. The local synods were engaged in 
quarrelling over the subsidies demanded by Rome, while 
the chronicles of the period are filled with complaints of 
the indulgences granted year after year to raise money for 
various purposes. Sometimes the objects alleged are 
indignantly declared to be purely supposititious ; at other 
times intimations are thrown out that the collections 
were diverted to the private gain of the popes and of 

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

2 Lib. III. Tit. i. c. 3, in Septimo. "Nisi inhabilitatem suam. antea per dictae 
sedis litteras obtinuerint absolvi." 


their creatures/ The opinion which the Church in 
general entertained of the papal court is manifested 
with sufficient distinctness in a letter from Ernest, 
Archbishop of Magdeburg, to his ambassador at Rome. 
The prelate states that he has deposited five hundred 
florins in Fugger's bank at Augsburg, for which he desires 
to procure certain bulls, one to enable him to grant indul- 
gences, the other to compel the chapter of Magdeburg to 
allow him to dispose of the salt-works of Halle, in defiance 
of the vxsted rights of his Church — thus taking for 
granted a cynicism of venality which it would be difficult 
to parallel in the secular affairs of the most corrupt of 
courts.^ Even the power to dispense from the vow of 
continence was occasionally turned to account in this 
manner. One of the accusations against John XXIII. 
was that for 600 ducats he had released Jacques de Vitry, 

1 Comp. Doeringii Chvon. passim Doringk was minister or head of the Fran- 
ciscan order in Saxony, aud iherefore may be considered an unexceptionable 

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

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

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


a Hospitaller, from his vows, had restored him to the 
world, and enabled him to marry/ 

The aspirations of Christendom had culminated in the 
Council of Basle in the most potent form known to the 
Church Universal. If the results were scarce perceptible 
while the influences of the council were yet recent, and 
while the antagonistic papacy was under the control of 
men sincerely desirous to promote the best interests of 
the Church, such as Nicholas V. and Pius II., we can feel 
no wonder if the darkness continued to grow thicker and 
deeper under the rule of such pontiffs as Sixtus IV., 
Innocent VIII., and Alexander VI. Savonarola found an 
inexhaustible subject of declamation in the fearful vices of 
the ecclesiastics of his times, whom he describes as ruffiani 
e mezzani? In the assembly of the Trois Etats of France, 
held at Tours in 1484, the orator of the Estates, Jean de 
Rely, afterwards Bishop of Angers, in his official address 
to Charles VIII. declared it to be notorious that the 
reUgious orders had lost all devotion, discipline, and 
obedience to their rule, while the canons (and he was 
himself a canon of Paris) had sunk far below the laity in 
their morals, to the great scandal of the Church.^ Yet 
what could be accomplished by an uncompromising re- 
former was shown when, about 1490, Niccolo Bonafede, 
afterwards Bishop of Chiusi, was sent to Trani as archi- 
episcopal vicar. He found that nearly all the priests openly 
kept concubines and brought up their children without 
shame — the primicier, in fact, had eleven in his house. 
Bonafede ordered that all should dismiss their companions 

1 Concil. Constantiens. Sess. xi. 

2 " Si vous saviez tout ce que je sais ! des choses degotitantes ! des cboses horri- 
bles ! vous en fremiriez ! Quand je pense a tout cela, a la vie que menent les pretres, 
je ne puis retenir mes larmes." And again, " Ma peggio ancora. Quelle che sta la 
notte con la concubina, quell' altro con il garzone, e poi la mattina va a dire messa, 
pensa tu come la va. Che vuoi tu fare di quella messa ? " — Jerome Savonarole d'apres 
les documents originaux, par F. T. Perrens, pp. 71-2. Pari-;, 1856. 

3 Masseliu, Journal des Etats de Tours, pp. 197-99. 


within eight days, under penalty of forfeiture of benefice, 
and that the women should leave the diocese, under pain 
of scourging.^ He had already given evidence of his 
tenacity of purpose, and his commands were obeyed by 
all but one, in which case the priest was deprived of his 
preferment, and the unfortunate woman was duly flogged 
and banished.^ 

In England, the facts developed by the examination 
which Innocent VIII. in 1489 authorised Morton, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, to make into the condition of the 
religious houses, present a state of affairs quite as bad. 
Henry VI I. 's first Parliament, in 1485, had endeavoured 
to accomplish some reform by passing an Act empowering 
the episcopal authorities to imprison all priests and monks 
convicted of carnal lapses,^ but this, like all similar legis- 
lation, whether secular or ecclesiastical, appears to have 
been useless. Innocent describes the monasteries, in his 
bull to the archbishop, as wholly fallen from their original 
discipline, and this is fully confirmed by the results of the 
visitation. The old and wealthy abbey of St. Albans, for 
instance, was little more than a den of prostitutes, with 
whom the monks lived openly and avowedly. In two 
priories under its jurisdiction the nuns had been turned 
out and their places filled with courtesans, to whom the 
monks of St. Albans publicly resorted, indulging in all 
manner of shameless and riotous living, the details of 
which can well be spared.* These irregularities were 
emulated by the secular ecclesiastics. Among the records 
of the reign of Henry VII. is a memorial from the gentle- 
men and farmers of Carnarvonshire, complaining that the 
seduction of their wives and daughters was pursued syste- 

1 Leopardi, Vita di Niccolo Bonafede, p. 18 (Pesaro, 1832). 

2 1 Henr. VII. 4. 

3 Wilkins III. 630-33. 

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


matically by the clergy.^ That the prevalence of these 
practices was thoroughly understood is shown in a book of 
instructions for parish priests drawn up by a canon of 
Lilleshall about this period. In enumerating the causes 
for which a parson may shrive a man not of his own parish, 
he includes the case in which the penitent has committed sin 
with the concubine or daughter of his own parish priest.^ 

Spain was equally infected. The Council of Aranda, 
in 1473, denounced bitterly the evil courses by which the 
clergy earned for themselves the wrath of God and the 
contempt of man, and it endeavoured to suppress the 
sempiternal vice by the means which had been so often 
ineffectually tried — visitations, fines, excommunication, 
suspension, forfeiture of benefice, and imprisonment — but 
all to as little purpose as before.^ Vainly Ferdinand and 
Isabella in repeated edicts sought to restrain the evil by 
attacking the concubines with fines, scourging and banish- 
ment, for the male offenders were beyond their jurisdic- 
tion.* The trouble continued without abatement, and the 
Council of Seville, in 1512, felt itself obliged to repeat as 
usual all the old denunciations and penalties, including 
those against ecclesiastics who officiated at the marriages 
of their children, which it prohibited for the future under 
a fine of 2000 maravedis — a mulct which it likewise pro- 
vided for those who committed the indecency of having 
their children as assistants in the solemnity of the Mass.^ 
We shall see hereafter how fruitless were all these efforts 
to cure the incurable. 

1 Froude's History of England, Ch. III. 

2 Or gef hym self had done a synne 
By the prestes sybbe kynne, 
Moder or suster, or hys lemmon 
Or by hys doghter gef he had on. 
John Myrc's Instructions for Parish Priests, p. 26 (Early English Text Society, 

3 Concil. Arandens. ann. 1473 c. ix. (Aguirre V. 345-6.) 

4 Novisima Recopilacion, Lib. xii., Tit. xxvi., leyes 3-5. 

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



What was the condition of morals in Germany may be 
inferred from some proceedings of the chapter of Bruns- 
wick in 1476. The canons intimate that the commission 
of scandals and crimes has reached a point at which there 
is danger of their losing the inestimable privilege of 
exemption from episcopal jurisdiction. They therefore 
declare that for the future the canons, vicars, and officiating 
clergy ought not to keep their mistresses and concubines 
publicly in their houses, or live with them within the 
bounds of the church, and those who persist in doing so 
after three warnings shall be suspended from their prebends 
until they render due satisfaction.^ In this curious glimpse 
into the domestic life of the cathedral close it is evident 
that the worthy canons were moved by no shame for the 
publicity of their guilt, but only by a wholesome dread of 
giving to their bishop an excuse for procuring the forfeiture 
of their dearly prized right of self-judgment. 

The Hungarian Church, by a canon dating as far back 
as 1382, had finally adopted a pecuniary mulct as the most 
efficacious mode of correcting offenders. The fine was 
five marks of current coin, and by granting one-half to the 
informer or archdeacon, and the other to the archiepiscopal 
chamber, it was reasonably hoped that the rule might be 
enforced. As might have been expected, this resulted, 
not in reforming the clergy, but in providing a source of 
revenue for the prelates, so that all parties were interested 
in maintaining a flourishing condition of immorahty, as 
Jacopo della Marchia, one of the fiercest persecutors of 
heresy, found to his cost. In 1436 he was sent by 
Eugenius IV. as inquisitor of Hungary and Austria to 
check the spread of Hussitism. His unsparing severity 
excited such general terror that he is said to have received 
the submission of fifty-five thousand converts, but when, 
at Fiinfkirchen, he paused in his missionary labours to 

1 Statut. Eccles, in Braunschweig, cap. 75 (Mayer, Thes. Jur, Eccles. I. 124). 


reform the concubinarian priests, his resolution gave way, 
for they repelled his interference so energetically that he 
was forced to fly for his life. Pope and Emperor were 
invoked, and he was enabled to return, but we hear no 
more of any effort on his part to meddle with the clergy 
and their partners/ That matters remained unaltered is 
shown by two synods of Gran, one in 1450 and the other 
in 1480, which reiterate the complaint, not only that the 
archdeacons and other officials kept the whole fine to 
themselves, but also, what was even worse, that they per- 
mitted the criminals to persevere in sin, in order to make 
money by allowing them to go unpunished.^ This state 
of affairs was not to be wondered at if the description of 
his prelates by Matthias Corvinus be correct. They were 
worldly princes, whose energies were devoted to wringing 
from their flocks fabulous revenues to be squandered 
in riotous living on the hordes of cooks and concubines 
who pandered to their appetites.^ The morals of the 
regular clergy were no better, for a diet held by Vladislas 
II. in 1498 complained of the manner in which abbots and 
other monastic dignitaries enriched themselves from the 
revenues of their offices, and then, returning to the world, 
publicly took waves, to the disgrace of their order.* 

In Pomerania the evil had at length partially cured 
itself, for the female companions of the clergy seem to 
have been regarded as wives in all but the blessing of the 
Church. Benedict, Bishop of Camin, in 1492 held a synod 
in which he quaintly but vehemently objurgates his 
ecclesiastics for this wickedness ; declares that no man 
can part such couples joined by the devil ; alludes to 
their offspring as beasts creeping over the earth, and has 

1 Wadding, Annal. Minorum, ann. 1437, n. 6-12. 

2 Synod. Strigonens. ann. 1382, 1450, 1480 (Batthyani III. 275, 481, 557). 

3 Galeoti Martii de dictis et factis Matthiae Regis cap. xi. (Schwandtneri Rer. 
Hungar. Script.). 

* Synod. Reg. ann, 1498 c. 16. (Batthyani I. 551). 


his spleen peculiarly stirred by the cloths of Leyden and 
costly ornaments with which the fair sinners were bedecked, 
to the scandal of honest women/ His indignation was 
wasted on a hardened generation, for his successor, Bishop 
Martin, on his accession to the see in 1499, found the 
custom still unchecked. The new bishop promptly 
summoned a synod at Sitten in 1500, where he reiterated 
the complaints of Benedict, adding that the priests convert 
the patrimony of Christ into marriage portions for their 
children, and procure the transmission of benefices from 
father to son, as though glorying in the perpetuation of 
their shame. AVhat peculiarly exasperated the good 
prelate was that the place of honour was accorded as a 
matter of course to the priests and their consorts at all the 
merry-makings and festivities of their parishioners, which 
shows how fully these unions were recognised as legiti- 
mate, and apparently, for prudential reasons, encouraged 
by the people.^ 

Similar customs, or worse, doubtless prevailed in Sles- 
wick, for when Eggard was consecrated bishop in 1494, he 
signalised the commencement of his episcopate by forbid- 
ding his clergy to keep such female companions. The 
result was that before the year expired he was forced to 
abandon his see, and five years later he died, a miserable 
exile in Rome.^ 

In fact, so loose had become the conception as to 
celibacy that in some places priestly marriage was quietly 

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

2 WiaeHist. Episc. Camin. c. 42.— Synod. Sedinens. c. 5. 

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

3 Boissen Chron. Slesvicens. ann. 1494. 


resumed, subject to the condition of resigning benefices. 
In a formulary of the fifteenth century there are formulae 
for conferring parish churches, canonries, and precentor- 
ships thus vacated by the wedlock of the incumbent/ 
Other churches had become established as hereditary, 
descending from father to son, and only in default of male 
issue did their collation revert to the bishop. The old 
rule rendering the bastards of priests incapable of prefer- 
ment still remained on the books, but dispensations 
remo\dng such disabilities for benefices without cure of 
souls were remanded to episcopal jurisdiction ; a regular 
formula was provided for such cases, and, in the prevalent 
venality of the period, we may assume that they could be 
had by any applicant at a moderate price. ^ 

The monastic Orders were no better than the secular 
clergy. When Ximenes was made Provincial of the 
Franciscan Order in Spain, he set himself earnestly at 
work to force the brethren to live according to the rule. 
The " Conventuals," as the great body of the Order was 
called to distinguish them from the " Observantines," led 
disorderly lives, almost purely secular, and refused abso- 
lutely to submit to the observance of their vows. King 
Ferdinand being appealed to, pronounced sentence of 
banishment upon them, and they absolutely preferred 
existence in exile to the insupportable yoke of their Order. 
Yet they considered themselves so aggrieved that when 
they left Toledo they marched in procession through the 
Puerta Visagra with a crucifix at their head, singing the 
113th Psalm, "In exitu Israel de Egypto." When 
Ximenes was promoted to the primatial see of Toledo, 

1 Formularium Instrumentorum ad usum Curie Romane, fol. 20a, 91a, 101b 
(s.l.c.a., Hain 7276.) — " Cum itaque parochialis ecclesia N. loci de N. quam nuper 
dilectus noster N. de N. ipsius ecclesie rector obtinebat ex eo vacet et vacare nosca- 
tur ad presens quod dictus P[resbyter] matrimonium per verba de presenti legitime 
cum quadam muliari contraxit illudque secundum morem patrie solemnizavit et per 
carnalem copulam confirmavit," etc. 

2 Ibid., fol. 20b, 21a. 


the malcontents appealed to the Vicar General of the 
Order in Rome, who came to Spain and warmly espoused 
their cause, being only forced to desist by the decided 
stand taken by Queen Isabella in favour of Ximenes/ It 
was the same with the other monastic Orders. A bull of 
Alexander VI., issued in 1496 for the purpose of reforming 
the Benedictines, describes the inhabitants of many estab- 
lishments of both sexes in that ancient and honoured 
institution as indulging in the most shameless profligacy ; 
and marriage itself was apparently not infrequently prac- 
tised.^ Savonarola did not hesitate to declare that nuns 
in their convents became worse than harlots.^ Even the 
strictest of all the orders — the Cistercian — yielded to the 
prevailing laxity. A general chapter, held in 1516, 
denounces the intolerable abuse indulged in by some 
abbots, who threw off all obedience to the rule, and dared 
to keep women under pretence of requiring their domestic 
services.* To fully appreciate the force of this indication, 
it is requisite to bear in mind the stringency of the regula- 

1 Robles, Vida del Card. Ximenes de Cisneros, cap. xii., xiii. Cf. Wadding, 
Annal Minor, ann. 1495, n. 34-36 ; ann. 1496, n. 10-15. 

When the Franciscan general expressed to Isabella at great length the unworthi- 
ness and demerits of Ximenes, she quietly asked him whether he was sane and knew 
to whom he was speaking. — Gomesius de Rebus gestis Fr. Ximenii, Lib. I. fol. 14. 

This refoi-mation was not lasting. In 1545 Philip II. threatened to expel them all 
from Spain : Pius IV. proposed that they should gradually become extinct, by for- 
bidding the reception of novices ; but he finally empowered his legate to reduce them 
to observance of the rule or to extinguish them, as Philip might prefer. — Bollinger, 
Beitrage zur politischen, kirchlichen u. Cultur-Geschichte, I. 617 (Regensburg, 1862). 

2 Rursus in certis monasteriis dicti ordinis, ipsee moniales apertis claustris, 
indifferenter omnes homines etiam suspectos intromittunt, ac extra monasteria in 
curiis, castris et plateis vagantes, plura scandala committunt . . . Similiter religiosi 
qui in sacris ordinibus constituti non sunt, relicto habito regulari, matrimonium 
contrahere dicuntur. . . . Prseterea omnes et singulos monachos et moniales re- 
gulam S. Benedicti hujusmodi expresse vel tacite professes, qui habitum monas- 
ticum sine dispensatione legitima reliquerunt aut matrimonia contraxerunt, ad 
monasteria, si ilia exiverunt, redire et habitum monasticum ac velum nigrum reas- 
sumere dicta auctoritate compellatis.— App. ad Chron.» Cassinens. Ed. Dubreul, 
pp. 902-3. 

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

3 Perrens, Jerome Savonarole, p. 84. 

4 Statut. Ord. Cisterc. ann. 1516 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 1636-7). 


tions which forbade the foot of woman to pollute the 
sacred retirement of the Cistercian monasteries/ 

The efforts constantly made to check these abuses pro- 
duced little result. A Carthusian monk, writing in 1489, 

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

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

So when Boniface founded the abbey of Fulda, he prohibited the entrance of 
women in any of the buildings, even including the church. The rule was preserved 
uninfringed through all the licence of the tenth and eleventh centuries, and when, 
in 1132, the Emperor Lothair came to Fulda to celebrate Pentecost, his empress 
was not allowed to witness the ceremonies. So when Frederick Barbarossa, in 1135, 
spent his Easter there, he was not permitted to enter the town because his wife was 
with him. In 1370 Boniface IX., at the request of the Abbot John Merlaw, relaxed 
the rule and permitted women to attend at the services of the church — shortly after 
which it was destroyed by lightning, as a warning for the future. — (Paullini Chron. 
Badeslebiens. §viii.) — An equally convincing indication of the favour with which 
this regulation was regarded by Heaven was afforded when Abbot Helisacar, about 
the year 830, introduced it in the celebrated monastery of St. Riquier, and imme- 
diately the number of miracles worked by the relics of the saint increased in a 
notable degree (Chron. Centulensis Lib. iii. cap. iv.). — At the Grande Chartreuse, 
founded by St. Bruno towards the end of the eleventh century, women were not 
even allowed to enter on the lands of the community. — Chart. S. Hugon, Gratiano- 
polit. (Patrolog. T. 166, p. 1571). 


deplores the fact that while monasteries were everywhere 
being reformed, few if any of them maintained their 
morals, but returned to their old condition immediately 
on the death of the zealous fathers who had sought to 
improve them.^ That condition is described by a Benedic- 
tine abbot, the celebrated Trithemius, in general terms, as 
that of dens in which it was a crime to be without sin, their 
inhabitants for the most part being addicted to all manner 
of vices, and being monks only in name and habit. ^ 

That the clergy, as a body, had become a stench in the 
nostrils of the people is evident from the immense applause 
which greeted all attacks upon them. In 1476 a rustic pro- 
phet arose in the hamlet of Niklaushausen, in the diocese of 
Wurzburg, who was a fit precursor of Muncer and John of 
Leyden. John of Niklaushausen was a swineherd, who pro- 
fessed himself inspired by the Virgin Mary. From the Rhine- 
lands to Misnia, and from Saxony to Bavaria, immense 
multitudes flocked to hear him, so that at times he 
preached to crowds of twenty and thirty thousand men. 
His doctrines were revolutionary, for he denounced 
oppression both secular and clerical ; but he was particu- 
larly severe upon the vices of the ecclesiastical body. A 
special revelation of the Virgin had informed him that 
God could no longer endure them, and that the world 
could not, without a speedy reformation, be saved from 
the divine wi-ath consequent upon them.^ The unfor- 
tunate man was seized by the Bishop of Wurzburg ; the 
fanatical zeal of his unarmed followers was easily subdued, 
and he expiated at the stake his revolt against the powers 
that were. 

1 Anon. Carthus. deRelig. Orig. cap. XL. (Martene Ampliss. Coll. VI. 93). 

2 Johan. de Trittenheim Lib. Lugubris de Statu et Ruina Monast. Ordinis 
cap. III. 

3 Annuntia populo fideli meo, et die quod Filius meus avaritiam, superbiam et 
uxuriam clericorum et sacerdotum amplius sastinere nee possit nee velit. Unde 
nisi se quantocius emendaverint, totus mundus propter eorum scelera periclitabitur. 
— Trithem. Ohron. Hirsaug. ann. 1476. 


Such being the state of ecclesiastical morality through- 
out Europe, there can be little wonder if reflecting men 
sought occasionally to reform it in the only rational 
manner — not by an endless iteration of canons, obsolete as 
soon as published, or by ingeniously varied penalties, easily 
varied or compounded — but by restoring to the minister 
of Christ the right to indulge legitimately the affections 
which bigotry might pervert, but could never eradicate. 
Even as early as the close of the thirteenth century, the 
high authority of Bishop William Durand had acknow- 
ledged the inefficacy of penal legislation, and had suggested 
the discipline of the Greek Church as affording a remedy 
worthy of consideration/ As the depravity of the Church 
increased, and as the minds of men gradually awoke from 
the slumber of the dark ages, and shook off the blind 
reverence for tradition, the suggestion presented itself with 
renewed force. At the Council of Constance Cardinal 
Zabarella did not hesitate to suggest that, if the concu- 
binary practices of the clergy could not be suppressed, it 
would be better to concede to them the privilege of 
marriage,^ and shortly after the failure of the council to 
effect a reform had became apparent, Guillaume Saignet 
wrote a tract entitled " Lamentatio ob Caelibatum Sacer- 
dotum," in which he attacked the existing system, and 
called forth a rejoinder from Gerson. The Carmelite, 
Thomas Connecte, was a wandering preacher who filled 
France and the Low Countries with denunciations of 
popular vices, both lay and clerical. His eloquence won 

1 Quum pene in omnibus conciliis et a plerisque Eomanis pontificibus super cohi 
benda et punienda clericorum incontinentia, et eorum honestate servanda multa 
hactenus emanaverint constituta ; et nuUatenus ipsorum reformari quiverit correctio 
morum : . . . videretur pensandum an expediret et posset provideri quod in ecclesia 
Occidentali, quantum ad votum continentise, servaretur consuetudo ecclesiae Orien- 
talis, quantum ad promovendos, potissime quum tempore Apostolorum consuetudo 
ecclesiae Orientalis servaretur. — Durand. de Modo General. Concil. P- ii. rubr. 46 
(Calixtus, p. 537). 

2 Card. Zabarell^e Capit. Agend. in Concil. Con&tant. cap. xii. (Von der Hardt 
T. I. P. ix. p. 525). 


immense applause, and his auditors were reckoned in 
crowds of from ten to twenty thousand souls. He was 
especially severe on the concubinage of all ranks of the 
clergy, and recommended a restoration of priestly mar- 
riage as the appropriate remedy ; but when, in 1432, he 
ventured in Rome to lash the corruption of the Curia, he 
was found to be a heretic, and his career was ended at the 
stake. ^ When the Council of Basle was earnestly engaged 
in the endeavour to restore forgotten discipline, the 
Emperor Sigismund laid before it a formula of reformation 
which embraced the restoration of marriage to the clergy. 
His orator drew a fearful picture of the evils caused by the 
rule of celibacy — evils acknowledged by every one in the 
assembly — and urged that, as it had produced more injury 
than benefit, the wiser course would be to follow the 
example of the Greek Church.^ A majority of the Council 
assented to the principle, but shrank from the bold step 
of adopting it. Eugenius IV. had just been forced to 
acknowledge the legitimacy of the body as an (Ecumenic 
council ; the strife with the papacy might again break forth 
at any moment, and it was not politic to venture on 
innovations too audacious. The conservatives, therefore, 
skilfully eluded the question by postponing it to a more 
favourable time, and the postponement was fatal. 

One of the most celebrated members of the council. 
Cardinal Nicholas Tudeschi, surnamed Panormitanus, whose 
pre-eminence as an expounder of the canon law won for him 
the titles of ** Canonistarum Princeps" and "Lucerna 
Juris," declares that the celibacy of the clergy was not 
essential to ordination or enjoined by divine law ; and he 
records his unhesitating opinion that the question should 
be left to the option of the individual — those who had 

1 Monstrelet, Chronique, ii., 53, 127.— Martene, Ampliss. Collect. VIII. 92.— 
Altmeyer, Precurseurs de la Eeforme, I. 237. 

2 Zaccaria, Nuova Giustificaz. pp. 121-2.— Milman, Latin Christ. Book xiri. 
chap. 12. 


resolution to preserve their purity being the most worthy, 
while those who had not would be spared the guilt which 
disgraced them/ So iEneas Sylvius, who as Pius II. filled 
the pontifical throne from 1458 to 1464, and who knew 
by experience how easy it was to yield to the temptations 
of the flesh, is reported to have said that marriage had been 
denied to priests for good and sufficient reasons, but that 
still stronger ones now required its restoration.^ Indeed, 
when arguing before the Council of Basle in favour of the 
election of Amedeus of Savoy to the papacy, he had not 
scrupled to declare that a married priesthood would be the 
salvation of many who were damned in celibacy.^ And 
we have abeady seen that Eugenius IV. in 1441, and 
Alexander VI. in 1496, granted permission of marriage to 
several mihtary Orders, as the only mode of removing the 
scandalous licence prevaihng among them. 

This question of the power of the Pope to dispense with 
the necessity of celibacy seems to have attracted some 
attention about this period. In 1505, GeofFroy Boussard, 
afterwards Chancellor of the University of Paris, pubHshed 
a tract wherein he argued that priestly continence was 
simply a human and not a divine ordinance, and that the 
Pope was fully empowered to relax the rule in special 
cases, though he could not abolish wholly an institution of 
such long continuance which had received the assent of so 
many holy fathers and general councils. At the same 
time, one of his arguments in favour of its enforcement 
shows how little respect was left in the minds of all thinking 
men for the claims of the Church to veneration. He quotes 

1 Not having the works of Tudeschi to refer to, I give his remarks as quoted by 
Villadiego (Fuero Juzgo, p. 177, No. 85) from Gloss, in cap. olim, de cleric, conjug.— 
"Quod deberet ecclesia facere sicut bonus medicus, ut si medicina, experientia 
docente, potius officit quam prodit, earn toUat ; sic eorum voluntati relinqueretur, ita 
ut sacerdos qui abstinere noluisset, posset uxorem ducere, cum quotidie illicit© coitu 

2 Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias, majori restituendas videri. 
Platina in Vit. Pii II. 

3 Mnese Sylvii de Concil. Basil. Lib. II. 


Bonaventura to the effect that if bishops and archbishops 
had hcence to marry they would rob the Church of all its 
property, and none would be left for the poor, for, he adds, 
" since already they seize the goods of the Church for the 
benefit of distant relatives, what would they not do if they 
had legitimate children of their own ? " ^ , 

When the advantages and the necessity of celibacy thus 
were doubted by the highest authorities in the Church, it 
is no wonder if those who were disposed to question the 
traditions of the past were led to reject it altogether. In 
1479 John Ruchrath, of Oberwesel, graduate of Tubingen, 
and doctor of theology, in his capacity of preacher at 
Worms openly disseminated doctrines which differed in 
the main but little from those of WicklifFe and Huss. He 
denied the authority of popes, councils, and the fathers of 
the Church to regulate matters either of faith or discipline. 
The Scripture was the only standard, and no one had a 
right to interpret it for his brethren. The received obser- 
vances of religion, prayers, fasts, indulgences, were all 
swept away, and universal liberty of conscience proclaimed 
to all. Of course, sacerdotal celibacy shared the same fate, 
as a superstitious observance contrived by papal ingenuity 
in opposition to evangelical simplicity.^ Thus his intrepid 
logic far outstripped the views of his predecessors, and 
Luther afterwards acknowledged the similarity between 
his teachings and those of John of Oberwesel. Yet he had 
not the spirit of martyrdom, and the Inquisition speedily 
forced him to a recantation, which was of little avail, for he 
soon after perished miserably in the dungeon into which he 
had been thrust.^ 

Still more remarkable as an indication of the growing 

1 De Continentia Sacerdotum, Niirnb. 1510, Prop. 6, 7. 

2 Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1479. D'Argentre, Collect, judic. de novis 
Erroribas, I., II., 291 sqq. 

3 Serrarii Hist. Ker. Mogunt. Lib. I. c, 34. 


spirit of independence was an event which in July 1485 
disturbed the stagnation of the centre of theological ortho- 
doxy — the Sorbonne. A certain Jean Laillier, priest and 
licentiate in theology, aspiring to the doctorate, prepared 
his thesis or " Sorbonique," in which he broached various 
propositions savouring strongly of extreme LoUardry. He 
denied the supremacy of the Pope, and indeed reduced the 
hierarchy to the level of simple priesthood ; he rejected 
confession, absolution, and indulgences ; he refused to 
acknowledge the authority of tradition and legends, and 
insisted that the fasts enjoined by the Church had no claim 
to observance. Celibacy was not likely to escape so auda- 
cious an inquirer, and accordingly among his postulates 
were three, declaring that a priest clandestinely married 
required no penitence ; that the Eastern clergy committed 
no sin in marrying, nor would the priests of the Western 
Church if they were to follow that example ; and that 
celibacy originated in 1073, in the decretals of Gregory VII., 
whose power to introduce the rule he more than questioned. 
The Sorbonne, as might be anticipated, refused the doc- 
torate to so rank a heretic, and Laillier had the boldness 
not only to preach his doctrines publicly, but even to 
appeal to the Parlement for the purpose of forcing his 
admission to the Sorbonne. The Parlement referred the 
matter to the Bishop of Paris and to the Inquisitor. A 
long controversy followed, and it required the interposition 
of Innocent VIII. before Laillier could be punished and 
forced to recant.^ In Poland, too, there were symptoms 
of similar revolt against the established ordinances of the 
Church, as shown in a book published at Cracow in 1504, 
" De Matrimonia Sacerdotum."^ 

The corruption of the Church establishment, in fact, had 

1 D'Argentre, I., II., 309 sqq. 

2 Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 110. 


reached a point which the dawning enlightenment of the 
age could not much longer endure. The power which had 
been entrusted to it, when it was the only representative of 
culture and progress, had been devoted to selfish purposes, 
and had become the instrument of oppression in all the 
details of daily life. The immunity which had been ser- 
viceable through centuries of anarchy had become the 
shield of vices. The wealth so freely lavished upon it by 
the veneration of Christendom was wasted in excesses. 
All efforts at reformation from within had failed ; all 
attempts at reformation from without had been success- 
fully crushed and sternly punished. Intoxicated with 
centuries of domination, the muttered thunders of growing 
popular discontent were unheeded, while its corruptions 
were displayed before the people with more careless cyni- 
cism. There appeared to be no desire on the part of the 
majority of the clergy to make even a pretence of the 
virtue and piety on which were based their claims for 
reverence, while the laity were daily growing less reverent, 
were rising in intelligence, and were becoming more 
inclined to question where their fathers had been content 
to believe. Such a complication could have but one 



The opening of the sixteenth century mtnessed an ominous 
breaking down of the landmarks of thought. The revival 
of letters, which was fast rendering learning the privilege 
of all men in place of the special province of the legal and 
clerical professions ; the discovery of America, which 
destroyed reverence for primeval tradition, and accustomed 
men's minds to the idea that startling novelties might yet 
be truths ; the invention of printing, which placed within 
the reach of all inquirers who had a tincture of education 
the sacred writings for investigation and interpretation, and 
enabled the thinker and the innovator at once to command 
an audience and disseminate his views in remote regions ; 
the European wars, commencing with the Neapolitan con- 
quest of Charles VIII., which brought the nations into 
closer contact with each other, and carried the seeds of 
culture, civilisation, and unbelief from Italy to the farthest 
Thule ; all these causes, with others less notable, had been 
silently but effectually wearing out the remnants of that 
pious and unquestioning veneration which for ages had lain 
like a spell on the human mind. 

In this bustling movement of politics and commerce, 
arts and arms, science and letters, rehgion could not expect 
to escape the spirit of universal inquiry. Even before 
opinion had advanced far enough to justify examination 
into doctrinal points and dogmas, there was a general 
readiness to regard the shortcomings of sacerdotalism, in 
the administration of its sacred trust, with a freedom of 


criticism which could not long fail to destroy the respect 
for claims of irrefragable authority. The disposition to 
criticise the abuses of the ecclesiastical system, to note its 
shortcomings, and to apply remedial measures was general, 
and savoured little of the respect which the Church had for 
so many centuries inculcated as one of the first of Christian 
duties. Its past services were forgotten in present wrongs. 
Its pretensions had at one time enabled it to be the pro- 
tector of the feeble and the sole defence of the helpless, 
but that time had passed. Settled institutions were fast 
replacing anarchy throughout Europe, and its all-pervading 
authority would no longer have been in place, even if exer- 
cised for the common benefit. When it was notorious, 
however, that the powers and immunities claimed by the 
Church were largely employed for evil rather than for 
good, their anachronism became too palpable, and their 
destruction was only a question of time. 

Signs of the coming storm were not wanting. In 1510 
a series of complaints against the tyranny and extortion 
of Rome was solemnly presented to the Emperor. The 
German churches, it was asserted, were confided by the 
successors of St. Peter to the care of those who were better 
fitted to be keepers of mules than pastors of men, and the 
Pope was significantly told that he should act more tenderly 
and kindly to his children of Teutonic race, lest there 
might arise a persecution against the priesthood, or a 
general defection from the Holy See, after the manner of 
the Hussites.^ The Emperor was warned, in his efforts to 
obtain the desired reform, not to incur the censures and 
enmity of the Pope, in terms which show that only the 
political effects of excommunication were dreaded, and 
that its spiritual thunders had lost their terrors. He was 

1 Gravamina German. Nationis, No. vii. — Eemed. contra Gravamina (Freher. et 
Struv. II. 677-8). 

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


further cautioned against the prelates in general, and the 
mendicant friars in particular, in a manner denoting how 
Httle reverence was left for them in the popular mind, and 
how thoroughly the whole ecclesiastical system had become 
a burden and reproach, and no longer an integral part of 
every man's life and the great motive power of Christen- 

It was evident that the age was rapidly outstripping 
the Church, and that the latter, to maintain its influence 
and position, must conform to the necessities of progress 
and enlightenment. On previous occasions it had done so, 
and had, with marvellous tact and readiness, adapted itself 
to the exigencies of the situation in the long series of 
vicissitudes which had ended by placing it supreme over 
• Europe. But centuries of almost uninterrupted prosperity 
had hardened it. The corruption which attends upon 
wealth had rendered wealth a necessity, and that wealth 
could only be had by perpetuating and increasing the 
abuses which caused ominous murmurs of discontent in 
those nations not hardy enough to set limits to the 
authority of the Holy See. The Church had lost its 
suppleness, and was immovable. A reform such as was 
demanded, while increasing its influence over the souls 
of men, would have deprived it of control over their 
purses ; reform meant poverty. The sumpter-mule loaded 
with gold, wrung from the humble pittance of the West- 
phalian peasant, under pretext of prosecuting the war 
against the infidel, would no longer cross the Alps to 
stimulate with its treasure the mighty genius of Michael 
Angelo, or the fascinating tenderness of Raphael ; to 
provide princely revenues for the bastards of a pope, or 
to pay mercenaries who were to win them cities and 
lordships ; to fill the antechamber of a cardinal with 

1 Avisamenta ad CtBsar. Ma jest. (Ibid. p. 680). 


parasites, and to deck his mistresses with the silks and 
jewels of Ind ; to feed needy men of letters and scurri- 
lous poets ; to soothe the itching palms of the Rota, 
and to enable all Rome to live on the tribute so cun- 
ningly exacted of the barbarian/ The wretched ending 
of the Council of Basle rendered any internal reformation 
impossible which did not derive its initiative and inspira- 
tion from Rome. In Rome, it would have required the 
energy of Hildebrand, the stern self-reliance of Innocent, 
the unworldly asceticism of Celestin combined, even to 
essay a reform which threatened destruction so complete 
to all the interests accumulated by sacerdotalism around 
the Eternal City. Leo X. was neither Hildebrand, nor 
Innocent, nor Celestin. With his voluptuous nature, 
elegant culture, and easy temper, it is no wonder that 
he failed to read aright the signs of the times, and that 
he did not even recognise the necessity which should 
impose upon him a task so utterly beyond his powers. 
The fifth Council of Lateran had no practical result. 

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

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

That this estimate of the papal Curia was shared by the orthodox is shown in the 
story told of Pierre Danes, Bishop of Vaur, who in 154,5 was sent as ambassador by 
Francis I. to the Council of Trent. In debate a French theologian was inveighing 
against the corruptions of the Rota, when an Italian ecclesiastic sneeringly cried 
out, "Gallus cantat." Danes promptly rejoined, " Utinam illo gallicinio Petrus 
ad resipiscentiam et fletum excitetur,"— ie piat, Monument, Concil. Trident. 
VII. 224. 


Blindly he plunged on : money must be had at any cost, 
until the methods employed in marketing the St. Peter's 
indulgence attracted the attention of Luther, and Teutonic 
insubordination burst forth at the sound of his voice. ^ 

It would be a mistake to credit Luther with the Re- 
formation. His bold spirit and masculine character gave 
to him the front place, and drew around him the less 
daring minds who were glad to have a leader to whom to 
refer their doubts, and on whom their responsibiUty might 
partly rest ; yet Luther was but the exponent of a public 
sentiment which had long been gaining strength, and 
which in any case would not have lacked expression. In 
that great movement of the human mind he was not 
the cause, but the instrument. Had his great opponent 
Erasmus enjoyed the physical vigour and practical bold- 
ness of Luther, he would have been handed down as the 
heresiarch of the sixteenth century. He too had borne 
his full share in preparing the minds of men for what was to 
come. The whole structure of sacerdotalism felt the blows 
of his irreverential spirit, which boldly declared that the 
Scriptures alone contained what was necessary to salvation.^ 
Theological subtleties and priestly observances were alike 
useless or worse than useless. For the living, it was idle 
to attend Mass ; for the dead, it was folly to look to such 
a means for extrication from purgatory.^ The confessional 
was to be visited only as a formal prerequisite to par- 
taking of the Eucharist ; * pilgrimages and the veneration 

1 The briefs of Leo X. from March 1513 to October 1515, calendared by Cardinal 
Hergenrother (Leonis X. Kegestu, Friburgi, 1884-1891) throw abundant light on the 
worldliness and venality of the papal court of the period, the reckless prodigality of 
Leo, and the ruinous financial expedients to which he resorted. Not the least of his 
burdens was the gigantic enterprise of rebuilding the church of St. Peter, inherited 
from Julius II. 

2 Erasmi Colloq. Confabulatio Pia. 

3 Ibid. See also the Encomium Moriae. — "Nam quid dicam de iis qui sibi fictis 
scelerum condonationibus suavissime blandiuntur, ac purgatorii spatia veluti 
clepsydris metiuntur, secula, annos, menses, dies, horas, tanquam e tabula aatbe- 
matica citra ullum errorem dimentientes ? " 

4 Confabulatio Pia. 


of relics were ridiculed with a reckless freedom which 
showed how shaken was the reverence of the past.^ 
Nothing, indeed, can give us a more thorough conviction 
of the readiness of the public to welcome a radical change 
than the wealth of indignant bitterness which Erasmus, 
himself a canon regular and a priest, heaps upon all orders 
of the Church, and the immense applause which everywhere 
greeted his attacks. His sarcastic humour, his biting 
satire, his exquisite ridicule, nowhere find a more congenial 
subject than the vices of the monks, the priests, the pre- 
lates, the cardinals, and even of the Pope himself, until 
even Luther, as late as 1517, feels constrained to deplore 
that the evils which afflicted the Church should be thus 
exposed to derision.^ It affords a curious illustration of 
the times to read those writings which a century earlier 
might have led him to share the fate of John Huss and 
Jerome of Prague, and to reflect that he was not only the 
admiration of both the learned and the vulgar of Europe, 
but also the petted protege of king and kaiser, the corre- 
spondent of popes, and finaUy the champion of the system 
which he had so ruthlessly reviled, and which he never 
ceased to deplore.^ The extraordinary favour with which 

1 Speaking of tbe Virgin's milk and the countless relics of the cross everywhere 
exposed to the adoration of the pious, he exclaims, "0 matrem filio simillimam ! ille 
nobis tantum sanguinis reliquit in terris ; hsec tantum lactis quantum vix credibile 
est esse posse uni mulieri uniparae, etiamsi nihil bibisset infans . . . Idem caussantur 
de cruce Domini, quae privatim ac publice tot locis ostenditur, ut si fragmenta con- 
ferantur in unum, navis onerariee justum onus videri possint ; et tamen totam crucem 
suam bajulavit Dominus "—to which he makes a pious interloculor reply, "Novum 
fortasse dici possit ; mirum nequaquam, quum Dominus, qui haec auget pro suo arbi- 
trio, sit omnipotens."— Colloq. Peregrinat. Religionis. 

2 Supplement. Episk. M. Lutheri, No. II. (Halae, 1703.) 

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

It is, however, perhaps in the " Encomium Moriae " that he gives fullest rein to 


his works were received by all classes shows how fully he 
was justified in the indignation which he so unsparingly 
lavished on clerical abuses, and how eagerly the public 
appreciated one who could so well express that which was 
felt by all. Equally significant was the popularity of the 
" Epistolag Obscurorum Virorum," in which the learned 
wits of the new school poured forth upon the clergy a 
broad and homely ridicule which exactly suited the taste 
of the age ; ^ while Cornelius Agrippa more than rivalled 
Erasmus in the wealth of vigorous denunciation with 
which he lashed the vices of all the orders of ecclesiastics, 
from the Pope to the beguine.^ 

Not less indicative of the dangerous state of opinion 
was an address delivered in the diet held at Augsburg in 

his bitter satire. His own sad experience of conventual life gave him special oppor- 
tunity of declaiming against the monks " qui se vulgo religiosos ac monachos appel- 
lant, utroque falsissimo cognomine, quum et bona pars istorum longissime absit a 
religione, et nulli magis omnibus locis sint obvii." Their habit, their observances, 
their discipline, their ignorance, idleness, vices, are recounted at great length and 
with the most stinging ridicule, and he makes Folly dismiss them with the con- 
temptuous valediction, " Verum ego istos histriones, tarn ingratos beneficiorum 
meorum dissimulatores quam improbos simulatores pietatis libenter relinquo." The 
secular priesthood, the bishops, and even the Pope himself are treated with little 
more respect, and every class of the ecclesiastical body is stigmatised as endeavour- 
ing to thrust upon others the care of the flock and industrious only in shearing the 

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

1 The " Epistolse Obscurorum Virorum" was certainly published before 1516, pro- 
bably in 1515 (Ebert, Bibliog. Diet. s. v.). — It is equally severe upon the monks — 
"Tunc ille dixit : ego distinguo de monachis, quia accipiuntur tribusmodis. Prime, 
pro Sanctis et utilibus, sed illi sunt in coelo. Secundo, pro nee utilibus nee in- 
utilibus, et illi sunt picti in ecclesia. Tertio, modo pro illis qui adhuc vivunt, et illi 
multis nocent, etiam non sunt sancti, quia ita superbi sunt sicut unus saecularium. 
Et ita libenter habent pecunias et pulchras mulieres," &c. And again, " Ubi enim 
diabolus pervenire vel aliquid efficere non potest, ibi semper mittit unam malam 
an ti quam vetulam vel unum monachum." 

2 De Vanitate Scientiarum cap. Ixi., Ixii., Ixiv. 


1518, when the legates of Leo X. appealed to Germany 
for a tithe to assist in carrying on the war against the 
Turk. The orator who replied to them did not restrain 
his indignation at the deplorable condition of the Church, 
which he attributed solely to the worldly ambition of the 
popes. Since they had united temporal with spiritual 
dominion — or, rather, since they had allowed temporal 
interests to divert them wholly from their spiritual duties 
— all had gone amiss. Christendom was despoiled from 
without, and filled with tumult within. Religion was 
openly contemned ; Christ was daily bought and sold ; 
the sheep were shorn, and the pastor took no care of them. 
He did not even hesitate to charge, with emphasis and at 
much detail, that the money extorted from Germany 
under pious pretexts was squandered in Italy on the 
private quarrels and for the aggrandisement of the papal 
houses and those of the members of the sacred college.^ 
All other nations were protected from papal rapacity and 
tyranny by formal agreements. Germany alone was sur- 
rendered defenceless, and not only were her bishops plun- 
dered, but even the smallest benefice conld not be confirmed 
without the recipient running the gauntlet of a horde of 
officials whose exactions forced him to sell the very furni- 
ture of his church. As the rules of law and the dictates of 
justice were equally disregarded, the popular sentiment was 
becoming openly hostile to the Church.^ A state of feeling 
which dictated and permitted such a declaration from the 
supreme representative body of the empire, when brought 
into colhsion with the pretensions of the Holy See, now 
more exaggerated than ever, could have but one result — 

With all this licence, Germany was still, by the force of 
circumstances, less independent of the papacy than any 

1 Orat. in Comit. Augustan, (Freher. et Struv. II. 702.) 

2 Bartholini Comment, de Comit. Augustens. ann. 1518 (Senckenberg. Selecta 
Juris T. IV. pp. 669-70). 


other Tramontane power. The fractioning of the empire 
since the death of Barbarossa, carefully stimulated by papal 
intrigues, had deprived it of unity and prevented the con- 
solidation of a power capable of resisting the encroachments 
of the Curia, which sucked the life-blood of both priest and 
peasant, and rendered the very name of Rome hateful to 
all, but especially to Teutonic ecclesiastics/ What was 
going on elsewhere in Europe may be guessed from the 
humiliating conditions exacted in 1517 of Silvester Darius, 
the papal collector, on his assuming the functions of his 
important office in England. He bound himself by oath 
not to execute any letters or mandates of the Pope injurious 
to the King, the kingdom, or the laws ; not to transmit 
from England to Rome, without a special royal licence, 
any gold, or silver, or bills of exchange ; not to leave the 
. kingdom himself without a special licence under the great 
seal ; with other less notable restrictions, the practical effect 
of all being to place him and his duties wholly under the 
control of the King.^ The position of England had changed 
since the days of Innocent and John. Had the dissensions 
of Germany permitted equal progress, Luther might per- 
haps have only been known as an obscure but learned 
orthodox doctor, and the inevitable revolt of half of Chris- 
tendom have been postponed for a century. 

It is not my province to follow in detail the vicissitudes 
of the Reformation, but only to indicate briefly its relations 
with sacerdotal asceticism. Luther at first, like WicklifFe 
and Huss, paid no attention to the subject. In fact, when 
on the 31st of October, 1517, he nailed on the church door 
of Wittenberg his celebrated ninety-five propositions, 
nothing was further from his expectations than to create a 

1 See the dispatches of the nuncio Aleander and the letter of Archbishop Albert 
of Mainz to Pope Leo, in Balan, Monument. Reform. Lutherean, pp. 31-2, 58, 71, 98, 
165, 268-9. 

2 Rymer, Foedora XIII. 586-7. 


heresy, a schism, or even a general reform in the Church. 
He had simply in view to vindicate his ideas on the subject 
of justification, derived from St. Augustin, against the 
Thomist doctrines which had been exaggerated into the 
monstrous abuses of Tetzel and his fellows.^ In the 
general movement of the human mind at that period so 
much had been said that was inimical to the received prac- 
tices of the Church, without calling forth the thunders of 
Rome, that men seemed to think the day of toleration 
had at last come. The hierarchy sat serenely upon their 
thrones, and in the confidence of unassailable power ap- 
peared willing to allow any freedom of speculation which 
did not assail their temporal privileges. Yet amid the 
general agitation and opposition to Rome which pervaded 
society, it was impossible for a bold and self-reliant spirit 
such as Luther's not to advance step by step in a career of 
which the ultimate goal was as little foreseen by himself 
as by others. Still his progress was wonderfully slow. 
Even in 1519 he still considered himself within the pale of 
the Church : in a letter to Leo X. he protested before God 
that he did not seek in any way to attack the power of 
either the Pope or the Roman Church, which he held to 
be supreme over all in heaven and earth, save Jesus Christ 
alone ; ^ and in the same year, in a sermon on matrimony, 
he alluded not unfavourably to the life of virginity.^ 
Events soon after forced him to further and more dan- 
gerous innovations, yet when Leo X., in June 1520, issued 
his celebrated bull, " Exsurge Domine," to crush the rising 

1 Even in this Luther was by no means the first. Erasmus had exposed the 
demoralisation of the system with fully as much fervour in the "Encomium Morifc." 
— "Hie mihi puta negotiator aliquis, aut miles, aut judex, abjecto ex tot rapinis 
unico nummulo, universam vitse Lernam semel expurgatam putat, totque perjuria, 
tot libidines, tot ebrietates, tot rixas, tot caedes, tot imposturas, tot perfidias, tot 
proditiones existimat velut ex pacto redimi, et ita redimi ut jam liceat ad novum 
scelerum orbem de integro reverti." — And in the " EpistolfE Obscurorum Virorum" 
the falseness of its promises was unflinchingly asserted. 

2 Lutheri Opp. T. I. fol. 210b (Jenje, 1561). 
a Ibid. T. I. fol. 335a. 


heresy, in the forty-one errors enumerated as taught by 
Luther there is no allusion to any doctrine specially 
inimical to ascetic celibacy/ At almost the same moment, 
however, Luther, in his address to the Christian nobles of 
Germany, proposed that through the intervention of a 
general council the privilege of marriage should be granted 
to parish priests, and this was speedily followed by the 
suggestion that vows of chastity taken before the age of 
eighteen should be invalid. - 

The papal condemnation, followed as it was by the 
public burning of his writings, aroused Luther to a more 
active and aggressive hostility than he had pre\'iously 
manifested. In liis book " De Captivitate Babylonica 
Ecclesiie " he attacked the sacrament of ordination, denied 
that it separated the priest from Ms fellows, and ridiculed 
the rule concerninor dio^ami, which excluded from the 
priesthood a man who had been the husband of any but a 
\'irgin, while another who had polluted himself ^\dth six 
hundred concubines was ehgible to the episcopate or 
papacy.^ Finally, on 10th December 1530. he proclaimed 
war to the knife by burning at Wittenberg the books of the 
canon law, andjustifpngliis act by a manifesto recapitulat- 
ing the damnable doctrines contamed in them. Among 
these he enumerates the proliibition of sacerdotal marriage 
as the origin and cause of excessive ^'ice and scandal.^ As 
he said himself, hitherto he had only been plapng at con- 
troversy -s^dth the Pope, but tliis was the beginning of 
serious work.^ Soon after tliis, in a controversy ^dth 
Ambroffio Catarino, he stigmatised the rule of cehbacy as 
angehcal in appearance, but de^'ilish in reahty, and 
invented by Satan as a fertile source of sin and perdition.^ 

1 Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. 1692, I. 614. 

2 Herzog, Abriss, T. III. p. 34.— Lutheri 0pp. T. I. fol. 359b. 

3 De Captiv. Babylon. Eccles. (Lutheri Opp. II. fol. 2S3a.) 

* Artie, et Errores Libb. Jur. Canon. Xo. IS (Lutheri Opp. XL fol. 318a). 

6 Ibid. fol. 319b. 

« Ibid. fol. 362a, 874a. 


In the mighty movement which was agitating men's 
minds, Luther had been anticipated in this. As early as 
1518, a monk of Dantzic named James Knade abandoned 
his order, married, and pubhcly preached resistance to 
Rome. It is evident that in this he had the support of 
the people, for though he was imprisoned and tried by the 
ecclesiastical authorities, the only punishment inflicted on 
him was banishment.^ In the multitude of other questions 
more interesting to the immediate disputants this point of 
discipline seems to have attracted but little attention until 
1521, when during Luther's enforced seclusion in the 
Wartburg, Bartholomew Bernhardi, pastor of Kammerich, 
near Wittenberg, put the heresiarch's views into action 
in the most practical way by obtaining the consent of his 
parish and celebrating his nuptials with all due solemnity. 
Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, addressed 
to Frederic, Elector of Saxony, a demand for the rendition 
of the culprit, which that prudent patron of the Reforma- 
tion skilfully eluded, and Bernhardi published a short 
defence or apology in which he denounced the rule of 
celibacy as a " frivolam traditiunculam." He argued the 
matter, quoting the texts which since his time have been 
generally employed in support of sacerdotal marriage : he 
referred to Peter and Philip, Spiridion of Cyprus, and 
Hilary of Poitiers, as examples of married bishops ; quoted 
the story of Paphnutius, and rehed on the authority of the 
Greek Church. This apparently did not satisfy the arch- 
bishop, for Bernhardi felt obliged to address a second 
apology to Frederic of Saxony, to whom he appealed for 
protection against the displeasure of his ecclesiastical 
superiors.^ In spite of molestation, he continued in the 
exercise of his priestly functions until death. Less fortu- 
nate were his immediate imitators. A priest of Mansfield 

1 Krasinski, op. cit. I. 112-3. 

2 Lutheri 0pp. Jenae, 1581, T. II. fol. 438, 440. 


who took to himself a wife was thrown into prison at Halle 
by Albert of Mainz, and Jacob Siedeler, pastor of Glas- 
hiitten, in Misnia, who was guilty of the same crime, 
perished miserably in the dungeon of Stolpen, to which he 
was committed by Duke George of Saxony.^ 

The enthusiastic Carlostadt, relieved for the time from 
the restraint of Luther's cooler wisdom, threw himself with 
zeal into this new movement of reform, and lost no time 
in justifying it by a treatise in which he argued strenuously 
in favour of priestly marriage, and energetically denounced 
the monastic vows as idle and vain. Luther, however, in 
his retreat, seems not yet prepared to take any very 
decided position. In a letter of 17th January 1522, to 
Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, one of the officials of the 
Archbishop of Mainz, and a favourer of the Reformation, 
he takes the latter severely to task with respect to his 
action in a case of the kind — probably that of the priest of 
Mansfield alluded to above. The man had been set at 
liberty, but forced to separate himself from his wife, and 
Capito had defended himself on the ground that the woman 
was a harlot. Luther asks him why he had been so earnest 
with a single strumpet, when he had taken no action with 
so many under his jurisdiction in Halberstadt, Mainz, and 
Magdeburg, and adds that when the priest had acknow- 
ledged the woman as his wife there should have been 
nothing further done. He proceeds to say, however, that 
he does not ask for the freedom of sacerdotal marriage, and 
that he is not prepared to take any general position con- 
cerning it, except that it is lawful under God.^ Either 
with or without his approbation, however, his friends lost 
no time in enforcing the new dogma, which they pro- 
claimed to the world in the most authoritative manner. 
During the same year Luther's own Augustinian Order 

1 Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1521. 

2 Lutheri Epist. Jenae, 1545, T II. fol. 38, 39. 


held a provincial synod at Wittenberg, in which they 
formally threw open the doors of the monasteries, and 
permitted all who desired it to return to the world, declar- 
ing that in Christ there was no distinction between Jew 
and Greek, monk and layman, and that a vow in opposi- 
tion to the Gospel was no vow, but an impiety. Cere- 
monies, observances, and dress were pronounced futile ; 
those who chose to abide by the estabhshed rule were free 
to do so, but their preferences were not to be a law to 
their fellows. Those who were fitted for preaching the 
Word were advised to depart ; those who remained were 
obliged to perform the manual labour which had been so 
prominent a portion of primitive Teutonic monasticism, 
and mendicancy was strictly forbidden. In a few short 
and simple canons a radical rebellion thus declared itself 
in the heart of an ancient and powerful order, and princi- 
ples were promulgated which were totally at variance with 
sacerdotalism in all its protean forms.^ 

This broad spirit of toleration did not suit the views of 
the more progressive reformers. In Luther's own Augus- 
tinian convent at Wittenberg, one of his most zealous 
adherents, Gabriel Zwilling, preached against monachism 
in general, taking the ground that salvation required the 
renunciation of their vows by all who had been ensnared 
into assuming the cowl ; and so great was his success that 
thirteen monks at once abandoned the convent. Yet even 
on Luther's return tojWittenberg he at first took no part 
in the movement. He retained his Augustinian habit, and 
continued his residence in the convent ; but before the 
close of the year (1522) he put forth his work, " De Votis 
Monasticis," in which he fully and finally adopted the 
views of his friends, and showed himself as an uncompro- 
mising enemy of monasticism.^ How difficult it was for 

1 Synod. Vaitemberg. (Lutheri Opp. II. 470.) 

2 Lutheri Opp. II. 477 sqq. — In this edition the tract is dated 1522 in the 


him, however, to shake off the habitudes in which he had 
been trained is shown by the fact that, even at the end of 
1523, he still sometimes preached in his cowl and some- 
times without it/ 

Notwithstanding the zealous opposition of the orthodox 
ecclesiastical authorities, the doctrine and practice of 
Wittenberg were not long in finding earnest defenders 
and imitators. But few such marriages, it is true, are 
recorded in 1522, although Balthazar Sturmius, an 
Augustinian monk of Saxony, committed the bolder 
indiscretion of marrying a widow of Franconia. In that 
year, however, we find Franz von Sickingen, knight-errant 
and condottiere, who was then a power in the state, 
advocating the emancipation and marriage of the religious 
orders, in a letter to his father-in-law, Diedrich von Henth- 
schuchsheyn. Still more important was the movement 
inaugurated in Switzerland by Ulrich Zwingli, who, with 
ten other monks of Notre-Dame-des-Hermites, on July 2, 
1522, addressed to Hugo von Hohenlandemberg, Bishop 
of Constance, a petition requesting the pri\dlege of 
marriage. The petitioners boldly argued the matter, citing 
the usual Scriptural authorities, and adjured the bishop in 
the most pressing terms to grant their request. They 
warned him that a refusal might entail ruinous disorders 
on the whole sacerdotal body, and that, unless he seized 
the opportunity to guide the movement, it might speedily 
assume a most disastrous shape. They asserted, indeed, 
that not only in Switzerland, but elsewhere, it was gener- 
ally believed that a majority of ecclesiastics had already 
chosen their future wives, and that a return to the old 
order of things was beyond the power of man to accom- 

index and 1521 in the text. Henke and Ranke, however, agree in assigning it to a 
period subsequent to his return from Wartburg. 

1 Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1523.— The fact that Spalatin recorded whether he wore 
the cowl or not, shows the importance which Luther's friends attached to his exam- 
ple with respect to it. 


plish. This was followed, July 13, by a similar memorial 
addressed to the Government of the Swiss Confederacy. 
The signers frankly admitted their inabihty to preserve 
chastity, and asked the State to protect them in their 
marriages if the bishop allowed them to marry.^ 

In this assertion, ZwingU and his companions followed 
perhaps rather the dictates of their hopes than of their 
judgment, for the revolution was by no means as universal 
or immediate as their threats or warnings would indicate. 
Its progress, nevertheless, was rapid and decided. In 
Zurich the secular authorities gave permission to all nuns 
to abandon their cloisters ; in 1523, Leo Judae, ZwingU's 
foremost disciple and parish priest of St. Peters, married a 
former beguine, and in 1524 Zwingli himself married 
Anna Reinhart, widow of Hans Meyer, with whom he had 
been living as man and wife since 1522.^ In Germany, 
Luther, whom we have seen, in the earlier part of 1522, 
still giving but a qualified assent to the daring innovation 
of his followers, in February 1523 wrote to Spalatin in 
favour of a married pastor who was seeking preferment at 
the hands of the Elector Frederic;^ and in April 1523 
he himself officiated and preached a sermon in favour of 
matrimony to a multitude of distinguished friends at the 
wedding of Wenceslas Link, vicar of the Augustinian 
Order, one of his oldest and most valued supporters, who 
had stood unflinchingly by him when arraigned by Cardinal 
Caietano before the Emperor Maximilian at the Diet of 
Augsburg.* Not less important was the countenance 

1 Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1522.— Huldreich Zwingli, by Samuel Macauley Jackson, 
p. 166 (New York, 1901). 

2 Jackson's Huldreich Zwingli, p. 232. — Herzog, Abriss, III. 76. See Ibid. p. 88, 
for the contest in Basle over the marriage of Stephan Stoer, pastor of Liestal, where 
(Ecolampadius maintained the unscriptural character of the canon of celibacy. 

3 Supplement. Epistt. M. Lutheri No. 31 (Halse, 1703). 

4 Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1523. — Thammii Chron. Colditens. — Link married a 
daughter of Suicer, a lawyer of Oldenburg, in Misnia, and the bride's example was 
shortly afterwards followed by her two sisters, one of whom was united to Wolfgang 


given to the innovation, two days later, by the Elector 
Frederic, who consented to act as sponsor at the baptism 
of the first-born of Franz Gunther, pastor of Loch,^ the 
ceremony being performed by the honest chronicler Spalatin 

It is curious to see in Spalatin^s diary how each succes- 
sive marriage is recorded as a matter of the utmost interest, 
the hopes of the reformers being strengthened by every 
accession to the ranks of those who dared to defy the rules 
which had been deemed irreversible for centuries. Nor 
was it an act without danger, for no open rupture had as 
yet taken place between the temporal power of any state 
and the central authority at Rome. Even in electoral 
Saxony, though Duke Frederic, by a cautious course of 
passive resistance, afforded protection to the heretics, yet 
he still considered himself a Catholic, and the ritual of 
his chapel was unaltered. Elsewhere the ecclesiastical 
power was bent on asserting its supremacy over the 
licentious apostates who ventured to sully their vows and 
prostitute the sacrament of marriage by their incestuous 
unions. The old charge of promiscuous intercourse was 
resorted to in their case, as it has been with almost every 
heresy in every age, for the purpose of exciting popular 
odium,^ and wherever the discipline of the Church could be 
enforced, it was done unsparingly. The temper of these 
endeavours to repress the movement is well illustrated by 

Fuess, parish priest of Kolditz, and formerly a monk of Gera ; while the other accepted 
the addresses of the parish priest of Kitscheren. (Spalatin, ubi sup.) 

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

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


the regulations promulgated under the authority of the 
Cardinal-legate Campeggio, when in 1524 he succeeded in 
uniting a number of reactionary princes at the Assembly 
of Ratisbon. Deploring the sacrilege committed in the 
marriages of priests and monks, which were becoming 
extremely common, he granted permission to the secular 
powers to seize all such apostates and deliver them to the 
ecclesiastical officials, significantly restraining them, how- 
ever, from inflicting torture. The officials were empowered 
to condemn the offisnders to perpetual imprisonment, or 
to hand them over to the secular arm — a decent euphuism 
for a frightful death ; and any neghgence on the part of 
the ordinaries exposed those officers to the pains and 
penalties of heresy.^ 

In spite of all this, however, the votaries of marriage had 
the support and sympathy of the great body of the people. 
It shows how widely diffused and strongly implanted was 
the conviction of the evils of celibacy, when those who 
four centuries earlier had so cruelly persecuted their 
pastors for not discarding their wives now urged them to 
marriage, and were ready to protect them from the conse- 
quences of the act. Thus, during the summer of 1524, 
Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, provost of St. Thomas and 
priest of the church of St. Peter at Strassburg, whom we 
have seen two years earlier prosecuting a married priest, 
took to himself a wife, by the request of his parishioners ; 
and when the chapter of canons endeavoured to interfere 
-with him, the threatening aspect of the populace warned 
them to desist. Nor was this the only case, for Bishop 
William undertook to excommunicate all the married 
priests of Strassburg, when the senate of the city resolutely 
espoused their cause, and even the authority of the legate 
Campeggio could not reconcile the quarrel.^ 

1 Reformat. Cleri German, ann. 1524 c. 26 (Goldast. Constit. Imp. III. 491), 

2 Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1524, 


Even higher protection was sometimes not wanting. 
When Adrian VI., in 1522, reproached the Diet of Niirn- 
berg with the inobservance of the decree of Worms and the 
consequent growth of Lutheranism, and King Ferdinand, 
in the name of the German states, repHed that a council 
for the reformation of the Church was the only remedy, 
the question of married priests arose for discussion. The 
German princes alleged that they could find in the civil 
and municipal laws no provisions for the punishment of 
such transgressions, and that the canons of discipline 
could only be enforced by the ecclesiastical authorities 
themselves, who ought not to be interfered with in the 
discharge of their duty by the secular authorities.^ This 
was scant encouragement, but even this was often denied 
in practice. When, in 1523, Conrad von Tungen, Bishop 
of Wurzburg, threw into prison two of his canons, the 
doctors John Apel and Frederic Fischer, for the crime of 
marrying nuns, the Council of Regency at Nlirnberg 
forced him to liberate them in a few weeks. ^ The latter 
fact is the more remarkable, since but a short time pre- 
viously (6 March, 1523) the Imperial Diet at Nlirnberg, 
under the auspices of the same Regency, had expressed its 
desire to give every assistance to the ecclesiastical authority 
in enforcing the canons. In a decree on the subject of 
the religious disturbances it adopted the canon law on 
celibacy as part of the civil law, pronouncing sentence 
of imprisonment and confiscation on all members of the 
clergy who should marry, and ordering the civil power in 

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

2 Spalatin. ann. 1523. 



all cases to assist the ecclesiastical in its efforts to punish 

In the Low Countries, under the Regency of Margaret 
of Austria, the civil power not only assisted but stimulated 
the ecclesiastical to its duty. A conspicuous case was 
that of Jan de Backer (Pistorius) of Woerden, who had 
married, abandoned the priesthood, and supported himself 
by manual labour, until the preaching of the St. Peter's 
indulgence in Woerden induced him to resume the ton- 
sure and priestly functions in order to combat it. It 
illustrates the disciplinary looseness of the pre-Reformation 
period that he seems not to have been disturbed in his 
apostacy and marriage, but the Lutheran revolt had 
created a different temper. He was arrested and carried 
to The Hague, where he was tried by the inquisitors of 
Louvain, who earnestly endeavoured to induce him to 
abandon his wife and recant his errors as to papal authority, 
purgatory, &c., but in vain. There was nothing left to do 
with him but to burn him alive, which was executed 
accordingly, 15 September, 1525.^ 

The emancipation of nuns excited considerable public 
interest, and in many instances was effected by aid from 
without. A certain Leonhard Kopp, who was a deter- 
mined enemy of monachism, rendered himself somewhat 
notorious by exploits of the kind. One of the earliest 
instances was that by which, on Easter Eve, 1523, at con- 
siderable risk, he succeeded in carrying off from the 
convent of Nimptschen, in Misnia, eight young virgins of 
noble birth, all of whom were subsequently married, and 
one of whom was Catharine von Bora.^ The example was 
contagious. Before the month was out six nuns, all of 

1 Edict. Norimb. Convent, ann. 1523 c. 10, 18, 19 (Goldast. II. 151).— This illus- 
trates well the vacillating conduct of the Council of Regency during this period. 

2 Fredericq, Corpus Documentt. Tnquisitionis Neerlandicse, IV. 406-99. 

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


noble blood, left the abbey of Sormitz, and soon after 
eight escaped from that of Peutwitz, at Weissenfels/ 
Monks enfranchised themselves with still less trouble. 
At Nurnberg, in 1524, the Augustinians in a body threw 
off their cowls and proclaimed themselves citizens.^ 

Finally, Luther gave the last and most unquestionable 
proof of his adhesion to the practice of sacerdotal mar- 
riage by espousing Catharine von Bora, whom we have 
seen escaping, two years before, from the convent of 
Nimptschen. Scandal, it would seem, had been busy with 
the intimacy between the pious doctor and the fair rene- 
gade, who had spent nearly the whole period of her liberty 
at Wittenberg, and Luther, with the practical decision of 
character which distinguished him, suddenly resolved to 
put the most effectual stop to rumours which his enemies 
doubtless were delighted to circulate. On the evening of 
13 June, 1525, without consulting his friends, he invited 
to supper Pomeranius, Lucas Cranach, and Apellus, and 
had the marriage ceremony performed.^ It took his 
followers completely by surprise ; many of them dis- 
approved of it, and Justus Jonas, in communicating the 
fact to Spalatin, characterises it as a startling event, and 
evidently feels that his correspondent will require the most 
incontrovertible evidence of the fact, when he declares 
that he himself had been present and had seen the bride- 
groom in the marriage bed.* If the portraits after Lucas 

1 Spalatin. ubi sup. 

2 Spalatin. ann. 1524. 

5 Melanchthon to Camerarius {ap. Mayeri Dissert, de Cath. Lutheri conjuge. 
pp. 25-6). — Melanchthon can only suggest that it was a mysterious act of Providence. 
— " Isto enim sub negotio fortasse aliquid occulti et quiddam divinius subest, de 
quo nos curiose quaerere non decet." — The whole letter is singularly apologetic in 
its tone, 

4 Spalatin. ann. 1525. 

Pomeranius, a priest of Wittenberg, in writing to Spalatin, gives as the reason of 
Luther's marriage — " Maligna fama effecit ut Doct. Martinus insperato fieret con- 
junx" ; and Luther, in a letter to the same, admits this even more distinctly — "Os 
obstruxi infamantibus me cum Catherina Borana." That his action was not gene- 
rally approved by his friends is apparent from his asking Michael Stiefel to pray that 


Cranach given in Mayer's Dissertation on Catharine be 
faithful Ukenesses, it was scarcely the beauty of his bride 
that led Luther to take this step, for her features seem 
rather African than European.^ 

When Luther had once decided for himself on the 
propriety of sacerdotal marriage, he was not likely to stop 
half-way. Some of the reformers were disposed to adopt 

his new life may sanctify him — "Nam vehementer irritantur sapientes, etiam inter 
nostros."— Spalatin. ubi sup. 

That surprise should have been aroused is singular, when he had already pro- 
claimed the most extreme views in favour of matrimony. As early as 1522 be 
delivered his famous " Sermo de Matrimonio," in which he enjoins it in the strictest 
manner as a duty incumbent upon all. Thus, in considering the impediments to 
marriage, he treats of vows, concerning which he says : " Sin votum admissum est, 
videndum tibi est, ut supra memoravi, num tribus eviratorum generibus compre- 
hendaris, qu£e conjugio ademit Deus, ubi te in aliquo istorum uno non repereris, 
votum rescindas, monasticen deseras oportet ; moxque ad naturalem sociam adjungas 
te matrimonii lege."— P. i. c. 8 (0pp. Ed. Vuitemberg. V. 121). To this must be 
added his decided opinions on the subject of conjugal rights, as developed in the 
well-known passage which has excited so much animadversion, and which, if we are 
to interpret it literally, conveys a doctrine which sounds so strangely as the precept 
of a teacher of morality. In treating of the causes of divorce, he remarks : " Tertia 
ratio est, ubi alter alteri sese subduxerit, ut debitam benevolentiam persolvere nolit, 
aut habitare cum renuerit. Eeperiuntur enim interdum adeo pertinaces uxores, qui 
etiam si decies in libidinem prolabentur mariti pro sua duritia non curarent. Hie 
oportunum est ut maritus dicat ' Si tu nolueris, alia volet.' Si domina nolit, adveniat 
ancilla, ita tamen ut antea iterum et tertio uxorem admoneat maritus, et corum aliis 
ejus etiam pertinaciam detegat, ut publice et ante conspectum ecclesise, duritia ejus 
et agnoscatur et reprehendatur. Si tum renuat, repudia eam, et in vicem Vasti 
Ester surroga, Assueri regis exemplo " (Ibid. p. 123). 

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

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

Ad Priapum Lampsacenum 

Veneramur, et Silenum 

Bacchumque cum Venere 

Septa claustri dissipamus, 

Sacra vasa compilamus 

Sumptus unde suppetat 
cum jubilo. 
Mayeri Dissert, p. 22, 23. 
1 Mayeri de Cath. Luth. conjug. Dissert. 4to, Hamburgi, 1702. Cranach, as we 
have seen, was one of the three witnesses present at the marriage. 


the principles of the early Church, and, while permitting 
married priests to officiate, denied to them the right to 
marry a second time or to espouse any but virgins, declar- 
ing all digami worthy of death and calling upon the people 
to drive them out. Against these Luther, in 1528, took 
up the cudgels vigorously, arguing the question in all its 
bearings, and arriving at the conclusion that only bigamists 
were to be shunned or deemed unworthy of holy orders.^ 
Yet at the same time his thoroughly practical mind pre- 
vented him from losing sight of some of the evils insepar- 
able from the revolution which he had wrought in an 
institution so deeply affecting daily life as monasticism. 
As late as 1543, in a letter to Spalatin, while congratulat- 
ing him on the desire expressed by some nuns to leave 
their convent, he cautions them not to do so unless they 
have a certainty or at least a speedy prospect of marriage. 
He complains of the number of such cases in which he 
had been obliged to support the fugitives, and he con- 
cludes by declaring that old women who had no chance 
of finding husbands had much better remain in their 

It is not difficult to explain why there was so ready 
and general an acquiescence in the abrogation of a rule 
established by the veneration of so many centuries. Not 
only had the doctrines of the reformers taken a deep and 
firm hold of the popular heart throughout Germany, 
destroying the reverence for tradition and antiquity, and 
releasing the human mind from the crushing obligation of 
bhnd obedience, but there were other motives, natural if 
not particularly creditable. The ecclesiastical foundations 
had long neglected the duties of charity, hospitality, and 
education, on which were grounded their claims to their 
broad lands and rich revenues. While, therefore, the 

1 Lutheri Opp. (Jenae, 1564) T. I. fol. 496-500. 

2 Supplement Epistt. M. Lutheri No. 212 (Halae, 1703). 


temporal princes might be delighted with the opportunity 
of secularising and seizing the Church possessions, the 
people might reasonably hope that the increase of their 
rulers' wealth would alleviate their own burdens, as well 
as release them from the direct oppression which many of 
them suffered from the religious establishments. Even 
more potential was the disgust everywhere felt for the 
flagrant immorality of the priesthood. The dread experi- 
enced by every husband and father lest wife and daughter 
might at any moment fall victims to the lust of those 
who had every opportunity for the gratification of unholy 
passions led them to welcome the change, in the hope that 
it would result in restoring decency and virtue to a class 
which had long seemed to regard its sacred character as the 
shield and instrument of crime. 

The moral character of the clergy, indeed, had not 
improved during the busy and eventful years which 
marked the first quarter of the sixteenth century. There 
is a curious little tract, printed in Cologne in 1.505, with 
the approbation of the faculty, which is directed against 
concubinage in general, but particularly against that of the 
priests. Its laborious accumulation of authorities to prove 
that licentiousness is a sin is abundant evidence of the 
existing demoralisation, while the practices which it com- 
bats, of guilty ecclesiastics granting absolution to each 
other and mutually dispensing themselves from confession, 
show how easily the safeguards with which the Church 
had sought to surround her ministers were eluded.^ The 
degradation of the priesthood, indeed, can readily be 
measured when, in the little town of Hof, in the Vogtland, 
three priests could be found defiling the sacredness of Ash 
Wednesday by fiercely fighting over a courtesan in a house 

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


of iU-fame ; ^ or when Leo X., in a feeble effort at reform, 
was obliged to argue that systematic licentiousness was not 
rendered excusable because its prevalence amounted to a 
custom, or because it was openly tolerated by those whose 
duty was to repress it.^ In fact, a clause in the Concordat 
with Francis I. in 1516, rene^ving and enhancing the former 
punishments for public concubinage, would almost justify 
the presumption that the principal result of the rule of 
cehbacy was to afford to the officials a regular revenue 
derived from the sale of licences to sin ^ — the old abuse, 
which rises before us in every age from the time of 
Damiani and Hildebrand, and which, since John XXII. 
had framed the tariff of absolutions for crime known as 
the " Taxes of the Penitentiary," had the authority of 
the papacy itself to justify it. In the oldest form in which 
this has reached us, issued by Benedict XII. in 1338, abso- 
lution and dispensation for a concubinary priest is rated at 
only four g7^os tournois, or less than half a florin, and the 
same price is named for the absolution of one who has 
been suspended for adultery. In a somewhat later tax- 
list, dispensation for the son of a priest to be admitted to 
orders and preferment is rated at twelve gros, but if he 
desired a bishopric, it cost thirty.^ It is no wonder that 

1 Wideman. Chron. Curiae ann. 1505. 

2 Neque superiorum tolerantia, sen prava consuetude, quae potius corruptela 
dicenda est, a multitudine peccantium, aliave qugelibet excusatio eis aliquo modo 
suffragetur. — Concil. Lateran. V. ann. 1514 Sess. ix. 

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

4 P. Denifle, Die alteste TaxroUe der apost. Ponitentiarie (Archiv fiir Literatur- 
und-Kirchengeschichte, Bd. V. pp. 227, 230).— Tangl. Das Taxwesen der papstlichen 
Kanzlei, Mittheilungen des Instituts fiir Oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung, 
Bd. XIII., pp. 96, 97. 

These prices nv ere simply for the letters ; there were other fees which increased 
the cost considerably, and when sin had been committed there were pecuniary « 
penances at the discretion of the papal penitentiaries. 


reforming bishops and councils found their efforts baffled 
when the only result was to increase the revenues of the 
papal chancery by stimulating the demand for its inter- 

That no concealment was thought necessary, and that 
sensual indulgence was not deemed derogatory in any way 
to the character of a Christian prelate, may be reasonably 
deduced from the panegyric of Gerard of Nimeguen on 
Phihp of Burgundy, grand-uncle of Charles V., a learned 
and accomplished man, who filled the important see of 
Utrecht from 1517 to 1524. Gerard alludes to the amorous 
propensities and promiscuous intrigues of his patron with- 
out reserve, and as his book was dedicated to the Arch- 
duchess Margaret, sister of Charles V., it is evident that he 
did not feel his remarks to be defamatory. The good pre- 
late, too, no doubt represented the convictions of a large 
portion of his class, when he was wont to smile at those 
who urged the propriety of celibacy, and to declare his 
belief in the impossibility of chastity among men who, like 
the clergy, were pampered with high living and tempted 
by indolence. Those who professed to keep their vows 
inviolate he denounced as hypocrites of the worst descrip- 
tion, and he deemed them far worse than their brethren 
who sought to avoid unnecessary scandal by decently 
keeping their concubines at home.^ 

Even this reticence, however, was considered unneces- 
sary by a large portion of the clergy. In 1512, the Bishop 
of Ratisbon issued a series of canons in which, after quoting 
the Basilian regulations, he adds that many of his eccle- 
siastics maintain their concubines so openly that it would 
appear as though they saw neither sin nor scandal in such 
conduct, and that their evil example was the efficient cause 
of corrupting the faithful.^ In Switzerland the same abuses 

1 Gerardi Noviomagi Philippus Burgundus (Mathaei Analect. I. 230). 

2 Statut. Synod. Joan. Episc. Eatispon. ann. 1512 (Hartzheim VI. 86). 


were quite as prevalent, if we may believe a memorial 
presented, in 1533, by the citizens of Lausanne, complain- 
ing of the conduct of their clergy. They rebuked the in- 
continence of the priests, whose numerous children were 
accustomed to earn a living by beggary in the streets, but 
the canons were the subjects of their especial objurgation. 
The dean of the chapter had defied an excommunication 
launched at him for buying a house near the church in 
which to keep his mistress ; others of the canons had taken 
to themselves the wives of citizens and refused to give them 
up ; but the quaintest grievance of which they had been 
guilty was the injury which their competition inflicted on 
the public brothel of the town.^ What was the condition 
of clerical morality in Italy may be gathered from the 
stories of Bishop Bandello, who, as a Dominican and a 
prelate, may fairly be deemed to represent the tone of the 
thinking and educated classes of society. The cynical 
levity with which he narrates scandalous tales about monks 
and priests shows that in the public mind sacerdotal im- 
morality was regarded almost as a matter of course.^ 

The powerful influence of all this on the progress of the 
Reformation was freely admitted by the authorities of the 
Church. When the legate Campeggio was sent to Germany 
to check the spread of heresy, in his reformatory edict 
issued at Ratisbon in 1524 he declared that the efforts of 
the Lutherans had no little justification in the detestable 
morals and lives of the clergy, and this is confirmed by his 
unsparing denunciation of their licentiousness, drunkenness, 
quarrels, and tavern-haunting ; their traffic in absolution 

1 Art. 18e " Item. Mais, Nous nous plaignions d'aucuns chanoines qui nous gatent 
notre bordeau de la ville, car 11 y en a qui le tiennent en leurs maisons, privement, 
pour tous venans." — Quoted from a contemporary MS. by Abraham Ruchat in his 
" Histoire de la Reformation de la Suisse," T. I. p. xxxiii.-v. (Geneve, 1727.) Ac- 
cording to Cornelius Agrippa, the Roman prelates derived a regular revenue from this 
source, the right to keep definite numbers of strumpets in the public brothels being 
partitioned out between them. — De Vanitate Scient. c. Ixiv. 

2 See, for instance, Novelle, P. iii. Nov. Ivi. 


for enormous offences ; their unclerical habits and hideous 
blasphemy ; their indulgence in incantations and dabbling 
in witchcraft/ Very significant is his declaration that the 
canonical punishments shall be inflicted on concubinary 
priests, in spite of all custom to the contrary or all con- 
nivance on the part of the prelates.^ 

How little, indeed, licentious ecclesiastics might rea- 
sonably dread the canonical punishments is illustrated in 
the report, by the celebrated jurisconsult Grillandus, of a 
case which came before him while he was auditor of the 

1 Reformat. Cleri German (Hartzheim VI. 198). — " Hanc perditissimam hgeresin 
. . . Don parvam habuisse occasionem, partim a perditis moribus et vita clericorum" 

. There was no scruple in confessing this fact by those who spoke authoritatively 
for the Catholic Church, and it long continued to be alleged as the cause of the stub- 
bornness of the heretics. Thus the Bishop of Constance, in the canons of his Synod 
of 1587 — " Estote etiam memores, damnatam et detestandam cleri vitam huic male 
in quo, proh dolor ! versamur, majori ex parte ansam praebuisse . . . Omnes sapientes 
peritique viri unanimi sententia hoc asserunt, hocque efiflagitant penitus, ut prius 
clerus ecclesiarumque ministri ac doctores a vitae sordibus repurgentur, quam ulla 
cum adversariis nostris de doctrina concordia expectari queat." And then, after 
describing in the strongest terms the vices of the clergy and their unwillingness to 
reform, he adds, " Quae sane morum turpitude, vehementer et tantopere imperiti 
populi animos oflfendit ut subinde magis magisque a catholica nostra religione alienior 
efficiatur, atque sacerdotium una cum sacerdotibus doctrinam juxta atque doctores, 
execretur, dirisque devoveat : ita ut protinus ad quamvis sectam deficere potius 
paratus sit quam quod ad ecclesiam ^redire velit." — Synod. Constant, ann. 1567 
(Hartzheim VII. 455). 

Pius V. himself did not hesitate to adopt the same view. In an epistle addressed 
to the abbots and priors of the diocese of Freysingen, in 1567, he says — " Cum nobis- 
cum ipsi cogitamus quae res materiam prjsbuerit tot tantisque pestiferis hseresibus 
. . . tanti mali causam praecipue fuisse judicamus corruptos prselatorum mores, qui 
. ; . eandemque vivendi licentiam iis, quibus prseerant permittentes et exemplo eos 
suo corrumpentes, maximum apud laicos odium contemptionem et invidiam non 
immerito contraxerunt " (Hartzheim VII. 586). 

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


Papal Vicar in Rome. A Spanish priest and doctor of 
canon law, residing in the Christian capital, became en- 
amoured of several young nuns at once, and endeavoured 
to seduce them by teaching them that, as they and he 
were alike spouses of Christ, carnal affection between them 
was their duty. Failing in this, he sought to compel the 
assistance of God in his designs, and, being a man of 
literary culture, he composed a number of prayers of 
singular obscenity, and bribed various ignorant priests to 
recite them amid the ineffable mysteries of the Mass, 
hoping thus to obtain the aid of Heaven in overcoming the 
chastity of his intended victims. At length he chanced to 
offer one of these prayers to a priest of somewhat better 
character, who was sufficiently shocked by it to communi- 
cate with the authorities. Brought before Grillandus, the 
guilty Spaniard sought to justify himself by alleging 
various Scriptural texts, but upon being warned that such 
a defence would subject him to a prosecution for heresy, 
he recanted and acknowledged his errors. For this com- 
plicated mingling of lust and sacrilege his only punishment 
was a short banishment from Rome.^ When the papal 
court set such an example, what was to be expected of 
less enhghtened regions ? 

How keenly these evils were felt by the people, and 
how instinctively they were referred to the rule of celibacy 
as to their proper origin, is shown by an incidental allusion 
in the formula of complaint laid before the Pope by the 
Imperial Diet held at Niirnberg early in 1522, before the 
heresy of priestly marriage had spread beyond the vicinity 
of Wittenberg. The diet, in recounting the evils arising 
from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which allowed clerical 
offenders to enjoy virtual immunity, adduced, among other 
grievances, the Hcence afforded to those who, debarred by 
the canons from marriage, abandoned themselves night 

1 Grillandi Tract, de Sortilegiis Qusest. xvii. No. 1. 


and day to attempts upon the virtue of the wives and 
daughters of the laity, sometimes gaining their ends by 
flattery and presents, and sometimes taking advantage of 
the opportunities offered by the confessional. It was not 
uncommon, indeed, for women to be openly carried off by 
their priests, while their husbands and fathers were 
threatened with vengeance if they should attempt to 
recover them. As regards the sale to ecclesiastics of 
licences to indulge in habitual lust, the diet declared it to 
be a regular and settled matter, reduced to the form of an 
annual tax, which in most dioceses was exacted of all the 
clergy ^dthout exception, so that when those who per- 
chance lived chastely demurred at the payment, they were 
told that the bishop must have the money, and that after 
it was handed over they might take their choice whether 
to keep concubines or not.^ In the face of this condition 
of ecclesiastical morality, it required some obtuseness for 
Adrian VI. to compare Luther to Mahomet, the one seek- 
ing to attract to his party the carnal-minded by permitting 
marriage, even as the other had established polygamy,^ 
and, further, to abuse him for uniting the ministers of 
Christ with the vilest harlots.^ 

Among the diverse opinions of existing evils and their 
remedy, it is interesting to see what was the view of the 
subject taken by those ecclesiastics whose purity of life 
removed them from all temptation to indulgence, and who 

1 Gravamin. Ordin, Imperii cap. xxi., Ivii., Ixx. (Goldast. I. 464.) 

When such complaints were made by the highest authority in the empire, it is 
not diflScult to understand the reasons which led the senate of Niirnberg — which 
city had not yet embraced the Reformation — to deprive, in 1524, the Dominicans 
and Franciscans of the superintendence and visitation of the nuns of St. Catharine 
and St. Clare ; norido we need Spalatin's malicious suggestion — " cura et visitatione, 
pene dixeram corruptione." — Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1524. 

2 Adriani PP. VI. Instructio data Fr. Cheregato, Nov. 25, 1622 (Le Plat, Monu- 
ment. Concil. Trident. II. 146). 

3 Adriani PP. VI. Breve ad Frid. Saxon. (Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 542b.— Le Plat, 


yet were not personally interested in upholding the gigantic 
but decaying structure of sacerdotalism. Of these men 
Erasmus may be taken as the representative. His opinion 
on all the questions of the day was too eagerly desired for 
him to escape the necessity of pronouncing his verdict on 
the innovation portended by the one or two marriages 
which took place near Wittenberg in 1521, and accordingly, 
in 1522, from his retreat in Basle he issued a short disserta- 
tion on the subject, which, although addressed merely to 
Bishop Christopher of that city, was evidently intended 
for a European audience. In this essay, after sketching 
the rise of celibacy and attributing it to the purity and 
fervour of the early Christians, he proceeds to depict the 
altered condition of the Church. Among the innumerable 
multitude of priests who crowd the monasteries, the 
chapters, and the parishes, he declares that there are few 
indeed whose lives are pure, even as respects open and 
avowed concubinage, without penetrating into the mys- 
teries of secret intrigue. As, therefore, there is no Scrip- 
tural injunction of cehbacy, he concludes that, however 
desirable it might be to have ministers free from the cares 
of marriage and devoting themselves solely to the service 
of God, yet, since it seems impossible to conquer the 
rebeUious flesh, it would be better to allow those who 
cannot control themselves to have wives with whom they 
could live in virtuous peace, bringing up their children in 
the fear of God, and earning the respect of their flocks. 
No more startling evidence, indeed, of the demoralisation 
of the period could be given than the cautious fear which 
Erasmus expresses lest such a change should be opposed 
by the episcopal officials, who would object to the diminu- 
tion of their unhallowed gains levied on the concubines of 
the clergy.^ 

1 Erasmi Lib. xxxi. Epist. 43. 

Notwithstanding the sarcasm, popularly attributed to Erasmus, on the occasion 
of Luther's union with Catharine von Bora— that the Reformation had turned out to 


When such was the condition of ecclesiastical morality, 
and such were the opinions of all except those directly 
interested in upholding the old order of things, it is no 
wonder if the people were disposed to look with favour on 
the marriage of their pastors, and if the rejection of celibacy 
gave a fresh impetus to the cause of Lutheranism. In the 
early days of all sects, it is only those of ardent faith and 
pure zeal who are likely to embrace a new belief, with all 
the attendant risks of persecution and contumely. The 
laxity of life allowed to the Catholic clergy would attract to 
its ranks and retain those whose aim was sensual indulgence. 
Thus necessarily the reformers who married would present 
for contrast regular and chaste lives and well-ordered 
households, purified by the dread of the ever-impending 
troubles to which the accident of a day might at any time 
expose them. The comparison thus was in every way 
favourable to the new ideas, and they flourished accord- 

Nor, perhaps, were the worldly inducements to which 
I have before alluded less powerful in their own way in 
advancing the cause. Shortly before Luther's marriage, 
whatever influence was derivable from an aristocratic 
example was obtained when the Baron of Heydeck, a 
knight of the Teutonic Order, renounced his vows and 
publicly espoused a nun of Ligny.^ This may possibly 

be a comedy, seeing that it resulted in a marriage — he continued to raise his voice 
in favour of abolishing the rule of celibacy. Thus he writes, in October 1525, 
" Vehementer laudo coelibatum, sed ut nunc habet sacerdotum ac monachorum vita, 
praesertim apud Germanos, prsetaret indulgeri remedium matrimonii " (Lib. xviii. 
Epist. 9). And again, in 1526, " Ego nee sacerdotibus permitto conjugium, nee 
monachis relaxo vota, ne id fiat ex auctoritate Pontificum, ad sedificationem ecclesiae 
non ad destructionem. ... In primis optandum esset sacerdotes et monachos casti- 
tatem ac coelestem vitam amplecti. Nunc rebus adeo contaminatis, fortasse levius 
malum erat eligendum " (Lib. xviii. Epist. 4). 

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

1 Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1525. 


have encouraged his superior, Albert of Brandenburg, 
Grand Master of the Order, to execute his remarkably suc- 
cessful coup d'etat, in changing his religion and seizing the 
estates of the order, thus practically founding the state 
which chance and talent have exalted until it has been able 
to realise the dream of a united Germany. The liberty 
of marriage which he thus assumed was soon turned to 
account in his advantageous alliance with Frederic, King 
of Denmark, whose daughter Dorothea he espoused, the 
Bishop of Szamland officiating as his proxy, and the actual 
marriage being celebrated 14 June, 1526/ 

Luther may reasonably be held excusable for counselling 
and aiding a transaction which lent such incalculable 
strength to the struggling cause of the Reformation, and 
it is not to be wondered at if he endeavoured to follow it 
up with another of a similar character. The nephew of 
the Duke of Prussia, also named Albert of Brandenburg, 
occupied the highest place in the Teutonic hierarchy, as 
Archbishop both of Mainz and Magdeburg, in the latter 
of which powerful sees the Lutheran heresies had taken 
deep root. Luther sought to induce the archbishop to 
follow his uncle's example ; to take possession in his own 
right of the Magdeburg territories, and to transmit them 
to the posterity with which Heaven could not fail to bless 
his prospective marriage — a scheme which met the warm 
approbation of the leading nobles of the diocese. Albert 
thought seriously of the project, especially as the Peasants' 
War then raging was directed particularly against the 
lands of the Church, but he finally abandoned it, and his 
flock had to work out their reformation without his assis- 

Perhaps some plans of territorial aggrandisement may 

1 Spalatin. Annal.. ann. 1526. 

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


have stimulated the zeal of the Count of Embden, who 
boasted that he had assisted and encouraged the marriage 
of no fewer than five hundred monks and nuns ;^ yet the 
process of secularising the monastic foundations was in 
many places by no means sudden or violent. Thus, when 
the Abbot of Ilgenthal in Saxony died in 1526, the Elector 
John simply forbade the election of a successor, and placed 
the abbey in charge of a prefect, while the remaining 
monks were liberally supplied until they one after another 
died out f and in 1529, when Philip, Count of Waldeck, 
took possession of the ancient monastery of Hainscheidt, 
he caused all the monks to be supported during life.^ 

Through all this period the hope had never been 
abandoned of such an arrangement as would prevent an 
irrevocable separation in the Church. Moderate and 
temperate men on both sides were ready to make such 
concessions of form as would enable Christendom to re- 
main united, as the great vital truths on which all were 
agreed so far outweighed the points of divergence. 
Whether these hopes were well or ill founded was to be 
determined at the Diet of Augsburg, to which, in June 
1530, both parties were summoned for the purpose of 
submitting their differences to the Emperor. Charles 
came to Germany in the full flush of his recent extraor- 
dinary triumphs, the most powerful prince since the days 
of Charlemagne. Europe was at length at peace, even the 
Turk only looming in the East as a probable, not as an 
existing, enemy. But Charles, newly crowned at Bologna, 
came ostensibly as the steadfast ally of the Pope, and 
Clement VII. had not the slightest intention of renouncing 
the traditional and imprescriptible rights of the Holy See. 
The CathoUc princes of Germany, too, had their grounds 

1 Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1526. 

2 Thammii Chron. Coldicens. 

3 Chron. Waldeccense {Hahnii Collect. Monument. I. 851). 


of private quarrel with their Protestant peers, and, holding 
an unquestioned majority, were not disposed to abandon 
their position. The Protestant princes, on the other hand, 
were firm in their new-found faith, and, however disposed 
to avert the threatened storm by the sacrifice of non- 
essentials, their convictions were too strong for them to 
retrace the steps which they had taken during so many 
long and weary years. It is evident that, with such 
materials on either side, no reunion was probable ; and, 
even had an accommodation on points of doctrine been 
possible, there was one subject which scarcely seemed to 
admit of satisfactory compromise. In the states of the 
reform the downfall of monachism had placed in the hands 
of the temporal powers large bodies of sequestrated abbey 
lands. To the Catholic it was sacrilege to leave these in 
the hands of the spoiler ; the Protestant would not willingly 
give up the spoil. 

The contest was opened by the Protestants submitting 
a statement of their belief, divided into two parts, the one 
devoted to points of faith, the other to matters of practice. 
Prepared principally by Melanchthon, it presents their 
tenets in the mildest and least objectionable form, and 
becoming the recognised standard of their creed, it has 
attained a world-wide renown under the name of the 
Confession of Augsburg. The questions of celibacy and 
monastic vows were ably and temperately argued; their 
post-scriptural origin was shown, and the reasons which 
induced the reformers to reject them were placed in a light 
as little offensive as possible.^ At first a counter-state- 
ment was anticipated from the Catholics, and negotiations 
were expected to be carried on by a comparison of the two, 
but they took higher ground, and contented themselves with 

1 Confess. Augustanas P. ii. Art. ii. , vi. 

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



drawing up a refutation of the Confession. The Emperor 
was firm. His aspirations for the universal monarchy, 
which ever eluded his grasp, did not comport with 
encouraging independence of thought and freedom of 
religious belief. In his theory, uniformity of religion was 
a necessary element of the pohtical system which was to 
make him sovereign of Europe, and he would listen to no 
compromise. He was inclined to summary measures, but 
the Catholic princes were hardly prepared for the conse- 
quences of an immediate rupture, and, after a threatening 
interval, another effort was made to effect a reconciliation. 
Conferences between the leading theologians on both sides 
took place, and the Lutherans, warned of their danger, 
were more disposed than ever to make concessions and to 
accept such terms as the stronger party were willing to 
offer them. At length, on the 8th of September, the draft 
of a proposed plan of accord was laid before the Diet. In 
this the points in dispute were referred to that future 
(Ecumenic council which had so long been demanded as 
the panacea for all ecclesiastical ills, and which, after more 
than thirty years of continued expectation, was destined to 
fail so miserably in reconciling difficulties. Such monas- 
teries as had not been destroyed were to be maintained in 
the exercise of the customary rites and observances of reU- 
gion. Abbots and communities who had been ejected were 
to be allowed to return ; and all religious houses which had 
been emptied of their occupants were to be placed in the 
hands of officers appointed by the Emperor, who were to 
administer their possessions until the future council should 
decide upon all the points relating to monachism ; the 
Protestants thus relieving themselves of the accusation 
that they were actuated by motives of worldly gain. 
Similar proposals were made with regard to communion in 
the two elements and clerical marriage. These were left 
as open questions for the council to settle, while a phrase 


of doubtful import subjected them in the meantime to the 
governments of the several states.^ The concessions in 
this project, however, though they might suit the views of 
the temperate doctors and princes in Germany, and though 
even the Roman Curia might be willing to grant them in 
order to save its threatened temporal power over the 
Teutonic states, did not suit the policy of Charles, who 
regarded the Church as simply one of the instruments with 
which he was to build up his universal empire.^ It was 
not difficult for him, therefore, to bring to naught all such 
schemes of conciliation. The restoration of all abbots and 
monks was ordered ; restitution of Church lands was com- 
manded, or their delivery to the Emperor, to be held until 
the assembling of the future council ; and when the Diet 
adjourned, Charles issued a decree enjoining on all married 
priests to abstain from their wives, to eject them, and to 
seek absolution from their ordinaries.^ 

The threatening aspect of affairs warned the Protestant 
princes that no time was to be lost in making provision for 
mutual defence, and ere the year was out the famous 
League of Schmalkalden enabled them to present a united 
front to the powers which they had virtually defied. Into 
the political history of that eventful time it is not my 
province to enter. Suffice it to say that they were able to 
maintain their position, and in their own states to oppose 
the reactionary movement which at times seemed to be 
on the point of destroying all that had been accomplished. 

In this their task was complicated by the extravagances 
of those whose enthusiasm, unbalanced by reason, carried 
them beyond restraint. If Luther had found it no easy 
task to break the chains which for so many ages had kept 

1 Deliberat. de Concordia etc. c. iii., v. (Goldast I. 609). 

2 See Letter of Bergenroth to Komilly, from Simancas, June 14, 1863 (Cart- 
wright's Memoir of Bergenroth, London, 1870, p. 124). 

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


in check the spirit of free inquiry, he discovered that it was 
impossible to control that spirit once let loose ; and the 
wild excesses of Anabaptism were at once the exaggeration 
and the opprobrium of Lutheranism. Originally earnest 
and self-denying, the primitive Anabaptists had captivated 
the fiery soul of Carlostadt, while Luther was in his 
Patmos of Wartburg. The ensuing development was in 
some sort a resuscitation of the Brethren of the Free 
Spirit, remnants of whom doubtless existed in many 
hidden quarters. The inner light was the guide which 
every man should follow, and this was to result in the 
Kingdom of God, wherein all should be equal and live in 
brotherly affection, without subjection to government of 
any kind. These alluring dreams spread through the 
populations with amazing rapidity, calling forth the severest 
repression by the authorities, who recognised in them the 
danger not only to rehgion, but to the whole social organi- 
sation. The sectaries manifested the sincerity of their 
convictions by the steadfast cheerfulness v^dth which they 
endured imprisonment, torture, and the stake ; but this 
ardent fanaticism also found expression in lawless hcentious- 
ness among those who mistook the impulses of the flesh 
for the dictates of the spirit. There is doubtless much 
exaggeration in the description of the igneuvi baptisma by 
which in Munster John Mathison encouraged promiscuous 
licence among the elect, but the history of mystic ardour 
furnishes too many examples of such aberrations for us to 
question the probability of their occurrence among such an 
assemblage of disordered and disorderly minds.^ 

Luther, moreover, was quite as resolute in setting limits 
to his movement as Rome had been in forbidding all 
progress, and the Anabaptists were to him enemies as 
detestable as Catholics. The Protestant princes, more- 
ls Kerssenbroch Eell. Anabaptist, cap. 15, 31,— Janssen, Geschichteder Deutschen 
Volkes. III., 99 sqq. (Ed. 1887.) 


over, had too much worldly wisdom to imperil their 
dangerous career by any alliance with fanatics whose 
extravagances provoked opposition so general. The cause 
of the Reformation, therefore, although it suffered no little 
from so portentous an illustration of the dangers resulting 
from the destruction of the ancient barriers, escaped all 
contamination in itself, and its leaders pursued their course 

Meanwhile the League of Schmalkalden accomplished 
its purpose. Henry VIII. and Francis I. were eager to 
seize the opportunity of encouraging dissension in the 
empire. The Turk became more menacing than ever. 
Charles, always ready to yield for a time when opposition 
was impolitic, gracefully abandoned the position assumed 
at Augsburg ; and the negotiations of Schweinfurth and 
Niirriberg resulted in the decree of the Diet of Ratisbon in 
1532, by which, until the assembling of the future council, 
all religious disturbances were prohibited, and the imperial 
chamber was commanded to undertake no, prosecutions on 
account of heresy. Toleration was thus practically estab- 
lished for the moment, but the abbots and monks who had 
been ejected, and who had been anticipating their restora- 
tion, became naturally restive. Charles cunningly sent 
from Italy full powers to the chamber to decide as to what 
causes arose from religious disputes, and what were simply 
civil or criminal. Thus entrusted with the interpretation 
of the Ratisbon decree, the chamber assumed that claims 
on Church lands were not included in the forbidden class, 
while old edicts prohibiting the observances of Lutheranism 
brought all religious questions within the scope of criminal 
law. The promised toleration was thus practically denied, 
but, fortunately for the Protestants, Ferdinand was 
anxiously negotiating for their recognition of his dignity 
as King of the Romans, and by the Transaction of Cadam 


in 1533 he purchased the coveted homage by accepting 
their construction of the edict of Ratisbon. 

Still the Protestants complained of persecution and 
the CathoHcs of proselytism. The ensuing fifteen years 
were filled with a series of bootless negotiations, pre- 
tended settlements, quarrels, recriminations, and mutual 
encroachments, which year after year occupied the succes- 
sive Diets, and kept Germany constantly trembling on 
the verge of a desolating civil war. It would be useless 
to disturb the dust that covers these forgotten transac- 
tions, which can teach us nothing save that the Protes- 
tants still refused to recognise that the schism was past 
human power to heal ; that Rome, recovering from her 
temporary hesitation, would not abate one jot of her pre- 
tensions to save her supremacy over half of Christendom ; ^ 
and that Charles, as a wily politician, was always ready in 
adversity to abandon with a good grace that which he had 
arrogantly seized in prosperity.^ How eager, indeed, 
were the Protestants to effect some compromise which 
should relieve them from their exceptional position is 
strikingly manifest in the Articles which Melanchthon 
and his friends in 1535 submitted to Francis I., after the 
Sorbonne had refused to enter into a disputation or con- 
ference with them. In this document all non-essentials 
were abandoned ; doctrinal dissidences were skilfully 
evaded, and stress only was laid upon such regulations as 
should remove the external corruption of the Church. 

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

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


Melanchthon proposed that the monastic orders should be 
continued, but that the vows should not be perpetual, so 
that religion might not be disgraced by the excesses of 
those who had mistaken their vocation. So, as regards 
priestly celibacy, he proposed that, as human nature 
rendered it impossible to supply the multitude of parishes 
with men able to live in continence, those who could not 
preserve their purity should be allowed to marry ; while, 
to prevent the dilapidation of Church property, the higher 
positions should be reserved to men of mature age who 
could lead a single life/ The Sorbonne, in reply, con- 
descended to no argument, but contented itself with 
asserting that the Protestants desired the subversion of 
all religion, while, on the other hand, Melanchthon had 
the satisfaction of being proclaimed a traitor by the 

In all this the only point which possesses special 
interest for us is another authoritative attempt at recon- 
ciling the irreconcilable which occurred in 1540 and 1541. 
It was suggested that all parties should unite on the 
basis of sacerdotal marriage, the use of the cup by the 
laity, and the rejection of the authority of the Holy See. 
Matters reached such a point that the legate Morone 
reported, in July 1540, that he was ready to run away in 
despair ; the three great ecclesiastical electors and all the 
episcopate except the Bishop of Trent, and the princes 
except the Dukes of Bavaria and Brunswick, were in 
favour of it, while France would undoubtedly follow the 
example, while he distrusted the assurances of Charles 
and King Ferdinand that they would not abandon the 
papacy.^ If Charles had only had Germany in view, he 
might well have been tempted to follow in the footsteps 
of Henry VIII., and found an independent Church under 

1 Artie. Melanch. ad Regem Francise, No. x., xi. (Le Plat, op. cit. II. 785-7.) 

2 Dittrich, Nunciaturberichte Giovanni Morones, pp. 73, 76-9. — Lammer, Monu- 
raenta Vaticana, Sa?culi XVI. pp. 288-9. 


his supremacy, but his interests in Spain and Italy bound 
him to the papacy, and he was sincere in his pledges to 
Morone. He was anxious, however, to put an end to the 
rehgious strife, and after a conference between Melanch- 
thon and Dr. Eck at Worms, Charles himself presented 
to the Diet of Ratisbon in 1541 a statement of the ques- 
tions in dispute, with propositions for mutual concession 
and compromise. In the course of this he reviewed the 
practice of the Church in various ages with regard to 
sacerdotal celibacy, admitting that the enforcement of it 
was not in accordance with the ancient canons, and indicat- 
ing a willingness to see it abrogated.^ The Protestants, 
who were ready to make many sacrifices for peace, hailed 
this intimation with triumph, stoutly insisting on the 
repeal of the obnoxious rule, which they stigmatised as 
unjust and pernicious.^ So nearly did the parties at 
length approach each other, that there appeared every 
reason to anticipate a successful result to the effort, when 
Paul III. interfered and pronounced all the proceedings 
null and void, as the Church alone had power to regulate 
its internal affairs. The expectations excited by these 
negotiations naturally stimulated the desire of the people 
for a change in the discipline of the Church, and the next 
year we find Paul III. obliged to exhort the Bishop of 
Merseberg, under threats of ejection, to resist the clamours 
of his subjects, who demanded the abrogation of priestly 
celibacy and the use of the cup for the laity. The Council 
of Trent, he said, had been called to consider these 
matters, and immediate change was especially inadmis- 

1 Lib. ad Eationem Concord, ineundam Art. xxii. § 13 (Goldast. II. 199). 

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

3 Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. III. 152-3. 

Pope Paul III. was created Cardinal by Pope Alexander VI. His name was 
Alexander Farnese, and, owing to his dissipated habits and to the fact that his pro- 


Charles had long recognised that the perpetual menace 
of a powerful confederation such as the Schmalkaldic 
League, entertaining constant relations with the external 
enemies of the empire, was incompatible with the peace 
of Germany and with an imperial power such as he was 
resolved to wield. The time at last came for the develop- 
ment of his plans. The skill of Alva and the treachery 
of Maurice of Saxony were crowned with success. The 
battle of Muhlberg broke the power of the Protestants 
utterly, and laid them helpless at his feet. Yet the pro- 
gress of the new ideas had already placed them beyond the 
control of even the triumphant Charles, though he had 
the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse in 
his dungeons. When, at the Diet of Augsburg in 
1548, he proposed the curious arrangement known as 
the Interim, by which he hoped to keep matters quiet 
until the final verdict of that (Ecumenic council which 
constantly vanished in the distance, he felt it necessary 
to permit all married priests to retain their wives until 
the question should be decided by the future council. 
A faint expression of a preference for celibacy, more- 
over, was significant both in what it said and what it left 

The Interim, of course, satisfied neither party. The 

motion was obtained for him by his sister Giulia Orsini (wee Farnese), one of Pope 
Alexander's mistresses, he was known as "the Cardinal of the Petticoat " — Cardinale 
della Gonella. A son of Paul III., Pietro Ludovico Farnese, born 1490, became Duke 
of Parma. He was assassinated in 1547. One of his sons, born 1520, was named 
Alexander, and was created a Cardinal by his grandfather, Paul III. 

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

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


Catholics regarded it as an unauthorised reformation, the 
Protestants as disguised Popery. Charles, however, in 
the plenitude of his power, obliged many of the Lutheran 
states to accept it ; while, as regards the Catholics, he 
was perhaps not sorry to show the Pope that he too, like 
Henry VIII., could regulate the consciences of his subjects 
and prescribe their religious faith. He had broken with 
Paul III. ; the Council of Trent, against his wishes, had 
been removed to Bologna on a frivolous pretext ; and a 
schism like that of England was apparently again impend- 
ing. At the least, Charles might not unreasonably desire 
to manifest that at last he was independent of that papal 
power with which mutual necessities had so long enforced 
the closest relations, and to prove that deference to his 
wishes was henceforth to be the price of his all-important 
support. He demanded that legates should be sent to 
Germany armed with extraordinary powers, among which 
was included authority to grant dispensations to married 
priests. Paul III. referred the request to the Sacred 
College, and to the council then sitting at Bologna, and 
it was unanimously replied that it should be granted, with 
the limitation that monks should not be included, and 
that priests thus permitted to retain their wives should 
not exercise their functions or enjoy the fruits of their 
benefices.^ That Paul forthwith despatched three nuncios 
entrusted with authority to do this shows not only the 
disposition which then existed to relax the rigour of the 
canons respecting celibacy, but also the importance which the 
question had assumed in the religious disputes of the time,^ 

1 Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 19-25. 

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

Both from this and from the language of the Interim it appears that even the 


though an absolute refusal was soon afterwards returned 
to the request of a German prince (supposed to be the 
Duke of Bavaria) requesting for his subjects the use of the 
cup, priestly marriage, and the relaxation of the obligation 
of fasting.^ 

Temporary expedients and compromises such as these 
are interesting merely as they mark the progress of opinion. 
Paltry makeshifts to elude the decision of that which had 
to be decided, they exercised little real influence on the 
history of the time. It is true that w^hen Charles, in 1551, 
at the Diet of Augsburg, issued a call for the reassembling 
of the Council of Trent, he confirmed the Interim until 
that council should decide all unsettled questions,^ yet 
this confirmation was destined to be effective for a period 
ludicrously brief. A fresh treason of Maurice of Saxony 
undid all that his former plotting had accomplished ; and, 
while Henry II. was winning at the expense of the empire 
the delusive title of Conqueror, Charles found himself 
reduced to the hard necessity of restoring all that his 
crooked policy had for so many years been devoted to 
extorting. The Transaction of Passau, signed August 2, 
1552, gave full liberty of conscience to the Lutheran 
states, until a national council or diet should devise 
means of restoring the unity of the Church ; and in case 
such means could not be agreed upon, then the rights 
guaranteed by the Transaction were granted in perpetuity.^ 
If Charles was disposed to withdraw the concessions thus 
exacted of him, the miserable siege of Metz and the 
increasing desire for abdication prevented him from 

Catholic priesthood had begun to arrogate for themselves the right of marriage. That 
such was the case to a great extent will be seen hereafter. 

It indicates the tendencies of the period that, in his instructions to his three 
nuncios, the Bishops of Fano, Verona, and Ferentino, Paul's chief solicitude was to 
warn them against allowing the dispensations to be sold, which would, he said 
create scandal. — Lammer, Monumenta Vaticana, Saeculi xvi. p. 395. 

1 Le Plat, T. IV. p. 27. 

2 Recess, ann. 1551 c. 10 (Goldast. II. 341). 

3 Transac. Pataviens. Artie, de Relig. (Ibid. I. 573.) 


attempting it ; and, at the Diet of Augsburg, in 1555, the 
states and cities of the Augsburg Confession were con- 
firmed in their right to enjoy the practices of their 
rehgion in peace. ^ 

The long struggle thus was over. The public law of 
Germany at last recognised the legality of the transactions 
based upon the Reformation, and not the least in impor- 
tance among those transactions were the marriages of the 
ministers of Christ. 

^ Transac. Pataviens. Artie, de Relig. (Goldast. I. 574. 



The abrogation of celibacy in England was a process of 
far more perplexity and intricacy than in any other country 
which adopted the Reformation. Perhaps this may be 
partially explained by the temperament of the race, whose 
spirit of independence made them quick to feel and impa- 
tient to suffer the manifold evils of the sacerdotal system, 
while their reverential conservatism rendered them less 
disposed to adopt a radical cure than their Continental 

In no country of Europe had the pretensions of the 
papal power been more resolutely set aside. In no country 
had ecclesiastical abuses been more earnestly attacked or 
more persistently held up for popular odium, and the 
applause which greeted all who boldly denounced the 
shortcomings of priest and prelate shows how keenly the 
people felt the evils to which they were exposed. William 
Langlande, the monk of Malvern, was no heretic, yet he 
was unsparing in his reprobation of the corruptions of the 
Church : 

" Right so out of holi chirche, 
Alle yveles springeth, 
There inparfit preesthode is, 
Prechours and techeris 

And prechours after silver, 
Executours and sodenes, 
Somonours and hir lemmannes ; 
That that with gile was geten, 
Ungraciousliche is despended ; 
So harlotes and hores 
Am holpe with swiche goodes, 


And Goddes folk, for defaute thereof, 
For-faren and spillen." i 

And he boldly prophesied the violent doA\Tifall of the 
whole fabric : 

" Right so, ye clerkes, 
For youre coveitise, er longe, 

Shal thei demen dos ecclesice, • 

And youre pride depose. 
Deposuit potentes de sede, etc. 

Leveth it wel ye bisshopes 
The lordshipe of your londes 
For evere shul ye lese, 
And lyven as levitici" etc. 2 

But while the people greeted these assaults with the 
keenest pleasure, they were attached to the old observances, 
and were in no haste to see the predictions of the poet 
fulfilled. A little sharp persecution was sufficient to 
suppress all outward show of Lollardry, and there was no 
chance in England for the fierce revolutionary enthusiasm 
of the Taborites. 

As the sixteenth century opened, John Colet did good 
work in disturbing the stagnation of the schools by his 
contempt for the petrified theological science of the 
schoolmen. His endeavour to revert to the Scriptures as 
the sole source of religious belief was a step in advance, 
while he was unsparing in his denunciations of the corrup- 
tions which were as rife in the English Church as we have 
seen them elsewhere. Yet Colet, though at one time 
taxed with heretical leanings, kept carefully within the 
pale of orthodoxy, and seems never to have entertained 
the idea that the evils which he deplored were to be 
attacked save by a renewal of the fruitless iteration 
of obsolete canons.^ Perhaps, however, his friend and 

1 Vision of Piers Ploughman, Wright's ed., pp. 300, 303. 

2 Ibid. p. 325. — According to David Buchanan, Langlande was also author of a 
tract, "Pro conjugio sacerdotum." — (Ibid. Introduction, p. x.) 

3 In a sermon before the Convocation of 1512, Colet is very severe upon the vices 
of the Church — " We are troubled in these days by heretics — men mad with strange 


disciple, Sir Thomas More, is the best example of this 
frame of mind in England's worthiest men, the besetting 
weakness of which made the Enghsh Reformation a 
struggle whose vicissitudes can scarce be said to have even 
yet reached their final development. 

Before Luther had raised the standard of revolt, More 
keenly appreciated the derelictions of the Church, and 
allowed his wit to satirise its vices with a freedom which 
showed the scantiest respect for the sanctity claimed by 
its hierarchy/ Yet when Luther came with his heresies 
to sweep away all abuses, More's gentle and tender spirit 
was roused to a vulgarity of vituperation which earned 
for him a distinguished place among the foul-mouthed 
polemics of the time, and which is absolutely unfit for 
translation.^ As regards ascetic observances, before the 

folly — but this heresy of theirs is not so pestilential and pernicious to us and the 
people as the vicious and depraved lives of the clergy " — and he urges the prelates to 
revive the ancient canons, the enforcement of which would purify the Church. (See- 
bohm's Oxford Reformers of 1498, p. 170. London, 1867.) 

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

1 Thus in his Epigrams he ridicules the bishops as a class : 

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

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

And he addresses a parish priest : 

" Quid faciant f ugiantve tui, quo cernere possint, 
Vita potest claro pro speculo esse tua. 
Tantum opus admonitu est, ut te intueantur, et ut tu 
Quae facis, haec fugianfc : quae fugis, haec faciant." 

Ibid. p. 247. 
See also his epigrams, *'In Posthumum Episcopum," "In Episcopum illiteratum," 
" De Nautis ejicientibus Monachum," etc. 

2 Responsio ad Lutherum, passim: "Pater frater, potator Lutherus," seems to be 
a favourite expression, but is mild in comparison with others — "novum inferorum 
Deum," "Satanista Lutherus," "pediculoso fraterculo." Luther's friends are 
" nebulonum, potatorum, scortatorum, sicariorum, senatum," and More winds up 
his theological argument wjth — " furiosum fraterculum et latrinarium nebulonem 


Lutheran movement More seems to have inchned towards 
condemning all practices that were not in accordance with 
human nature, though he appears wilhng to admit that 
there may be some special sanctity, though not wisdom, 
in conquering nature/ After the commencement of the 
Reformation, however, his views underwent a reaction, 
and he not only defended monastic vows, but he even 
went so far as to argue that by the recent marriages of the 
Saxon reformers God had manifested his signal displeasure, 
for in the old law true priests could be joined only to 
the chastest virgins, while God permitted these false 
pastors to take to wife none but pubhc strumpets.^ If 
he accused Luther of sweeping away the venerable 
traditions of man and of God,^ he showed how con- 
scientious was this rigid conservatism when he laid his 
head upon the block in testimony for the principal creation 
and bulwark of tradition — the papal supremacy. 

A community thus halting between an acute percep- 
tion of existing evils and a resolute determination not to 

cum suis furiis et furoribus, cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque 

Luther was himself a master in theological abuse, but Mere's admiring biographer ^ 
Stapleton, boasts that the German was appalled at the superior vigour of the English- 
man, and for the first time in his life he declined further controversy — " magis mutus 
f actus est quam piscis." (Stapletoni Vit. T. Mori, cap.'.iv.) As More, however, pub- 
lished the tract under the name of William Rosse, an Englishman who had recently- 
died in Rome, Luther's reticence is more easily to be accounted for. 

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

2 Respons. ad Lutherum Perorat. 

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

3 Ibid. Lib. i. cap. iv. 


remove them was exactly in the temper to render the 
great movement of the sixteenth century as disastrous to 
themselves as possible. How to meet the inevitable 
under such conditions was a problem which might well 
tax the acutest intellect, and Wolsey, whose fate it was 
to undertake the task, seems to have been inspired with 
more than his customary audacious ingenuity in seeking 
the solution. 

Wolsey himself was no ascetic, as the popular inscrip- 
tion over the door of his palace — " Domus meretricium 
Domini Cardinalis " — sufficiently attests. A visitation of 
the religious houses undertaken in 1511 by Archbishop 
Warham had revealed all the old iniquities, without calling 
forth any remedy beyond an admonition.^ In 1518, 
Wolsey himself had attempted a systematic reformation 
in his diocese of York, and had revived the ancient canons 
punishing concubinage among his priesthood ; ^ and in 
1519 we find him applying to Leo X. for a bull conferring 
special power to correct the enormities of the clergy.^ 
When, in 1523, he proposed a general visitation for the 
reformation of the ecclesiastical body. Fox, Bishop of 
Winchester, urged it as in the highest degree necessary, 
stating that he himself had for three years been devoting 
all his energies to restore discipline in his diocese, and that 
his efforts had been so utterly fruitless that he had aban- 
doned all hope of any change for the better.* Cranmer, 
indeed, in his " Confutation of Unwritten Verities," did 
not hesitate to say that "within my memory, which is 
above thirty years, and also by the information of others 
that be twenty years elder than I, I could never perceive 
or learn that any one priest, under the Pope's kingdom. 

1 Froude's England, ch. X. 

2 Wilkins III. 669, 678. 

3 Card. Eboracens. Epist. v. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. III. 1289). 

4 Strype's Eccles. Memorials, T. I. App. p. 19. 

VOL. II. r 


was ever punished for advoutry by his ordinary."^ It may 
readily be beheved, therefore, that Wolsey fully recognised 
the utter inefficiency of the worn-out weapons of discipline. 
Yet he was too shrewd a statesman not to foresee that 
reformation from within or from without must come, and, 
in taking the initiative, he commenced by quietly and in- 
directly attacking the monastic orders. As a munificent 
patron of letters, it was natural that he should emulate 
Merton and Wykeham in founding a college at Oxford ; 
and " Cardinal's College," now Christ Church, became the 
lever with which to topple over the vast monastic system 
of England. 

The development of the plan was characteristically 
insidious. By a bull of 3 April, 1524 (confirmed by 
Henry, May 10), Clement VII. authorised him to suppress 
the priory of St. Frediswood at Oxford, and to remove the 
monks, for the purpose of converting it into a " Collegium 
Clericorum Seculorum."^ This was followed by a bull, 
dated August 21 of the same year, empowering him as 
legate to make inquisition and reformation in all religious 
houses throughout the kingdom, to incarcerate and punish 
the inmates, and to deprive them of their property and 
privileges, all grants or charters to the contrary notwith- 
standing.^ The real purport of this extraordinary com- 
mission is shown by the speedy issue of yet another bull, 
dated September 11, conceding to him the confiscation of 
monasteries to the amount of 3000 ducats annual rental, for 
the endowment of his college, and alleging as a reason for 
the measure that many establishments had not more than 
five or six inmates.* 

1 Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, Bk, II. ch. v. 

2 Rymer's Foedera, XIV. 15. 

3 Wilkins III. 704. — Bishop Burnet says that Wolsey's design in procuring this 
bull was to suppress all monasteries, but that he was persuaded to abandon his pur- 
pose on account of opposition and dread of scandals. — Hist. Reform. Vol. I. p. 20 
Ed. 1679). 

4 Rymer, XIV. 24.— Confirmed by the King, January 7, 1525 (Ibid. p. 32). 


The affair was now fully in train, and proceeded with 
accelerating momentum. On 3 July, 1525, Henry con- 
firmed the incorporation of the college ; his letters-patent 
of 1 May, 1526, enumerate eighteen monasteries suppressed 
for its benefit, while other letters of May 10 grant seventy- 
one churches or rectories for its support, and yet other 
grants are alluded to as made in letters which have not 
been preserved/ In 1528 these were followed by various 
other donations of religious houses and manors, and 
during the same year Wolsey founded another Cardinal's 
College at Ipswich, which became a fresh source of 

Had Henry VIII. entertained any preconceived design 
of suppressing the religious houses, his impatient temper 
would scarcely have allowed him to remain so long a 
witness of this spoliation without taking his share and 
carrying the matter out with his accustomed boldness 
and disregard of consequences. At length, however, he 
claimed his portion, and procured from Clement a bull, 
dated 2 November, 1528, conceding to him, for the 
benefit of the old foundations of the King's Colleges at 
Cambridge and Windsor, the suppression of monasteries 
to the annual value of 8000 ducats.^ This was followed 
by another, a few days later, empowering Wolsey and 
Campeggio, co-legates in the affair of Queen Katharine's 
divorce, to unite to other monasteries all those containing 
less than twelve inmates — thus authorising the suppression 
of the latter, of which the number was very large.* 
Another bull of the same date (November 12) attacked 
the larger abbeys, which had thus far escaped. It ordered 

1 Rymer XIV. pp. 156-6, 172-5. 

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

3 Rymer, XIV. pp. 270-1. 

4 Ibid. 272-3. 


the two cardinals, under request from the King, to inquire 
into the propriety of suppressing the rich monasteries 
enjoying over 10,000 ducats per annum, for the purpose 
of converting them into bishoprics, on the plea that the 
seventeen sees of the kingdom were insufficient for the 
spiritual wants of the people.^ The report of the cardinals 
apparently seconded the views of Henry, for Clement 
granted to them, 29 May, 1529, the power of creating and 
arranging bishoprics at their discretion, and of sacrificing 
additional monasteries when necessary to pro\dde adequate 
revenues.^ It is probable that the monks who had been 
unceremoniously deprived of their possessions did not in 
all cases submit without resistance, for the bull of 12 
November, 1528, respecting the smaller houses, was 
repeated 31 August, 1529, i^dth the suggestive addition of 
authority to call in the assistance of the secular arm.^ 

Wolsey was now tottering to his fall. Process against 
him was commenced on 9 October, 1529, and on the 
18th the Great Seal was delivered to More. His 
power, however, had lasted long enough to break down 
all the safeguards which had for so many centuries 
grown around the sacred precincts of ecclesiastical pro- 
perty ; and the rich foundations which covered so large a 
portion of English territory lay defenceless before the 
cupidity of a despot who rarely allowed any consideration, 
human or divine, to interfere with his wishes, whose ex- 
travagance rendered him eager to find new sources of 
supply for an exhausted treasury, and whose temper had 
been aroused by the active support lent by the preaching 
friars to the party of Queen Katherine in the affair of the 
divorce. Yet it is creditable to Henry's self-command 

1 Rymer, XIV. pp. 273-5. 

2 Ibid. 291-3. 

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


that the blow did not fall sooner, although it came at 

It is not my province to enter into the details of 
Henry's miserable quarrel with Rome, which, except in 
its results, is from every point of view one of the most 
humiliating pages of English history. The year 1532 saw 
the proclamation of the King commanding the support 
of his subjects in the impending rupture, and the sub- 
scription of the clergy to a paper which, with un- 
paralleled servility, placed the whole ecclesiastical 
constitution of the kingdom in his absolute power. ^ The 
following year his long-protracted divorce from Katherine 
of Aragon was consummated ; the annates were with- 
drawn from the Pope, and Henry assumed the title of 
Supreme Head of the Church of England.^ In 1535 an 
obedient Parliament confirmed the acts of the sovereign, 
and forbade the promulgation of any canons by synods 
or convocations without his approval. The power of the 
Pope was abolished by proclamation, and universities 
and prelates rivalled each other in obsequiously transferring 
to Henry the reverence due to Rome.^ 

The greater portion of the monasteries, which had 
already experienced a foretaste of the wrath to come, 
hastened to proclaim their adhesion to the new theological 
autocracy, and means not the most gentle were found to 
persuade the remainder. The Carthusians of the Charter 
House of London gave especial trouble, and the contest 
between them and the King affords a vivid picture of the 
times. There is something very affecting in the account 
given by Strype of the humble but resolute resignation 

1 Pecock's Records of the Reformation No. 276 (Vol. II. p. 259). 

2 Wilkins III. 755-62. 

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


with which the prior and his monks prepared themselves 
for martyrdom in vindication of the papal supremacy. ^ 
Their courage was soon put to the test. Between the 
27th of April and the 4th of August, 1535, the prior and 
eleven of his monks were put to death with all the horrors 
of the punishment for high treason ; ^ but neither this 
nor the efforts of a new and more loyal prior were able 
to produce submission. In 1536, ten of the most un- 
yielding were sent to other houses, where several of them 
were subsequently executed, and in 1537 ten more were 
thrown into Newgate, where nine of them died almost 
immediately — it is to be presumed from the rigour of their 
confinement and the foulness of the gaol. In 1539, the 
few that remained were expelled ; the house was seized 
and used as an arsenal, until it was given to Sir Edward 
North, who changed it into a residence, pulling down the 
cloisters and converting the church into his parlour.^ The 
Observantine Franciscans were equally resolute, and, 
moreover, persistently adhered to the cause of Katherine of 
Aragon. After unsuccessful attempts to win them over, 
some two hundred of them were sent to prison, where 
they mostly perished, and in 1537, eight of them who 
survived were allowed to leave England.* 

The direct relations of the regular Orders with the 
papacy rendered it impossible to regard them otherwise 
than as a source of disaffection and danger in the new 
order of things. Their destruction thus seemed to be a 
pohtical necessity, the desire for which was enhanced by 
the relief promised to Henry's exhausted treasury through 
the secularisation of their property. As a rule, their 
establishments were not unpopular, and, little as Henry 
recked of any opposition to his will, some excuse was 

1 Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 195. 

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

3 Strype, op. cit. pp. 277-8. 

4 Gasquet, Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries, I. 156-201 (Ed. 1888). 


necessary to win over public opinion to such harsh 
measures. The most effective means for this was a 
visitation which should expose the secret turpitude of 
monasticism, and accordingly, in 1535, commissions were 
issued to examine into the foundation, title, history, con- 
dition of discipline, and number and character of inmates 
of all religious orders/ Thomas Cromwell had no difficulty 
in finding visitors who should supply the material desired. 
In the summer and autumn of 1535, three commissioners 
— John Ap Rice and Doctors Legh and Layton — were 
busily engaged with the religious houses of the south of 
England. Of these, Ap Rice, to judge by his reports, was 
inclined to be fair-minded, while the others were unscrupu- 
lously eager to meet the wishes of their master, and their 
reports were filled with descriptions of foul disorders. They 
were consequently selected to continue the work in the 
north, which, under pressure of Hmited time, was so hur- 
riedly performed that the investigation must have been 
merely nominal. Parliament was to meet on 4 February, 
1536, and their work must be completed in time to lay 
before it. Commencing December 22, in about six weeks 
they reported on a hundred and fifty-five houses in the 
province of York and the dioceses of Coventry, Lichfield, 
and Norwich, including a few scattered ones elsewhere. 
Only about forty per cent, of the houses in these districts 
were visited, and of the hundred and fifty-five there were 
forty-three against which nothing more serious than super- 
stition was alleged — probably on account of well-timed 
liberality exhibited to the visitors. The rest were described 
as more or less vicious.^ 

The result of this visitation, exaggerated by subsequent 
writers, has been to blacken unduly the memory of English 

1 Wilkins, III. 787. 

2 Calendar of State Papers of the Keign of Henry VIII. Vol. IX., Nos. 42, 49, 139, 
160, 497, 622 ; Vol. X., No. 364 ; Gairdner's Preface, p. xlv. 


monasticism. No one familiar with the mendacity of 
pubhc papers of that age places confidence in their unsup- 
ported statements when there was an object to be gained, 
and nothing in the character of Henry's selected agents 
tends to prevent a wholesome attitude of doubt. Besides, 
in some cases there happens to be evidence contradicting 
the statements of the visitors. Thus, in October 1535, 
Layton reports to Cromwell : *' The prior of Dover and his 
monks are as bad as others. Sodomy there is none, for 
they have no lack of women. The Abbot of Langdon is 
worse than all the rest, the drunkennest knave living. His 
canons are as bad as he, without a spark of virtue."^ The 
result of this was the immediate surrender of the houses of 
Langdon, Dover, and Folkstone, but the commissioners 
who received the surrender wrote to Cromwell, Novem- 
ber 16; "The house of Langdon is in decay, the abbot 
unthrifty, and his convent ignorant. Dover is well repaired, 
and the prior has reduced the debt from £180 to £100, of 
whose nowe case divers of the honest inhabitants of Dover 
show themselves very sorry. Folkestone is a little house, 
well repaired, and the prior a good husbandman beloved of 
his neighbours."^ Still more compromising is the fact 
that, on 24 April, 1536, a commission was issued to some 
prominent men in each county to make a new survey of 
the monasteries. Reports of these commissioners, in June, 
for Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Rutland, and Hunts are 
extant, and they almost uniformly represent the inmates 
to be of good conversation ; in fact, it is especially signifi- 
cant that in Leicestershire, two — Garendon and Gracedieu, 
which had been the subject of particular animadversion by 
Legh and Layton — were reported on favourably. 

In this conflict of testimony we must therefore rely on 
antecedent and circumstantial evidence, and we may not 

1 Calendar, Vol. IX. Nos. 669, 829. 

2 Calendar, Vol. X, No. 1191 ; Gairdner's Preface, xlv.-vi. 


accept as proven Father Gasquet's pious and laborious 
rehabilitation.^ All contemporary authorities agree that 
the pre-Reformation Church was steeped in worldliness. 
The English monasteries were not likely to have improved 
since Archbishop Morton described their condition, half 
a century earlier, as similarly deplorable, or Wolsey at a 
later period ; nor is there any ground for imagining them 
as better than their Continental brethren, whose lapses 
were the subject of bitter reprehension by censors of their 
own faith. The Franciscan, Dr. Thomas Murner, who 
was subsequently one of Luther's most vituperative 
opponents, in his Narrenhesdvwerung assumes as a matter 
of course that all parish priests kept concubines, and all 
priests and monks meddle with men's wives, while in the 
nunneries she who has most children is reckoned the 
abbess.^ A more sober witness is Abbot Trithemius, 
whose description of the houses of his own Benedictine 
Order we have seen above. Scarce anything, indeed, can 
be conceived worse than the condition of the German 
convents as detailed in a document drawn up by order of 
the Emperor Ferdinand in 1562, to stimulate the Council 
of Trent to action.^ In Italy there is ample evidence that 
the regular Orders were no better ; * and as for France, it 
is sufficient to refer to the description, by the Council of 
Paris in 1521, of the entire absence of discipline in capi- 
tular and conventual life.^ In fact, the whole conventual 
system was so corrupt that, as we shall see, the cardinals 
whom Paul III. in 1538 charged to draw up a plan of 
reform for the Church proposed to abolish all the con- 
ventual Orders, in order to relieve the people of their evil 

1 Gasquet's Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries, Chap. ix. 

2 Th. Murner's Narrenbeschwerung, Ed. Scheible, Stuttgart, 1846. 

3 Le Plat, Monumentt. Concil. Trident. V .244-5. 

4 Pastor, Geschichte den Papste, III. 126 (Ed. 1895). 

5 Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1521, cap. 2, 3, 4 (Labbe et Coleti Supplem. V, 


example, and to place the nunneries under episcopal juris- 
diction/ That public opinion in England took the same 
view of the monastic establishments would appear from 
the travels of Nicander Nucius, who visited England about 
1545, and who, in relating the story of their suppression, 
gives as damaging an account of their morality as Bishop 
Burnet or any of those who have been classed as their 
special defamers.^ The impartial student may therefore 
not unreasonably conclude that, in view of the state of 
monastic morals everywhere else in Christendom, the 
assertion that England was an exception requires stronger 
evidence than has been produced. 

That a portion at least of the people were eager for the 
secularisation of the religious houses is apparent from the 
virulence of the assault upon them in the notorious docu- 
ment knowTi as " The Beggars' Petition." It calculates 
that, besides the tithes, one- third of the kingdom was 
ecclesiastical property, and that these vast possessions 
were devoted to the support of a body of men who found 
their sole serious occupation in destroying the peace of 
families and corrupting the virtue of women. The 
economical injury to the Commonwealth, and the inter- 
ference with the royal prerogative of the ecclesiastical 
system, were argued with much cogency, and the King 
was entreated to destroy it by the most summary methods. 
That any one should venture to publish so violent an 
attack upon the existing Church, at a time when punish- 
ment so prompt followed all indiscretions of this nature, 
renders this production peculiarly significant both as to 

1 Alius abusus corrigendus est in ordinibus religiosorum quod adeo multi de- 
formati sunt ut magno sint scandalo ssecularibus ex emplumque plurimum noceant. 
Conventuales ordines abolendos esse putamus omnes. . . . Abusus alius turbat 
Christianum populum in monialibus quse sunt sub cura fratrum conventualiura, ubi 
plerisque monasteriis fiunt publica sacrilegia, cum maximo omnium scandalo. — Le 
Plat, Monumentt. Concil. Trident. II. 601-2 (Lovanii, 1782). 

2 Travels of Nicander Nucius, pp. 68-71 (Camden Soc), 


the temper of the educated portion of the people and the 
presumed intentions of the King/ 

Whether the reports of the visitors were true or false, 
they served the purpose of those who procured them. 
The Parhament which met 4 February, 1536, was com- 
posed almost exclusively of members selected by the court 
and presumably submissive to the royal will. Yet, when 
a bill was introduced suppressing all houses whose landed 
revenues did not exced £200, it seems to have taken the 
House by surprise. There were hesitation and delay, and 
tradition relates that it required the personal urgency of 
the King, accompanied by threats and the reading of the 
reports of the visitors, to obtain its enactment.^ To justify 

1 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. Keform. 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 Memorials I. 165) includes it in a list of books 
prohibited by Cuthbert, Bishop of London, in 1626. 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. 

" § 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, Oen, 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 

2 Gasquet, op. cit., pp. 311-12.— Gairdner, Calendar, Vol. X. p. xlv. 


it, the preamble recites that " manifest sin, vicious, carnal 
and abominable living is daily used and committed 
commonly in such little and small abbeys, priories and 
religious houses of monks, canons and nuns, where the 
congregation of such religious persons is under the number 
of twelve persons," and that this increases in spite of con- 
tinual visitations during the past two hundred years, so 
that the only hope of amendment is to transfer their 
inmates to the " diverse and great solemn monasteries of 
this realm wherein (thanks be to God) religion is right well 
kept and observed."^ The distinction between the "great 
solemn monasteries," which were praised, and the small 
ones, which were reviled, was a trifle illogical, but probably 
no one ventured to criticise the inconsistency, and the bill 
was passed. 

Three hundred and seventy-six houses were swept away 
by this Act, and the " Court of Augmentations of the 
King's Revenue " was established to take charge of the 
lands and goods thus summarily escheated. The rents 
which thus fell to the King were valued at £32,000 a year, 
and the movable property at £100,000, while the com- 
missioners were popularly supposed to have been " as 
careful to enrich themselves as to increase the King's 
revenue." Stokesley, Bishop of London, remarked, con- 
cerning the transaction, that " these lesser houses were as 
thorns soon plucked up, but the great abbeys were like 
petrified old oaks ; yet they must needs follow, and so 
would others do in Christendom before many years were 
passed." But Stokesley, however true a prophet in the 
general scope of his observation, was mistaken as to the 
extreme facility of eradicating the humble thorns. The 
country was not so easily reconciled to the change as the 
versatile, more intelligent, and less reverent inhabitants of 
the cities. Henry, unluckily, not only had not abrogated 

1 27 Henry VIII. cap. 28. 


Purgatory by proclamation, but had specially recommended 
the continuance of prayers and masses for the dead,^ and 
thousands were struck with dread as to the future prospects 
of themselves and their dearest kindred when there should 
be few to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the benefit of 
departed souls, to say nothing of those which had been 
paid for and not yet celebrated. The traveller and the 
mendicant, too, missed the ever open door and the coarse 
but abundant fare which smoothed the path of the humble 
wayfarer. Discontent spread widely, and was soon mani- 
fested openly. To meet this, most of the lands were sold 
at a very moderate price to the neighbouring gentry, under 
condition of exercising free hospitality to supply the wants 
of those who had hitherto been dependent on conventual 
charity. - 

The plan was only partially successful, and soon 
another element of trouble made itself apparent. Of the 
monks whose houses were suppressed, those who desired 
to continue a monastic life were transferred to the larger 
foundations, while the rest took " capacities," ^ under 
promise of a reasonable allowance for their journey home. 

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

2 Burnet, I. 193-4, 222-4 ;— Pari. 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 (16 
Dec, 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. 

3 " They be very pore, and can have lytyll serves withowtt ther capacytes. The 
bischoypps and curettes be very hard to them, withowtt they have ther capacytes." 
— The Bishop of Dover to Cromwell, 10 March, 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. 


They received only forty shillings and a gown, and with 
this slender provision it was estimated that about ten 
thousand were turned adrift upon the world, in which their 
previous life had incapacitated them from earning a support. 
The result is visible in the Act for the punishment of 
" sturdy vagabonds and beggars," passed by Parliament in 
this same year, inflicting a graduated scale of penalties, 
of which hanging was the one threatened for a third 

This was a dangerous addition to society when discon- 
tent was smouldering and ready to burst into flame. The 
result was soon apparent. After harvest-time great dis- 
turbances convulsed the kingdom. A rising, reported as 
consisting of twenty thousand men, in Lincolnshire, was 
put down by the Duke of Suffolk with a heavy force and 
free promises of pardon. In the North matters were even 
more serious. The clergy there were less tractable than 
their southern brethren, and some Injunctions savouring 
strongly of Protestantism aroused their susceptibilities 
afresh. Unwilling to submit without a struggle, they held 
a convocation, in which they denied the royal supremacy 
and proclaimed their obedience to the Pope. This was 
rank rebellion, especially as Paul III., on 30 August, 
1535, had issued his bull of excommunication against 
Henry, and self-preservation therefore demanded the im- 
mediate suppression of the recalcitrants. They would 
hardly, indeed, have ventured on assuming a position of 
such dangerous opposition without the assurance of popular 
support, nor were their expectations or labours disap- 
pointed. The " Pilgrimage of Grace," according to report, 
soon numbered forty thousand men. Although Skipton 
and Scarboro' bravely resisted a desperate siege, the success 
of the insurgents at York, Hull, and Pomfret Castle was 
encouraging, and risings in Lancashire, Durham, and 

1 27 Henry VIII. c. 25, renewed by 28 Hen. VIII. c. 6.— Parliament. Hist. I. 574. 


Westmoreland gave to the insurrection an aspect of the 
most menacing character. Good fortune and skilful 
strategy, however, saved the Duke of Norfolk and his 
little army from defeat ; the winter was rapidly approach- 
ing, and at length a proclamation of general amnesty, 
issued by the King on December 9, induced a dispersion 
of the rebels. The year 1537 saw another rising in the 
North, but this time it only numbered eight thousand 
men. Repulsed at Carlisle, and cut to pieces by Norfolk, 
the insurgents were quickly put down, and other dis- 
turbances of minor importance were even more readily 

Strengthened by these triumphs over the disaffected, 
Henry proceeded, in 1537, to make the acknowledgment 
of papal authority a crime liable to the penalties of a 
praemunire ; ^ and, as resistance was no longer to be 
dreaded, he commenced to take possession of some of the 
larger houses. These did not come within the scope of 
the Act of Parliament, and therefore were made the 
subject of special transactions. The abbots resigned, 
either from having been implicated in the late insurrections, 
or feeling that their evil hves would not bear investigation, 
or doubtless, in many cases, from a clear perception of the 
doom impending in the near future, which rendered it 
prudent to make the best terms possible while yet there 
was time. Thus in these cases the monks were generally 
pensioned with eight marks a year, while some of the 
abbots secured a revenue of 400 or 500 marks. ^ In an 
agreement which has been preserved, the monks were to 

1 Burnet, I. 227-34 ; Collect. 160.— Wilkins III. 784, 792, 812.— Kymer, XIV. 549. 

2 28 Henry VIII. c. 10.— Pari. Hist. I. 533. 

Praemunire derives its name from the statues 27 Edward III. cap. 1, and 16 Richard 
II. cap. 2, against carrying to Rome actions cognisable in the royal courts. It was 
virtually equivalent to outlawry. 

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


receive pensions varying from 53,9. 4fd. to £4 a year, 
according to their age/ In some cases, indeed, according 
to Bishop Latimer, in a sermon preached before Edward 
VI., the royal exchequer was reUeved by finding prefer- 
ment for most unworthy objects : " However bad the 
reports of them were, some were made bishops and others 
put into good dignities in the Church, that so the King 
might save their pensions that otherwise were to be paid 
them."^ An effectual means, moreover, of inducing 
voluntary surrenders was by stopping their source of 
support, and thus starving them out. Richard, Bishop of 
Dover, one of the commissioners in Wales, writes to 
Cromwell, 23 May, 1538 ; " I thinke before the yere be owt 
ther schall be very fewe howsis abill to lyve, but schall be 
glade to giffe up their howseis and provide for them selvys 
otherwise, for their thei schall have no living." In antici- 
pation of the impending doom, many of the abbots and 
priors had sold everything that was saleable, from lands 
and leases down to spits and kitchen utensils, leaving their 
houses completely denuded. The letters of the com- 
missioners are full of complaints respecting this sharp 
practice, and of their efforts to trace the property. Another 
mode of compelling surrenders was by threatening the 
strict enforcement of the rules of the Order. Thus, in the 
official report of the surrender of the Austin Friars of 
Gloucester, we find the alternative given them, when " the 
seyd freeres seyed ... as the worlde ys nowe they war 
not abuU to kepe them and leffe in ther howseys, wher- 
fore voluntaryly they gaffe ther howseys into the vesytores 
handes to the kynges use. The vesytor seyd to them, 
' thynke nott, nor hereafter reportt nott, that ye be sup- 
presseyd, for I have noo such auctoryte to suppresse yow, 
but only to reforme yow, wherfor yf ye woll be reformeyd, 

1 Suppression of Monasteries, p. 170. — Strype's Eccles. Memor. I. 262. 

2 Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book i. Chap. ix. 


accordeyng to good order, ye may contynew for all me.' 
They seyd they war nott abull to contynew," whereupon 
they were ejected/ 

In the year 1538 the work proceeded with increased 
rapidity, no less than 158 surrenders of the larger houses 
being enrolled. Many of the abbots were attainted of 
treason and executed, and the abbey lands forfeited. 
Means not of the nicest kind were taken to increase the 
disrepute of the monastic orders, and they retaliated in the 
same way. Thus, the Abbot of Crossed-Friars, in London, 
was surprised in the day time with a woman under the 
worst possible circumstances, giving rise to a lawsuit more 
curious than decent ; ^ while, on the other hand, the Abbess 
of Chepstow accused Dr. London, one of the visitors, of 
corrupting her nuns.^ Public opinion, however, did not 
move fast enough for the rapacity of those in power, and 
strenuous exertions were made to stimulate it. All the 
foul stories that could be found or invented respecting the 
abbeys were raked together ; but these proving insufficient, 
the impostures concerning relics and images were investi- 
gated with great success, and many singular exposures 

1 Suppression of Monast. pp. 194, 203. 

3 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 naivete, and applies to Cromwell for 
protection. — Suppression of Monasteries, Letter xxv. 

3 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 adoltery 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 conjunc- 
tion 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, Beading, 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 honour. 



were made which gave the King fresh warrant for his 
arbitrary measures, and placed the rehgious houses in a 
more defenceless position than ever.^ 

Despite all this, in the session of 1539 all the twenty- 
eight parliamentary abbots had their writs, and no less 
than twenty sat in the House of Lords. ^ Yet the influence 
of the court and the progress of pubhc opinion were shown 
in an Act which confirmed the suppressions of the larger 
houses not embraced in the former Act, as well as all that 
might thereafter be suppressed, forfeited, or resigned,^ and 
9 May, 1540, by special enactment, the ancient Order of 
the Knights of St. John was broken up, pensions being 
granted to the grand prior and some of the principal 
dignitaries.* These measures consummated the ruin of 
the monastic system in England. Henceforth it was al- 
together at the King's mercy, and his character was not 
one to temper power with moderation. In 1539 there are 
upon record fifty-seven surrenders of the great abbeys,^ 

1 Burnet, I. 238-43.— See also Froude's Hist. Engl. III. 285 et seq. During his 
visitation (August 27, 1538), the Bishop of Dover writes to Cromwell, " I have Mal- 
kow's ere that Peter stroke of, as yt ys wrytyn, and a M. as trewe as that " (Suppres- 
sion of Monasteries, p. 212). In a report of December 28, 1538, Dr. London observes, 
with dry humour, " J 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 inf ormyd " (Ibid. p. 234). Dr. Layton 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 Ladle's Smock ; Part of 
God's Supper, In ccEna Domini ; Pars petrae 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 licence 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. 

2 Pari. Hist. I. 535. 

3 31 Henry VIII. c. 13 (Pari. Hist. I. 537). 

4 32 Henry VIII. c. 24 (Ibid. 543-44). 
6 Burnet I. 262-3. 


and a large number in 1540, the good house of Godstow 
being the last of the great monasteries to fall. Of the old 
monastic system this left only the chantries, free chapels, 
collegiate churches, hospitals, &c., which were gradually 
absorbed during the succeeding years,^ until the necessities 
of the King prompted a sweeping measure for their destruc- 
tion. Accordingly in 1545 a bill was brought in placing 
them all at his disposition, together with the property of 
all guilds and fraternities. There were some indications 
of opposition, but the King pleaded the expenditures of the 
French and Scottish wars, and solemnly promised his 
Parhament " that all should be done for the glory of God 
and common profit of the realm," whereupon it was passed.^ 
It is computed that the number of monasteries suppressed 
by these various measures was 645 ; of colleges, 90 ; of 
chantries and free chapels, 2374 ; and of hospitals, 110.^ 

A vast amount of property thus passed into the hands 
of the court. The clear yearly rental of the suppressed 
houses alone was rated at £131,607 6s. 4d — an immense 
sum in those days ; but Burnet states that in reality it was 
almost tenfold the amount.* Small as may have been the 
good effected by these enormous possessions in the hands 
of the monks, it was even more worthless under the man- 
agement of its new masters. Henry admitted the heavy 
responsibility which he assumed in thus seizing the wealth 
which had been dedicated to pious uses, and he entertained 
magnificent schemes for devoting it to the public benefit, 
but his own extravagance and the grasping avarice of 
needy courtiers wrought out a result ridiculously mean. 
Thus he designed to set aside a rental of £18,000 for the 

1 Kymer. XIV. XV. 

2 37 Hen. VIII. c. 4 (Pari. Hist. I. 561). 

3 Pari. Hist. I. 537. 

4 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). 


support of eighteen " Byshopprychys to be new made."^ 
For this purpose he obtained full power from Parliament 
in 1539,^ and in 1540 he established one on the remains of 
the Abbey of Westminster. Those of Chester, Gloucester, 
and Peterboro' were estabhshed in 1541, and in 1543 those 
of Oxford and Bristol,^ and one of them, that of West- 
minster, was suppressed in 1550, leaving only five as the 
result. The people were quieted by assurances that taxes 
would be abrogated for ever and the kingdom kept in a 
most efficient state of defence ; but subsidies and bene- 
volences were immediately exacted with more frequency 
and energy than ever.* Splendid foundations were pro- 
mised for institutions of learning, but little was given ; a 
moderate sum was expended in improving the sea-ports, 
while broad manors and rich farms were granted to 
favourites at almost nominal prices ; and the ill-gotten 
wealth abstracted from the Church disappeared without 
leaving traces except in the sudden and overgrown fortunes 
of those gentlemen who were fortunate or prompt enough 
to make use of the golden opportunity, and who to obtain 
them had no scruple in openly tendering bribes and shares 
in the spoil to Cromwell, the omnipotent favourite of the 
King.^ The complaints of the people, who found their new 
masters harder than the old, may be estimated from some 
specimens printed by Strype.^ 

If it be asked what becarne of the " holy idle thieves " 
and " sturdy loobies " whom the Beggars' Petition so 
earnestly desired to be thrown upon the world, the answer 
may be found in the legislation of Edward VI. It was 

' 1 Such is the substance of a memorandum in Henry's own handwriting (Suppres- 
sion of Monasteries, No. 131, p. 263). 

2 31 Hen. VIII. c. 9 (Pari. Hist. I. 640). 

3 Burnet I. 300. 

4 Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 345. 

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

6 Op. cit. I. 392-403 ; II. 258-63. 


impossible that the sudden and violent overthrow of a 
system on which nearly all charitable relief was based 
could be effected without causing infinite misery during 
the period of transition, no matter how tenderly the 
interests of the poor might be guarded. In the organisa- 
tion of the Catholic Church all benevolence finds its ex- 
pression through ecclesiastical instrumentalities, and the 
immense possessions of the mediaeval establishment had 
been confided to it largely in its capacity of the universal 
almoner. In seizing these possessions the State was 
morally bound to assume the corresponding obligations, 
but time was required for the adjustment, and the greedy 
rulers, during the minority of Edward VI., were much more 
intent upon increasing their acquisitions than in listening to 
the demands of humanity. By his first Parliament, in 
1547, an Act was passed confirming that of 1545, concern- 
ing the hospitals, chantries, guilds, &c., under which all 
remnants that had escaped the rapacity of the late sovereign 
were placed at the mercy of the Protector Somerset and 
his colleagues of the Council, who speedily absorbed not 
only them, but everything that could be stripped from the 
parish churches.^ In the preamble of this Act, one of its 
objects was specified to be the " better provision for the 
poor and needy," thus recognising the responsibility of the 

1 1 Edw. VI. c. 14. Dr. Augustus Jessop tells us that " the ring of the miscreants 
who robbed the monasteries in the reign of Henry the Eighth was the first, but the 
ring of the robbers who robbed the poor and helpless in the reign of Edward the 
Sixth was ten times worse than the first. . . . The accumulated wealth of centuries, 
their houses and lands, their money, their vessels of silver and their vessels of gold, 
their ancient cups and goblets and salvers, even to their very chairs and tables, were 
all set down in inventories and catalogues, and all swept into the great robbers' 
hoard . . . every vestment and chalice, and candlestick and banner, organs and bells, 
and picture and image and altar and shrine." — *' In three years it may be said that 
almost all the parish churches in England had been looted ; before the end of the 
king's reign there had been a clean sweep of all that was worth stealing from the 
parish chests, or the church walls, or the church treasuries. In the next generation 
there were churches by the score that possessed not even a surplice ; there were 
others that had not even a chalice, and others again, in considerable numbers, that 
were described as •ruinated.'"— Before the Great Pillage, pp. 39-40, 66 (London 


State to replace the assistance which had been afforded by 
the Church and the guilds, but Parliament a few weeks 
earlier had already taken measures, not to relieve the suf- 
ferings of the poor, but to repress the vagabondage which 
had necessarily resulted from the destruction of the 
monasteries. In this Act the magnitude of the evil is 
indicated by the rigorously inhuman measures deemed 
necessary for its abatement. Every able-bodied man, 
loitering in any place for three days without working or 
offering to work, was held to be a vagabond ; he was to be 
branded on the breast with a letter V, and be adjudged as 
a slave for two years to any one who would bring him be- 
fore a justice of the peace. ^ This substitute for clerical 
almsgiving was deemed sufficient for the time, and it was 
not until five years later, in 1552, that a practical effort 
was made to alleviate the miseries of poverty by a poor- 
law, the commencement of a series which has since burdened 
England with ever-increasing weight.^ 

The monastic establishments of Ireland shared the same 
fate. Rymer^ gives the text of a commission for the 
suppression of a nunnery of the diocese of Dublin in 1535. 
The insubordination of the island, however, rendered it diffi- 
cultto carry out the measure everywhere, and finally,in 1541, 
it was accomplished by virtually granting their lands to the 
native chieftains. These were good Catholics, but they 
could not resist the temptation. They joined eagerly in 
grasping the spoil, and the desirable political object was 
effected of detaching them, for the time, from the foreign 
alliances with the Catholic powers, which threatened 
serious evils.^ 

1 1 Edw. VI. c. 3.— Pari. Hist. I. 683. 

2 5-6 Edw. VI. cap. 2. For the charitable functions of the guilds destroyed 
under Edward VI. see J. E. Thorold Kogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages, II. 

3 Foedera, T. XIV. p. 551. 

4 Froude, Hist. Engl. IV. 543. 


It is a striking proof of Henry's strength of will and 
intense individuality of character, that, in thus tearing up 
by the roots the whole system of monachism, he did not 
yield one jot to the powerful section of his supporters who 
had pledged themselves to the logical sequence of his acts, 
the abrogation of sacerdotal celibacy in general. While 
every reason of policy and statesmanship urged him to 
grant the privilege of marriage to the secular clergy, whom 
he forced to transfer to him the allegiance formerly 
rendered to Rome, while his chief religious advisers at 
home and his Protestant allies abroad used every endeavour 
to wring from him this concession, he steadily and persis- 
tently refused it to the end, and we can only guess whether 
his firmness arose from conscientious conviction or from 
the pride of a controversialist. 

Notwithstanding his immovable resolution on this point, 
his power seemed ineffectual to stay the progress of the 
new ideas. An assembly held by his order in May 1530, 
to condemn the heretical doctrines disseminated in certain 
books, shows how openly the advocates of clerical marriage 
had promulgated their views while yet Wolsey was prime 
minister and Henry gloried in the title of Defender of the 
Faith. Numerous books were denounced in which celibacy 
was ridiculed, its sanctity disproved, and its evil influences 
commented upon in the most irreverent manner.^ These 

1 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 ex- 
clamation, 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 


doctrines were sometimes carried into practice, and the 
orthodox clergy had Httle ceremony in visiting them 
with the sharpest penalties of the canons. It was about 
this time that Stokesley, Bishop of London, condemned 
to imprisonment for life Thomas Patmore, the incumbent 
of Hadlam in Hertfordshire, for encouraging his curate 
to marry and permitting him subsequently to officiate; 
and the unfortunate man actually lay for three years in 
gaol, until released by the intercession of Cranmer.^ 

If the reforming polemics were thus bold while Henry 
was yet orthodox, it may readily be imagined how keenly 
they watched the progress of his quarrel with the Pope, 
and how loud became their utterances as he gradually threw 
off his allegiance to Rome and persecuted all who hesitated 
to follow in his footsteps. He soon showed, however, that 
he allowed none to precede him, and that all consciences 
were to be measured by the royal ell-wand. Thus his pro- 
ceedmgs against the Carthusians and Franciscans in 1534 
were varied by a proclamation directed against seditious 
books and priestly marriages. As we have seen, some 
unions had taken place, and all who had committed the 
indiscretion were deprived of their functions and reduced to 
the laity, though the marriages seem to have been recognised 
as vahd. Future transgressions, moreover, were threatened 
with the royal indignation and further punishment — words 
of serious import at such a time and under such a 

self to chastitie to obteyn that which Criste purchesed for the, surely soo art 
thow an infidele." 

The " Kevelation of Anticriste " carries the war into the enemy's territory in a 
fashion somewhat savage : " Keping of virginitie and chastite of religion is a 
deveUishe thinge " (Wilkins III. 728-34). 

1 Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book ill. Chapter 34. 

2 Wilkins III. 778.— Strype, in his "Memorials of Cranmer," Bk. i. Chap. 18, 
gives this proclamation as dated November 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. 


In spite of all this, the chief advisers of Henry did not 
scruple to connive at infractions of the proclamation. Both 
Cranmer and Cromwell favoured the Reformation : the 
former was himself secretly married, and even ventured to 
urge the King to reconsider his views on priestly celibacy ; ^ 
while the latter, though, as a layman, without any such 
personal motive, was disposed to relax the strictness of the 
rule of celibacy. During the visitation of the monasteries, 
for instance, the Abbot of Walden had little hesitation in 
confessing to Ap Rice, the visitor, that he was secretly 
married, and asked to be secured from molestation. The 
confidence thus manifested in the friendly disposition of 
the vicar-general was satisfactorily responded to. Crom- 
well replied, merely warning him to " use his remedy " 
without, if possible, causing scandal.^ A singular petition, 
addressed to him in 1536 by the secular clergy of the dio- 
cese of Bangor, illustrates forcibly both the confidence felt 
in his intentions and the necessity of the Abbot of Walden's 

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 4 November, 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 ven- 
tured 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 there- 
fore 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 December 1547, in the first year of Edward VI. 

1 Burnet's Collections I. 319. 

2 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." 


" remedy " in the immorality which prevailed. There had 
been a visitation in which the petitioners admit that 
many of them had been found in fault, and as their women 
had been consequently taken away, they pray the vicar- 
general to devise some means by which their consorts may 
be restored. They do not venture to ask directly for 
marriage, but decency forbids the supposition that they 
could openly request Cromwell to authorise a system of 
concubinage. Nothing can be more humiliating than their 
confession of the relations existing between themselves, 
as ministers of Christ, and the flocks entrusted to their 
spiritual care. After pleading that without women they 
cannot keep house and exercise hospitality, they add: 
" We ourselves shall be driven to seek our living at ale- 
houses and taverns, for mansions upon the benefices and 
vicarages we have none. And as for gentlemen and sub- 
stantial honest men^ for fear of inconvenience, knowing our 
frailty and accustomed liberty, they will in no wise board us 
in their houses"^ 

The tendencies thus exhibited by the King's advisers 
called forth the remonstrances of the conservatives. In 
June 1536 the Lower House of Convocation presented a 
memorial inveighing strongly against the progress of 
heresy, and among the obnoxious opinions condemned was 
" That it is preached and taught that all things awght to 
be in comen and that Priests shuld have wifFes," and they 
added that books containing heretical opinions were printed 
" cum privilegio," were openly sold among the people, and 

1 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 Legh, one of the visitors, says, in writing to Cromwell, 22 August, 1536, con- 
cerning the region between Coventry and Chester : " For certain of the knights 
and gentlemen, and most commonly all, liveth so incontinently, having their concu- 
bines 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 im- 
morality of their flocks. 


were not condemned by those in authority/ Possibly it 
was in consequence of this that in the following November 
Henry issued a circular letter to his bishops in which he 
commanded them — " Whereas we be advertised that 
divers Priests have presumed to marry themselves contrary 
to the custom of our Church of England, Our Pleasure is, 
Ye shall make secret enquiry within your Diocess, whether 
there be any such resiant within the same or not " — and 
any such offenders who had presumed to continue the 
performance of their sacred functions were ordered to be 
reported to him or to be arrested and sent to London.^ 
Curiously enough, there is no reference to the subject in 
the " Articles devised by the Kinges Highnes Majestic to 
stablyshe Christen Quietnes and Unitie amonge us," issued 
by Henry in this year.^ 

Notmthstanding the ominous threat in the letter to 
the bishops, there appears about this period to have been 
great uncertainty in the pubhc mind respecting the state 
of the law and the King's intentions. Two letters happen 
to have been preserved, written within a few days of each 
other, in June 1537, to Cromwell, which reveal the con- 
dition of opinion at the time. One of these complains that 
the vicar of Mendelsham, in Suffolk, has brought home a 
wife and children, whom he claims to be lawfully his own, 
and that it is permitted by the King. Although " thys 
acte by hym done is in thys countre a monstre, and many 
do growdge at it," yet, not knowing the King's pleasure, 
no proceedings can be had, and appeal is therefore made 
for authority to prosecute, lest " hys ensample wnpon- 
nyched shall be occasion for other carnall evyll dysposed 
prestes to do in lyke manner." The other letter is from an 
unfortunate priest who had recently married, supposing it 
to be lawful. The " noyse of the peopull," however, had 

1 Strype, Eccles. Memorials, Vol. I. Append, p. 176. 

2 Burnet's Collect. I. 362. 

3 Formularies of Faith, Oxford, 1856.— Wilkins III. 826. 


just informed him that a royal order had commanded the 
separation of such unions, and he had at once sent his wife 
to her friends, three-score miles away. He therefore 
hastens to make his peace, protesting he had sinned 
through ignorance, though he makes bold to argue that 
" yf the kyngys grace could have founde yt laufuU that 
prestys mught have byn maryd, they wold have byn to the 
crowne dubbyll and dubbyll faythefull ; furste in love, 
secondly for fere that the byschoppe of Rome schuld sette 
yn hys powre unto ther desolacyon." ^ 

It is evident from these letters that there was still a 
genuine popular antipathy to clerical marriage, and yet 
that the royal supremacy was so firmly established by 
Henry's ruthless persecutions that this antipathy was held 
subject to the pleasure of the court, and could at any 
moment have been dissipated by proclamation. In fact, 
the only wonder is that any convictions remained in the 
minds of those who had seen the objects of their pro- 
foundest veneration made the sport of avarice and derision. 
Stately churches torn to pieces, the stone sold to sacrile- 
gious builders, the lead put up at auction to the highest 
bidder, the consecrated bells cast into cannon, the sacred 
vessels melted down, the holy relics snatched from the 
shrines and treated as old bones and ofFal, the venerated 
images burned at Smithfield — all this could have left little 
sentiment of respect for worn-out religious observances in 
those who watched and saw the sacrilege remain un- 

Notwithstanding the reforming influences with which 
he was surrounded, Henry sternly adhered to the position 
which he had assumed.^ When, in 1538, the princes of 

1 Suppression of Monasteries, pp. 160-1. 

2 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). 


the Schmalkaldic League offered to place him at its head, 
and even to alter, if possible, the Augsburg Confession so 
as to make it a common basis of union for all the elements 
of opposition to Rome, Henry was well inclined to obtain 
the political advantages of the position tendered him, but 
hesitated to accept it until all doctrinal questions should 
be settled. The three points on which the Germans 
insisted were the communion in both elements, the wor- 
ship in the vulgar tongue, and the marriage of the clergy. 
In the Convocation of that year a series of questions was 
submitted for decision embracing the contested points, 
and the clergy decided in favour of celibacy, private 
masses, and communion in one element.^ Thus sustained, 
Henry was firm, and the ambassadors of the League spent 
two months in conferences with the English bishops and 
doctors without result. On their departure (5 August, 
1538), they addressed him a letter arguing the subjects in 
debate — the refusal of the cup, private masses, and sacer- 
dotal celibacy — to which Henry replied at some length, 
defending his position on these topics with no little skill 
and dexterity, and refusing his assent finally.^ The re- 
formers, however, did not yet despair, and the royal 
preachers even ventured occasionally to debate the pro- 
priety of clerical marriage freely before him in their 
sermons, but in vain.^ An epistle which Melanchthon 
addressed to him in April 1539, arguing the same questions 
again, had no better effect.* 

In the spring of 1539 Henry renewed negotiations with 
the German princes, and his envoys, in soliciting another 
visit from deputies of the League, held out some vague 
promises of his yielding on the point of celibacy. The 

1 Strype's Eccles. Memor. I. 320. 

2 Burnet I. 254-55 ; Collect. 332, 347. 

3 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). 

4 Burnet, Collect. I. 329. 


Germans in turn, to show their earnest desire for union 
with England, submitted a series of propositions in which 
they suggested that the marriage of priests might be left 
to the discretion of the Pope, and that if it were to be 
prohibited only persons advanced in life should be ordained/ 
Both parties, however, were too firmly set in their opinions 
for accord to be possible. Notwithstanding any seeming 
hesitation caused by the policy of the moment, Henry's 
mind was fully made up, and the consequences of en- 
deavouring to persuade him against his prejudices soon 
became apparent. Even while the negotiations were in 
progress he had issued a series of injunctions degrading 
from the priesthood all married clergy, and threatening 
with imprisonment and his displeasure all who should 
thereafter marry. ^ Argumentation confirmed his opinions, 
and he proceeded to enforce them on his subjects in his 
own savage manner, " for though on all other points he 
had set up the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession," yet 
on these he had committed himself as a controversialist, 
and the worst passions of polemical authorship — the true 
" odium theologicum " — acting through his irresponsible 
despotism, rendered him the cruellest of persecutors. But 
a few weeks after receiving the letter of Melanchthon, he 
answered it in cruel fashion. 

In May a new Parliament met, chosen under great 
excitement, for the people were inflamed on the subject 
of religion, and animosities ran high. The principal object 
of the session was known to be a settlement of the national 
Church, and as the reformers were in a minority against 
the court, the temper of the Houses was not likely to be 
encouraging for them.^ On May 5, a week after its 

1 Strype's Eccles. Memor. I. 339, 343. 

2 Ibid. 844.— Wilkins III. 847. 

3 Yet the moderate party ventured to submit to Parliament " A Device for extir- 
pating Heresies among the People," among the suggestions of which was a bill for 
abolishing ecclesiastical celibacy, legalising all existing marriages, and permitting 


assembling, a committee was appointed, at the King's 
request, to take into consideration the differences of 
reUgious opinion, On the 16th, the Duke of Norfolk, 
who was not a member of the committee, reported that 
no agreement could be arrived at, and he therefore laid 
before the House of Lords, for full discussion, articles 
embracing — 1. Transubstantiation ; 2. Communion in 
both kinds ; 3. Vows of Chastity ; 4. Private Masses ; 
5. Sacerdotal Marriages ; and 6. Auricular Confession. 
Cranmer opposed them stoutly, arguing against them for 
three days, and especially endeavouring to controvert the 
third and fifth, which enjoined celibacy, but his efforts 
and those of his friends were vain, when pitted against 
the known wishes of the King, who himself took an active 
part in the debate, and argued in favour of the articles 
with much vigour. Under such circumstances, the adop- 
tion of the Six Articles was a foregone conclusion. On 
May 30 the Chancellor reported that the House had 
agreed upon them, and that it was the King's pleasure 
" that some penal statute should be enacted to compel all 
his subjects who were in any way dissenters or cohtra- 
dicters of these articles to obey them." The framing of 
such a bill was entrusted to two committees, one under 
the lead of Cranmer, the other under that of the Arch- 
bishop of York, and they were instructed to lay their 
respective plans before the King within forty-eight hours. 
Of course the report of the Archbishop of York was 
adopted. Introduced on June 7, Cranmer again resisted 
it gallantly, but it passed both Houses by the 14th, and 
received the royal assent on the 28th. It was entitled 
" An Act for abolishing Diversity of Opinions in certain 
Articles concerning Christian Religion," and it stands as a 
monument of the cruel legislation of a barbarous age. 

the clergy in general " to have wives and work for their living " — Rolls House MS. 
(Froude, III. 381.) 


The Third Article was " that Priests after the order of 
Priesthood might not marry by the Law of God " ; the 
Fourth, " that Vows of Chastity ought to be observed by 
the Law of God," and those who obstinately preached or dis- 
puted against them were adjudged felons, to suffer death 
without benefit of clergy. Any opposition, either in word 
or writing, subjected the offender to imprisonment during 
the King's pleasure, and a repetition of the offence con- 
stituted a felony, to be expiated with the Hfe of the culprit. 
Priestly marriages were declared void, and a priest persisting 
in living with his wife was to be executed as a felon. Con- 
cubinage was punishable with deprivation of benefice and 
property, and imprisonment, for a first offence ; a second 
lapse was visited with a felon's death, while in all cases the 
wife or concubine shared the fate of her partner in guilt, 
Quarterly sessions were provided, to be held by the 
bishops and other commissioners appointed by the King, 
for the purpose of enforcing these laws, and the accused 
were entitled to trial by jury.^ Vows of chastity were 
only binding on those who had taken them of their own 
free will when over twenty-one years of age.^ According 
to the Act, the wives of priests were to be put away by 

1 Burnet, I. 258-9. — 31 Henry VIII. c. xiv. Mr. Froude endeavours 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 diflEers 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 unani- 
mous 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.). 

2 31 Henry VIII. c. 6 (Pari. Hist. I. 536-40). 


June 24, but on that day, as the Act was not yet signed, 
an order was mercifully made extending the time to 
July 12.^ 

Cranmer argued, reasonably enough, that it was a 
great hardship, in the case of the ejected monks, to insist 
on the observance of the vow of chastity, when those of 
poverty and obedience were dispensed with, and when the 
unfortunates had been forcibly deprived of all the advan- 
tages, safeguards, and protection of monastic life.^ The 
matter, however, was not decided by reason, but by the 
whimsical perversity of a self-opinionated man, who unfor- 
tunately had the power to condense his polemical notions 
in the blood of his subjects. 

To comprehend the full iniquity of this savage measure, 
we must remember the rapid progress which the new 
opinions had been making in England for twenty years ; 
the tacit encouragement given them by the suppression of 
the religious houses, and by the influence of the King's 
confidential advisers ; and the hopes naturally excited by 
Henry's quarrel with Rome and negotiations with the 
League of Schmalkalden. In spite, therefore, of the 
comparatively mild punishments hitherto imposed on 
priestly marriage, which were no doubt practically almost 
obsolete, such unions may safely be assumed as numerous. 
Even Cranmer himself, the primate of Henry's Church, 

1 Pari. Hist. I. 540. 

There is a story current that soon after the passage of the Act, the Duke of Nor- 
folk, who had had so much to do with it, on meeting a former chaplain of his named 
Lawney, jocularly said to him, " Oh, my Lawney " (knowing him of old much to favour 
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." — 
Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, book i. chap. viii. 

2 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 — dWovs dk yvmhas ivvbfius 
ffVvevvov% daayofx^vovs " (op. cit. p. 71). 



was twice married, his second wife, then hving, the niece 
of Osiander, being kept under a decent veil of secrecy in 
his palace/ When, after his fruitless resistance to the Six 
Articles, the bill was passed, he sent his wife to her friends 
in Germany, until the death of his master enabled him to 
bring her back and acknowledge her openly ; ^ but vast 
numbers of unfortunate pastors could not have had the 
opportunity, and perhaps lacked the self-control, thus to 
arrange their domestic affairs. Even the gentle Melanch- 
thon was moved from his ordinary equanimity, and ven- 
tured to address to his royal correspondent a remonstrance 
expressing his horror of the cruelty which could condemn 
to the scaffold a man whose sole guilt consisted in not 
abandoning the wife to whom he had promised fidelity 
through good and evil, before God and man — a cruelty 
which could find no precedent in any code that man had 
previously dared to frame. ^ 

As might be expected, numerous divorces of married 
priests followed this Draconian legislation, and these 
divorces were held good by the Act of 1549, which under 

^ 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 inde- 
pendence, for it took place in 1531, before Henry's open rupture with Eome, 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. 

2 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). 

Saunders, 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 satirise 
his connubial propensities. " Unum illud molestissime tamen ferens, quod mere- 
tricem quandam suam non poterat palam uxoris loco libere habere, quia id non 
laturum Henricum sciebat, sed partim domi eam occultare, partim cum f oras prodiret, 
cista quadam ad id affabre facta inclusam, secum una circumferre cogeretur. Iste 
ergo jam desiit esse Henricianus, et tam ex immatura regis Edouardi aetate quam ex 
Protectoris in sectas summa propensione, suae statim simul et libidini et hseresi 
habenas laxandas statuit ; nam et scorto suo mox est publico pro uxore usus, et 
catechismum Edouardo dedicatum, falsse impiaeque doctrinfe plenum, in lucem 
edidit."— De Orig. et Prog. Schismatis Anglicani, p. 193 (Ed. 1586). 

3 Melanchthon. Epist. Ed. 1565, p. 34. 


Edward VI. granted full liberty in the premises to eccle- 
siastics/ Even Henry, however, began to feel that he 
had gone too far, and the influence of Cromwell was suffi- 
cient to prevent the harshest features of the law from 
being enforced in all their odious severity, especially as the 
projected marriage with Ann of Cleeves and the alliance 
with the German Lutherans rendered active persecution 
in the highest degree impolitic. When the comedy of 
Henry's fourth marriage culminated in the tragedy of 
Cromwell's ruin (June 1540), the reactionary elements 
again gathered strength. There can be httle doubt 
that the atrocity of the law had greatly interfered with its 
efficient execution and had aroused popular feeling, for now, 
although the Vicar-General was removed, the Catholics 
passed with speedy alacrity a bill moderating the Act of 
the Six Articles, in so far as it related to marriage and 
concubinage. For capital punishment was substituted the 
milder penalty of confiscation to the King of all the pro- 
perty and revenue of the offenders.^ 

The Six Articles, as thus modified,^ remained the law 
of England during the concluding years of Henry's reign, 
nor is it likely that any one ventured to urge upon him 
seriously a relaxation of the principles to which he had 
committed himself thus definitely. The fall of Cromwell 
and the danger to which Cranmer was exposed for several 
years were sufficient to insure him against troublesome 
remonstrants, even if his increasing irritability and capri- 
ciousness had not made those around him daily more alive 

1 2-3 Edw. VI. c. 21 (Pari. Hist. I. 586.) 

2 32 Hen. VIII. c. 10.— Burnet I. 282.— Pari. Hist. I. 575. 

3 Kichard Hilles, writing in 1541 to Henry Bullinger, assumes that this modifica- 
tion 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 forme 
statute " (Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 205)— but both Burnet and the Par 
liamentory 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." 


to the danger of thwarting or resisting his idlest humour. 
How Httle progress, indeed, the Reformation had thus far 
made in England is shown in a letter written in 1546 by 
John Hooper, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester and Wor- 
cester, during the exile into which he was forced by the 
Act of the Six Articles : " Our King has destroyed the 
Pope, but not popery ; he has expelled all the monks and 
nuns, and pulled down their monasteries ; he has caused 
all their possessions to be transferred into his exchequer, 
and yet they are bound, even the frail female sex, by the 
King's command, to perpetual chastity. England has at 
this time at least ten thousand nuns, not one of whom is 
allowed to marry. The impious Mass, the most shameful 
celibacy of the clergy, the invocation of saints, auricular 
confession, superstitious abstinence from meats, and pur- 
gatory, were never before held by the people in greater 
esteem than at the present moment." ^ 

On 28 January, 1547, Henry VIII. died, and 
Edward VI. succeeded to the perilous throne. Not yet 
ten years of age, his government of course received its 
direction from those around him, and the rivalry between 
the Protector Somerset and the Chancellor Wriothesley, 
Earl of Southampton, threw the former into the hands of 
the progressives, as the latter was the acknowledged head 
of the reactionary party. The ruin of Southampton and 
the triumph of Somerset, strengthened by his successful 
campaign in Scotland, soon began to develop their natural 
consequences on the religion of the country. Under the 
auspices of Cranmer, a Convocation was assembled, which 
was empowered to decide all questions in controversy. 
When the primate was anxious to again enjoy the solace 
of his wife's company and to relieve both her and himself 
from the stigma of concubinage, it is easy to understand 
that the subject of cehbacy would receive early and appro- 

1 Hooper to BuUinger.— Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 36. 


priate attention ; and so confident were the reformers of 
success that they did not hesitate to enter into matrimony 
without waiting for any formal sanction.^ Accordingly, on 
17 December, 1547, a proposition was submitted to the 
effect that all canons, statutes, laws, decrees, usages, and 
customs, interfering with or prohibiting marriage, should 
be abrogated, and it was carried by a vote of 53 to 22. 
No time was lost. Two days afterwards a bill was intro- 
duced in the Commons permitting married men to be 
priests and to hold benefices. It was received with so 
much favour that it was read twice the same day, and on 
the 21st it was sent up to the Lords ; but in the Upper 
House it raised debates so prolonged that, as the members 
were determined to adjourn before Christmas, it was laid 
aside. This might be the more readily agreed to, since on 
the 23rd an Act was approved which abolished numerous 
severe laws of the former reign, including the statute of 
the Six Articles, and was immediately followed by another 
granting the use of the cup to the laity and prohibiting 
private Masses.^ 

The repeal of the Six Articles left the marriage of the 
clergy subject to the previous laws of Henry, imposing on 
it various pains and penalties, but with the votes recorded 
in Convocation and Parliament, it is not likely that much 
vigour was displayed in their enforcement. Those inter- 
ested could thus afford to await the reassembling of the 
Houses, which did not take place until 24 November, 1548, 
but they claimed the reward of their patience by an early 
hearing in the session. On December 3 a biU was intro- 

1 Thus Dr. Parker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was married on June 
24, 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. 

2 1 Edw. I. c. 1, 12 (Pari. Hist. I. 582-4).— Wilkins IV. 16.— Burnet II. 40, 41 
III. 189. 


duced, similar to that of the previous year, rendering 
married men ehgible to the priesthood : it passed second 
reading on the 5th, and third reading on the 6th. Appa- 
rently encouraged by the favourable reception accorded to 
it, the friends of the measure resolved on demanding 
further privileges. The bill was therefore laid aside, and 
on the next day a new one was presented which granted 
the additional liberty of marriage to those already in orders. 
It conceded to the established opinions the fact that it 
were better that the clergy should live chaste and single, 
yet, " as great filthiness of living had followed on the laws 
that compelled chastity and prohibited marriage," there- 
fore all laws and canons inhibiting sacerdotal matrimony 
should be abolished. This bill, after full discussion, was 
read a second and third time on the 10th and 12th, and 
was sent up to the Lords on the 13th. Again the Upper 
House was in no haste to pass it. It lay on the table 
until 9 February, 1549, when it was stoutly contested, and, 
after being recommitted, it finally passed on the 19th, with 
the votes of nine bishops recorded against it.^ 

Cranmer and his friends were now at full liberty to 
establish the innovation by committing the clergy indivi- 
dually to marriage, and by enlisting the popular feeling in 
its support. During the discussion they had not been idle. 
Much controversial writing had occurred on both sides, in 
which Poynette, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, took an 
active part, while Bale, Bishop of Ossory, distinguished 
himself on the same side by raking together all the foul 
stories that could be collected concerning the celibate 
clergy — a scandalous material not likely to be lacking in 
either quantity or quality. Burnet declares that no law 
passed during the reign of Edward excited more contradic- 
tion and censure, and the matrimonialists soon found that, 
even with the Act of Parliament in their favour, their 

1 2-3 Edw. VI. c. 21 (Pari. Hist. I. 586).— Burnet II. 88-9. 


course was not wholly a smooth one. Cranmer ordered a 
visitation in his province, and directed as one of the points 
for inquiry and animadversion, " Whether any do contemn 
married priests, and, for that they be married, will not 
receive the Communion or other sacraments at their 
hands," ^ which distinctly reveals the difficulties encountered 
in eradicating the convictions of centuries from the popu- 
lar mind. Sanders says, and with every appearance of 
probability, that the Archbishop of York united with 
Cranmer in ordering a visitation of the whole kingdom, 
during which the visitors investigated particularly the 
morals of the clergy, and used every argument to impel 
them to marriage, not only declaring celibacy to be most 
dangerous to salvation, but intimating that all who adhered 
to it would be regarded as papists and enemies of the King.^ 
The active interest which Cranmer took in the question is 
manifested by the fact that when Dr. Richard Smith, who 
had fled to Scotland in consequence of having endeavoured 
to stir up a tumult at Oxford against Peter Martyr, desired 
to make his peace and return, the inducement which he 
offered to the Archbishop of Canterbury to obtain for him 
the King's pardon was that he would write a book in favour 
of priestly marriage, as he had previously done against it.^ 
The reformers speedily found that they were not to 
escape without opposition. The masses of the people 

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

2 Sanderi Schisma Anglic, pp. 214-5. 

3 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 champion- 
ship of chastity . excited some merriment. There is an epigram upon him by 
Lawrence Humphrey — 

" Haud satis affabre tractans fabrilia Smithus 
Librum de vita ccelibe composuit 
Dumque pudicitiam, dum vota monastica laudat, 
Stuprat, sacra notans fcedera conjugii." 

(Ibid. Chap. 25.) 


throughout England were in a state of discontent. The 
vast body of abbey lands acquired by the gentry and now 
enclosed bore hard upon many ; the raising of rents showed 
that secular landlords were less charitable than the ancient 
proprietors of the soil ; the increase of sheep-husbandry 
threw many farm labourers out of employ ; ^ and the savage 
enactments, already alluded to, against the unfortunate 
expelled monks show how large an element of influential 
disaffection was actively at work in the substratum of 
society. Those priests who disapproved of the rapid 
Protestantising process adopted by the court could hardly 
fail to take advantage of opportunities so tempting, and 
they accordingly fanned the spark into a flame. The en- 
forcement of the new liturgy, on Whitsunday, 1549, 
seemed the signal of revolt. Numerous risings took place, 
which were readily quelled, until one in Devonshire as- 
sumed alarming proportions. Ten thousand men in arms 
made demands for relief in religious as well as temporal 
matters. Lord Russel, unable to meet them in the field, 
endeavoured to gain time by negotiation, and offered to 
receive their complaints. These were fifteen in number, 
of which several demanded the restoration of points of the 
old religion, and one insisted on the revival of the Six 
Articles. On their refusal, another set was drawn up, in 
which not only were the Six Articles called for, but also a 
special provision enforcing the celibacy of the clergy. 
This was likewise rejected ; but during the delay another 
rising occurred in Norfolk, reckoned at twenty thousand 
men, and yet another of less formidable dimensions in 
Yorkshire. Russel finally scattered the men of Devon, 
while the Earl of Warwick succeeded in suppressing the 

1 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 indomitse esse coeperant, ut homines 
devorent ipsos, agros, domos, oppida vastent ac depopulentur." — Utopia, Lib. I. 


rebels of Norfolk, when the promise of an amnesty caused 
the Yorkshiremen to disperse.^ 

The question of open resistance thus was settled. 
Cranmer and his friends had now leisure to consolidate 
their advantages and organise a system that should be 
permanent. In 1551, he and Ridley prepared with great 
care a series of forty-two articles, embodying the faith of 
the Church of England, which was adopted by the Convo- 
cation in 1552, and was ordered to be signed by all men in 
orders and all candidates for ordination.^ Burnet speaks 
of it as bringing the Anglican doctrine and worship to 
perfection. It remained unaltered during the rest of 
Edward's reign, and under Elizabeth it was only modified 
verbally in the recension which resulted in the famous 
Thirty-nine Articles — the foundation-stone of the Episco- 
palian edifice. Of these forty-two articles, the thirty-first 
declared that " Bishops, priests, and deacons are not com- 
manded by God's law to vow the estate of a single life or 
to abstain from marriage."^ 

The canon law had thus invested the marriage of the 
clergy with all the sanctity that the union of man an^i, 
wife could possess. Yet still the deep-seated conviction 
of the people as to the impropriety of such proceedings 
remained, troubling the repose of those who had entered 
into matrimony, and doubtless operating as a restraint 
upon the numbers of the imitators of Cranmer. Among 
the interrogatories drawn up by John Hooper for the 
visitation of his diocese of Gloucester, in 1552, is one 
which inquires whether any midwife refuses to attend the 
confinement of women who are married to ministers of the 
Church * — a suggestion which indicates how rooted was the 

1 Burnet II. 117-9. 

2 Strype's Eccles. Memorials, II. 420. 

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

4 Strype's Eccles. Memorials, II. 355. 


popular aversion from such matches. If Strype's descrip- 
tion of the clergy of the period indeed be correct, there 
was nothing in the character of the body to overcome the 
popular aversion in consideration of its purity and devotion 
to its sacred duties/ The Act of 1549 had to a certain ex- 
tent justified these prejudices by admitting the preferable- 
ness of a single life in the ministers of Christ, and it was 
resolved to remove every possible stigma by a solemn 
declaration of Parliament. A bill was therefore prepared 
and speedily passed (10 February, 1552), which reveals 
how strong was the popular opposition, and how uncertain 
the position of the wives and children of the clergy. It 
declares " That many took occasion, from the words in the 
Act formerly made about this matter, to say that it was 
only permitted, as usury and other unlawful things were, 
for the avoidance of greater evils, who thereupon spoke 
slanderously of such marriages, and accounted the children 
begotten in them to be bastards, to the high dishonour 
of the King and Parliament, and the learned clergy of the 
realm, who had determined that the laws against priests' 
marriages were most unlawful by the law of God ; to which 
they had not only given their assent in the Convocation, 
but signed it with their hands. These slanders did also 
occasion that the Word of God was not heard with due 
reverence." It was therefore enacted " That such mar- 
riages made according to the rules prescribed in the Book 
of Service should be esteemed good and valid, and that 
the children begot in them should be inheritable according 
to law." ^ 

A still further confirmation of the question was 
designed in a body of ecclesiastical law which was for 
several years in preparation by various commissions 
appointed for the purpose. In this it was proposed to 

1 Strype's Ecoles. Memorials, II. p. 445. — "Our curate is naught, an Assehead, a 
Dodipot, a Lack-Latine, and can do nothing." 

2 5-6Edw.VI. 0. 12 (Pari. Hist. I. 594).— Burnet II. 192. 


make the abrogation of celibacy even more distinctly a 
matter of faith, for in the second Title among the various 
heresies condemned is that which, through the suggestion 
of the Devil, asserts that admission to holy orders takes 
away the right to marry. This work, however, though 
completed, had not yet received the royal assent when the 
death of Edward VI. caused it to pass out of sight until 
1571, when it was printed by Foxe and brought to the 
attention of Parliament, but was laid aside owing to the 
opposition of Queen Elizabeth.^ 

If the Protestants indulged in any day-dreams as to the 
permanency of their institutions, they were not long in 
finding that a change of rulers was destined to cause other 
changes disastrous to their hopes. Even the funeral of 
Edward, on the 8th of August, 1553, afforded them a 
foretaste of what was in store. Although Cranmer insisted 
that the public ceremonies in Westminster Abbey should 
be conducted according to the reformed rites. Queen Mary, 
still resident in the Tower, had private obsequies per- 
formed with the Roman ritual, where Gardiner celebrated 
mortuary Mass in presence of the Queen and some four 
hundred attendants. When the incense was carried around, 
after the Gospel, it chanced that the chaplain who bore it 
was a married man, and the zealous Dr. Weston snatched 
it from him, exclaiming, " Shamest thou not to do thine 
office, having a wife as thou hast ? The Queen will not be 
censed by such as thou ! " ^ 

Trifling as was this incident, it foreboded the wrath to 
come. Though Mary was not crowned until October 1st, she 
had issued writs for a Parliament to assemble on the 10th, 

1 Reform. Legg. Eccles. Tit. de Hasresibus, cap. xx. (Cardwell's Ed., Oxford, 
1850, p. 20).— (7/. Tit. de Matrimonio c. ix. (p. 44). 

2 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). 


and as an entire change in the rehgious institutions of the 
country was intended, we may not uncharitably beheve 
the assertion that every means of influence and intimida- 
tion was employed to secure the return of reactionary 
members. These efforts were crowned with complete 
success. The Houses had not sat for three weeks, when a 
bill was sent down from the Lords repealing all the Acts 
of Edward's reign concerning religion, including specifically 
those which permitted the marriage of priests and 
legitimated their offspring ; and after a debate of six 
days it passed the Commons.^ 

The effect of this was, of course, to revive the statute 
of the Six Articles, and to place all married priests at the 
mercy of the Queen ; and as soon as she felt that she could 
safely exercise her power, she brought it to bear upon the 
offenders. A day or two after the dissolution of Parlia- 
ment she commenced by issuing a proclamation inhibiting 
married priests from officiating.^ The Spanish marriage 
being agreed upon and the resultant insurrection of Sir 
Thomas Wyatt being suppressed, Mary recognised her own 
strength, and her Romanising tendencies, which had 
previously been somewhat restrained, became openly 
manifested. On the 4th of March 1554 she issued a 
letter to her bishops, of which the object was to restore 
the condition of affairs under Henry VIII., except that 
the royal prerogatives as head of the Church were expressly 
disavowed. It contained eighteen articles, to be strictly 
enforced throughout all dioceses. Of these the seventh 
ordered that the bishops should by summary process 
remove and deprive all priests who had been married or 
had lived scandalously, sequestrating their revenues during 
the proceedings. Article VIII. provided that widowers, 
or those who promised to live in the strictest chastity, 

1 1 Mary c. 2 (Pari. Hist. I. 609-10).— Burnet II. 255. 

2 Strype's Eccles. Memorials, III. 52. 


should be treated with leniency, and receive livings at some 
distance from their previous abode, being properly supported 
meanwhile ; while Article IX. directed that those who 
suffered deprivation should not on that account be allowed 
to live with their wives, and that due punishment should 
be inflicted for all contumacy/ 

No time was lost in carrying out these regulations. By 
the 9th of the same month a commission was already in 
session at York, which cited the clergy to appear before it 
on the 12th. From an appeal which is extant, by one 
Simon Pope, rector of Warmington, it appears that men 
were deprived without citation or opportunity for defence ; ^ 
and that this was not infrequent is probable from the pro- 
ceedings commenced against offenders of the highest class, 
designed and well fitted to strike terror into the hearts 
of the humbler parsons. On the 16th a commission was 
issued to the Bishops of Winchester (Stephen Gardiner), 
London (Bonner), Durham, St. Asaph's, Chichester, and 
Llandaff, to investigate the cases of the Archbishop of York 
and the Bishops of St. Davids, Chester, and Bristol, who, 
according to report, had given a most pernicious example 
by taking wives, in contempt of God, to the damage 
of their own souls, and to the scandal of all men. Any 
three of the commissioners were empowered to summon 
the accused before them, and to ascertain the truth of the 

1 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, 8 March, 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 

2 Strype's Eccles. Memor. III. Append. 33.— In the same place (p. 31) maybe 
found a copy of the summons served upon offenders of this class. 


report without legal delays or unnecessary circumlocution . 
If it were found correct, then they were authorised to 
remove the offenders at once and for ever from their 
dignities, and also to impose penance at discretion. This 
was scant measure of justice, considering that the marriage 
of these prelates had been contracted under sanction of law, 
and, if that law had recently been repealed, that at least 
the option of conforming to the new order of things could 
not decently be denied ; yet even this mockery of a trial 
was apparently withheld, for the conge deli?^e for their 
successors is dated March 18th, only two days after the 
commission was appointed/ Neither party, in fact, had 
much ceremony in dealing with bishops. Five had been 
deprived under Edward VI. ; under Mary there were 
fourteen deprivations, and under Elizabeth fifteen.^ 

During the summer the bishops went on their visita- 
tions. The articles prepared by Bonner for his diocese are 
extant, among which we find directions to inquire parti- 
cularly of the people whether their pastors are married, 
and, if separated, whether any communication or inter- 
course takes place between them and their wives ; also 
whether any one, lay or clerical, ventures to defend 
sacerdotal matrimony.^ Few of the weaker brethren 
could escape an inquisition so searching as this, and though 
some controversy arose, and a few tracts were printed in 
defence of priestly marriage,* such men as Bonner were not 

1 Burnet II. 275 and Append. 256.— Eymer (T. XV. pp. 376-77) gives a similar 
commission dated March 9, issued to Stephen Gardiner to eject the canons and pre- 
bendaries of Westminster in the same summary manner. The proceedings through- 
out England were doubtless framed on these models. 

2 W. H. Frere, The Marian Keaction in its relation to the English Clergy, 
p. 24 (London, 1896). 

Bishop Bird, of Chester, who was deprived March 20, 1554, repudiated his wife, 
became vicari of Dunmow, and then suffragan of Bishop Bonner, of London. — 
Ibid. p. 23. 

3 Burnet II. Append. 260. 

4 Bishop Poynette wrote a book entitled " An Apologie on the Godly Marriadge 
of Priestes," in rejoinder to Martin's " Traictise declaryng and plainly prouying 
that the pretensed marriage of priestes and professed persones is no marriage," 


likely to shrink from the thorough prosecution of the work 
which whey had undertaken. 

When the Convocation assembled in this year, it was 
therefore to be expected that only orthodox opinions would 
find expression. Accordingly, the Lower House presented 
to the bishops an humble petition praying for the restora- 
tion of the old usages, among the points of which are 
requests that married priests be forcibly separated from 
their wives, and that those who endeavour to abandon 
their order be subjected to special animadversion. This 
clause shows that many unfortunates preferred to give 
up their positions and lose the means of livelihood, rather 
than quit the wives to whom they had sworn fidelity, 
demanding, as we shall see, much subsequent conflicting 
legislation. The social complications resulting from the 
change of religion are also indicated in the request that 
married nuns may be divorced, and that the pretended 
wives of priests have full liberty to marry again. 

Everything being thus prepared, the purification of the 
Church from married heretics was prosecuted with vigour. 
Archbishop Parker states that there were in England some 
16,000 clergymen, of whom 12,000 were deprived on this 
account, many of them most summarily ; some on common 
report, without trial, others without being summoned to 
appear before their judges, and others again while lying in 
jail for not obeying the summons. Some renounced their 
wives, and were yet deprived, while those who were 
deprived were also, as we have seen, forced to part with 
their wives. We can readily believe that the most ordinary 
forms of justice were set aside, in view of the illegal and 
indecorous haste of the proceedings against the married 
bishops described above, but Parker's estimate of the 

which was a reply to Poynette's previous work. Bale also issued a bitter attack 
on Bonner's Articles (Card well's Documentary Annals, I. 135), and Dr. Parker, after- 
wards Archbishop of Canterbury, published a voluminous rejoinder to Martin. 
1 Wilkins IV. 96-7. 


number of sufferers is greatly exaggerated. According to 
the latest investigator, Mr. Frere, the number of beneficed 
clergy deprived in London was 150, to whom perhaps about 
half as many unbeneficed may be added. At Canterbury, 
where the records seem complete, the number was 68 ; in 
Norfolk, 343. The registers elsewhere are mostly too 
imperfect to allow of satisfactory estimates, but the general 
conclusion is drawn that throughout the kingdom about 
one in every five or six beneficed priests was deprived, 
substantially all for marriage, and of these a certain pro- 
portion succeeded in being reconciled and restored.^ It is 
probable, therefore, that the list throughout England would 
not exceed three thousand ; but this is sufficient to indicate 
that the privilege of wedlock had been embraced with 
considerable eagerness. 

The proceedings in the case of John Turner, rector of 
St. Leonard's, London, would seem to show that the 
extremity of humiliation was inflicted on these unfor- 
tunates. Cited on March 16 to answer to the charge of 
being a married man, he confessed the accusation, and we 
find him on March 19 condemned to lose his benefice and 
be suspended from all priestly functions, to be divorced 
from his wife, and to undergo such further punishment as 
the canons required. The sentence of divorce soon fol- 
lowed, and on May 14 he was obliged to do penance in his 
late church in Eastcheap, holding a lighted candle in his 
hand and solemnly declaring to the assembled congregation 
— *' Good people, I am come hither, at this present time, 

1 Burnet II. 276 ; III. 225-6.— Frere, op. cit., pp. 47, 49, 53, 77, 78. 

A specimen of the form of restitution subscribed by those who were restored on 
profession of amendment and repencance has been preserved : " Whereas ... I the 
said Kobert do now lament and bewail my life past, and the offence by me com- 
mitted ; intending firmly by God's grace hereafter to lead a pure, chaste, and con- 
tinent 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 behaviour I have incurred and deserved : promising firmly 
. . . never to return to the said Agnes Staunton as to my wife or concubine," &c. — 
(WilkinsIV. 104.) 


to declare unto you my sorrowful and penitent heart, for 
that, being a priest, I have presumed to marry one Amy 
German, widow ; and, under pretence of that matrimony, 
contrary to the canons and custom of the Universal Church, 
have kept her as my wife, and lived contrary to the canons 
and ordinances of the Church, and to the evil example of 
good Christian people ; whereby now, being ashamed of 
my former wicked living here, I ask Almighty God mercy 
and forgiveness, and the whole Church, and am sorry and 
penitent even from the bottom of my heart therefor. 
And in token hereof, I am here, as you see, to declare and 
show unto you my repentance : that before God, on the 
latter day, you may testify with me of the same. And T 
most heartily and humbly pray and desire you all, whom 
by this evil example doing I have greatly offended, that for 
your part you will forgive me, and remember me in your 
prayers, that God may give me grace, that hereafter I may 
live a continent life, according to His laws and the godly 
ordinances of our mother the holy Catholic Church, 
through and by His grace. And do here, before you all, 
openly promise for to do during my life." ^ Such scenes as 
these were well calculated to produce the effect desired 
upon the people, but we can only guess at the terrorism 
which was requisite to force educated and respectable men 
to submit to such degradation. 

All this was done by the royal authority wielding the 
ecclesiastical power usurped by Henry VIII. Strictly 
speaking, it was highly irregular and uncanonical, but as 
the papal supremacy was yet in abeyance, it could not be 
accomplished otherwise. At last, however, the kingdom 
was ripe for reconciliation with Rome. In calling the 
Parhament of 1554, the Queen issued a circular letter to 

1 Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. ill. chap. 8.— Nov. 14, 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. 



the sheriffs commanding them to admonish the people to 
return members " of the wise, grave, and CathoHc sort." ^ 
Her wishes were fulfilled, and ere the year was out Car- 
dinal Pole was installed with full legatine powers, and 
Julius III. had issued his bull of indulgence, reuniting 
England to the Church from which she had been violently 
severed. An obedient Parliament lost no time in repeal- 
ing all statutes adverse to the claims of the Holy See, but 
its subserviency had limits, and one class largely inte- 
rested in the reforms of Henry had sufficient influence to 
maintain its heretical rights. The Church lands granted or 
sold to laymen were not restored. Indeed, the Queen, 
in her call for the Parliament, had felt it necessary to 
contradict the rumour that she and Philip intended the 
" alteration of any particular man's possessions." Though 
the transactions by which they had been acquired were 
wholly illegal, though no duration of possession could bar 
the imprescriptible rights of the Church, yet the nobles and 
country gentlemen enriched by the spoliation were too 
numerous and powerful, and the reclamation of the king- 
dom was too important, to incur any peril by unseasonably 
insisting on reparation for Henry's injustice. The abbatial 
manors and rich priories, the chantries, hospitals, and 
colleges, were therefore left in the impious hands of those 
who had been fortunate enough to secure them,^ and the 
miserable remnants of the religious orders were left to the 
conscience of the Queen, who made haste to get rid of 

1 Pari. Hist. I. 616. 

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

3 1 and 2 Phil, and Mary c. 8 (Pari. 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 Eome 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 


such fragments of the spoil as had been retained by the 
Crown. ^ 

Whatever tacit understanding there may have been on 
this dehcate subject between Queen Mary and Pope 
Juhus was not assented to by the imperious CarafFa, who 
shortly afterwards ascended the chair of St. Peter. 
Elected 23 May, 1555, he lost no time in proclaiming the 
imprescriptible rights of the Church, and by his bull " in- 
junctum nobis," issued June 21, he pronounced null and 
void " de apostohcse potestatis plenitudine " all transactions 
by which ecclesiastical possessions had passed into the 
hands of laymen, who were duly threatened with excom- 
munication for prolonged attempts to hold their un- 
hallowed acquisitions.^ The effort of course was fruitless, 
but the spirit in which the Enghsh Protestants watched 
the apparent opening of a breach between England and 
Rome is well expressed in a letter of 23 August, 1555, from 
Sir Richard Morrison to Henry Bullinger : " This anti-Paul, 
Paul of the apostasy, the servant of the devil, this anti- 
christ newly created at Rome, thinks it but a very small 
plunder that is offered to him, that he is again permitted 
in England to tyrannise over our consciences, unless the 
revenues be restored to the monasteries, that is, the pig- 
sties ; the patrimony, as he calls it, of the souls that are 
now serving in the filth of purgatory. Our ambassadors, 
who went to Rome for the purpose of bringing back the 
wolf upon the sheep of Christ, are now with the Emperor, 
and bring us these demands of the chief pontiff; God 
grant that he may urge them in every possible way." ^ 
The hopes of the reformers, however, were disappointed, 
for Paul IV. gave way, and on the reassembling of Parlia- 
ment, 23 October, 1555, a bull was read by which the 

1 2 and 3 Phil, and Mary, c. 4 (Pari. Hist. pp. 626-8). 

2 Mag. Ball. Roman. T. I. p. 809. 

3 Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 149, 


Pope assented to the arrangement agreed to by Cardinal 
Pole, confirming the Church lands to their new possessors/ 

Cardinal Pole, indeed, was not remiss in giving the 
sanction of the papal authority to all that had been 
done. Convoking a synod, he issued in 1555 his Lega- 
tine Constitutions, by which all marriages of those included 
in the prohibited orders were declared null and void. Such 
apostates were ordered to be separated by ecclesiastical 
censures and by whatever legal processes might be re- 
quired ; all who dared to justify such marriages or to 
remain obstinately in their unholy bonds were to be prose- 
cuted rigorously and punished according to the ancient 
canons, which were revived and declared to be in full force 
in order to prevent similar scandals for the future.^ As the 
Queen by special warrant had decreed that all canons 
adopted by synods should have the full effect of laws 
binding on the clergy, these constitutions at once restored 
matters to their pristine condition. It was doubtless in 
order to mark in the most conspicuous manner his detesta- 
tion of clerical marriage that Pole descended to the petti- 
ness of ordering the body of Peter Martyr's wife to be dug 
up from its resting-place, near the tomb of St. PVideswide 
in Christ's Church, Oxford, and to be buried in a dung- 

It was easy to pass decrees ; it was doubtless gratifying 
to eject married priests by the thousand and to grant their 
livings to hungry reactionaries or to the crowd of needy 

1 Pari Hist. I. 626 ; II. 342. 

2 Card. Poll Constit. Legat. Decret. v. (Wilkins IV. 800). 

3 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 quaeras, facilis responsio danda est : 
Corpora non curant mortua, viva petunt." 


Churchmen whom Italy had ever ready to supply the 
spiritual wants and collect the tithes of the faithful. All 
this was readily accomplished, but the difficulty lay in 
overcoming the eternal instincts of human nature. The 
struggle to effect this commenced at once. 

It was, indeed, hardly to be expected that those who 
had entered into matrimony with the full conviction of its 
sanctity would willingly abandon all intercourse with their 
wives, although they might yield a forced assent to the 
pressure of the laws, the prospect of poverty, and the cer- 
tainty of infamous punishment. Accordingly, we find that 
the necessity at once arose of watching the " reconciled " 
priests, who continued to do in secret what they could no 
longer practise openly. Some, indeed, found the restric- 
tions so onerous that they endeavoured to release them- 
selves from the bonds of the Church rather than to submit 
longer to the separation from their wives ; and this appa- 
rently threatened so great a dearth in the ranks of the 
clergy that Cardinal Pole, as Archbishop of Canterbury, 
in 1556 forbade the withdrawal of any one from the mys- 
teries and functions of the altar, under pain of the law.^ 

Notwithstanding all i;his legislation, royal, parliamen- 
tary, and ecclesiastical, the question refused to settle 
itself, and the Convocation which assembled on the 1st of 
January 1557 was obliged to publish an elaborate series 
of articles, which demonstrated that previous enactments 
had either not been properly observed, or that they had 
failed in effecting their purpose. Thus the prohibition of 
marriage to those in priests' orders was formally renewed. 
Such of the married clergy, who had undergone penance 
and had been restored, as still persisted in holding inter- 

1 "Thatnoue of those priests that were, under the pretence of lawful! matri- 
mony, 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 hence- 
forth 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). 


course with their separated wives, were to be deprived 
irrevocably of their office, and only to be admitted to 
lay communion — thus reversing the policy of Cardinal 
Pole's injunctions. As all priests who had been married 
were obnoxious to the people, they were to be removed 
from the priesthood ; or at least, on account of the 
scarcity of ministers, to act only as curates, and to be 
incapable of holding benefices until a proper course of 
penance should have washed away their sins. Even 
then, in no case were they to officiate in the dioceses 
wherein they had been married, but were to be removed 
to a distance of at least sixty miles ; and if detected in 
any intercourse with their wives, they were to incur severe 
punishment, a single interchange of words being sufficient 
to call down the penalty. To ensure the observance of 
these rules, all synods were directed to make special inquiry 
into the lives of these unfortunates, who were thus to 
exist under a perpetual surveillance, at the mercy of 
inimical spies and informers.^ This may, perhaps, be 
considered a moderate expiation for men who, in those 
days of fierce religious convictions, possessed that flexi- 
bility of faith which enabled them to change their belief 
with every dynastic accident. 

If the rigid rules now introduced were successful in 
nothing else, they at all events succeeded in restoring the 
old troubles with the old canons. Denied the lawful 
gratification of human instincts, the clergy immediately 
returned to the habits which had acquired for them so 
much odium in times past, and the rulers of the Church 
at once found themselves embarked in the sempiternal 
struggle with immorality in all its shapes and disguises. 

, 1 Wilkins IV. 157. Thus in the visitation of the diocese of Lincoln, the vicar 
of Spaldwick was presented for scandalising 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. 


If the scandalous chronicles of the period be worthy of 
credit, neither Gardiner nor Bonner, nor other active 
promoters of the canons, were without the visible evidences 
of the frailty of the flesh ; ^ and though they were above 
the reach of correction, the minor clergy were not so 
fortunate. The Convocation of 1557, which issued the 
stringent regulations just quoted, was also obliged to 
promulgate articles concerning the residence of women 
with priests, and the punishment of licentiousness, similar 
to those which we have seen reproduced so regularly for 
ten centuries. Cardinal Pole, too, in his visitation of the 
same year, directed inquiries to be made on these points in 
a manner which shows that they were existing and not 
merely anticipated evils. ^ 

Fortunately for the character of the Anglican clergy, 
the reign of reaction was short. On 17 November, 1558, 
Queen Mary closed her unhappy life, and Cardinal Pole 
followed her within sixteen hours. The Marian persecu- 
tion had been long enough and sharp enough to give to 
heresy all the attractions of martyrdom, thus increasing 
its fervour and enlarging its circle of earnest disciples ; and 
the sudden termination of that persecution, before it had 
time to accomplish its work of extirpation, left the re- 
formers more zealous and dangerous than ever. Heresy 
had likewise been favoured by the discontent of the people 
arising from the disastrous and expensive war with France, 
which aided the improvident restoration of the Church 
lands in impoverishing the exchequer and in rendering 
necessary heavy subsidies from the nation, repaid only 
by cruelty and misfortune. Dread of Spanish influence 
also had a firm hold of the imagination of the masses, 
while the Church itself ^^^^as especially unpopular, as the 

1 Strype's Eccles. Memor. III. 111-12, 

2 Wilkins IV. 169. 


conviction was general that the ill-success of Mary's 
administration was attributable to the control exercised by- 
ecclesiastics over the public affairs. Under such auspices 
the royal power passed into the hands of a princess who, 
though by nature leaning to the Catholic faith and dis- 
posed to tread in the footsteps of her father, was yet 
placed by the circumstances of her birth in implacable 
hostility to Rome, and who held her throne only on the 
tenure of waging eternal warfare with reaction. The 
reformers felt that the doom of Catholicism was sealed. 
Emerging from their hiding-places and hastening back 
from exile, the religious refugees proceeded at once to 
practise the rites of Edward VI. Elizabeth, however, 
after ordering some changes in the Roman observances, 
forbade, on December 27, all further innovations until 
the meeting of Parliament, which was convoked for 
23 January, 1559. 

Parliament assembled on the appointed day, and sat 
until May 8. It at once passed Acts resuming the eccle- 
siastical crown lands and restoring the royal supremacy in 
ecclesiastical matters, and it repealed all of Mary's legisla- 
tion concerning the power of the papacy. Several other 
bills were adopted modifying the rehgion of the kingdom, 
with a view of discovering some middle term which should 
unite the people in a common form of behef and worship.^ 
Anxious to avoid all extremes, it negatived the measures 
introduced by the ardent friends of the Reformation, and 
among the unsuccessful attempts was one which proposed 
to restore all priests who had been deprived on account of 
marriage. This, indeed, was laid aside by the special 
command of the Queen herself.^ 

The question of clerical marriage was thus left in a most 
perplexed and unsatisfactory condition. The Six Articles 

1 1 Eliz. c. 1, 2, 4 (Pari. Hist. I. 646-76). 

2 Burnet, II. 386-95. 


had been repealed by Edward VI., and had been virtually 
revived by Mary ; but Mary's efforts had been to restore 
the independent jurisdiction of the Church, and she had 
therefore not continued to regard the Six Articles as in 
force, the canons of synods and the legatine constitutions 
of Pole being the law of her ecclesiastical establishment. 
This was now all swept away ; a statute to fill the void 
was refused, and men were left to draw their own deduc- 
tions and act at their own peril. Elizabeth refused the 
sanction of law to sacerdotal marriage, and would not 
restore the deprived priests, yet she did not enforce any 
prohibitory regulations, and even promoted many married 
men. Dr. Parker, the religious adviser of Ann Boleyn, 
who had left him in charge of her daughter's spiritual 
education, was married, and one of Elizabeth's earliest 
acts was to nominate him for the vacant primacy of 
Canterbury, which after long resistance he was forced to 
accept. The uncertainty of the situation and the anxiety 
of those interested are well illustrated by a letter to Dr. 
Parker, dated April 30, just before the rising of Parlia- 
ment, from Dr. Sandys, afterwards Bishop of Worcester : 
" The bill is in hand to restore men to their livings ; how 
it wiU speed I know not . . . Nihil est statutum de con- 
jugio sacerdotum, sed tanquam relictum in medio. Lever 
was married now of late. The Queen's majesty will wink 
at it, but not stablish it by law, which is nothing else but 
to bastard our children."^ In this Dr. Sandys spoke 

1 Parker's Correspondence, p. 66. — Sanders does not fail to make the most of 
this refusal to legalise 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 cogi- 
tabat ; multumque sategit, ut conjugia Episcoporum Canonicorum et cseterorum 
ministorum legibus approbarentur ; sed obtineri non potuit, quia vel turpe 
videbatur ministerio, vel reipublicse 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 suntcerti 


nothing but truth, and those who were married were 
obHged formally to have their children legitimated, as 
even Dr. Parker found it necessary to do this in the case 
^f his son Matthew/ 

At length Elizabeth made up her mind, and in the 
exercise of her royal supremacy she asked for no Act of 
Parliament to confirm her decree. Archbishop Parker 
has the credit of being the most efficient agent in over- 
coming her repugnance to the measure, and the ungracious 
manner in which she finally accorded the permission shows 
how strong were the prejudices which he had to encounter. 
In June 1559 she issued a series of " Injunctions to the 
Clergy and Laity " which restored the national religion to 
nearly the same position as that adopted by Edward VI., 
and it is curious to observe that when she comes to speak 
of sacerdotal matrimony she carefully avoids the responsi- 
bility of sanctioning it herself, but assumes that the law of 
Edward is still in force. All that she does, therefore, is 
to surround it with such hmitations and restrictions as 
shall prevent its abuse, and although this form had perhaps 
the advantage of establishing the legality of all pre- 
existing marriages, yet the regulations promulgated were 
degrading in the highest degree, and the reason assigned 
for permitting it could only be regarded as affixing a 
stigma on every pastor who confessed the weakness of 
his flesh by seeking a wife.^ 

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 Graecorum; 
fct prole ita abundant, ut ad illam sustentandam opibusque augendam, et populus 
Bupra modum gravetur, et ipsi misere beneficia sua expilent." — (De Schismate 
Anglicano, Lib. III. Ingoldstatii, 1586, p. 299.) 

1 Strype's Annals, I. 81. 

2 Royal Injunctions of 1559, Art. xxxix. " 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 


From the temper of these regulations it is manifest 
that if Ehzabeth yielded to the advice of her counsellors 
and to the pressure of the times, she did not give up her 
private convictions or prejudices, and that she desired to 
make the marriage of her clergy as unpopular and dis- 
agreeable as possible. It was probably for the purpose of 
meeting her objections that the order for a return of the 
clergy, issued by Archbishop Parker, 1 October, 1561, 
contained in the blanks issued the unusual entry classify- 
ing them as married or unmarried,^ and Strype informs us 
that in the Archdeaconry of London the returns show 
the ministry for the most part to have been filled with 
married men.^ Even the haughty spirit of the Tudor 
thus could not restrain the progress which had now fairly 
set in. Those around her who controlled the public affairs 
were all committed to the Reformation, and were resolved 
that every point gained should be made secure. When, 

there hath grown offence and some slander to the Church, by lack of discreet and 
sober behaviour 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 mar- 
riages 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. Publica- 

^ Cardwell's Documentary Annals, I. 309. 

2 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 (Ibid. in. xxiv. ). 


therefore, in 1563, there was pubUshed a recension of the 
Forty-two Articles issued by Edward VI. in 1552, result- 
ing in the weU-known Thirty-nine Articles of the Church 
of England, care was taken that the one relating to the 
liberty of marriage should be made more emphatic than 
before. Not content with the simple proposition of the 
original that " Bishops, priests, and deacons are not 
commanded by God's law either to vow the estate of a 
single life, or to abstain from marriage," the emphatic 
corollary was added, " Therefore it is lawful for them as 
for all other Christian men to marry at their own dis- 
cretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to 
godliness " ^ — such as we find it preserved to the present 
day. This specific declaration in a special article marks 
the necessity which was felt to place the matter beyond 
controversy, as a rule of practice. The articles on justi- 
fication and works of supererogation (Arts xi. and xix.) 
would have sufficed, so far as principle was concerned. 

This was not an empty form. Not only the right to 
marry at their own discretion, thus expressly declared, 
did much to relieve them from the degrading conditions 
laid down by the Queen, but the revival and strengthening 
of the article marked a victory gained over the reaction. 
When in 1559 the Queen appointed a commission to 
visit all the churches of England and enforce compliance 
with the order of things then existing, the articles pre- 
pared for its guidance enjoin no investigation into opinions 
respecting priestly marriage, showing that to be an open 
question, concerning which every man might hold his 
private belief^ After the adoption of the Thirty-nine 
Articles, however, this latitude was no longer allowed. In 

1 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 32nd, which is the arrangement according to the 
standard of the Anglican Church. 

2 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 


1567 Archbishop Parker's articles of instruction for the 
visitation of that year enumerate, among the heretical 
doctrines to be inquired after, the assertion that the Word 
of God commands abstinence from marriage on the part 
of ministers of the Church/ As we shall see, it was about 
the same time that the Council of Trent likewise erected 
the question of clerical marriage into a point of belief. 

Yet Elizabeth never overcame her repugnance to the 
marriage of the clergy, nor is it, perhaps, to be wondered 
at when we consider the contempt in which she held the 
Church of which she was the head,^ and her general aversion 
from sanctioning in others the matrimony which she was 
herself always toying with and never contracting. When 
she made her favourites of both sexes suffer for any legalised 
indiscretions of the kind, it is scarcely surprising that she 
always looked with disfavour on those of the clergy who 
availed themselves of the privilege which circumstances 
had extorted from her, and which she would fain have 
withheld. When Archbishop Parker ventured to remon- 
strate with her on her popish tendencies, she sharply told 
him that "she repented of having made any married 
bishops." This was a cutting rejoinder, but even more 
pointed was the insolence from which his life-long services 
could not protect his wife. The first time the Queen 
visited the archiepiscopal palace, on her departure she 
turned to thank Mrs. Parker: "And you — madam I 
may not call you, mistress I am ashamed to call you, so I 

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 dig- 
nitaries at least had not been allowed to retain their positions. 

1 Wilkins IV. 253.— Strype's Parker, App. liii. 

2 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. 


know not what to call you — but, howsoever, I thank you."^ 
So, in Ipswich, in August 1561, she found great fault with 
the marriage of the clergy, and especially with the number 
of wives and children in cathedrals and colleges — a feeling 
possibly justified by occasional disorders not unlikely to 
occur. In 1563 we find Sir John Bourne complaining to 
the Privy Council that the Dean and Chapter of Worcester 
had broken up the large organ, the pride of the cathedral, 
which had cost £200 ; the metal pipes whereof were melted 
into dishes and divided among the wives of the prebendaries, 
and the case used to make bedsteads for them ; the copes 
and ornaments, he added, would likewise have been dis- 
tributed had not some of the unmarried men prevented it, 
" and as by their Habit and Apparel you might know the 
Priests wives, and by their Gate in the Market and the 
Streets from an hundred other Women : so in the Con- 
gregation and Cathedral Church they were easy to be 
known by placing themselves above all other of the most 
ancient and honest Calling of the said City." ^ There was 
no lack of persons to pour such stories into the Queen's ear, 
and, with her well-known tendencies, it is no wonder that 
her counsellors found it difficult to restrain her to the 
simple order which she issued from Ipswich, declaring 
" that no manner of person, being either the head or 
member of any college or cathedral church within this 
realm, shall, from the time of the notification hereof in the 
same college, have, or be permitted to have, within the 
precinct of any such college, his wife, or other woman, 
to abide and dwell in the same, or to frequent and haunt 
any lodging within the same college, upon pain that who- 
soever shall do to the contrary shall forfeit aU ecclesiastical 
promotions in any cathedral or collegiate church within 
the realm." Burghley, in sending this royal mandate to 

1 Strickland, Life of Queen Elizabeth, chap. iv. 

2 Strype's Annals, I. 364-5. 


Parker, remarks, " Her Majesty continueth very evil 
affected to the state of matrimony in the clergy. And if 
[I] were not therein very stiff, her Majesty would openly 
and utterly condemn and forbid it. In the end, for her 
satisfaction, this injunction now sent to your Grace is 
devised. The good order thereof shall do no harm. 
I have devised to send it in this sort to your Grace for 
your province ; and to the Archbishop of York for his ; 
so as it shall not be promulgated to be popular." ^ It is 
doubtless to this occurrence that we may attribute the last 
relic of clerical celibacy enforced among Protestants, that 
of the fellows of the English universities. 

This injunction of Queen Elizabeth caused no little 
excitement. Though Burghley had prudently endeavoured 
to prevent its becoming " popular," yet Cox, Bishop of 
Ely, in remonstrating against its cruelty to those whom it 
affected in his cathedral seat, shows that it was speedily 
known to all men, and that it gave exceeding comfort to 
the reactionaries : " What rejoicing and jeering the adver- 
saries make ! How the godly ministers are discouraged, I 
will pass over." ^ In the universities, where crowds of 
young men were collected, there might be some colourable 
excuse for the regulation, but in the splendid and spacious 
buildings connected with the cathedrals some milder 
remedy might easily have been found, and the mandate 
was particularly unpalatable to married bishops, Parker 
himself, who was individually interested in the matter, 
made a personal appeal to the Queen, the result of which 
was^ to wound him deeply, as well as to show him how 
extreme were her prejudices on the subject. He pours 
forth his feelings in a letter to Burghley describing the 
interview : "I was in an horror to hear such words to 
come from her mild nature and Christianly learned con- 

1 Parkei's Correspondence, pp. 146-8. 

2 Ibid. n. 152. 

2 Ibid. p. 152. 


science, as she spake of God's holy ordinance and institution 
of matrimony. I marvel that our states in that behalf 
cannot please her Highness, which we doubt nothing at all 
to please God's sacred Majesty." He deplores the effect 
which it must produce on the people : " We alone of our 
time openly brought in hatred, shamed and traduced before 
the malicious and ignorant people, as beasts without know- 
ledge to Godward, in using this liberty of his word, as men 
of efFrenate intemperency, without discretion or any godly 
disposition worthy to serve in our state. Insomuch that 
the Queen's Highness expressed to me a repentance that 
we were thus appointed in office, wishing it had been 
otherwise." The interview had evidently been stormy, 
and Parker had been made to feel the full force of Eliza- 
beth's perverseness — " I have neither joy of house, land, or 
name, so abased by my natural sovereign good lady, for 
whose service and honour I would not think it cost to 
spend my life " — and he even goes so far as to threaten 
resistance : " I would be sorry that the clergy should have 
cause to show disobedience, with oportet Deo obedire magis 
quam hominibus. And what instillers soever there be, 
there be enough of this contemned flock which will not 
shrink to offer their blood to the defence of Christ's verity, 
if it be either openly impugned or secretly suggilled."^ 
Evidently, before Parker could have been driven to such 
scarcely covered threats, there must have been an intima- 
tion by the angry Queen that she would recall the permis- 
sion to marry, which, in the existing state of the law, she 
could readily have done. 

The same spirit which rendered the marriage of a pastor 
dependent on the approbation of the neighbouring squires 
caused the retention of ancient rules, which prove the 
profound distrust still entertained as to the discretion 
and morality of the clergy, and the difficulty with which 

1 Parker's Correspondence, pp. 156-8. 


the Anglican Church threw off the traditions of Cathohcism. 
Thus, even in 1571, Grindal, Archbishop of York, pro- 
mulgates a modification of the canon of Nicsea, forbid- 
ding the residence with unmarried ministers of women 
under the age of sixty, except relatives closely connected 
by blood. ^ Indeed, in some remote corners of the kingdom 
the old licence was kept up. Archbishop Parker, about 
the year 1565, in speaking of the diocese of Bangor, states : 
" I hear that diocese to be much out of order, both having 
no preaching there and pensionary concubinary openly 
continued, notwithstanding liberty of marriage granted."^ 
It evidently required time to accustom the clergy to the 
substitution of the new privileges for the old. 

Although sacerdotal marriage was now fully sanctioned 
by the organic canon law of the Church, yet it was still 
exposed to serious impediments of a worldly character. 
When thus frowned upon by her who was in reality, if not 
in name, supreme head of the Church ; when the wife of 
the primate himself could be exposed to such indelible 
impertinence ; when the marriage of every unfortunate 
parson was subjected to degrading conditions, and when it 
was assumed that his bride must be a woman at service, 
the influences affecting the matrimonial alliances of the 
clergy must have been of the worst description. The 
higherclassesof society would naturally model their opinions 
on those of the sovereign, while the lower orders had not 
as yet shaken off the prejudices in favour of celibacy 
implanted in them by the custom of centuries. Making 
due allowance for polemical bitterness, there is therefore 
no doubt much truth in the sarcastic account which 
Sanders gives of the wives of the Elizabethan clergy. 
Taking advantage of the refusal of Parliament to formally 
legalise such marriages — a refusal which could not but 

1 Wilkins IV. 269. 

2 Farter's Correspondence, p. 259. 



greatly affect the minds of the people — he assumes that the 
wives were concubines and the children illegitimate in the 
eyes of the law ; consequently decent women refused to 
undergo the obloquy attached to a union with a minister 
of the Church, who was therefore forced to take as his 
spouse any one who would consent to accept him. The 
wives of prelates were ostracised ; not received at court, 
and sharing in no way the dignities of their husbands, they 
were kept closely at home for the mere gratification of 
animal passion. The members of universities had been 
wholly unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain the same 
licence, which was only granted to the heads of colleges, 
under condition that their wives should reside elsewhere, 
and should rarely pollute with their presence the learned 

1 Qui autem istis darent filias suas, ne protestantes quidem fere inveniebantur, 
nedum Catholici : primum quia existimant id esse per se infanae, 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 Kepublica ulla dignitas aut 
existimatio, quod est contra naturamveri matrimonii. Non enim Archiepiscopus, Epis- 
copus, aliusve hodie praelatus in Anglia si sit conjugatus, tribuit quicquam ex eo honoris 
vel prseeminentia uxori suae, non magis quam si esset ejus tantum concubina. Hinc 
sit ut nee eas Elizabetha in aulam, nee principum uxores in consortium uUo modo 
admittant, ne Archiepiscoporum quidem vocatas conjuges ; sed debent eas mariti 
domi continere, pro vasis tantem libidinis aut necessitatis suae. Quae istis ergo con- 
ditionibus, ve summis prselatis conjungerentur, cum honestiores paucae aut nullae 
reperiebantur, quas poterant habere accipere fuit necesse. Sed et aliis modis 
utcumque istorum hominum cupiditati per magistratum civilem impositum est 
fr?eDum. Nam et Collegiorum alumni qui in Anglicanis universitatibus admodum 
multi erant, otioque ac saturitate panis abundabant, ac admodum provecti aitate 
erant, cupiebant et ipsi habere uxores ; sed videbatur inconveniens, et id privilegii 
Collegiorum tantum Eectoribus concessum est, cum hac tamen exceptione, ut con- 
juges seorsim plerunque extra Collegia coustituant, rariusque eas intromittant. — De 
Schismate Anglicano Lib. III. (Ingoldstat. 1586, p. 300.) 

See also Florimund. Eaemund. 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 satirised ; yet he 
was a man of too much shrewdness to make statements which his contemporaries 
could recognise 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 "II 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 society." — Panzini, Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 472. 


The accuracy of this sarcastic description is confirmed 
by a statement made by Percival Wiburn for the benefit 
of his friends in Zurich, subsequent to the adoption of the 
Thirty-nine Articles. He asserts that " The marriage of 
priests was counted unlawful in the times of Queen Mary, 
and was also forbidden by a public statute of the realm, 
which is also in force at this day ; although by permission 
of Queen Elizabeth clergymen may have their wives, pro- 
vided only they marry by the advice and assent of the 
bishop and two justices of the peace, as they call them. 
The lords bishops are forbidden to have their wives with 
them in their palaces ; as are also the deans, canons, 
presbyters, and other ministers of the Church, within 
colleges, or the precincts of cathedral churches."^ It is 
not a little curious, indeed, to observe that, in spite of the 
formal declaration in the Thirty-nine Articles, the absence 
of a special Act of Parliament long caused the question to 
remain a doubtful one in the public mind. As late as 
July 1566, Lawrence Humphrey and Thomas Sampson, 
two zealous Protestants, in denouncing " some straws and 
chips of the popish rehgion" which still defaced the 
Anglican Church, state that " the marriage of the clergy is 
now allowed and sanctioned by the public laws of the 
kingdom, but their children are by some persons regarded 
as illegitimate " ; in answer to which. Bishops Grindal and 
Horn rejoined that "the wives of the clergy are not 
separated from their husbands, and their marriage is 
esteemed honourable by all, the papists always excepted."^ 
The matter evidently was still regarded as a subject of 
controversy, not yet decided beyond appeal ; and the 
experience of the previous quarter of a century had 
accustomed men to too many vicissitudes for them to feel 

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

2 Zurich Letters, First Series, pp. 164, 179. 


safe with so slender a guarantee as the Articles afforded. 
The Catholics still constituted a very large proportion of 
the population, and they scarcely concealed their feehngs 
towards the innovation. When Sir John Bourne quarrelled 
with Dr. Sandys, Bishop of Worcester, among the formal 
articles of accusation which he presented to the Privy 
Council was the assertion that the Bishop in a sermon had 
ridiculed celibacy and had decried the virtue of unmarried 
priests.^ The knight apparently believed that this would 
be damaging to the bishop, and the latter seems likewise 
to have thought so, for in his answer he emphatically 
denied it, retorting that his adversary was a papist who had 
Mass celebrated in his house and who was in the habit of 
applying the most opprobrious epithets to the wives of 
priests.^ So when in 1569 the Catholics of the North rose 
in insurrection under the Earls of Westmoreland and 
Northumberland, one of the grievances of which they com- 
plained was the marriage of the ministers of Christ.^ During 
the whole of this transition period the question was evidently 
one which occupied largely the public mind, and in the 
diversity of opinion it was not easy to see what the ultimate 

1 " That, concerning Virginity and the Single Life, Le 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. 

2 "Where he alledgeth that he never called Priests Wives PTAores, it is untrue. 
For three Women going through his Park, wherein is a path for footmen, he sup- 
posing they had been Priests Wives called unto them, Ye shall not come through my 
Parh and no such Priests Whores.^^ — Ibid. p. 358. 

3 See a tract published against the rebels, attributed by Strype to Sir Thomas 
Smith, which ridicules the advocates of celibacy with a vigour reminding us of the 
Beggars' Petition. — "This is a quarrel wholly like the old Rebels Complaint of En- 
closing 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 
iUce lachrymce. 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. 


decision might be. When an irrevocable step such as 
marriage was legal only during the pleasure of a capricious 
woman, whose assent was known to have been extorted 
from her, it is no wonder that it should be looked upon 
with disfavour by all prudent relatives of women inclined 
to venture on it. 

Such a state of feeling could not but react most injuri- 
ously on the character of the great body of the clergy. 
It deprived them of the respect due to their sacred calling, 
and consequently reduced them to the level of such scant 
respect as was accorded to them. How long this lasted, 
and how materially it degraded the ministers of Christ as 
a body, cannot be questioned by any one who recalls the 
description of the rural clergy in the brilliant third chapter 
of Macaulay's History of England. In 1686 an author 
complains that the rector is an object of contempt and 
ridicule for all above the rank of the neighbouring peasants ; 
that gentle blood would be held polluted by any connec- 
tion with the Church, and that girls of good family were 
taught with equal earnestness not to marry clergymen, nor 
to sacrifice their reputation by amorous indiscretions — 
two misfortunes which were commonly regarded as equal. ^ 

Thus eagerly accepted and grudgingly bestowed, the 
privilege of marriage estabhshed itself in the Church of 
England by connivance rather than as a right ; and the 
evil influences of the prejudices thus fostered were not 
extinguished for generations. 

1 A causidico, medicastra, ipsaque artificum farragine, ecclesias rector aut 
vicarius contemnitur et fit ludibrio. Gentis et familiae nitor sacris ordinibus pol- 
lutus censetur : foeminisque natalitio insignibus unicum inculcatur ssepius prsecep- 
tum, ne modestise naufragium faciant, aut (quod idem auribus tarn delicatulis 
sonat) ne clerico se nuptas dari patiantur. — T. Wood, Anglias 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. 



In the easy toleration which preceded the Reformation, 
Luther's precursor, Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples, in 1512 
pubHshed his Commentaries on the PauHne Epistles. 
The work was a significant portent of the era about to 
open. For the first time the traditional scholastic exe- 
gesis was cast aside for a treatment in which tradition was 
rejected and independent judgment was exercised as a 
matter of right. As in so much else, the full import of 
this was not recognised until the Lutheran revolt showed 
the necessity of strict adherence to the ancient ways and of 
shackling human thought with additional rigour. It was 
not until after Luther's condemnation by the Sorbonne, 
in 1521, that the Commentaries were censured and twenty- 
five heretical errors were discovered in them ; even then 
the favour of Francis I. protected their author from the 
prosecution commenced against him in 1523. Many a 
hardy thinker had been burnt for less. Lefevre denied 
justification by either faith or works, for God alone 
justifies ; religious Orders only awaken pride and imperil 
Christian love — it would be better that there were none, 
but, while they exist, monks should work with their hands, 
as did the apostles ; confession and forgiveness of sins 
were originally mutual between brethren — the modern 
custom is due to the absence of faith, but Christ may 
accept it ; celibacy in itself is better than marriage, but 
priests and deacons were permitted to marry until the 
time of Gregory VII. ; the Greek Church has retained 


the apostolic custom of marriage, while the other Churches 
adopted celibacy, whereby many, through incontinence, 
fall into the snares of the devil. ^ 

The seed thus scattered fell into fruitful soil, and 
as early as 1525, Clement VII., in a brief addressed to 
the Regent Louise of Savoy, enumerates among the 
" Lutheran " errors spreading through France the stigma- 
tising of the canons enjoining clerical celibacy as Satanic.^ 
By the time when Jean Calvin formulated the system of 
theology which bears his name, sacerdotal marriage had 
thus everywhere become recognised as one of the inevit- 
able incidents of the revolt against Rome, and that the 
French Huguenots should accept it was therefore a matter 
of course. 

Calvin himself manifested his contempt for all the 
ancient prejudices by marrying, in 1539, Idelette de Bure, 
the widow of the Anabaptist Jean Stordeur, whom he 
had converted.^ The Huguenot Confession of Faith was 
drawn up by him, and was adopted by the first national 
synod, held at Paris in 1559. Of course the Genevan 
views of justification swept away all the accumulated 
observances of sacerdotalism, and ascetic celibacy shared 
the fate of the rest.* The discipline of the Calvinist 

1 Karl Heinrich Graf, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, pp. 37, 45, 46, 48, 165-7 
(Strassburg, 1842). 

2 Clement PP. VII. Breve Cum, ad nihil (Isambert. Anciennes Loix Fran^aises, 
XII. 233). 

3 Rahlenbeck, L'Eglise de Liege, 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 Epistolae, p. 111. 
GenevEe, 1617). His grief was doubtless sincere, but his friends were able to com- 
pliment him on his not allowing domestic affliction to interfere with his customary 
routine of labour (Ibid. p. 116). 

4 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 


Church with regard to the morahty of its ministers was 
necessarily severe. The pecuHar purity expected of a 
pastor' s household was shown by the rule which enjoined 
any Church officer whose wife was convicted of adultery to 
dismiss her absolutely, under pain of deposition, while 
laymen, under such circumstances, were exhorted to be 
reconciled to their guilty partners.^ Any lapse from 
virtue on the part of a minister was visited with peremp- 
tory deposition ; ^ nor was this a mere idle threat, such as 
were too many of the innumerable decrees of the Catholic 
councils quoted above, for the proceedings of various 
synods show that it was carried sternly into execution. 
A list of such vagrant and deposed ministers was even 
kept and published to the churches, with personal descrip- 
tions of the individuals, that they might not be able to 
impose on the unwary. Indeed, the national synod of 
Lyons, in 1563, went so far as to punish those ministers 
who brought contempt upon the Church by unfitting 
marriages ; ^ and, though this was omitted from the final 
code of discipline, it shows the exceeding strictness with 
which the internal economy of the ecclesiastical establish- 
ment of the Huguenots was regulated. 

The relations of the Catholic Church with its apostates 
were somewhat confused, and they varied with the political 
exigencies of the situation. Ecclesiastics who left the 
Catholic communion did not hesitate to enter into matri- 
mony ; * and when the desolation of civil war rendered 

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 con- 
science " (Quick, I. xi.). — See also the Confession written by Calvin in 1662, to 
be laid betore the Emperor Ferdinand (Calvini Epist. pp. 564-66). 

1 Discip. Chap. xiii. can. xxviii. (Quick, I. iii.) 

2 Ibid. Chap. i. can. xlvii. 

3 Chap. IV. Art. xii., Chap. xvi. Art. xiv. (Quick, I. 32, 38.) 

4 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 


a forced tolerance of the new religion necessary, their 
position was a source of considerable debate, varying with 
the fluctuations of the tangled politics of the time. The 
Edict of Pacification of Amboise, in March 1562, was 
held by the Huguenots to legalise the marriages of these 
apostates, but the explanatory declaration of August 1563 
ordered their reclamation by the Church under pain of 
exile. When the Spanish alliance gave fresh assurances 
of triumph to the Catholics this was enforced with increased 
severity. The Edict of Roussillon, in 1564, commands 
that all priests, monks, and nuns who had abandoned their 
profession and entered into matrimony shall sunder their 
unhallowed bonds and return to their duties. Recalci- 
trants were required to leave the kingdom within two 
months, under pain, in the case of men, of condemnation 
to the galleys for life, and in that of women, of perpetual 
imprisonment.^ As most of the Calvinist ministers neces- 
sarily belonged to the class thus assailed, the effect of this 
legislation in stimulating the troubles of the kingdom can 
readily be perceived. 

The dismal strife of the succeeding ten years at length 
showed that, in spite of the Tridentine canons, the tolera- 
tion of this iniquity was a necessity. Thus in the Edicts 
of Pacification issued by Henry III. in 1576 and 1577 
there is a provision which admits as valid the marriages 
theretofore contracted by all priests or religious persons of 
either sex. The issue of such unions was declared com- 
petent to inherit the personalty of the parents and such 

Monluc, whose cruelties to the Huguenots were so notorious), married without 
openly apostatising, and died in the Catholic faith. Cardinal Odet de Chatillon, 
Bishop of Beauvais, and brother of the Admiral, became a declared Calvinist, 
marriedj Mile, 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 k coeur," says Brantome (Discours 48), " de luy changer le 
nom qui luy avoit este si bien scant." 

1 Edit de Eoussillon, Art. 7 (Isambert XV. 172). This edict was cited in 
the proceedings of the case of Dumonteil, about the year 1830, of which more 


realty as either parent might ; have acquired, but was 
incapable of other inheritance, direct or collateral.^ 

The Church was obliged to submit to this temporising 
tolerance of evil, and condescended to entreaty since force 
was no longer permitted. In 1581 the Council of Rouen, 
while deploring the number of monks and nuns who had left 
their convents, apostatised, and married, directs that they 
shall be tempted back, treated with kindness, and pardon be 
sought for them from the Holy See.^ In the final settle- 
ment of the religious troubles, the concessions made by 
Henry III. were renewed and somewhat amplified by the 
Edict of Nantes in 1598.^ When the reaction came, 
however, these provisions were held to be only retro- 
spective in their action, and were not admitted as legalising 
subsequent marriages. Thus in 1628 a knight of Malta, 
in 1630 a nun, and in 1640 a priest of Nevers, who had 
embraced Calvinism, ventured on matrimony, but were 
separated from their spouses and the marriages were 
pronounced null.* These decisions were based on the 
principle that the celibacy of ecclesiastics was prescribed 
by municipal as well as by canon law, and that a priest in 
abjuring his religion did not escape from the obligations 
imposed upon him by the laws of the kingdom.^ 

In Scotland, as in France, the question of sacerdotal 
marriage may be considered as having virtually been 
settled in advance. LoUardry had not been confined to 
the southern portion of Great Britain. It had penetrated 

1 Edit de 1576, Art. 9.- Edit de Poitiers, Art. Secrets, No. 8 (Isambert, T. XV. 
pp. 283, 331). 

2 Concil Rotomag. ann. 1581 cap. de Monasteriis § 32 (Harduin. X. 1253). 

3 Edit de Nantes, Art. Secrets, No. 39 (Isambert, T. XVI. p. 206). 

4 Gregoire, Hist, du Mariage des Pretres en France, pp. 58-9. 

5 A decision rendered on the argument of the distinguished avocat-general Omer 
Talon expressly states "que la prohibition du mariage des personnes constitutes 
dans les ordres etant une loi de I'Etat aussi bien que de I'Eglise, un pretre malgre 
sa profession de Calvinisme, ^tait demeure sujet aux lois de I'Etat, et d^s lors n'avait 
pas pu valablement contracter mariage." — Bouhier de I'Ecluse, de I'Etat des Pretres 
en France, Paris, 1842, p. 12. 


into Scotland, and had received the countenance of those 
whose position and influence were well calculated to aid in 
its dissemination among the people. In 1494, thirty of 
these heretics, known as "the Lollards of Kyle," were 
prosecuted before James IV. by Robert Blacater, Arch- 
bishop of Glasgow. Their station may be estimated from 
the fact that they escaped the punishment due to their 
sins by the favour of the monarch, " for divers of them 
were his great familiars." The thirty-four articles of 
accusation brought against them are mostly Wickliffite in 
tendency, and their views on the question of celibacy are 
manifested in the twenty-second article, which accuses 
them of asserting " That Priests may have wives according 
to the constitution of the Law and of the Primitive 
Christian Church."^ 

The soil was thus ready for the plough of the Reforma- 
tion ; while the temper of the Scottish race gave warrant 
that when the mighty movement should reach them, it 
would be marked by that stern and uncompromising spirit 
which alone could satisfy conscientious and fiery bigots, 
who would regard all half-measures as pacts with Satan. 
Nor was there lacking ample cause to excite in the minds 
of all men the desire for a sweeping and effectual reform. 
Corruption had extended through every fibre of the Scot- 
tish Church as all-pervading as that which we have traced 
throughout the rest of Christendom. 

Not long after the year 1530, and before the new heresy 
had obtained a foothold, William Arith, a Dominican, 
ventured to assail the vices of his fellow churchmen. In 
a sermon preached at St. Andrews, with the approbation 
of the heads of the universities, he alluded to the false 
miracles with which the people were deceived, and the 
abuses practised at shrines to which credulous devotion 
was invited. " As of late dayes," he proceeded, " our Lady 

1 Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, p. 3 (ed. 1609). 


of Karsgreng hath hopped from one green hillock to 
another : But, honest men of St. Andre wes, if ye love your 
wives and daughters, hold them at home, or else send them 
in good honest company ; for if ye knew what miracles 
were wrought there, ye would thank neither God nor our 
Lady." In another sermon, arguing that the disorders of 
the clergy should be subjected to the jurisdiction of the 
civil authorities, he introduced an anecdote respecting 
Prior Patrick Hepburn, afterwards Bishop of Murray. 
That prelate once, in merry discourse with his gentlemen, 
asked of them the number of their mistresses, and what 
proportion of the fair dames were married. The first who 
answered confessed to five, of whom two were bound in 
wedlock ; the next boasted of seven, with three married 
women among them ; and so on until the turn came to 
Hepburn himself, who, proud of his bonnes fortunes, 
declared that although he was the youngest man there, his 
mistresses numbered twelve, of whom seven were men's 
wives. ^ Yet Arith was a good Catholic, who, on being 
driven from Scotland for his plain speaking, suffered im- 
prisonment in England under Henry VIII. for maintaining 
the supremacy of the Pope. 

How little concealment was thought requisite vdth 
regard to these scandals is exemplified in the case of 
Alexander Ferrers, which occurred about the same time. 
Taken prisoner by the English and immured for seven 
years in the Tower of London, he returned home to find 
that his wife had been consoled and his substance dissipated 
in his absence by a neighbouring priest, for the which cause 
he not unnaturally ** spake more liberally of priests than 
they could bear." By this time heresy was spreading, and 
severe measures of repression were considered necessary. 
It therefore was not difficult to have the man's disrespect- 

1 Knox, pp. 15-16.— Calderwood's Historie of the Kirk of Scotland, I. 88-5 
(Wodrow Soc). 


ful remarks construed as savouring of Lutheranism, and 
he was accordingly brought up for trial at St. Andrews. 
The first article of accusation read to him was that he 
despised the Mass, whereto he answered, " I heare more 
Masses in eight dayes than three bishops there sitting say 
in a yeare." The next article accused him of contemning 
the sacraments. " The priests," replied he, " were the 
most contemnors of the sacraments, especially of matri- 
mony." " And that he witnessed by many of the priests 
there present, and named the man's wife with whom they 
had meddled, and especially Sir John Dungwaill, who had 
seven years together abused his own wife and consumed 
his substance, and said : because I complain of such injuries, 
I am here summoned and accused as one that is worthy to 
be burnt : For God's sake, said he, will ye take wives of 
your own, that I and others whom ye have abused may be 
revenged on you." Old Gawain Dunbar, Bishop of Aber- 
deen, not relishing this public accusation, sought to justify 
himself, exclaiming, " Carle, thou shalt not know my wife " ; 
but the prisoner turned the tables on him, " My lord, ye 
are too old, but by the grace of God 1 shall drink with 
your daughter or I depart." "And thereat there was 
smiling of the best and loud laughter of some, for the 
bishop had a daughter married with Andrew Balfour in 
that town." The prelates who sat in judgment found that 
they were exchanging places with the accused, and, fearful 
of further revelations from the reckless Alexander, com- 
manded him to depart ; but he refused, unless each one 
should contribute something to replace the goods which 
his wife's paramour had consumed, and finally, to stop his 
evil tongue, they paid him and bade him be gone.^ 

All prelates, however, were not so sensitive. When 
Cardinal Beatoun, Archbishop of St. Andrews, primate of 
Scotland, and virtual governor of the realm, about the 

1 Knox, pp. 16-17. 


year 1546 married his eldest daughter to the eldest son of 
the Earl of Crawford, he caused the nuptials to be cele- 
brated with regal magnificence, and in the marriage articles, 
signed with his own hand, he did not hesitate to call her 
" my daughter." It is not difficult, therefore, to credit the 
story that the night before his assassination was passed 
with his mistress, Marion Ogilby, who was seen leaving 
his chamber not long before Norman Leslie and Kirkaldy 
of Grange forced their way into his castle.^ His successor 
in the see of St. Andrews, John Hamilton, was equally 
notorious for his licentiousness ; and men wondered, not 
at his immorality, but at his taste in preferring to all his 
other concubines one whose only attraction seemed to be 
the zest given to sin by the fact that she was the wife of 
one of his kindred.^ 

This is testimony from hostile witnesses, and we might 
perhaps impugn their evidence on that ground, were it not 
that the Catholic Church of Scotland itself admitted the 
abandoned morals of its members when the rapid progress 
of Calvinism at length drove it in self-defence to attempt 
a reform which was its only chance of salvation. In the 
last Parliament held by James V. before his death in 1542, 
an Act was passed exhorting the prelates and ecclesiastics 
in general to take measures " for reforming of their lyvis, 
and for avoyding of the opin sclander that is gevin to the 
haill estates throucht the spirituale mens ungodly and 
dissolut lyves." ^ Nothing was then done, in spite of this 
solemn warning, though the countenance afforded to the 
Reformers by the Regent Arran, strengthened by his 
alliance with Henry VIII., was daily causing the heresy to 
assume more dangerous proportions. When, therefore, 
the Catholic party, rallying after the murder of Cardinal 

1 Buchanan. Eer. Scot. Hist. Lib. xv. — Eobertson, Hist, of Scot. B. II. — Knox 
71-2.— Calderwood I. 222. 

2 Buchanan, Lib. xv. 

3 Wilkins IV. 207. 


Beatoun, at length triumphed with the aid of France, and 
sent the young Queen of Scots to marry Francis II., they 
seemed to recognise that they could only maintain their 
advantage by meeting public opinion in endeavouring to 
reform the Church. Accordingly, in November 1549, a 
council was convoked at Edinburgh, of which the first 
canon declares that the licentiousness of the clergy had 
given rise to the gravest scandals, to repress which the 
rules enjoined by the Council of Basle must be strictly en- 
forced and universally obeyed. The second canon is no 
less significant in ordering that prelates and other eccle- 
siastics shall not live with their illegitimate children, nor 
provide for them or promote them in the paternal churches, 
nor marry their daughters to barons by endowing them 
with the patrimony of Christ, nor cause their sons to be 
made barons by the same means. ^ 

This was of small avail. Ten years afterwards, the 
progress of heresy becoming ever more alarming, another 
council was held, in March 1559, to devise means to put 
a stop to the encroachments of the enemy. To this 
assembly the Catholic nobles addressed an earnest prayer 
for reformation. After alluding to the proceedings of the 
Parliament of 1542, they add, "And siclyk remembring in 
diverss of the lait provinciale counsales haldin within this 
realm, that poynt has been treittet of, and sindrie statutis 
synodale maid therupon, of the quhilks nevertheless thar 
hes folowit nan or litill fruitt as yitt, bot rathare the said 
estate is deteriorate ... it is maist expedient therefore 
that thai presentlie condescend to seik reformation of thir 
lyvis . . . and naymlie that oppin and manifest sins and 
notor ofFencis be forborn and abstenit fra in tyme to cum." 
In this request they had been anticipated by the Reformers, 
who the previous year, in a supplication addressed to the 
Queen-regent, included among their demands " That the 

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


wicked, slanderous, and detestable life of Prelats and of the 
State Ecclesiasticall may be reformed, that the people by 
them have not occasion (as of many dayes they have had) 
to contemne their Ministrie and the Preaching whereof 
they should be Messengers." 

The council, thus urged by friend and foe, recognised 
the extreme necessity of the case, and did its best to cure 
the immedicable disease. Its first canon reaffirmed the 
observance of the Basilian regulations, and appointed a 
commission empowered to enforce them ; and, that nothing 
should interfere with its efficiency, the Archbishops of St. 
Andrews and Glasgow made a special renunciation of their 
exemption from the jurisdiction of the council. The 
second canon, in forbidding the residence of illegitimate 
children with their clerical fathers, endeavoured to procure 
obedience to the rule ordered by the council of 1.549, by 
permitting it for four days in each quarter, and by a penalty 
for infractions of £200 in the case of an archbishop, £100 
in that of a bishop, and leaving the mulct to be imposed 
on inferior ecclesiastics at the discretion of the officials. 
The third canon prohibited the promotion of children in 
their fathers' benefices, and supplicated the Queen-regent to 
obtain of the Pope that no dispensations should be granted 
to evade the rule. The fourth canon inhibited ecclesiastics 
from marrying their daughters to barons and lairds, and 
endowing them with Church lands, or making their sons 
barons or lairds with more than £100 annual income, under 
pain of fine to the amount of the dowry or lands abstracted 
from the Church ; and all grants of Church lands or tithes 
to concubines or children were pronounced null and void.^ 

1 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 pre- 
lates, saying That they would abide the canon law. And so they might well enough 
do, so long as they remained Interpreters, Dispensators, Makers and Disannullers of 
the law" (op. cit, 119). It was doubtless on some such considerations that the 


When such legislation was necessary, the disorders 
which it was intended to repress are acknowledged in terms 
admitting neither of palliation nor excuse. The extent of 
the evil especially alluded to in the latter canons is further 
exemplified by the fact that during the thirty years 
immediately following the establishment of the Reforma- 
tion in Scotland, more letters of legitimation were taken 
out than were issued in the two subsequent centuries. 
These were given to the sons of the clergy who were 
allowed to retain their benefices, and who then made over 
the property to their natural children.^ 

Such being the state of morals among the ministers 
of the old religion, it is easy to appreciate the immense 
advantage enjoyed by the Reformers. They made good 
use of it. Knox loses no opportunity of stigmatising the 
" pestilent Papists and Masse-mongers " as " adulterers and 
whoremasters," who were thus perpetually held up to the 
people for execration, while the individual wrongs from 
which so many suffered were noised about and made the 
subject of constantly increasing popular indignation.^ Yet 

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, November 5, 

1 Kobertson, Hist. Scot. Bk. II. 

2 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. 



the abrogation of celibacy occupies less space in the history 
of the Scottish Reformation than in that of any other 
people who threw off the allegiance to Rome. 

The remote position of Scotland and its comparative 
barbarism rendered it in some degree inaccessible to the 
early doctrines of Luther and Zwingli. Before it began 
to show a trace of the new ideas, clerical marriage had long 
passed out of the region of disputation with the Reformers, 
and was firmly established as one of the inseparable results 
of the doctrine of justification professed by all the reformed 
Churches/ Not only was it thus accepted as a matter of 
course by all the converts to the new faith, but that faith, 
when once introduced, spread in Scotland with a rapidity 
proportioned to the earnest character of the people. The 
permission to read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, 
granted by Parliament in 1543, doubtless had much to do 
with this ; the leaning of the Regent Arran to the same 
side gave it additional impetus, and the savage fierceness 
with which the Reformers were prepared to vindicate their 
belief is shown by the murder of Cardinal Beatoun, which 
was countenanced and justified by Knox himself. Power- 
ful nobles soon saw in it the means of emancipating them- 
selves from the vacillating control of the Regent ; nor was 
the central authority strengthened when, in 1554, the reins 
of power were wrested from the feeble Arran and confided 
to the Queen-dowager, Mary of Guise, who found herself 
obliged to encourage each party by turns, and to balance 
one against the other, to prevent either Catholic or Calvinist 
from obtaining control over the state. Then too, as in 

1 This doctrine bore its full share in the history of the Scottish Keformation. 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 neces- 
sity 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. 


Germany and England, the temporal possessions of the 
Church were a powerful temptation to its destruction. 
From the great Duke of Chatelleraut to the laird of some 
insignificant peel, all were needy and all eager for a share 
in the spoil. When, in 1560, an assembly of the nobles at 
Edinburgh listened to a disputation on the Mass, and the 
Catholic doctors were unable to defend it as a propitiatory 
sacrifice, the first exclamation of the lords revealed the 
secret tendencies of their thoughts : " We have been 
miserably deceived heretofore ; for if the Mass may not 
obtain remission of sins to the quick and to the dead, 
wherefore were all the Abbies so richly doted and 
endowed with our Temporall lands ? " ^ 

Of course, less selfish purposes were put forward to 
enlist the support of the people. On the 1st January 1559, 
when the storm was gathering, but before it had burst, the 
inmates of the religious houses found affixed to their gates 
a proclamation in the name of " The Blinde, Crooked, 
Lame, Widows, Orphans, and all other Poor, so visited by 
the hand of God as cannot work, "ordering the monks to leave 
the patrimony intended to relieve the suffering, but usurped 
by indolent shaveHngs, giving them until Whit-Sunday to 
make their exit, after which they would be ejected by force, 
and ending with the significant warning : " Let him, there- 
fore, that hath before stolen, steal no more, but rather let him 
work with his hands that he may be helpfull to the poore," ^ 

Such a cry could hardly fail to be popular, but when 
the threat was carried into execution, the blind and the 
crooked, the widow and orphan received so small a share 
of the spoil that they were worse off than before. As we 
have already seen in England, the destruction of the 
Scottish monasteries was the commencement of the 
necessity of making some public provision for paupers.^ 

1 Knox, p. 283. 

2 Knox, p. 119.— Calderwood, I. 423. 

3 Thus the Assembly of the Church in 1562 drew up a remonstrance to the Queen, 


The nobles seized the hon's share ; the rest fell to the 
crown, subject to the payment of the very moderate 
stipends assigned to the comparatively few ministers 
required by the new establishment, and these stipends 
were so irregularly paid that the unfortunate ministers were 
frequently in danger of starvation, and were constantly 
besieging the court with their dolorous complaints. Where 
the lands and revenues went is indicated with grim humour 
by Knox, in describing the resistance offered in 1560 to the 
adoption of his Book of Discipline by those who had pro- 
fessed great zeal for the Lord Jesus. Lord Erskine had 
been one of the first and most consistent of the " Lords of 
the Congregation," yet he also refused to sign the book — 
'* And no wonder, for besides that he had a very evill 
woman to his wife, if the Poore, the Schooles, and the 
Ministerie of the Church had their owne, his Kitchin 
would lack two parts and more of that which he unjustly 
now possesseth."^ 

Yet, when compared with the rich abbatial manors of 
England or the princely foundations of Germany, the spoil 
of the Church was mean indeed. Knox had resided much 
abroad, and had seen the vast wealth which the piety of 
ages had showered upon the Church in the most opulent 
lands of Europe, yet his simplicity or fanaticism finds 
source of wondering comment in the homespun luxury of 
the unfortunate monks whom he assisted in dispossessing. 
When the destruction of the monasteries 1559 commenced 
by a brawl in Perth, caused by a sermon preached by Kjiox, 
and three prominent convents were broken up, he expatiates 

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. 

1 Ibid. p. 278. The Book was signed at Edinburgh, 27 January, 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 ardour of a new and purer religion. 


on the extravagance revealed to sight : " And in very deed 
the Grey-Friers was a place so well provided that unlesse 
honest men had seen the same, we would have feared to 
have reported what provision they had, their sheets, 
blankets, beds and coverlets were such that no Earle in 
Scotland had better : Their naperie was fine ; they were 
but 8 persons in the Convent, and yet they had 8 puncheons 
of salt beef (consider the time of the yeere, the eleventh 
of May), wine, beere, and ale, beside store of victuals 
belonging thereto." ^ Imagine an abbot of St. Albans or 
an abbess of Poissy reduced to the coverlets and salt beef 
which the stern Calvinist deemed an indulgence so great as 
to be incredible ! 

Still, in so impoverished a country as the Scotland of 
that period, even these poor spoils were a motive sufficient 
to prove a powerful aid to the conquering party in the 
struggle. And yet, amid all the miserable ambitions of 
the Erskines and Murrays, the Huntleys and Bothwells, 
who occupied the prominent places in the court and camp, 
we should do grievous wrong to the spirit which triumphed 
at last over the force and fraud of the Guises, if we attri- 
buted to temporal motives alone the movement which 
expelled licentious prelates and drove Queen Mary to the 
fateful refuge of Fotheringay. The selfish aims of the 
nobles would have been fruitless but for the zealous 
earnestness of the people, led by men of iron nature, who 
doubted themselves as little as they doubted their God, 
and who, in the death-struggle with Antichrist, were as 
ready to suffer as they were ruthless to infhct. Nor can 
the disorders of the Catholic clergy be rightly imputed to 
the temperament of the race, for the Reformers, who 
carried with them so large a portion of the middle and 
lower classes, preached a system of rigid morality to which 
the world had been a stranger since the virtues of the 

1 Knox, 136. 


Germanic tribes had been lost in the overthrow of the 
Empire ; and they not merely preached it, but obtained 
its embodiment in a code of repressive laws which their 
vigilant authority strictly enforced. 

I have said above that the question of celibacy appears 
but rarely in the course of the contest, yet, notwithstand- 
ing the causes which rendered it a less prominent subject 
of debate than elsewhere, it occasionally rises to view. The 
first instance of clerical marriage that I find recorded 
occurred in 1538, when Thomas Coklaw, parish priest of 
Tillibodie, married a widow of the same village named 
Margaret Jameson. This, however, was not done openly 
and defiantly, as in Germany, but in secret, and the 
married couple continued to dwell apart. That the 
infraction of the canons was not without danger was shown 
by the result, for, when it became known, Coklaw was 
tried by the Bishop of Dunblane and condemned to per- 
petual imprisonment ; but his relatives broke open his 
dungeon, and he escaped to England. When, early in the 
following year, a group of Reformers, including Dean 
Thomas Forret, Friar John Killore, Friar John Beverege, 
and others, were put on trial, their presence at this 
wedding was one of the crimes for which they were exe- 
cuted upon Castle Hill at Edinburgh.^ In fact, the 
abrogation of the rule of celibacy, in Scotland as elsewhere, 
was necessarily one of the leading points at issue between 
the Reformers and the Catholics. Thus, when George 
Wishart, one of the early heretics who ventured openly to 
preach the Lord Jesus, was seized, in spite of powerful 
protectors, and after a prolonged captivity was brought 
for trial before Cardinal Beatoun in 1545, in the accu- 
sation against him article 14 asserted, " Thou false Here- 
ticke hast taught plainly against the Vows of Monks, 
Friers, Nuns, and Priests, saying. That whosoever was 

1 Calderwood's Historie, 1. 123-4. 


bound to such like Vows, they vowed themselves to the 
state of damnation. Moreover, That it was lawfuU for 
Priests to marry wives and not to live sole." Wishart 
tacitly confessed the truth of this impeachment by rejoin- 
ing, " But as many as have not the gift of chastity, nor 
yet for the Gospel have overcome the concupiscence of the 
flesh, and have vowed chastity ; ye have experience, 
although 1 should hold my tongue, to what inconveniences 
they have exposed themselves." ^ He was accordingly 
condemned as an incorrigible heretic, and promptly burnt. 
Yet when, in 1547, John Knox held his disputation with 
Dean Wynrame and Friar Arbuckle, though the nine 
articles drawn up for discussion ranged from the supre- 
macy of the Pope and the existence of purgatory to the 
payment of tithes, the subject of vows of chastity was not 
even mentioned.^ 

Still, as late as 1558 the trial of Walter Mill shows that 
the question was even yet agitated in the controversies 
between the polemics of the two parties. Mill had been 
a priest, and had married, and the first of the articles of 
accusation against him was that he asserted the lawful- 
ness of sacerdotal marriage. To this he boldly assented, 
declaring that he regarded matrimony as a blessed bond, 
open for all men to enter, and that it were better for priests 
to marry than to vow chastity and not preserve it, as they 
were wont to do. Condemned to the stake, the unfortu- 
nate old man commanded the sympathies of the people, 
even in the archiepiscopal town of St. Andrews. No one 
could be found to act as executioner, until at length one 
of the servants of the archbishop consented to fill the 
abhorrent office; but when a rope was sought with 
which to bind the wretched sufferer to the stake, no one 

1 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." 

2 Calderwood, I. 231 sqq. 


would furnish it, and the tragedy was necessarily post- 
poned. Equally unsuccessful was the next day's search, 
until the archbishop, fearing to lose his victim, gave the 
cords of his own pavilion, and the sentence was carried into 
effect. Even after the sacrifice, the popular feeling was 
manifested by raising a pile of stones as a monument on 
the place of torture, and as often as these were cast aside 
by the priests they were replaced by the people, until the 
followers of the archbishop carried them off by night, and 
used them for building.^ 

These incidents show us that the question received its 
share of attention in the controversy by which each side 
endeavoured to secure the support of the nation, but it 
makes no appearance in public negotiations and declara- 
tions. Thus, in 1558, when the growing strength of the 
Lords of the Congregation led the Catholics to offer con- 
cessions, which were rejected by the conscious power of 
the Reformers, there was no allusion to celibacy on either 
side. In fact, between the respective leaders the questions 
were almost purely personal and political, while among 
the conscientiously religious supporters of either party 
opinions were too rigidly defined for argument. Convic- 
tions were too divergent and too firm for compromise or 
concession to be possible, and Catholic and Calvinist grimly 
recognised, as by a tacit understanding, the alternative of 
extermination. When the English alliance at last drove 
the Catholics to the wall, and in July 1560 there assembled 
the Parliament to which by the Articles of Leith was 
referred the duty of effecting a settlement of the kingdom, 
the vanquished party made no struggle against their fate. 
Such Catholic prelates and lords as took their seats re- 
frained from all debate, and allowed the victors to arrange 
the temporal and spiritual affairs of the kingdom at their 

1 Knox, p. 130.— Calderwood, I. 337 sqq.— Burnet, Vol. II. 


In this settlement, our subject affords a curious com- 
parison between the Enghsh and Scotch Churches. In the 
former, at a period even later than this, it was considered 
necessary to embody a renunciation of celibacy in the 
organic law, which has been maintained to the present day. 
In the latter, ecclesiastical marriage had become already so 
firmly established in the minds of the Reformers that it 
was accepted as a matter of course, which needed no special 
confirmation. Although laws were passed prohibiting the 
Mass and abolishing the supremacy of the Pope, none were 
thought necessary to legalise the marriages of the clergy. 
Even in Knox's Confession of Faith, adopted by the Par- 
liament on July 17, there is no direct allusion to the 
matter. The only passage which can be construed as 
having any bearing upon it occurs in Chapter XIV., when 
considering " What works are reputed good before God " : 
" And evill works we affirme not onely those that are ex- 
pressly done against God's commandment, but those also 
that in matters of religion and worshipping of God have 
no assurance, but the invention and opinion of man, which 
God from the beginning hath ever rejected, as by the 
prophet Isaiah and by our Master Christ Jesus we are 
taught in these words — In vain do they worship me, teach- 
ing doctrines which are precepts of Men} 

Nothing more, in fact, was needed when the triumph of 
the new ideas was so complete that Knox could exultingly 
exclaim, "For what Adulterer, what Fornicator, what known 
Masse-monger or pestilent Papist durst have been seen in 
publike within any Reformed Town within this Realme 
before that the Queen arrived ? . . . . For while the 
Papists were so confounded that none within the Realme 
durst avow the hearing or saying of Masse then the thieves 
of Tiddisdale durst avow their stouth or stealing in the 
presence of any upright judge." ^ When persecution thus 

Knox, p. 263. 2 ibid. p. 304. 


had changed sides, no minister could feel that his nuptials 
required special authorisation. How thoroughly indeed 
they were legitimated is shown by a curious little incident 
occurring in 1563. A minister named Baron made com- 
plaint to the General Assembly that his wife, an English 
woman named Anne Goodacre, " after great rebellions by 
her committed," had left him and taken refuge in England, 
whereupon he requested the Assembly to have her brought 
back to him. Spotswood, the Superintendent of Lothian, 
with Knox and Craig, actually wrote to Archbishop 
Parker officially asking him to have the woman sought for 
and sent to Scotland ; but Parker, considering it to be an 
international question and beyond his sphere, prudently 
referred the request to Secretary Cecil. ^ 

It were foreign to our object to enter into the dark 
details of Mary's short and disastrous reign. The intrigues 
of the camarilla, the boyish weakness of Darnley, the 
subtlety of Rizzio, and the coarse ambition of Huntley and 
Bothwell, were alike harmless against the earnest reverence 
of the people for the new faith ; and the expiring struggles 
of Catholicism were too feeble to give any practical impor- 
tance to the vain attempts at reaction. 

1 Strype's Parker, Book II. ch. xviii. 



It has already been observed that the dissolute and un- 
christian life of the priesthood was one of the efficient 
causes which led to the success of the Reformation. At 
an early period in the movement, the Catholic Church felt 
the necessity of purifying itself, if it was to retain the 
veneration of the people ; and the veneration of the people 
was now not merely a source of revenue, but a condition 
of the very existence of the stupendous structure of Latin 
Christianity. As soon as it became clearly apparent that 
Lutheranism was not to be suppressed by the ordinary 
machinery, and that it was spreading with a rapidity which 
portended the worst results, an effort was made to remove 
the reproach which incorrigible immorality had entailed 
upon the Church. Allusion has been made above to the 
stringent measures of reform proclaimed by the legate 
Campeggio at Ratisbon in 1524, in which he acknowledged 
that the new heresy had no little excuse in the detestable 
morals and abandoned lives of the clergy — a truth re- 
peatedly admitted by the ecclesiastical authorities.^ His 

1 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 prsescribatur lex cujus sancitor 
voluerit esse exlex, Parendum enim est legi quam quisque sancit . . . Audis 
prseterea non licere plurimas habere uxores, quae animum tuum alliciant ; non 
decere domi alere tot scorta tot Veneres, quae te continue exedunt, tuamque sub- 
stantiam disperdunt. . . . His et aliis datur scandalum populo ; prabetur offen- 
diculum vulgo, cui hac tempestate vilet et contemptui est ordo quilibet sacer. 
Vilis plebs te sacerdotem nunc cachinnis atque ludibriis incissit et odit, qui calum- 
niandi ansam ultro prsebueris. Dicit namque : tot hie, aut ille, scorta domi sure ex 


well-meant endeavours had little result, and we have seen 
that, some years later, Erasmus still urged the abolition of 
the rule of celibacy as the only practicable mode of remov- 
ing the scandal. 

Not long afterwards the Gallican Church made a 
strenuous effort of the same nature to check the spread of 
Lutheranism. In 1521, before it had to encounter a hos- 
tile heresy, the Council of Paris had deplored the pervading 
corruptions with exceeding candour. The condition of 
conventual discipline was such as to threaten the very 
existence of the system, and the customary denunciations 
of ineradicable abuses were freely published.^ In 1528 
the Cardinal-legate Duprat, Chancellor of France, held a 
council in Paris, where he condemned, seriatim, the new 
doctrines as heresies, and elevated the rule of celibacy to 
the dignity of a point of faith.^ He also caused the adop- 
tion of a series of canons designed to remove from the 
Church the disgrace caused by the laxity of clerical morals 
and manners. The bishops were instructed to enforce the 
decrees of the councils and of the fathers until concubinage 
and incontinence should be completely exterminated, and 
a rule was laid down which would have been eventually 
effectual if conscientiously carried out. No one was there- 

patrimonio Crucifixi nutrit, quo non sordida scorta, sed pauperes Christi forent sus- 
tentandi."— 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, quemad- 
modum nos haeretici apud populum perpetuo traducant : nos scortatores, nos ambi- 
tiosos, nos avaros, nos ignavos, et rudes esse, nos otio semper, luxui et ventri servire, 
identidem vociferantur . . . Superbe itaque illi : sed utinam non nimium ssepe 
vere : nam si vera potius hoc loco, quam plausibilia, dicenda sint ; negare certe non 
possumus, quin maximam ad nos accusandos occasionem saepe dederimus." — Concil. 
Augustan, ann. 1548 (Hartzheim VI. 388). 

1 Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1521 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1018). 

2 Quisquis igitur contra sacrorum conciliorum et patrum decreta, sacerdotes, 
diaconos aut subdiaconos lege coelibatus non teneri docuerit aut liberas illis con- 
cesserit nuptias, inter haereticos, 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 shaU hereafter see, was adopted and extended by the Council of Trent. 


after to be admitted to holy orders without written 
testimony as to his age and moral character from his 
parish priest, substantiated by the oaths of two or three 
approved witnesses/ At the same time similar councils 
were held at Bourges by the Cardinal Archbishop Tournon, 
and at Lyons by Claude, Bishop of Macon. To what 
extent these excellent rules were put in force may be 
guessed by a description of the French clergy in 1560, as 
portrayed by Monluc, Bishop of Valence, in a speech 
before the Royal Council. The parish priests were for the 
most part engrossed in worldly pursuits, and had obtained 
their preferment by illicit means, nor did there seem much 
prospect of an improvement so long as the prelates were 
in the habit of bestowing the benefices within their gift on 
their lackeys, barbers, cooks, and other serving men, 
rendering the ecclesiastics as a body an object of contempt 
to the people.^ We need, therefore, not be surprised to 
find in the councils of the period a repetition of all the old 
injunctions, showing that the maintenance of improper 
consorts and the disgrace of priestly families were un- 
diminished evils.* This description of the French clergy 
is most emphatically extended to the whole Church in the 
project for reformation drawn up by order of Paul III. in 
1538, and to these evils are attributed the innumerable 
scandals which afflicted the faithful, as well as the con- 
tempt in which the ecclesiastical body was held and the 
virtual extinction of all reverence for the services of 
religion.* No improvement, however, was to be expected 
as long as a concubinary priest could obtain from the papal 
chancery for seven gros tournois letters of absolution and 

1 Concil. Paris, ann. 1528, Decret. 8. 

2 Pierre de la Place, Estat de Eel. et Kep. Liv. III. 

3 Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1551 can. 22 (Harduin. X. 468). 

4 Consilium de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 


dispensation which specially set aside the decrees of 
bishops and local councils.^ 

In 1530 Clement VII. addressed himself vigorously to 
the task of putting an end to the scandalous practice of 
hereditary transmission of benefices, which he describes as 
almost universal. A special bull was issued, prohibiting the 
children of priests or monks from enjoying any preferment 
in their father's benefices, and, recognising that the Roman 
Curia was one of the chief obstacles to all reform, he pro- 
vided that if he or his successors should grant dispensations 
permitting such infraction of the canons, they should be 
considered as issued unwittingly, and be held null and 
void.^ Like so many others, this bull seems to have been 
forgotten almost as soon as issued, and the pecuniary 
needs of the Roman court rendered it unable to abandon 
so lucrative a source of revenue. Even as soon as 1538 
the cardinals to whom Paul III. committed the task of 
drawing up the project of reformation cautiously intimate 
that they hear of such dispensations being granted, and to 
this they attribute a large share of the troubles of the 
Church and the enmity felt towards the Holy See.^ This 
warning passed unheeded, and, as we have seen, in 1559 
a Scottish council prayed the Queen-regent to use her 
influence with the Pope to prevent dispensations being 
granted to enable illegitimate children to hold preferment 
in their fathers' benefices,* while in 1562 the frequency 
and readiness with which such dispensations were still 

1 Pro concubinario absoluto et dispensatio super irregularitate : et hoc contra 
provinciales et synodales constitutiones, g. vii. — Libellus Taxarum super quibusdam 
in Cancellaria Apostolica impetrandis, fol. 17a (White, Historical Library, Cornell 
University, A. 6124). 

2 Bull, ad Canonum (Mag. Pull. 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. 

3 Consilium de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 599.) 

4 Wilkins IV. 209. 



obtained are enumerated in a list of abuses laid before the 
Council of Trent by Sebastian, King of Portugal, as one 
of the matters requiring reformation by the supreme power 
of the council.^ To this and other similar appeals the 
papal legates loftily replied that laws were not to be pre- 
scribed to the Holy See ; ^ and the motive for the refusal 
is easily comprehended when we see that in the '* Taxes of 
the Penitentiary " the price for a dispensation admitting 
the bastard of a priest to holy orders was a ducat and a 

In Spain, Ribadeneira, the disciple of Ignatius Loyola, 
tells us that the priestly concubines were accustomed to 
pledge their faith to their consorts as if united in wedlock, 
and that they wore the distinguishing costume of married 
women, as though glorying in their shame, which so 
scandalised St. Ignatius, on his return, in 1535, to his 
native land, that he exerted his influence with the 
temporal authorities to procure the enactment and en- 
forcement of sundry laws which relieved the Spanish 
Church of so great an opprobrium.* We may reasonably, 
however, doubt the success of his efforts. Some ten years 
later, Alphonso de Castro asserts that the priesthood was 
one of the efficient causes of the spread of heresy, and that 

1 Le Plat, V. 88. The opinion which was held of the venality of the Boman 
court in such matters is forcibly expressed in the instructions given to Laussac, 
the French ambassador at Trent. He is ordered to press the abolition of the 
papal power of dispensation "attendu que nul n'en est refuse s'il a argent." — 
Ibid. p. 153. 

2 Ejus sanctitati lex non sit prsescribenda. — Ibid. p. 385. 

3 Tax. Sac. Poenitent. Ed. Gibbings, p. 13, — This was only one carlino (the 
tenth part of a ducat, equal to about f ourpence) more than the charge for the bastard 
of a layman. 

* Ribadeneira, Vit. Ignat. Loyolse, Lib. ii. cap. v. From this it would appear 
that the 'custom of permanent unions, described by Bishop Pelayo two centuries 
earlier, was still flourishing. As stated above (p. 17), Ferdinand and Isabella, in 
repeated edicts, from 1480 to 1503, had endeavoured to put an end to notorious con- 
cubinage, by fining, scourging, and banishing the women (Novisima Recopilacion, 
Lib. XII. Tit. xxvi. leyes 3-5.— Coleccion de Cidulas, III. 113, Madrid, 1829), for the 
men were beyond their jurisdiction. Possibly it was these laws that Loyola sought 
to revive. 


it would be difficult for orthodoxy to maintain itself 
without the direct interposition of God, in view of the 
scandalous lives and general worthlessness of all orders 
of ecclesiastics, whose excessive numbers, turpitude, and 
ignorance exposed them to contempt.^ His contemporary, 
the canon lawyer Bernardius D^az de Luzo, indeed, finds 
in the universality of concubinage a reason for its partial 
condonation, for, while deploring its frequency, he warns 
judges not to be over severe in its repression, since so few 
are found guiltless, and there is danger that those who are 
restrained from it may be forced into darker sins.* How 
difficult, under such circumstances, was any reform may 
be gathered from a memorial presented in 1556 to 
Philip II. by Inquisitor- General Valdes. He relates that 
when he became Archbishop of Seville, in 1546, he found 
the clergy and the dignitaries of the cathedral so demo- 
ralised that they had no shame in their children and 
grandchildren : their women lived with them openly as 
though married, and accompanied them to church, while 
many kept in their houses public gaming tables, which 
were the resort of disorderly characters. To remedy these 
evils he instituted vigorous measures of reform, but in this 
he was greatly impeded and put to much expense by 
appeals and suits in Rome and in Granada, and in the 
Royal Council and before apostolic judges.' In view of 
the facility with which absolutions and dispensations could 
be procured, it is easy to see how readily a persistent 
reformer could be embroiled with the Holy See. 

About the same time Herman von Wied, Archbishop 
of Cologne, undertook the reformation of his extensive 
diocese. He assembled a council, which issued a series 
of 275 canons, prescribing minutely the functions, duties, 

1 Alphonsi de Castro de justa Hsereticoram Punitione, Lib. ill. cap. 5. 

2 Diaz de Luco, Practica criminalis canonica, cap. Ixxiii. (Venetiis, 1543.) 

3 Archivo general de Simancas, Patronato Real, Inquisicion, Legajo unico 
fol. 76. 


and obligations of all grades of the clergy. As regards the 
delicate subject of concubinage, he contented himself with 
quoting the Nicene canon prohibiting the residence of 
women not nearly connected by blood, and added that if 
the degeneracy of the times prevented the enforcement 
of a regulation so strict, at all events he forbade the 
companionship of females obnoxious to suspicion.^ The 
good archbishop himself could hardly have expected that 
so mild an allocution would have much effect upon a 
perverse and hardened generation, but custom had so 
established itself that even the loftiest prelates shrank 
from encountering the risk attendant upon an attempt to 
enforce the canons. This is seen when, in 1537, Matthew, 
Archbishop of Salzburg, assembled his provincial synod, 
which, recognising the urgent necessity of preserving the 
Church and protecting the people, adopted a series of 
reformatory decrees. Afraid of promulgating them, it 
was resolved to suppress them for the present, under the 
pretext that the approaching General Council would 
regulate the discipline of the Church at large ; and the 
archbishop contented himself with a pastoral letter 
addressed to his suffragans, in which he urged upon them 
to consider the contamination to which the laity were 
exposed through the vices of their pastors, and timidly 
suggested that, if the clergy could not restrain their 
passions, they should at all events indulge them secretly, 
so that scandal might be avoided and the punishment of 
their transgressions be left to an avenging God.^ 

This timidity finds its explanation in the report by the 
papal nuncio Morone of an interview, in 1542, with the 
Archbishop of Mainz, on the subject of the reform of 

1 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. 

2 Concil. Salisbury. XH. (Dalham, Concil, Salisburgens. pp. 296-322.) 



the clergy, which was acknowledged to be the pressing 
question of the hour. The archbishop flatly admitted his 
impotence ; until the Council should be held no refor- 
mation was possible. Priestly concubinage, he said, could 
not be suppressed without great scandals — in fact, per- 
suasion was the only course open, for the clergy of Mainz, 
Treves, and Cologne had formed so strong an organisation 
for mutual defence that they would all rise in resistance if 
the least of them were prosecuted.^ 

In the Council of Trent itself, the Bishop of St. Mark, 
in opening its proceedings with a speech, 6 January, 1546, 
drew a fearful picture of the corruption of the world, 
which had reached a degree that posterity might possibly 
equal but not exceed. This he assured the assembled 
fathers was attributable solely to the wickedness of the 
pastors, who drew their flocks with them into the abyss of 
sin. The Lutheran heresy had been provoked by their 
own guilt, and its suppression was only to be hoped for by 
their own reformation.^ At a later session, the Bavarian 
orator, August Baumgartner, told the assembled fathers 
that the progress of the Reformation was attributable to 
the scandalous lives of the clergy, whose excesses he 
could not describe without oflending the chaste ears of his 
auditory. He even asserted that out of a hundred priests 
there were not more than three or four who were not 
either married or concubinarians ^ — a statement repeated 
in a consultation on the subject of ecclesiastical reform 
drawn up in 1562 by order of the Emperor Ferdinand, 
with the addition that the clergy would rather see the 
whole structure of the Church destroyed than submit to 
even the most moderate measure of reform.* 

1 Lammer, Monumenta Vaticana Seeculi XVI. p. 412. 

2 Acta Concil. Trident. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1063-9.) 

3 Sarpi, Istor. del Concilio Trident. Lib. vi. (Ed. Helmstad. II. 140).— (?/. Le 
Plat, V. 337-8. 

4 Le Plat, V. 235. 


It is not to be wondered therefore that the Christian 
world had long and earnestly demanded the convocation 
of an (Ecumenic council which should represent all parties, 
should have full powers to reconcile all differences, and 
should give to the ancient Church the purification thus 
recognised as the only efficient means of healing the 
schism. This was a remedy to the last degree distasteful 
to the Holy See. The recollections of Constance and 
Basle were full of pregnant warnings as to the almost 
inevitable antagonism between the Vicegerent of Christ 
and an independent representative body, believing itself to 
act under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, claim- 
ing autocratic supremacy in the Church, and convoked for 
the special purpose of reforming abuses the most of which 
were fruitful sources of revenue to the papal court. Such 
a body, if assembled in Germany, would be the Pope's 
master ; if in Italy, his tool ; and it behoved him to act 
warily if he desired to meet the unanimous demand of 
Christendom without risking the sacrifice of his most 
cherished prerogatives. Had the council been called in 
the early days of the Reformation, it could hardly have 
prevented the separation of the Churches ; yet, in the 
temper which then existed, it would probably have effected 
as thorough a purification of the ecclesiastical establish- 
ment as was possible in so corrupt an age. By delaying 
it until the reactionary movement had fairly set in, the 
chances of troublesome puritans gaining the ascendency 
were greatly diminished, and the papal court exposed itself 
to little danger when, under the urgent pressure of the 
Emperor, it at length, in 1536, proposed to convoke the 
long desired assembly at Mantua.^ 

A place so completely under papal influence was not 

1 Charles was careful to put on record his ceaseless endeavours 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). 


likely to meet the views of the opposition, and it is not 
surprising that both the Lutherans and Henry VIII. 
refused to connect themselves with such a council. The 
latter, indeed, in his epistle of 8 April, 1538, to Charles V., 
expressed himself more forcibly than elegantly : — " Nowe, 
if he [the Pope] calle us to one of his owne townes, we be 
afraid to be at suche an hostes table. We saye, Better to 
ryse a hungred, then to goo thense with oure bellyes fuUe." ^ 
The formality of its opening, 17 May, 1537, was therefore 
an empty ceremony ; its transfer to Vicenza was little 
more; and, as no delegates presented themselves up to 
1 May, 1538, it was prorogued until Easter 1539, with 
the promise of selecting a satisfactory place for the meet- 
ing. The pressure still continued until, in May 1542, 
Paul finally convoked it to assemble at Trent. The 
Reformers were no better satisfied than before. They had 
so long professed their readiness to submit all the questions 
in dispute to a free and unbiassed general council, that 
they could not refuse absolutely to countenance it ; but 
they were now so completely established as a separate 
organisation that they had little to hope and everything 
to fear from the appeal which they had themselves pro- 
voked, and nothing which Rome could now offer would 
have brought them into willing attendance upon such a 
body.^ They accordingly kept aloof, and on the assembling 
of the council, 22 November, 1542, its numbers were so 
scanty that it could accomplish nothing, and it was accord- 
ingly suspended in July 1543. When again convoked, 
15 March, 1545, but twenty bishops and a few ambassadors 
were present ; these waited with what patience they might 
command for accessions, which were so tardy in arriving 

1 Select. Harl, Miscell., London, 1793, p. 137. 

2 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 Eome to Luther, 
Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin, urging them by no means to sanction the assembly 
with their presence — (Published by Illgen, 4to, Leipzig, 1833,) 


that when at length the assembly was formally opened, on 
December 13, the number had increased by only five. 
For fifteen months the council continued its sessions, 
completely under the control of the Pope, and occupied for 
the most part with formulating as Catholic doctrine the 
speculations of the schoolmen, which thus far had been 
generally accepted without authoritative confirmation save 
incidentally at the Council of Florence in 1439. As these 
constituted the principal dogmas against which the Refor- 
mation was a protest, the labours of the fathers were 
directed, not to effect a reunion of the Church, but to 
erect an impassable barrier between Latin and Reformed 

The appeals of the German bishops and of the imperial 
ambassadors for some effective efforts at reform became at 
length too pressing, and to evade them, in March 1547, 
the council w^as transferred to Bologna, against the earnest 
protest of the Emperor and the Spaniards, who refused to 
follow.^ At Bologna little was done except to dispute 
over the sharp protests of the Emperor and to adjourn the 
council from time to time, until, after falling into universal 
contempt, it was suspended in 1549. Julius III., who 
received the tiara on 22 February, 1550, signalised his 
accession by convoking it again at Trent ; and there it 
once more assembled on 1 May, 1551. 

At that time Lutheranism in Germany was under the 
heel of Charles V. ; Maurice of Saxony was ripening his 
schemes of revolt, and concealing them with the dexterity in 
which he was unrivalled ; it was the pohcy of both that 
Protestant theologians should take part in the discussions 
— of the one, that they should there receive their sentence ; 
of the other, that their presence might assist in cloaking his 

1 There is something very amusingly suggestive in the guarded manner in which 
Charles alludes to the translation of the Council : " ditto Papa Paulo por respeitos, 
que o moveram (os quaes Deus permitta que f orsem bons) tratton de avocar e trans- 
ferir a Bolonha " — (Commentaires, p. 98.) 


designs. The flight from Innsbruck, followed by the 
Transaction of Passau, changed the face of affairs. The 
I^utheran doctors rejoicingly shook the dust from their 
feet as they departed from Trent, complaining that they 
had been treated as criminals on trial, not as venerable 
members of a body assembled to decide the gravest 
questions relating to this life and that to come. Other 
symptoms of revolt among the Catholic nations were 
visible, and on 28 April, 1552, the council again broke 

Ten years passed away ; the faithful impatiently 
demanded the continuation of the work which had only 
been commenced, and at last the pressure became so strong 
that Pius IV. was obliged to reassemble the council.^ His 
bull bears date November 1560, but it was not until 
twenty years after Trent had witnessed the first convoca- 
tion that the holy men again gathered within its walls, 
and on 18 January, 1562, the council resumed its oft- 
interrupted sessions. The states of the Augsburg Con- 
fession had been politely invited to participate in the 
proceedings, but they declined with the scantest of 

During these long-protracted preliminaries there were 
times when those who sincerely desired the restoration of 

1 That the complaints of the Protestants were well founded is evident from the 
secret instructions given, 20 February, 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 hferetici et schismatici 
repellendi sunt a conciliis universalibus . . . nullo modo communicandum esse 
concilium cum haereticis et schismaticis, qui sunt extra ecclesiam . . . sed bene pos- 
sunt admitti, ut possint interesse pro convincendis etiam pluries eorum erroribus." 
— Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. T. IV. p. 534-5. 

2 The feeling entertained by Pius towards the council is shown by his remark, 
in December 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 chrestiente, superflu aux Catholiques et non desire des 
papes " (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 742). 

3 The characteristic correspondence is in Le Plat, IV. 678-87. 


the Church could not restrain their impatience. In 1536, 
Paul III., who earnestly admitted the necessity of some 
reform, called to his aid nine of his prelates most eminent 
for virtue and piety, as a commission to prepare a scheme 
for internal reformation.^ According to a papal historian, 
his object in this was to stop the mouths of the heretics 
who found in the Roman court an inexhaustible subject 
of declamation.^ For two years the commission laboured 
at its work, and finally produced the " Consilium de 
emendanda ecclesia," to which allusion has been made 

The stern and unbending Cardinal CarafFa was head of 
the commission, assisted by such men as Contarini, Sado- 
leto, and Reginald Pole. They seem to have been inspired 
with a sincere desire to root out the chief abuses which 
gave such power to the assaults of the Protestants, and the 
result of their labours affords us a picture of ecclesiastical 
corruptions almost as damaging to the Church as the 
complaints of the Diet of Niirnberg. As regards celibacy, 
they were disposed to make no concession ; indeed, they 
protest against the facility with which men in holy orders 
were able to purchase from the Roman Curia dispensations 
to marry. It is significant, however, that they had so 
little confidence in the possibility of purifying the con- 
ventual religious Orders that they actually recommended 
their abolition. To prevent individual cases of suffering 
they proposed that the convents should not be immediately 
abolished, but that all novices should be discharged and no 

1 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 mostrase ardor primeiro 
se foi esfriando, e seguindo os passes e exemplo do Papa Clemente, com boas 
palavras prolongon e entretene sempre a convo9iO e ajuntamento do concilio '* 
(Commentaires, p. 97). 

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


more be admitted, thus allowing the Orders to die out 
gradually, as had been done in Saxony ; and meanwhile 
they urged that, to prevent further scandals, all nunneries 
should be removed from the supervision and direction of 
monks, and be handed over to the ordinaries.^ The 
" Consilium," in fact, was so candid a confession of most 
of the abuses charged upon the Church by the reformers 
that Luther forthwith translated it and published it with 
a commentary, as an effective pamphlet in aid of his cause. 
CarafFa himself, after he had attained the papacy, under 
the name of Paul IV., quietly put his own work, in 1559, 
into the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.^ 

However earnest Paul may have been, the changes 
recommended in the *' Consilium " attacked too many 
vested interests for even the papal power to give it effect. 
The project therefore was dropped, and only resulted in 
rendering still more clamorous the call for a reform in the 
head and members of the Church. As, moreover, it had 
shown the powerlessness of the papacy to overcome 
acknowledged abuses, the only hope of a radical change, 
such as was needful, was seen to lie in the untrammelled 
debates of a great assembly, which should meet as a 
parliament of the nations ; and the prospect of this grew 
more and more distant. While the project of transferring 
the council from Trent was being matured, it occurred to 
the papal court that possibly the objections to that measure 
and the pressure on the council for a thorough reformation 

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

2 It has been customarily stated by Catholic writers that this proceeding of 
Paul IV. was directed not against his own w^ork, but against the heretically com- 
mentated editions, but in the Index of 1559 the entry is simply " Liber inscrip. : 
Consilium de emendanda ecclesia." — Reusch, Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum, 
p. 194 (Tubingen. 1886). 

Father Catalani, in his work on the Congregation of the Index, gives a detailed 
account of the affair. He does not pretend that the prohibition of the Consilium 
was directed against the heretic editions, and justifies it as the prudent suppression 
of matter that was dangerous. — Catalani de Secretario Congr. Indicis, pp. 45-50 
(Roma, 1751). 


might be averted by showing a disposition on the part 
of Rome to undertake the task of cleansing the Augean 
stable. It was also recognised as an important gain if the 
council could be confined to the harmless task of defining 
questions of faith, while the substantial powers involved in 
reforming the corruptions of the Church could be claimed 
and exercised by the Pope. Accordingly Pius III. drew 
up an elaborate bull designed to limit some of the more 
flagrant pecuniary abuses which existed, and exhorting the 
bishops to correct the morals of their subordinates. This 
was sent to the legates at Trent, but they and their con- 
fidants unanimously agreed that, in the existing temper of 
the council, the promulgation of such a document would be 
in the highest degree imprudent. It was accordingly sup- 
pressed, and only saw the light in the nineteenth century.^ 
In its failure the Church lost but little, for it touched the 
evils of the time with a tender and hesitating hand, and 
would have proved utterly inefficacious. 

At length, when shortly afterwards the unmannerly 
urgency of the Germans, clamouring for decided measures of 
reform, was met by the translation of the council to Bologna 
in 1547, and men despaired of further results from it, 
Charles V. resolved to take the matter into his own hands, 
and to effect, for his own dominions at least, that which 
had been vainly expected of the council for Christendom. 
The " Interim," which has already been alluded to, was 
intended to answer this purpose, as far as Lutheranism was 
concerned, in healing the breach of religion. The other 
great object of the council, the restoration of the neglected 
discipline of the Church, he attempted to effect by means 
of the secular authority of the empire acting on the regular 
machinery of the Teutonic ecclesiastical estabhshment. 
How utterly neglected that discipline had become is 
inferable from an expression in the important and carefully 

1 Published by Clausen, Copenhagen, 1829, 


drawn project which had been laid by Charles before the 
Diet of Ratisbon in 1541, to the effect that if the canon 
requiring cehbacy was to be enforced, it would be necessary 
also to revive those canons which punished incontinence, 
thus admitting that there existed no check whatever upon 
either priestly marriage or immorality.^ 

To accompKsh this desirable revival of discipline he 
accordingly caused the adoption by the Diet of Augsburg 
of a code of reformation, well adapted, if enforced, to 
restore the long-forgotten purity of the Church, while at 
the same time it acknowledged that the degeneracy of the 
times rendered impossible the resuscitation of the ancient 
canons in their strictness. Thus, after reciting the canon 
of Neoc^esarea (see Vol I.), it adds, that as such severity 
was now impracticable, those in holy orders convicted of 
impurity should be separated from their concubines, and 
visited with suspension from function and benefice pro- 
portioned to the gra\dty of the offence. A repetition of 
the fault was punishable with increased severity, and 
incorrigible sinners who were found to be incapable of 
reformation were finally to be deprived of their benefices. 
As concubines were threatened with immediate excommuni- 
cation, it is evident that a severity was designed towards 
them which was not ventured on with respect to their more 
guilty partners. Relaxation of the rules is also observable 
in the section which, despite the Nicene canon, permitted 
the residence of women over forty years of age, whose 
character and conduct relieved them from suspicion.^ The 
imperative injunctions of chastity laid upon the regular 
clergy, canons, and nuns show not only the determination 
to remove the prevailing scandals, but also the magnitude 
and extent of the evil.^ 

Nor was this all. Local councils were ordered for the 

1 Lib. ad Eation. Concord, ineundam Art. xxii § 13 (Goldast. II. 199). 

2 Formul. Keformat. cap. xvii. § 4 (Goldast II. 335). 

3 Ibid. cap. III. § 1, cap. v. §§ 7, 9. 


purpose of embodying these decrees in their statutes and 
of carrying out with energy the reformation so earnestly 
desired. Thus, in November 1548, about five months after 
the diet, a synod assembled at Augsburg, which inveighed 
bitterly against the unclerical dress and pomp of the clergy, 
their habits of drunkenness, gluttony, licentiousness, tavern- 
lounging, and general disregard of discipline ; and adopted 
a canon embracing the regulations enacted by the Emperor. ^ 
The Archbishop of Treves did not wait for his synod, but 
issued, October 30th, a mandate especially directed against 
concubinary priests, in which he announced his intention 
of carrying out the reform commanded by Charles. He 
could find no reason more self-evident for the dislike and 
contempt felt by the people for so many of the clergy than 
the immorality of their lives, differing little, except in 
legality, from open marriage. " This vice, existing every- 
where throughout our diocese, in consequence of the 
licence of the times and the neglect of the officials, we 
must eradicate. Therefore all of you, of what grade 
soever, shall dismiss your concubines within nine days, 
removing them beyond the bounds of your parishes, and 
be no longer seen to associate with loose and wanton 
women. Those who neglect this order shall be suspended 
from office and benefice, their concubines shall be excom- 
municated, and they themselves be brought before our 
synod to be presently held.'' ^ 

These were brave words, but when some three weeks 
later the synod had assembled, and the malefactors 
perchance brought before it, the good bishop found 
apparently that his flock was not disposed to submit 
quietly to the curtailment of privileges which had almost 
become imprescriptible. His tone accordingly was softened, 
for though he deprecated their immorality more strongly 

1 Synod. Augustan, ann. 1548 c. 10. 

2 Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1548. 


than ever, and asserted his intention of enforcing his mandate, 
he condescended to argue at much length on the propriety 
of chastity, and even descended to entreaty, beseeching 
them to preserve the purity so essential to the character 
of the Church, the absence of which had drawn upon the 
clergy an odium which could scarce be described in words. ^ 
How slender was his success may be inferred from the fact 
that the next year he felt it necessary to hold another 
synod, in which he renewed and confirmed the proceedings 
of the former one, and endeavoured to reduce the monks 
and nuns of his diocese into some kind of subjection to the 
rules of discipline.^ 

The Archbishop of Cologne was as energetic as his 
brother of Treves, with about equal success. On Septem- 
ber 1st he issued the Augsburg Formula of Reformation, 
with a call for a synod to be held on October 2nd. At the 
same time he manifested his sense of the primary import- 
ance of correcting clerical immorality by promulgating a 
special mandate respecting concubinage. He asserted this 
to be the chief cause of the contempt popularly felt for the 
Church,^ and he ordered all ecclesiastics to send their 
women beyond the bounds of their parishes within nine 
days, under the penalties provided in the imperial decree. 
The synod was held at the time indicated, and, though it 
adopted no regular canons, it accepted the Augsburg 
Formula and the mandate of the archbishop, with a trifling 

This proved utterly ineffectual, for in March 1549 he 
assembled a provincial council, in which he deplored 
the licence of the times, which rendered the strictness of 

1 Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1548 cap. ii. 

2 Synod. Trevirens. II. ann. 1549 cap. xi., xix. 

8 Mandat. de abjic. Concub. (Hartzheim VI. 353.) 

4 Ibid. p. 358. A diocesan synod was also held at Liege, November 15, 
which gave offending clerks fifteen days to part with their concubines (Ibid 
VI. 395). 


the ancient canons unadvisable, and he announced that it 
had been decided to proceed gradually with the intended 
reforms. As to the morals of the clergy, he stated that 
everywhere the cure of souls was delegated to improper 
persons, many of them living in the foulness of concubinage, 
in perpetual drunkenness, and in other infamous vices, 
encouraged by the negligence of bishops and the thirst 
of archdeacons for unhallowed gains. The unions of those 
who, infected by the new heresies, did not hesitate to enter 
into matrimony, were of course pronounced illicit and 
impious, their offspring illegitimate, and the parents 
anathematised ; but for those who remained in the Church, 
yet submitted to no restraint upon their passions, a more 
merciful spirit was shown, for the punishments ordered by 
the Diet of Augsburg were somewhat lightened in their 
favour. The extreme licence of the period may be under- 
stood from another canon directed against the comedians, 
who, not content with the ordinary theatres, were in the 
habit of visiting the nunneries, where their profane plays 
and amatory acting excited to unholy desires the virgins 
dedicated to God.^ No one acquainted with the coarse- 
ness of the drama of that rude age can doubt the propriety 
of the archbishop's reproof. Supplementary synods were 
also held, in October 1549 and February 1550, to perfect 
the details of a very thorough inquisitorial visitation of 
the whole province. 

This visitation, so pompously heralded, did not take 
place. At a synod held in October 1550 the archbishop 
made sundry lame excuses for its postponement. Another 
synod was assembled in February 1551, at which we hear 
nothing more of it ; but the prelates of the diocese were 
requested to collect such ancient and forgotten canons 
as they could find, which might be deemed advantageous 

1 Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1549 cap. Quibiig possint. — Cap. de Monach. conjugat. 
Cap. de Concub. Monach, — Cap. Comoedi9,s, 


in the future ; ^ and with this the work of reformation in 
the province of Cologne appears to end. 

In 1549, Ernest, Archbishop of Salzburg, assembled the 
synod of his extensive province, but when his clergy- 
understood that it was intended to confirm the reformatory 
edict of the Emperor, they had the audacity to present a 
petition praying that the clause ordering the removal of 
their concubines should not be enforced. They declared 
that the attempt to do so would be attended with serious 
difficulty, and that it would lead to greater evils than it 
sought to remove, and they asked that the consideration 
of the matter should be referred to the general council, 
whose reassembling was no longer dreaded. The synod, 
with a proper sense of its dignity, refused to receive the 
shameless petition, and listened rather to those of its 
members who complained of the practice of the officials in 
receiving bribes for permitting illicit indulgences, and the 
representations of Duke AVilliam, of Bavaria, who asserted 
that the Lutheran heresy had been caused by the scan- 
dalous corruption of the Church. A canon was accord- 
ingly adopted which renewed the regulations of Basle and 
ordered the speedy removal of all recognised and notorious 

In October and November 1548, and April 1549, the 
Bishops of Paderborn, Wurzburg, and Strassburg held 
synods which adopted the reformatory measures decreed at 
Augsburg.^ These were preparatory to the metropolitan 
synod of Mainz, assembled in May 1549, which com- 
manded that no one should be thereafter admitted to 

1 Hartzheim VI. 767, 781. 

2 Dalham; Concil. Salisburg. pp. 328, 337 (Concil. Salisburg. XLIV. can. vii.). 

3 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 dis- 

persas ; videtis impudentem peccandi licentiam ; videtis adversus pietatem audaciam 
turn loquendi turn disputandi impiissimam, et indies scelerata gliscere schismata" 
(Ibid. X. 763). 


orders without a preliminary examination by his bishop on 
the subject of doctrine, and testimonials from the people 
as to purity of character. After thus wisely providing for 
the future, attention was directed to the present. It was 
declared intolerable that, in spite of the reiterated prohibi- 
tions of the fathers and councils, concubines should be 
universally kept ; the Basilian canon was therefore revived, 
and its enforcement strictly enjoined on the ordinaries, 
who were forbidden in any manner to connive at these 
disorders for the sake of profit.^ 

The pressure was continued, for when Cambrai, which 
owed temporal obedience to the Emperor, while ecclesi- 
astically it formed part of the province of Rheims, neg- 
lected to adopt the Formula of Augsburg for two years, 
it was not allowed to escape. In October 1550 a synod 
was finally assembled there under stringent orders from 
Charles, and the Formula was published, together with an 
elaborate series of canons which would have been well 
adapted to correct abuses that were not incorrigible.^ 

Charles had thus exerted all the resources of his imperial 
supremacy, and, whether willingly or not, the powerful 
prelates who ruled the German Church had united in 
carrying out his views. The temporal and spiritual 
authorities had thus been concentrated upon the vices of 
the Church, and if its reformation had been possible, in 
the existing condition of its organisation, some improve- 
ment must have resulted from these combined and per- 
sistent efforts. How nugatory were the results may be 
guessed from a memorial presented in 1558, by the 
University of Louvain, to Philip II., exhorting him to 
grant no toleration to the heretics, but at the same time 
urging upon him the absolute necessity of some compre- 

1 Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1549 c. 82, 102. 

2 Synod. Camerac. ann. 1550 (Hartzheim VI, 654), 


hensive system of reform to purify the Church, all the 
orders of which were given over utterly to the twin vices 
of avarice and licentiousness.^ The same testimony is 
borne by a consultation drawn up in 1562 by order of the 
Emperor Ferdinand. After alluding to the efforts at 
reform made by Paul III. and Charles V., it declares that 
their only result has been to make the condition of clerical 
morality worse than before, exciting the hatred of the 
people for their priests to an incredible pitch, and doing 
more to inflame the ardour of heresy than all the teaching 
of Christian truth can do to restrain it.^ 

As the failure of all efforts to improve clerical morality 
under the existing rules of discipline was thus found to be 
complete, there arose in the minds of thinking men a 
conviction, such as Erasmus had already declared, that, 
since all other measures had proved fruitless, the only 
mode of securing a virtuous clergy was to remove the 
prohibition of marriage. At the Polish Diet of 1552 
petitions praying for sacerdotal matrimony were presented, 
and, though they failed in their object, the Diet of 1556 
authorised King Sigismund Augustus to address Paul IV. 
with a request, in the name of the nation, to grant it as 
well as communion in both elements.^ 

The dissension thus existing within the Church is 
exhibited in a volume published in 1558 by Stanislas 
Hosius, Bishop of Ermeland, earnestly arguing against 
communion in both elements, clerical marriage, and the 
use of the vulgar tongue in worship. As regards celibacy, 
he assumes that it had been maintained unbrokenly for 

1 LePlat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 611. 

2 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 pedibu», pro nihilo haberi et tanquam publicum offendiculum 
devoveri diris aut paulo plus, tam verum est quam minime falsum, cleri mores in- 
sulsos esse, vanos esse, turpes esse, seque ecclesige perniciosos ac Deo execrabiles "— 
Ibid. p. 237. 

3 Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 190, 3S5, 


fifteen hundred years, and was not now to be abandoned 
to gratify a few disorderly monks. The example of the 
Greek Church he meets by pointing out that the Greeks 
were suffered to be persecuted by the Turks ; the argument 
that marriage would purify the Church he silences with 
the observation that many married men are adulterers ; 
and he holds it to be a doubting of God to suppose that 
the gift of continence would be denied to those who 
properly seek it.^ In spite of the logic of polemics such 
as Hosius, the opinions of the innovators continued to gain 
ground, until at length they won even the highest digni- 
taries of the empire, and in 1560 the Emperor Ferdinand 
himself undertook their advocacy with the Pope, after 
having for some years countenanced the practice within 
his own territories. 

Almost immediately on the consecration of Pius IV,, in 
addressing to him an argument for the reassembling of 
the Council of Trent, or the convocation of a new council, 
Ferdinand seized the opportunity to ask especially for the 
communication of the cup to the laity, and permission for 
the clergy to marry. The latter of these points he con- 
sidered to be the only remedy for the fearful immorality 
of the Church, for, though all flesh was corrupt, the 
corruption of the priesthood surpassed that of all other 
men.^ That he had not waited for the papal assent to 

1 Hosii Dialogus de ea num Calicem Laicis et Uxores Sacerdotibus permitti, etc. 
Dilingaj, 3558. 

2 Pallavicini, Storia del Concil. di Trento, Lib. xiv. c. 13. 

Twelve years before, his uncle, the Bishop of Liege, in promulgating the Augs- 
burg formula of reformation, had made a similar assertion : >;" Preterquam quod hoc 
infcelici sseculo, quo omnis caro corrupit viam suam, praesertimque 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 6, 1560, in Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. 
IV. 622. 



favour these innovations within his own dominions is 
shown by his statement that the Archbishop of Salzburg 
had recently, in a synod, earnestly called upon him to put 
a stop to the progress which they were making, but, he 
added, his long experience in such matters had shown him 
what was possible and what impossible, and he had 
accordingly set forth the difficulties of the task in a paper 
addressed to the archbishop, a copy of which he enclosed 
to the Pope.^ 

The nuncio Commendone, in transmitting this document 
to Rome, accompanied it with a letter from the Cardinal 
Bishop of Augsburg, recommending the postponement 
of the question until the reassembling of the Council of 
Trent, and, as Pius answered it in this sense, no further 
action was taken, though Ferdinand made haste to repeat 
his demand, in view of the impatience of both clergy and 
people, who could ill brook the delays inseparable from 
the discussion of the subject in so unwieldy a body.^ 
When Commendone, moreover, passed through Cleves on 
his way to the council, then about to be reopened, the 
Duke of Cleves earnestly besought him to lend his in- 
fluence to the accomplishment of the measure, urging as a 
reason that in the whole of his dominions — and he was 
sovereign of three populous duchies — there could not be 
found five priests who did not keep concubines. In order 
to secure his favour for the approaching council, Com- 
mendone did not scruple to hold out expectations that the 
concessions would be granted.^ 

During the progress of the Reformation, when the fate 
of the Catholic Church of Germany had sometimes seemed 

1 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 Arch- 
bishop 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. 

2 Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 644. 

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


to hang in the balance, no princes had earned a larger title 
to the gratitude of Rome than the powerful Dukes of 
Bavaria, who were the leaders of the reaction. Yet now 
the influence of that important region was thrown in 
favour of the abrogation of celibacy, and Duke Albert was 
the first who boldly brought the matter before the council 
by a demand for ecclesiastical marriage, presented on 
27 June, 1562. To this the evasive answer was returned 
that the council would take such action as would be found 
to redound to the glory of God and to the benefit of the 
Church.^ During the same year the Emperor Ferdinand 
also repeatedly urged its consideration. A plan for the 
reform of the Church presented by his delegates not only 
called attention to the necessity of purifying the morals of 
the regular and secular clergy, but demanded that, to some 
nations at least, the privilege of sacerdotal marriage should 
be conceded.^ Another elaborate paper argued the ques- 
tion with much temperate force, and declared that many 
priests had already married for the purpose of escaping the 
corruptions of celibacy, while studiously preserving them- 
selves from the errors of Lutheranism. Out of a hundred 
parish priests scarcely one could be found who was not 
either openly or secretly married, and it was necessary to 
tolerate them to prevent the utter destruction of the 

A third document is extant, without date, which was 
laid before the cardinals of the papal court by the Emperor, 
in which the question was argued at considerable length 
and with much vehemence. After asserting that, from the 
records of the primitive Church, celibacy w^as not then 
recognised as imperative, it proceeded to declare that if 

1 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. 

2 Articuli de Reform. Eccles. No. 14, 15, 18.— Goldast. II. 376. 

3 Consultat. Imp. Ferdinandi (Le Plat, V. 249, 252). 


marriage ever were permissible, the present carnal and 
licentious age rendered it a necessity, for not one Catholic 
priest out of fifty could be found who lived chastely. All 
were asserted to be notoriously dissolute, scandalising the 
people and inflicting great damage on the Church. The 
request was made not so much to satisfy the priests who 
desired marriage as to meet the wishes of the laity, for 
many patrons of livings refused presentation to all but 
married men. However preferable a single life might be 
for the clergy, it therefore was thought better to give it up 
than to leave open the door to the scandalous impurities 
traceable to celibacy. Another weighty reason was alleged 
in the great scarcity of priests, caused alone by the pro- 
hibition of marriage, in proof of which it was urged that 
the Catholic schools of divinity were all but empty and the 
episcopal function of ordination nearly disused, while the 
Lutheran colleges were crowded by those who subsequently 
obtained admission into the true Church, where they worked 
incredible mischief. The argument that the temporal 
possessions of the Church would be imperilled by sacerdotal 
matrimony was met by indignantly denouncing the worldly 
wisdom which would protect such perishable interests at 
the cost of innumerable souls sacrificed by the existing 
condition of affairs. For these and other reasons it asked 
that marriage should in future be allowed to all the priest- 
hood, whether already in orders or to be subsequently 
admitted : that married men of good character and educa- 
tion should be ordained to supply the want of pastors : that 
those who had contracted matrimony, in contravention of the 
canons, should no longer be ejected, seeing that it was most 
absurd to turn out men because they were married, while 
retaining notorious concubinarians, and that if, with equal 
justice, both classes should be dismissed, the people would 
be left almost, if not entirely, destitute of spiritual guides. 
The paper concluded by asserting that if the prayer be 


granted the clergy could be retained in the Church and in 
the faith, to the great benefit of their flocks, and that the 
scandal of promiscuous licentiousness, wliich had involved 
the Church in so much disgrace, would be removed/ 

This vivid sketch of the condition of the church, with 
the evils which were everywhere felt, and the remedies 
which suggested themselves to clear-sighted and im- 
partial men, was as ineffectual as other similar efforts had 
been, for to all such arguments the Council of Trent was 
deaf France, too, was more than willing to see celibacy 
abolished. M. de Lanssac, the French ambassador, was 
ordered to place himself in close relations with the repre- 
sentatives of the Emperor, and to unite with them in 
seeking the relaxation of all regulations which tended to 
prevent the reunion of the Protestants, while the Gallican 
bishops were commanded to show themselves reasonable 
and yielding in such matters : and when Lanssac reported 
the demands of the Emperor, comprehending clerical mar- 
riage among other changes, Charles IX. assented to them 
in terms of warm commendation.^ The Cardinal of 
Lorraine, moreover, was instructed to urge some measures 
efficient to reform the licentious lives of the ecclesiastics, 
which spread corruption and debauchery among the people, 
while permission for priestly marriage was recommended 
as one of the means essential to recall the heretics to the 
bosom of the true Church.^ As a compromise, however, 
the French prelates contented themselves with suggesting 
that none but elderly men should be eligible to the priest- 
hood, and that the testimony of the people in favour of 

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

The scarcity of priests in Germany, with resulting neglect of religion, was no 
new thing, and had been strongly represented in 1542 by the nuncio Morone. He 
attributed it to the popular contempt felt for ecclesiastics, and said that, although 
some bishops maintained training seminaries, the scholars, when they acquired a 
little learning, mostly became Lutherans. — Lammer, Monumentt. Vaticana p. 398. 

2 Le Plat, V. 154,' 208, 211. 

3 Ibid. 562-3. 


their moral character should be a prerequisite to ordination, 
in hopes that by such means the necessary purification of 
the clergy at least could be effected, while the sharpest 
measures should be adopted to punish their licentiousness.^ 

All this was useless, and, in fact, it is difficult to ima- 
gine how any one could expect a reform of this nature 
from a body composed of prelates all of whom were obliged 
by Pius IV., in a decree of 4 September, 1560, to solemnly 
swear to a profession of faith containing a specific declara- 
tion that the vows of chastity inferred on entering into 
holy orders, or assumed in embracing monastic life, were 
to be strictly observed and enforced.^ The question thus 
was prejudged, and the council was more likely to listen to 
Bartholomew a Martyribus, the Archbishop of Bracara, 
who laid before them a paper containing the points which, 
in his opinion, required reformation, among which were the 
revival of the canons respecting concubinary bishops and 
priests, the prohibition of sons succeeding to their fathers' 
benefices, and the excommunication of confessors who de- 
bauched their fair penitents^ — though when the sturdy 
archbishop in a stormy debate declared that " illustrissimi 
cardinales egent illustrissima reformatione," he doubtless 
was held to be a most uncourtly and impracticable re- 

Despite all the urgency from without, it was not until 
8 February, 1563, after the council had been in session for 
more than a year, that the theologians at last arranged for 
disputation the articles on matrimony, and laid them before 
the council for discussion. They were divided into five 

1 Capi dati da' Frances! cap. 1. — (Baluz. et Mansi IV. 374) Comp. Zaccaria, 
pp. 133-4. 

2 Votum castitatis sacris ordinibus conjunctum, atque vota quae in probatis 
religionibus emittuntur, et alia quaecunque rite suscepta, fideliter sunt observanda. — 
Le Plat, IV. 649. 

3 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. 


classes, of which the fourth was devoted to the bearing of 
the subject on the clergy, consisting of two propositions — 
tfe fifth and sixth — artfully drawn up to justify rejection, 
while preserving the appearance of presenting the subject 
for deliberation — That matrimony was preferable to celi- 
bac)., and that God bestowed grace on the married rather 
than on the single. — That the priests of the Western 
Church could lawfully contract marriage, notwithstanding 
the canons ; that to deny this was to condemn matrimony, 
and that all were at liberty to marry who did not feel 
themselves graced with the gift of chastity.^ 

The disputation on the various questions connected 
"v^ith matrimony commenced the next day, and was con- 
tinued at intervals for six months. Meanwhile there were 
negotiations on foot between Rome and Vienna, negotia- 
tims complicated by various factors. The Pope and the 
Caria were wrathful at the reforms enacted and projected 
bj the council, and were anxious to dissolve it at any cost, 
wiile the Emperor Ferdinand was resolved to prolong its 
sejsions until he should obtain his desires. Then he had 
hai his son Maximilian, King of Bohemia, elected as King 
of :he Romans, 24 November, 1562, sorely against the will 
of Pius IV., who had vainly threatened to deprive the 
Lutheran electors of their votes and then secretly to restore 
them on condition of their electing Philip II. of Spain. 
Fahng in this, as the Holy See claimed the right of con- 
fiming the election, he demanded that Maximilian should 
ta^e an oath practically of allegiance to Rome, which was 
mturally refused. Maximilian, in fact, had long been 
suspected of Lutheran proclivities ; in 1557 we find him 
described as keeping a married Lutheran preacher, while 
the most influential members of his court were Lutherans, 
and he felt the necessity of friendly relations with the 

1 Art. V. — Lettere del Arcivesc. Calini (Balnz et Mansi IV. 295). — Le Plat, 
V. 674. 


Lutheran princes, whose support was indispensable against 
the Turk. The ecclesiastical electors (Mainz, Treves, and 
Cologne) had hesitated to give him their votes till they 
had assurances which satisfied them, but not the more in- 
credulous Curia. Philip II. seems to have had no aspira- 
tions for the imperial crown, but he was fanatically- 
opposed to any concessions to the heretics, whether these 
concerned the use of the cup or priestly marriage, and 
through his representatives at Rome and Trent he cease- 
lessly brought to bear against them the utmost weight of 
his great influence.^ | | 

Our knowledge of the moves in this complicated game 
is but fragmentary. We hear of a letter, in April 1562, 
in which Ferdinand claims priestly marriage as a thirg 
promised to him by Pius in order to have an end put :o 
the council, and other letters in which he threatens that if 
his requests are denied he will assemble a national countil 
and proclaim an Interim worse than that of Charles V. ; or 
else that Germany would withdraw from the Roman 
obedience, as there was no other remedy to satisfy fiis 
people. These threats greatly troubled the Pope, vho 
begged Philip to send to Germany a personage of impr- 
tance to represent that if Ferdinand separated himself fom 
the Holy See he would become a heretic and his children 
would be incapacitated from inheriting his dominions. lot 
relying on Philip's intervention, in May he sent Cardinal 
Morone ostensibly as legate to the council, but with n- 
structions to tarry there only twenty-four hours, and hasten 
to Vienna. In reporting this to Philip, his ambassador 
Vargas expresses the liveliest apprehensions that it would 
result in the concession of the cup to the laity and mar- 
riage to priests, so earnestly demanded by the Germans and 

1 DoUinger, Beitrage zur politischen, kirchlichen und Cultur-Geschichte, I. 
241-3, 329-40, 397-8, 526-9. 554 (Regensburg, 1862). 

This is a series of despatches between Philip and his envoys which throw much 
light on the secret history of this tortuous diplomacy. 


French, for the Pope had shown himself so yielding and so 
inclined to make the grant, and he could readily control 
the council if he did not care himself to take the responsi- 
bihty of what would set the world ablaze. What terms 
were reached between Ferdinand and Morone it would be 
impossible to say, but that a bargain was concluded was 
generally understood. In fact, in March 1564 Pius ad- 
mitted in consistory that he had made promises to Ferdi- 
nand in order to hasten the dissolution of the council.^ 
Possibly it was in concert with this that, as reported in 
August 1563 by the nuncio Delfini from Vienna, the three 
ecclesiastical electors, the Archbishop of Salzburg, and the 
Duke of Bavaria held a conference, in which it was resolved 
to unite with the Emperor in an appeal for bulls permitting 
priestly marriage and communion in both elements.^ In 
pursuance of this, early in September Ferdinand wrote to 
his ambassadors at Trent that he had called together in 
Vienna the deputies of the electors and princes of the 
empire, who, after mature deliberation, had determined to 
ask these concessions of the Pope and not of the council. 
He enclosed a protocol of the demand, but as it was not 
fully settled, it was to be communicated to no one but to 
Philip's ambassador, the Count of Luna, whereupon Philip 
persuaded him to withhold it until after the council should 
be dissolved.^ A further move in the game, with the 
same purpose, was a promise, later in the autumn, by 
Pius, that when the council should be out of the way he 

1 Dollinger, op. cit. pp. 523, 545-6, 655. 

2 Lettere del Nunzio Visconti, n. LXix (Ed. Amstelod. II. 299). This and the 
concluding letters are not in Mansi's edition. 

Sarpi tells us (Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, Lib. viil. Ed. Helmstat, II. 315) 
that in the spring of 1563 the Bavarians rose in revolt and demanded the cup and 
priestly marriage, when the Duke was obliged to make a promise to his Diet that, if 
the concessions were not made in June by either the council or the Pope he 
would himself grant them. The threatened defection of this Catholic stronghold 
caused such alarm that the legates despatched Niccolo Ormanetto to the Duke to 
induce him to withdraw his promise, under a pledge that the council would take 
such action as would satisfy his people. 

3 Pallavicini, Lib. xxii. cap. 10. — Dollinger, I. 568. 


would send a legate, with full powers to dispense in the 
matters of the cup, of clerical marriage, and of the reten- 
tion of Church lands, while Maximilian should treat with 
the Protestants for their return to the Church under 
these concessions.^ 

Evidently the honest Germans were ill fitted to cope 
with Italian diplomacy. Relying on papal promises, they 
held their hands off from the council, which enabled the 
Pope to control it absolutely through his legates.^ Ac- 
cordingly it went on its accustomed way to render the 
breach with Protestantism as impassable as possible. Pal- 
lavicini doubtless correctly represents its views when he 
remarks, concerning the princes who exerted themselves 
to secure sacerdotal marriage, that they seemed to con- 
sider that the council had been convoked for the purpose 
not of condemning but of contenting the heretics, whom 
they proposed to convert by gratifying in place of repress- 
ing their contumacious desires.^ 

The result of thus skilfully shielding the council from 
all pressure from Germany and France was that the 
question of retaining sacerdotal celibacy was prevented 
from becoming the subject of serious debate. This, 
indeed, was a foregone conclusion. In the minute 
account, transmitted from day to day by Archbishop 
Calini to Cardinal Cornaro, in which all the details of 
internal discussion and external intrigue attainable by a 
quick-witted member of the council were reported, there 
is no allusion to the matter. No debates or diversity of 
opinion are mentioned, no intimation that the matter was 
regarded as open to a doubt, and even the appeals made 
by the Emperor and other potentates are passed over in 

1 Bollinger, I. 538. 

2 Vargas, writing to Philip, 20 May, 1563, when he was fearing that the Pope 
would yield, describes the ease with which he could control the council : " Sin tener 
los pobres hombres mas boca y vigor que lo que los dichus legadas quieren 6 insinuan 
como muchasveces ha dicho, y que genero de gentes son aquellas." — Ibid. p. 523. 

3 Pallavicini, Lib. xvii. cap. 4. 


silence, for the very sufficient reason that the papal legates, 
who controlled all the business of the council, refused 
to allow them to be read/ In their reply to the Em- 
peror's remonstrances,' indeed, they declared that to have 
such a subject publicly broached in the council would 
create a fearful scandal throughout Christendom, and 
Pius IV. approved of their answer as the best that could 
be given. ^ It is no wonder, therefore, that in the corre- 
spondence of the nuncio Visconti the only allusion to the 
matter is a simple reference, under date of 22 March, 
1563, to the demand previously made by the Duke of 

In fact, when, on March 4, the 5th and 6th articles 
were reached, they were both unanimously pronounced 
heretical without any prolonged debate. Doctor Juan de 
Ludena pronounced a " disputation " on the subject, the 
tone of which showed that the result was already decided, 
and that the only disposition of the council was to vilify 
those who desired the abrogation of celibacy.* A dis- 
cussion, however, then arose as to the power of the Pope 
to dispense the clergy, both regular and secular, from the 
obligation of celibacy, and on this point there was con- 
siderable diversity of opinion, occupying numerous suc- 
cessive meetings in its settlement. The majority were in 
favour of the papal power, and its exercise in the existing 
condition of the Church was even recommended by those 
who recognised the evils of the system, but shrank from 
the responsibility of themselves introducing the innovation. 

1 See the apologetic letter of the nuncio to the Emperor, 19 January, 1562 (Le Plat, 
op. cit. V. 320). Ferdinand remonstrated earnestly, but did not venture to rebel 
against their decision (Ibid. 351-60). 

2 Ibid. p. 388. 

3 Lettere del Nunzio Visconti (Baluz. et Mansi, III. 453). 

4 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 endeavouring to find arguments with which to defend himself and his apostate 


This was promptly rebuked by the conservatives, according 
to Fra Paolo, with the remark that a prudent physician 
would not attempt to cure one disease by bringing on a 
greater.^ It was not, however, until November 11 that 
the canons on matrimony were finally adopted and 
formally published. Of these there are two relating to 
our subject. The first one pronounced the dread anathema 
on all who should dare to assert that clerks in holy orders, 
monks, or nuns could contract marriage, or that such a 
marriage was valid, since God would not deny the gift of 
chastity to those who rightly sought it, nor would He 
expose us to temptation beyond our strength. The other 
similarly anathematised all who dared to assert that the 
married state was more worthy than virginity, or that it 
was not better to live in celibacy than married.^ In the 
preliminary congregation, held October 13, they had been 
adopted without a dissenting voice, save that the Arch- 
bishop of Sens and the Bishop of Verdun desired the words 
" non obstante lege ecclesiastica vel voto " to be omitted 
from the ninth canon.^ The tenth canon, though directed 
against the Protestants, was by no means uncalled-for 
among Catholics. About this period the Spanish Inquisi- 
tion commenced to treat as a heresy the assertion that the 
married state is preferable to the celibacy prescribed for 
the clergy, when the number of cases which speedily 
appeared in the records and continued for nearly a century 

1 Sarpi, Lib. vii. (Opere, II. 280.) 

2 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxiv. De Sacrament. Matrimon. 

Can. IX. Si quis dixerit clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutes, vel regulares 
castitatem solemniter professes, posse matrimonium contrahere, contractumqne 
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, nee patiatur nos supra id quod possumus 

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

3 Theiner, Acta genuina Concilii Tridentini, II., 428, 429 (Zagrabice, 1874). 


show how widely spread and persistent among the people 
was this belief/ 

Thus, while keeping the Germans and French quiet 
with delusive promises, the Church devoted its energies 
to the miserable task of separating itself as widely as 
possible from those who had left it. Its rulers seemed to 
imagine that their only hope of safety lay in entrenching 
themselves behind the exaggerations of those particular 
points of policy which had afforded to their adversaries 
the fairest chances of attack. The faithful throughout 
Germany might suffer from the absence of the ministers 
of Christ, or might endure yet more from the unrestrained 
passions of wolves in sheep's clothing let loose among their 
wives and daughters, but the Church militant in this 
conjuncture dreaded even more to lose the aid of that 
monastic army which, in theory at least, had no earthly 
object but the ser\ice of St. Peter ; it selfishly feared that 
the parish priest who might legitimately see his fireside 
surrounded by a happy group of wife and children would 
lose the devotion which a man without ties should enter- 
tain for the prosperity and glory of the ecclesiastical 
estabhshment ; and perhaps, more than all, it saw with 
terror avaricious princes eager for the secularisation of that 
immense property to which it owed so large a portion of 
the splendour which dazzled mankind, of the influence 
which rendered it powerful, and of the luxury which made 
its high places attractive to the ambitious and able men 
who controlled its destiny. To put an end, therefore, at 
once and for ever, to the mutterings of dissatisfaction 
among those who compared the domestic Hfe of the 
Protestant pastors with the reckless self-indulgence of the 
ministers of the old religion, it was resolved to place the 
canon of celibacy in a position where none of the orthodox 
should dare to attack it, and to accomplish this the simple 

1 See the author's History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol. iv. p. 144. 


rule of discipline was elevated to the dignity of a point of 
belief. As the Church had already been forced, in defend- 
ing the rule from the assaults of the Reformers, to attribute 
to it apostolic origin, we may not perhaps be surprised 
that it was made a point of doctrine, but we cannot easily 
appreciate the reasons that would justify the anathema 
launched against all who regarded the marriage of those 
in holy orders as binding. The dissolution of such mar- 
riages, as we have seen, was not suggested until the 
middle of the twelfth century, and the decision of the 
council thus condemned as heretics the whole body of the 
Church during three-quarters of its previous existence. 

Although the doctrinal canon threw the responsibility 
of priestly unchastity upon God, yet as the council had so 
peremptorily refused to adopt the remedy urged by the 
princes of the empire, it did not hesitate to employ human 
means to remove, if possible, the scandals which God had 
had permitted to afflict the Church. The decree of refor- 
mation, published in December 1563, contained provisions 
intended to curb the vice which the Tridentine fathers, 
with all their reliance on Divine power, well knew to be 
ineradicable. These provisions, however, were little more 
than a repetition of what we have seen enacted in every 
century since Siricius. Any ecclesiastic guilty of keeping 
a concubine, or woman liable to suspicion, was admonished ; 
disregarding this first warning, he was deprived of one- 
third of his revenue ; if still contumacious, suspension from 
functions and benefice followed ; and a persistence in 
guilt was then visited with irrevocable deprivation. No 
appeal from a sentence could gain exemption ; these cases 
were removed from the jurisdiction of inferior officials 
and confided to the bishops, who were enjoined to be 
prompt and severe in their decisions ; while guilty bishops 
were liable to suspension by their provincial synods, and, 
if irreclaimable, were sent to Rome for punishment. The 


illegitimate children of priests were pronounced incapable 
of preferment. Those already in orders, if employed in 
their fathers' parishes, were required, under pain of depriva- 
tion, to exchange their positions within three months for 
preferment elsewhere, and any provision made by a clerical 
parent for the benefit of his children was pronounced to be 
a fraud. ^ 

Such were the regulations which this great general 
council of the Catholic Church considered sufficient to 
relieve the establishment of the curse which had hung 
around it for a thousand years. There is nothing in them 
that had not been tried a hundred times before, v^th what 
success the foregoing pages may attest. In some respects, 
indeed, they were not as prompt and efficacious as the 
decrees which Charles V. and his bishops had promulgated 
a few years previous, and which had proved so lament- 
ably inefficient. There were not wanting enlightened 
members of the council who bitterly felt the inefficiency 
of what they were doing, but the undignified haste of the 
closing sessions, and the domination of Rome, rendered 
them unable to accomplish more. As the Bishop of 
Astorga said in a letter to Granvelle, " They are not as 
we would have wished, to correct the abuses and scandals 
of the Church, which cause so many to fall into error, 
but we have to do what we are permitted to do, not 
what we would wish to do."^ Heretics, indeed, who 
asserted that there was in reality no intention of sup- 
pressing concubinage, could point in justification to the 
curious fact that, while previous councils had provided 
heavy penalties against the concubines of priests, that of 
Trent passed them over as though they were guiltless. 

Within two months after the dissolution of the council, 

1 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. Decret. de Keformat. cap. 14, 15. 

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


Ferdinand and Albert of Bavaria presented to the Pope 
their requests, which were more moderate than might 
have been expected. The two papers were essentially 
the same. In the name of the princes of the empire, 
after demanding the communion in both elements for 
the laity, they proceeded to argue earnestly for the other 
concession. In place of asking, as before, the privilege 
for the clergy at large, they now reduced their entreaties 
to the simple request of allowing such Catholic priests 
as had entered into matrimony to retain their wives 
and perform their functions, which they assured the Pope 
was absolutely essential to the preservation of the frag- 
ments of the Church still doing battle with the prevail- 
ing heresies throughout Germany.^ They likewise asked 

1 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 tha 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 favour of priestly marriage. 
This, he subsequently claimed, had been prepared for the purpose of laying it 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 com- 
motion throughout Poland that was very favourable 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, 
especially asSigismund II. included priestly marriage among the concessions which 
he requested of Paul IV. (Herzog, Abriss. III. 241.) 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 


that in such places as could not obtain a sufficiency of 
pastors, the bishops should be empowered to ordain 
married laymen of approved piety, learning, and fitness. 

These appeals were successful as far as communion in 
both elements was concerned, for, on April 16, Pius granted 
that concession under certain conditions. The subject of 
priestly marriage, however, he still postponed, and on 
June 17 we find Ferdinand writing to Cardinal Morone, to 
express his thanks for what he had obtained, and to urge 
the other subject on the consideration of the papal court. 
He had instructed his ambassador, he said, to press it 
earnestly, and he besought the Cardinal to aid in so pious 
and advantageous a work.^ 

Nor was this the only means which Ferdinand, then 
verging rapidly to the grave, adopted to attain the object 

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 quserat : Num uxorem sacerdos 
duxerim? Duxisse me fatebor. Peccasti igitur? Peccavi. Poenas ergo peccati 
debes ? Debui et persolvi " (Doctrina de Sacerd. Coelibatu, Varsaviae, 1801). He 
therefore complained of the persecutions to which he was exposedion 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 investiga- 
tion has failed to discover the brief, 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 contra- 
vention of the canons of the Council of Trent (Gregoire, Hist, du Mariage des Pretres 
en France, pp. 51-55). 

In his answer to Fricius, Orzechowski assumes that he was absolved from his 
excommunication by the legate — " Praeterea a sententia excommunicationis, qua 
eram a Joanne Episcopo Premisliensi, ob hanc eandem uxorem, ex ecclesia pulsus, a 
Legato Komani Petri absolutus cum sim, nihil feci contra ilium" (ap. Doctrin. de 
Sacerd. Ccelibat. 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 

1 Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VI. 331. 



of his unwearied pursuit. Georg Witzel had thrown aside 
the monastic gown in 1531, to embrace the errors of 
Lutheranism, but had returned to the old rehgion. His 
learning and piety earned for him a deserved reputation, 
and elevated him to the position of imperial councillor, 
where his talents were devoted to the endless task of 
bringing about a reconciliation between the Churches. 
George Cassander, equally eminent, had never incurred the 
imputation of apostacy, but had laboured with tireless 
industry to convert his erring brethren from heresy to the 
true faith. Men like these might perhaps be heard when 
the voice of princes and prelates, actuated by motives of 
personal advantage, met a deaf ear ; and Ferdinand applied 
to them for disquisitions on the subject.^ Before their 
labours were concluded the monarch was dead (July 25, 
1564), but his son Maximilian II. inherited his father's 
ideas, and gladly made use of the opinions which the 
learned Catholic doctors had no hesitation in expressing. 

Both took strong ground against celibacy. Cassander, 
while defending the Church for originally introducing the 
rule, deplored the terrible and abominable scandals which 
its untimely enforcement caused throughout the Church, 
and he urged that the reasons which had led to its intro- 
duction not only existed no longer, but had even become 
arguments for its abrogation, since now the choice lay only 
between married priests and concubinarians. He declared 
it to be the source of numerous evils, chief among which 
was promiscuous and unbridled licentiousness, and he added 
that the already scanty ranks of the priesthood were de- 

1 This was not his first attempt of this kind. In 1540 he had called upon John 
Cochlseus to examine the Confession of Augsburg and report as to what points were 
reconcilable with Catholicism and what were not. Cochlaeus 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 result- 
ing from it — especially the " scandalosus presbyterorum in seculo concubinatus, 
praesertim apud plebanos in pagis, qui communiter cum ancillis rem domesticam 
gubernare necessitate quadam coguntur." — Le Plat, II. 667. 


prived of the accessions which were so necessary, since men 
of a rehgious turn of mind were prevented from taking 
orders by the universal wickedness which prevailed under 
the excuse of celibacy, while pious parents kept their sons 
from entering the Church for fear of debauching their 
morals. On the other hand, those who sought a life of 
ease and licence were attracted to the holy calling which 
they disgraced. He was even willing to permit marriage 
in orders, arguing that it was only a question of canon law, 
in which faith and doctrine were not involved. As regards 
the monastic orders, while fully appreciating the principles 
upon which the system was founded, he warmly deplored 
the corruption engendered by wealth and luxury. Though 
the convents contained many pious and holy men, still for 
the most part rehgion was forgotten in the observance of 
ceremonies that had lost their significance, and nothing 
could be more licentious and profane than the life led in 
many of the monasteries.^ Witzel was equally severe in 
his denunciations of the clerical licentiousness attributable 
to the rule of celibacy, and concluded his tract by attacking 
the supineness, blindness, and perversity of the prelates 
who suffered such foulness to exist everywhere among the 
priesthood, in contempt of Christ and to the burdening of 
their consciences.^ 

It was already evident that both the great objects for 
which the Council of Trent had ostensibly been assembled 
were failures ; that it would effect as little for the purifica- 
tion of the Church as for the reconciliation of the heretics. 
Perhaps Maximilian felt that under these circumstances no 
one could deny the necessity of such changes as would at 
least afford a chance of the reformation that could no 
longer be expected of the Tridentine canons ; perhaps he 

1 G. Cassandri Consult, xxili., XXV. (Le Plat, VI. 761-2, 783-4.) 

2 Wicelii Via Regia, De Conjug. Sacerd. 

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


felt strengthened by the support of his ecclesiastical coun- 
sellors and controversialists ; perhaps, with the zealous 
hopefulness of youth, he felt a confidence of which age and 
many disappointments had deprived his father ; or perhaps 
he was encouraged by the concession to his subjects and to 
those of Albert of Bavaria of the communion in both 
elements, not knowing that in two short years it would be 
withdrawn. Certain it is that in a negotiation with the 
Bishop of Ventimiglia, papal nuncio at his court, he lost no 
time in renewing, with increased energy, the effort to 
obtain the recognition of married priests. After the 
departure of the nuncio, he addressed, in November 1564, a 
most pressing demand to Pius IV., in which he declared 
that the matter brooked no further postponement ; that 
throughout Germany, and especially in his dominions, there 
was the greatest need of proper ministers and pastors ; that 
there was no other measure which would retain them in 
the Catholic Church, from which, day by day, they were 
withdrawing, principally from this cause. He assured the 
Holy Father that the danger was constantly increasing, 
and that he feared a further delay would render even this 
remedy powerless to prevent the total destruction of the 
old religion. If only this were granted to the clergy, even 
as the cup had been communicated to the laity, he hoped 
for an immediate improvement. The bishops could then 
exercise their authority over those who at present were 
beyond their control, as unrecognised by the Church ; 
and so thoroughly was this lawless condition of affairs 
understood that a refuge was sought in his provinces by 
those disreputable pastors who were banished from the 
Lutheran states on account of their disorderly lives. ^ His 
brother, the Archduke Charles, was equally urgent, in a 
letter which he addressed, a few days later, to the Pope, 
repeating the same arguments, and assuring him that the 

1 Goldast, II. 381. 


only hope for the true rehgion in his dominions was to 
find some means of admitting the services of a married 

Ferdinand and MaximiHan were actuated in these per- 
severing efforts not merely by the desire of gratifying the 
wishes of their people, or of remedying the depravity of 
the ecclesiastical body. It had been a favourite project 
with the father, warmly adopted by the son, to heal the 
differences between the two rehgions, and to restore to the 
Church its ancient and prosperous unity. In their opinion, 
and in that of many eminent men, the main obstacle to 
this was the question of celibacy. It was evidently hope- 
less to expect this sacrifice of the Lutheran pastors, while 
numerous members of the Catholic Church regarded the 
change as essential to the purification of their own estab- 
lishment. The only mode of effecting so desirable a 
reconciliation was therefore to persuade the Pope to 
exercise the power of dispensation which the Council of 
Trent had admitted to be inherent in his high office. It 
thus was left for Pius IV. to extricate himself from the 
tangle of promises with which he had evaded the pressure 
from beyond the Alps. His position, in fact, was perplexing, 
for the council had thrown on him the responsibility, by 
admitting his power of dispensation, while at the same 
time, with little regard for consistency, it had cast the 
denial of sacerdotal marriage in the form of a dogma en- 
forced with the dread anathema. In spite of this, no one 
on either side of the question seems to have doubted his 
power to dispense with the dogma, and this power thus 
became the storm-centre of a struggle in which the unfor- 
tunate Pius reaped to the full the results of his double- 
dealing policy. 

The protagonist of conservatism was Philip II., the 
most powerftil monarch of the time and the head of the 

1 Le Plat, VI. 335. 


only thoroughly Catholic kingdom beyond the Alps. He 
threw himself into it with such vigour, through a succes- 
sion of envoys — Vargas, Luis de Zuniga, Luis de Reque- 
sens. Cardinal Pacheco, Pedro de Avila — that Pacheco 
reported, 20 April, 1565, that Pius had conceived the idea 
that Philip's purpose in urging him to refuse the German 
demands was that the Emperor would then withdraw 
from the Church, so that Spain should remain the only 
Christian country and Philip thus be enabled to control 
the Holy See. Pius, in fact, at times scarce knew which 
way to turn. A few days earher Pacheco had reported an 
audience, in which the Pope asked him to obtain Philip's 
advice as to whether he should grant a request, repeatedly 
made by the Emperor, to assemble a junta of learned 
prelates from all Christendom to consider the matter. It 
was not, he said, an affair of divine law, requiring a 
general council, but of positive law ; and this at least 
would have the advantage of postponing a decision. 
Pacheco promised to write, but said that he knew that 
Philip would send no prelates to such a junta, as it would 
scandalise all Spain ; and Phihp would regard it as certain 
that, if the concession were granted to Germany, the 
Spanish clergy would not only want it, but would go 
there and renounce their nationaUty, in order to lead a 
dissolute Hfe. To this Pius replied that he knew that all 
Christendom would demand it, but he could not resist 
the Emperor without the vigorous support of Phihp, whom 
he desired to use his influence with Maximihan to hghten 
the pressure. Pacheco concludes by adverting to the 
weakness and vacillation of Pius, who inclined first to one 
side and then to the other. ^ 

On the other hand, Maximilian was urging the con- 
cession with greater insistence than his father, and the 
indecision of Pius was exemplified in a consistory held 

1 Bollinger, op. cit. pp. 594-5, 598. 


12 January, 1565, chiefly to consider the matter. He 
adverted to the grant of the cup, which Cardinal Hosius 
of Ermeland reported had proved of much advantage in 
Germany and Austria, both in retaining CathoUcs and 
winning heretics, while in Bohemia it had been received 
as a gift from heaven. The marriage question was still 
more important ; the Cardinal and other prelates admitted 
that priests were few, and still fewer were those who 
desired to take orders. He had met their arguments 
and abhorred innovations ; although so pious an emperor 
deemed it necessary for his dominions, it would be of evil 
example, for, if conceded to Germany, no one knew but 
that it would be demanded by Spain, France, and Poland. 
He wished that it had been decided by the council, and 
that the burden had not been laid on him, for the Emperor 
would be offended if refused what he said was the only 
remedy, and he foresaw the action that might be taken in 
the approaching Diet. He therefore wanted the opinions, 
not only of the cardinals, but of many theologians, and 
would be greatly pleased if an assembly could be con- 
vened from all the nations. He therefore asked the 
cardinals to consider the importance of the affair, and to 
advise him freely and sincerely ; he would hear all, and 
take such resolution as the Holy Ghost might inspire. 
To this appeal the only response seems to have been from 
Cardinal Simoneta, who briefly stated that he had been 
legate to the Council when the Emperor's petitions were 
presented, and it had been deemed wiser not to bring 
the matter up for debate, as it was certain that clerical 
marriage would be refused. ^ The report of this consistory 
created great scandal in Spain, and Philip wrote a strong 
letter to Pius, representing that the concession would 
prove the destruction of Christianity and the ruin of his 

1 DoUinger, I. 588-90. — Lammer, Meletunatum Komanorum Mantissa, p. 217 
(Ratisbonae, 1875). 


dominions. When Cardinal Pacheco read this to the 
Pope he sighed and groaned ; he could not but listen to 
so powerful a sovereign as the Emperor. He was told that 
it would bring back Germany ; that there were no priests 
there, and that the land was relapsing into paganism ; 
that the approaching Diet would proclaim an Interim 
worse than that of Charles V. ; but God had helped him, 
for the Diet had been postponed until September, and 
they thus at least gained that much time.^ Three days 
after Pacheco writes that the Pope is old and weak and 
worn out with perplexity ; he complains that he is left 
alone, and he will yield not only this, but all that is asked 
of him, unless he is strongly supported. He has postponed 
it as long as he can, and can do so no longer.^ 

When Don Pedro de Avila was sent as a special 
envoy on the question, Philip, in his instructions of 10 
June, 1565, told him that from the way in which the Pope 
treated the matter it would appear that he was pledged 
to make the concession, whether it was one of the articles 
agreed upon with the Emperor for the dissolution of the 
council or subsequently, and the expedients suggested for 
paving the way to it were inadmissible, especially the 
reference to the German prelates, for, even if they should 
not be moved by the desire to preserve their estates, they 
could not exercise free judgment in their anxiety to find 
a remedy for the condition of the provinces and under 
the pressure of the Emperor, the princes, and the people. 
When the use of the cup was granted he had kept silent, 
but this was vastly more important, and if it was conceded 
he would make a great " demonstration " — a significant 
word in Spanish parlance.^ 

De Avila's reports were reassuring. The Pope de- 
clared that he had given no pledge as to marriage, as he 

1 Dollinger, I. 591-3. 2 ibid. pp. 596-7. 

3 Ibid. pp. 605-7. 


had done with regard to the cup ; the latter had been 
necessary to prevent a schism by dissolving the council. 
He would not grant it unless it would bring back all 
the heretics, and even then he would hesitate. The danger 
from the Diet had passed ; he had dragged the matter 
along for six years, and would continue to do so, but 
he would not drive the Emperor to despair. To gain 
time he had sent his nuncios Landriano and Guicciar- 
dini, with an offer to pay yearly 25,000 ducats in sup- 
port of seminaries to supply the lack of priests, and 
shortly a second similar sum would be sent to keep 
Maximilian in good humour, for the Emperor, it seems, 
rejected the project of seminaries while evidently keep- 
ing the money. Still uncertainty continued, and as 
late as December 2, Cardinal Pacheco warns Pliilip to 
be friendly with the Pope and accede to his request for 
co-operation in the Diet, for otherwise he will have to 
grant to Maximilian and other princes things which it 
will grieve Philip to hear.^ 

The warning was superfluous, for in a week Pius 
passed away, on December 9, having accomplished his 
purpose of evading without rejecting the demands of 
nearly all the Catholic nations beyond the Alps. His 
successor, St. Pius V., elected 7 January, 1566, was a 
man of different temper. Stern and inflexible, animated 
with the loftiest convictions of the power of his office as 
the representative of God, his policy towards heresy was 
not conciliation, but the extermination which he had 
practised as head of the Inquisition. Prompt action was 
necessary, for the Diet of Augsburg, to which all parties 
were looking for a solution of pending questions, was to 

1 Bollinger, I. pp. 612-15, 621-6, 635-6, 646. 

That at this time the rule of celibacy was regarded as in imminent danger would 
appear when a learned Italian lawyer felt called to address to Pius IV. an elaborate 
work arguing against its abolition, as Marquardo de' Susani did in his Tractatus de 
Cselibatu Sacerdotum non abrogando, printed in Venice in 1566. 


be held in March. Triumphant Protestantism was in 
hopes of winning over Maximilian and sundering Ger- 
many from the Roman obedience. The Catholics, who 
were the weaker party, were disheartened and in lack of 
a leader who should rally their wavering ranks. They 
found him in the new Pope, who within a week of 
consecration despatched a courier to intercept Cardinal 
Commendone, then on his return from Poland, with 
orders to hasten to Augsburg and instructions as to his 
duties there. At the same time letters were written to 
Maximilian, and to the Catholic princes and prelates, 
couched in a very different tone from those of his pre- 
decessor. The Diet must confine itself exclusively to 
secular affairs, and not meddle with anything belonging to 
the jurisdiction of the Holy See ; no interference with the 
rites and institutes of the Church must be suffered, nor 
any change be made in what the Council of Trent had 
decreed and the Holy See had confirmed. If this was 
disobeyed, Commendone was ordered to register a protest 
and depart. No special allusion was made to priestly 
marriage, nor was it required. Commendone fulfilled his 
mission with indefatigable dexterity, and was ably sup- 
ported by the representatives of Philip II. The heretics 
were prevented from interjecting religious questions, and 
no Interim was proclaimed. Commendone assembled the 
Catholic prelates and princes, and urged them to accept 
the decrees of Trent. To this, after consultation, the 
Archbishop of Mainz replied, in the name of all, that they 
accepted without question everything that concerned faith 
and worship, but there were some points of discipline for 
the enforcement of which quieter times must be awaited.^ 
Thus, after a struggle continued at intervals for a quarter 
of a century, the rule of celibacy was left undisturbed, and 
the counter-Reformation had begun. 

1 Ladenchii Annales, ann. 1566, n. 219-24, 230, 238, 242-3. 


Still, in spite of conciliar anathemas, there was, after 
an interval, a certain amount of liberality in granting dis- 
pensations for marriage. A collection of decrees of the 
congregation of the Inquisition contains a number of 
examples of these, issued between 1600 and 1630 to sub- 
deacons and deacons and members of the military Orders, 
not only for prospective marriages, but for those already 
consummated, including the legitimation of the offspring. 
The most prominent instance is one of 18 December, 1625, 
to Archduke Leopold of Austria, who as subdeacon held 
the bishoprics of Strassburg and Passau. He promptly 
resigned the sees, and in 1626 married Claudia de' Medici, 
widow of Federigo, Duke of Urbino. The numerous 
cases of members of the religious Orders, of both sexes, 
who left their houses and contracted marriage among 
heretics, subsequently seeking return to the Church, illus- 
trates the confusion of the period, while the benignity with 
which their supplications were admitted indicates how 
impotent was the Holy See to enforce the rules amid the 
exigencies of the struggle between orthodoxy and heresy 
in the lands remaining under the Roman obedience.^ 

In Spain, as may readily be conceived, there was no 
such benignity. Bishop Simancas, about the middle of 
the sixteenth century, quotes authorities who held that a 
priest or religious who married publicly was subject 
to the Inquisition, as this manifested heretical belief, 
while, if the marriage was secret, it implied no intellectual 
error, and he was to be dealt with by his superiors ; but 
Simancas asserts that both cases implied heresy, and the 
Inquisition had jurisdiction.^ The Inquisition took the 
same view, and its name inspired a terror discouraging to 

1 Decreta Sac. Congr. S. Officii, pp. 84-140 (Bibl. del R. Archivio di Stato in 
Roma, Fondo Camerale, Congr. del S. Off. vol. iii.). 

2 Simanc*, de Catholicis Institutis, Tit. XL, n. 8-13. 


aspirants to clerical matrimony. Still, its records show 
that occasionally there were those who dared the risk, 
trusting to escape detection, and for them the usual 
penalties were deprivation of functions and benefice, and a 
longer or shorter term of service in the galleys.^ 

1 See the author's History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol. iv, p. 336. 



The great council, on which so long had hung the hopes 
of the Christian world, had at last been held. The 
reformation of the Church, postponed by the skilful policy 
of the popes, had been reached in the closing sessions, and 
had been hurriedly provided for. As we have seen, the 
regulations which concerned the morals of the clergy were 
sufficient for their purpose, if only they could be enforced, 
yet as they were but the hundredth repetition of an 
endeavour to conquer human nature, which had always 
previously failed, even those who enacted them could have 
felt Httle faith in their efficacy. August Baumgartner, 
the Bavarian ambassador, in his address to the council, 
27 June, 1562, had alluded to the prevailing belief that 
any comprehensive effort to enforce the chastity required 
by the canons would result in driving the mass of the 
Catholic clergy over to Protestantism.^ Since continence 
was held by them to be impossible, it was thought that 
they would prefer to marry their concubines as Lutherans 
rather than give them up as Catholics. Possibly the fear 
of such untoward result may explain the slender effect 
which can be discerned from a scheme of reform so 
laboriously reached and so pompously heralded as the 
panacea for the woes which were destroying the Church. 

Although Catherine de Medicis and her sons refused 
to allow the council to be formally published in France, 

1 Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. V. 340. 


yet she permitted its decrees to be freely circulated, and 
her bishops were at liberty to adopt them as the code of 
discipline in their dioceses.^ In Germany we have seen 
how the Catholic princes, secular and ecclesiastical, 
accepted it at the Diet of Augsburg in 1566. Philip II., 
after some hesitation, ordered the reception of the council 
in all his dominions, which extended from Naples to the 
North Sea ; ^ and Poland, despite some opposition from an 
ambitious prelate, submitted to it before the year 1564 was 
ended. ^ 

As an authoritative exposition of the law of the 
Church of Christ, conceived and elaborated under the 
influence of the Holy Ghost, and commanded for implicit 
observance by the Vicegerent of God ; as the expression 
of the needs and wants of the Catholic faith, wrought by 
the concentrated energy and wisdom of the leading doctors 
of Christendom, and transmitted for practical application 
through the wondrous machinery of the Catholic hierarchy, 
it should have had an immediate influence on the evils 
which it was intended to eradicate. Those evils had con- 
fessedly done much to create and foster the schism under 
which the Church was reeling ; their magnitude was 
admitted by all, and no one ventured to defend or to 
palliate them. Their removal was acknowledged to be a 

1 The Council of Trent has never been received in France. For a rtiumd of the 
efforts made to obtain its adoption and their uniform lack of success, see Chavart, 
Le Celibat des Pretres, pp. 507-12. 

2 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 opposi- 
tion excited by its interference with local liberties and franchises, as it completed 
and crowned the centralising policy which rendered the papacy supreme over all 
local Churches. It was not until 18 December, 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. Preef. p. vi.). 

3 By a bull dated 18 July, 1564, Pius IV. fixed 1 May, 1564, as the time when the 
Tridentine canons became the law of the Church. His letter to the Archbishop 
of Bremen, with an oflBcial copy and directions as to its promulgation, is dated 
October 3 of the same year (Hartzheim, VII. 25). 


necessity of the gravest character, and every adherent of 
Catholicism was bound to lend his aid to the good work. 
What, then, was accomplished by the council which had 
for so long a period laboured ostensibly with the object of 
restoring Latin Christianity to its primitive purity ? 

To few of the long line of popes does the Church owe 
so much as to St. Pius V. When he ascended the chair 
of St. Peter, Protestants were looking forward hopefully 
to the time when the lands of the Roman obedience 
should shrink to the two peninsulas of Italy and Spain. 
His pontificate was too brief to show results in checking 
the progress of revolt, but his resolute purpose to remove 
the evils that had led to it laid the foundations on which 
the counter-Reformation was built. It has not come 
within our scope to consider the abuses and corruption 
of the Curia which had created, throughout Latin Chris- 
tendom, a detestation of the Holy See, to be reckoned 
among the primary causes of Luther's success, but they 
were inveterate, and to their removal he addressed himself 
with relentless vigour. That he should show equal 
soHcitude in the harder task of reforming the morals of a 
dissolute clergy was to be expected, and this he lost no 
time in attempting, for he recognised how futile were the 
Tridentine utterances unless they should be unsparingly 
enforced. Pius IV. had allowed two years to elapse in 
silence after the dissolution of the council, but Pius V. 
lost no time, and on 1 April, 1566, issued a brief com- 
manding the Ordinaries of all Churches to execute with 
vigour the conciliar decrees against concubinary priests.^ 
Then, as soon as the dangers of the Diet of Augsburg 
were safely passed, in June he addressed to Maximilian, to 
Albert of Bavaria, and to the German bishops letters in 
which, after alluding to the scandalous lives of the clergy 
as one of the leading causes of heretic success, he prescribed 

1 Pii PP. v. Bull, Cum primum, § 12 (Bullar, Roman. II. 191). 


the most active measures of reform, for otherwise what 
remained of Catholicism in Germany would be ex- 
tinguished. The bishops were ordered to make visitations 
throughout their dioceses, to investigate the morals of their 
clergy, to expel their concubines, and to punish the refrac- 
tory with all the severity of the laws, depriving them of 
their benefices and of the functions which they polluted ; 
moreover, that the reform might be thorough, these 
instructions were accompanied with faculties which placed 
the regular Orders under episcopal jurisdiction. As in all 
this they would need the support of the secular power, 
Maximilian and Albert were exhorted to lend to the 
prelates all aid and favour.^ 

The immediate result of this was not encouraging. 
When Bernard Rasfelt, Bishop of Munster, in his synod 
of 1566 published the papal commands, the fury of his 
canons was so excited that they forced him to resign his 
bishopric and spend the rest of his days in obscurity. He 
was succeeded by Johann von Hoya, Bishop of Osnabruck 
and President of the Imperial Chamber, a man dis- 
tinguished by birth and learning, who speedily wearied of 
the conflict and sought peace by imitating the example of 
his subordinates.^ Three years later, in 1569, the Arch- 
bishop of Salzburg, in response to a fresh exhortation from 
Pius to reform his Church, replied that he and his suffragans 
had never ceased to attempt it, but that all their efforts 
had been fruitless and that he despaired of its accom- 

Two years after this, in 1571, we have a summary of 
the condition of Germany in a confidential letter of 
November 16 to Philip II. from Fray Francisco di 
Cordova, the confessor to the Empress. The continued 

1 Ladenchii Annales ann. 1566, n. 251-4. — Hartzheim, VII. 231. 

2 De Thou, Hist, univ., Lib. xxxviii. ann. 1566 — Ladenchii Annales, ann. 1566, 
n. 256. 

3 Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens., p. 556. 


success of the Protestant movement he attributes to 
clerical disorders. Maximilian II., he says, " is regarded as 
a heretic, for he shows favour to heretics and admits all 
their preachers to audiences, which he denies to Catholics. 
He and the princes hold the Pope, the cardinals, and the 
bishops responsible for the failure of reform which would 
restore religion. Throughout all Germany the bishops 
neither preach nor celebrate Mass nor perform ecclesiastical 
functions, but seem to be laymen rather than clerics, while 
of the clergy at large there is scarce one without a wife 
or concubine. When the chapters elect bishops, they are 
required to swear that they will not reform the canons, 
and the monasteries are full of laymen and w^omen. For 
all this there is no punishment, and the bishops and canons 
excuse themselves by saying that they merely live as the 
cardinals do. The one who is most scandalised by all this 
and who talks the most about it is the Emperor. The 
details are not fit to write, but it is certain that if the 
clergy were reformed, Germany would accept Catholicism, 
for the people are disgusted with the clashing of opinions, 
and, if the bishops would preach, the people would follow 
them, but as long as there is no reform the heresies 
increase day by day, and little by little the heretics obtain 
the bishoprics and benefices. I know, he concludes, 
that true reform would win back many heretics and 
their chiefs, and I think the Emperor would not be the 
last." ^ 

1 DoUinger, op. cit. I. 654. 

At this period the Protestants had fair prospects of winning all Germany, but 
their progress was arrested, not by Catholic reform, but by the fierce doctrinal dis- 
sensions between Calvinists, Lutherans, and Philippists, who hated each other more 
than they did the common enemy. At the critical moment the Jesuits came, with 
their tireless labour and skilful policy ; the Protestant line which had been steadily 
advancing was driven back, and finally the Thirty Years' War established the 
boundaries which have remained with little change. 

Against the lukewarmness of Maximilian may be set the zeal of his brother, the 
Archduke Ferdinand, of whom de Avila writes to Philip II. 1 December, 1565, that 
it is said for certain that he secretly cast some heretic preachers into a well in his 
palace. — DoUinger, p. 645. 



The German clergy were not without justification in 
shielding themselves behind the example of Rome, where 
Pius IV. had allowed the most public and scandalous 
immorality to flourish unchecked under his immediate 
supervision. In 1538 the Consilium de Emendanda 
Ecclesise had animadverted upon the cynical licentious- 
ness of the Roman clergy in terms which show that not 
much improvement had taken place since Petrarch's 
description of the papal court,^ and the intervening thirty 
years had not served to purify it. Pius V. included this 
among his reformatory efforts. He at first proposed to 
banish aU the public women who would not give a pledge 
of reformation by immediate marriage, and, when forced 
to abandon this as impracticably harsh, he restricted their 
residence to certain houses, and forbade their plying their 
vocation in the streets by day or night. Although this 
admitted the necessity of the evil and only sought to 
restrain its public manifestation, such reform was deemed 
insuflferable. The clergy were ashamed to offer open 
opposition, but urged the Senate to strenuous resistance. 
The remonstrance presented by that body not only shows 
the prevalent immorality, but also the conviction that 
immorality was inseparable from celibacy. It was repre- 
sented that, if the proposed rules were enforced, the 
prosperity of the city would be destroyed and the rents of 
houses be reduced to nothing, and it was urged that, amid 
so vast a number of men condemned to celibacy, under 
such restrictions it would be impossible to preserve the 
virtue of the wives and daughters of the citizens. The 
contest was stubbornly continued until at length Pius was 
driven to declare that if further difficulties were interposed 

1 In hac enim urbe meretrices ut matronse incedunt per urbem, seu mula 
vehuntur, quas affectantur de media die nobiles familiares cardinalium clericique. 
Nulla in urbe vidimus banc corruptionem praeterquam in hac omnium exemplari, 
habitant enim insignes aedes : corrigendus etiam hie turpis abusus. — Le Plat, Monu- 
ment. Concilii Trident. II. 604. 


he would leave the city.^ The Germans, moreover, were 
not mistaken when they included the cardinals among 
those whom they imitated, for Sixtus V. in 1586 decreed 
that no one who had children, even if they were legitimate, 
should be eligible to the cardinalate, because in no other 
way could assurance be had of the observance of their 


If Pius V. met with opposition in the task of purifying 
the Augean stable of Rome, St. Charles Borromeo, 
encouraged and stimulated by his example, found himself 
involved in a more dangerous quarrel when he attempted, 
in the equally demoralised city of Milan, to enforce respect 
for the decrees of Trent. In 1569 he undertook to reform 
the canons of S. Maria della Scala, whose licentious mode 
of Hfe was a scandal to the faithful. So persistently did 
they deny their subjection to his archiepiscopal jurisdiction, 
that after a long discussion his only resource for vindicat- 
ing his authority was excommunication. The contuma- 
cious canons were still indisposed to yield, and, assembling 
in their church, they maltreated his messenger. Thinking 
that his presence might bring them to reason, he ventured 
himself to expostulate with them, and found them drawn 
up in their cemetery, with arms in their hands, and 
supported by soldiers whom they had hired. On reaching 
the gate, he dismounted from his mule and advanced 
towards them with his cross, which he had snatched from 
his cross-bearer. Unabashed by this symbol at once of 
rehgion and authority, the mutinous canons rushed upon 
him with shouts of " Spagna ! " " Spagna ! " brandishing 
their weapons and discharging their fire-arms at the cross 
in his hands — fortunately without injuring him. Having 
thus driven him off, they continued for some time in open 

i De Thou, Hist. univ. Lib. xxxix. 

2 Sixti PP. v. Const. Postquam verus, § 16 (Bullar. Roman. II. 611).— "Certum 
nequeat snse testimonium continentiae exhibere." 


rebellion, until they were at length obliged to submit, 
when Pius V. and Philip II. united their power in support 
of St. Charles.^ 

Still greater was the peril to which the saint was 
exposed in his quarrel with the Umiliati. They were a 
branch of the Benedictine Order, founded in 1180 by the 
Milanese who escaped the destruction of their city by 
Frederic Barbarossa. Sharing in the general licence of the 
age, the excesses of the Umiliati became so infamous that 
they surpassed in turpitude the worst exploits of the 
unbridled youth of the city. Supported by the decretals 
of Pius, in 1568 St. Charles undertook to reduce the Order 
to the observance of monastic rule. The Umiliati resisted 
with so much energy and success that, after two years of 
contest, they were still defiant. Regarding St. Charles as 
the cause of all their troubles, Girolamo Lignana, Provost 
of S. Cristoforo di Vercelli, who assumed their leadership 
in 1570, engaged a monk of the order named Girolamo 
Donati to murder him. The blackness of the deed was 
not reUeved by the circumstances under which it was 
attempted. While the holy archbishop was absorbed at 
midnight in his devotions, Donati stole into the oratory 
and discharged full upon him an arquebuss loaded with 
slugs. Some of the missiles struck St. Charles, but 
rebounded to the floor, leaving him unhurt, and the 
miraculous nature of his escape was proved by the depth 
to which others penetrated the walls. At this moment 
the policy of Philip the Catholic supported the disaffected 
and rebellious monks, and for some time yet they escaped 
the retribution due to their many crimes, but at length 
those concerned in the attempted murder were caught and 
executed, and the order of the Umiliati was broken up.^ 

1 Fleury, Liv. CLXXi. chap. 104 et seq. 

2 Muratori, Annal. ann. 1569. — Henrion, Hist, des Ordres Religieux, I. 196. — 
Fleury, Liv. CLXXi. chap. 26. — DeThou, Lib. L. — The calm Muratori stigmatises the 
Umiliati as " troppo scorretto e corrotto ordine, " and Henrion, who cannot cer- 


In fact, the Tridentine reform, so loudly heralded as a 
panacea for all the evils afflicting the Church, was every- 
where confessedly a failure. When, in 1583, President 
d'Espeisses presented to Henry III. a memorial against 
the publication of the council in France, he drew one of 
his arguments from the greater corruption of the Italian 
Church, where, though the council was received without 
demur, yet none of its orders reforming the morals of the 
clergy received the least attention.^ That the Tridentine 
canons in this respect were wholly inefficacious throughout 
Italy, and that the officials, with rare exceptions, did not 
venture to enforce them, can indeed be seen in the series 
of provincial councils held during the remainder of the 
century, from Lombardy to Naples. 

The papacy had succeeded in crushing the reformers 
who had responded in so many Italian cities to the 
uprising in Germany ; it had then convoked and managed 
at its will the great congress of Catholic Christendom 
which was to put an end at once and for ever to all the 
evils which had led to the schism ; it had every opportunity 
and every motive for vindicating itself from the asper- 
sions of its enemies, and yet we see it at once recur to the 
old machinery of local councils enacting canons whose 
frequency and wordy severity are the inverse measure of 
their efficiency. Had the promises of reform so liberally 
made been possible in their fulfilment, there had been no 
need of further legislation. A convocation of the ecclesi- 
astics of each province to receive and publish the decrees 

tainly be regarded as a prejudiced authority, declares that "les exc^s des Humilies 
surpassoient ceux des laiques les plus debauches." 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 soUicitus (Mag. Bull. 
Rom. n. 326). 

I Vu que par toute I'ltalie on le vit reconnoitre pour I'usage et observations de 
toutes les ordonnances, on n'en voit une seule entretenue de celles qui concerne la 
reformation de la vie et moeurs des ecclesiastiques. . . . Et ce peut dire pour ce 
regard que I'eglise n'est en autre lieu de la Chretiente si dereglee et difforme qu'^s 
pays oi\ le pape a commandement et puissance absolu. — Le Plat, VII. 259. 


of Trent would have been all-sufficient. When, therefore, 
we see the endless iteration with which the guilty clergy 
were threatened with the Tridentine canons, and with 
other new or revivified penalties — as at the councils of 
Milan in 1565 and 1582,^ and at those of Manfredonia in 
1567, of Ravenna in 1568, of Urbino in 1569, of Florence 
in 1573, of Naples in 1576, of Cosenza in 1579, of Salerno 
in 1596, of S. Severino in 1597, and of Melfi in 1597'— we 
can only conclude that the evil was irremediable, in spite 
of the well-meant efforts to suppress it or to throw off the 
responsibility of its existence. 

In fact, the manner in which the Council of Trent was 
greeted by the clergy may be judged from its treatment in 
the archiepiscopate of Utrecht. Though Philip II. had 
authoritatively ordered its reception in 1565, w^e find the 
Duke of Alva in May 1568 issuing his commands to the pre- 
lates of the five Churches of Utrecht to offer no further 
opposition to it. Even so stern a ruler could not obtain 
immediate obedience, however, to so obnoxious a series of 
regulations, and they responded by pleading their ancient 
privileges. This availed them little, for in June he replied 
that his instructions were positive, and he proceeded to en- 
force them by sending royal commissioners to the province, 
empowered to carry them out. In July, therefore, the 
Archbishop assembled his clergy, and in conjunction with 
the commissioners issued a series of regulations designed to 
give effective force to the canons of the council. Visiting 
nunneries and haunting taverns, joining in dances and 

1 Concil. Mediolanens. ann. 1565 P. Ii. Const, xiv (Harduin. X. 661) — Concil. 
Mediolanens. ann. 1582 Const, xiv. (Ibid. p. 1117.) 

2 Concil. 8ipontin. ann. 1667 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. — Concil. Ravennat. ann. 
'568 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. xxti. — 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.) 


hunting and indecent songs were forbidden. The clergy 
were ordered to shave their beards and to give up their 
concubines, whom they were not to retake or to replace. 
Even yet they did not yield, but while they were ashamed 
to claim the right to keep their female companions, they 
demurred as to the sacrifice of their beards, and the 
Archbishop was obliged to issue another peremptory 

It was not, however, only concubinage which the 
Council of Trent failed to extirpate. Even the denial of 
sacerdotal marriage, which it had elevated to the dignity 
of a point of faith, was stubbornly opposed, and was not 
accepted until after a protracted struggle. 

In 1569 we find the synod of the extensive and im- 
portant province of Salzburg virtually dividing its clergy 
into two classes — those who haunt the taverns under 
pretext of getting their meals, but really for the pur- 
pose of indulging in drunken riots with their parishioners, 
and those who keep houses, with concubines under the 
guise of female servants, whom they secretly marry, and 
who are openly known by their husbands' names. To 
meet this condition of affairs, the synod devised an 
elaborate system by which the richer clergy were directed 
to keep as domestics respectable middle-aged married 
women with their husbands, while the poorer ecclesiastics 
were to club together for the same purpose.^ This expe- 
dient proved as fruitless as its predecessors, for in 1572 
Gregory XIII. complained to the Archbishop that in 
many places priests who were known to be married were 
permitted by their bishops to celebrate Mass and to handle 

1 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 (Stradse de Bell. Belgic. Lib. iv.). 

2 Synod. Salisburg. ann. 1569 Const, xxvil. cap. xviii., xix., xx., xxi., xxii. 
(Hartzheim, VII. 306-8.) 


the sacred elements/ In spite of all this the evil continued 
unabated, and in 1616 the Archbishop of Salzburg, in his 
instructions for a general visitation, ordered that all priests 
should remove their concubines to a distance of at least six 
miles, and should not allow their illegitimate children to live 
openly with them, except under special licence from him.^ 

In 1565, Anthony, Archbishop of Prague, promulgated 
the Council of Trent in his provincial synod. He was a 
man of more than ordinary vigour ; he had been the 
imperial orator at Trent, understood fully the views of the 
council, and was not likely to underrate either their im- 
portance or their authority. Armed with the Tridentine 
canons, he set actively to work and instituted a very 
thorough system of inquisitorial visitations, which ought 
to have succeeded if success were possible. Yet, after the 
lapse of thirteen years, in a special mandate issued by him 
in 1578 he deplores the obstinate blindness of many of his 
clergy, who still believed, with the heretics, that marriage 
was not incompatible with priesthood, while those who did 
not marry were guilty of the less dangerous error of 
maintaining concubines and children on the revenues of 
their benefices.^ 

The same wilful ignorance apparently existed in the 
diocese of Wurzburg, for Bishop Julius, in 1584, found it 
necessary, in his episcopal statutes, to discountenance 
clerical matrimony and to prove its nulHty by laboriously 
quoting innumerable canons and decretals ; and he even 
condescended to remind his priesthood that in taking 
orders they had willingly and knowingly entered into an 
agreement of continence, by the consequences of which 
they must be prepared to abide.* 

1 Concil. Salisburg. XLVII. (Dalham, Cone. Salisb. p. 583.) 

2 Visitat. Salisburg. ann. 1616 Tit. I. cap. vi. (Hartzheim, IX. 266.) 

3 Decret. Reformat. Pragens. (Hartzheim, VII. 53.) 

4 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 Nicsea. After describing the custom of the Greek Church, 


A provincial synod of Gnesen, of which the date is 
uncertain, but which was probably held in 1577, deplored 
the insane audacity displayed by ecclesiastics in marrying, 
and threatened them with the Tridentine anathema.^ This 
warning appears to have been completely disregarded, for 
the Bishop of Breslau, a suffragan of the metropolis of 
Gnesen, in opening his diocesan synod in 1580, still com- 
plained that many of his clergy were guilty of this 
perversity, and he was at some pains to disavow any 
complicity with it, or any connivance at the licentiousness 
which was prevalent among the unmarried.^ In 1591 the 
synod of Olmutz asserted that many clerks in holy orders 
contracted pretended marriages, and were not ashamed 
of the families growing up publicly around them, while 
others indulged in scandalous concubinage with women, 
whom they styled housekeepers or cooks. In endea- 
vouring to put an end to this state of affairs the synod 
manifested its estimation of the morals of the priesthood 
by renewing the hideous suggestions which we have seen 
in the tenth and twelfth centuries, for pastors were 
allowed to have near them the female relatives authorised 
by the Nicene canons, but, in view of the assaults of 
the tempter, were prudently advised not to let them 
reside in their houses.^ The disregard of the Tridentine 
canon continued, and as late as 1628, at the synod of 
Osnabruck, the orator who opened the proceedings in- 
veighed in the vilest terms against the female companions 
of the clergy, who not only occupied the position of wives, 
but were even dignified with the title.* 

he proceeds, " Permissio vero et consuetude ilia duravit usque ad Niccenum concilium, 
in quo generali decreto abrogata est, statutumque ne aliquis habens uxorem con- 
secretur 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. 

1 Synod. Gnesens. c. xxxiii. (Hartzheim, VII. 891.) 

3 Synod. Wratislav. ann. 1580 (Hartzheim, VII. 890). 

3 Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1591 c. xiii. (Hartzheim, VIII. 352.) 

4 Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1628 (Hartzheim, IX. 431). As usual, a distinction is 


Ancillary to the questions of clerical marriage and con- 
cubinage was that of the provisions made for the benefit 
of the offspring of such unions. The Council of Trent had 
decreed that all such provisions should be deemed fraudu- 
lent, but, in spite of this, the transmission of ecclesiastical 
property continued as before, and in 1571 Pius V. found 
it necessary to supplement the conciliar decree with 
further positive legislation. In this he recognised his own 
Curia as the source of much of the evil by declaring null 
and void all dispensations granted for such purpose, and 
annulling all faculties for granting them.^ It was not 
only the need of preserving the possessions of the Church ; 
the scandal of sacerdotal families required repression, and 
this he sought to accomplish, in 1572, by another decree 
pronouncing such children incapable of receiving even the 
private and patrimonial property of their fathers.^ How 
soon all this was forgotten is indicated by the synod of 
Augsburg, in 1610, which declared that it would enforce 
the Tridentine canon prohibiting the illegitimate sons of 
priests from holding preferment in their fathers' benefices, 
notwithstanding what dispensations they might produce.^ 

Thus the movement started by the vigour and inflexible 
purpose of Pius V. had at last succeeded in enforcing the 
Tridentine decree which prohibited priestly marriage, and 
in suppressing the almost universal demand for it through- 
out Catholic Christendom. In this he richly earned the 
gratitude of the Ultramontanism which regards the Church 
as a hierarchical organisation, directed as much to temporal 

drawn between those who thus formed permanent though illicit connections and 
others who indulged in promiscuous licence — "alii vaga dissoluti lascivia, tanquam 
equi emissarii, ad incontinentissimum quodque scortum aut adulteram adhinniunt 
trahuntque ingentes liberorum spuriorum greges. Hsec in propatulo sunt ; quae vero 
in occulto fiunt ab ipsis, turpe est et dicere." 

1 Pii PP. V. Const. Quae ordini (Bullar. Roman. II. 346). 

2 Pii PP. V. Const, ad Romanum (Bullar. Roman. II. 318). 

3 Synod. Augustan, ann. 1610, P. iii. cap. iii. § 1 (Hartzheim, IX. 58). 


as to spiritual ends. This preponderating element at the 
Council of Trent, if we may believe Fra Paolo Sarpi, pre- 
dicted that, if priests were allowed to marry, their affections 
would be concentrated on family and country instead of 
on the Church ; their subjection to the Holy See would 
be diminished, the whole structure of the hierarchy be 
destroyed, and the Pope himself would eventually become 
a simple Bishop of Rome/ It is foreign to our purpose to 
discuss whether this would have occurred, and whether it 
would have been a misfortune to the Church and to the 
world, or whether, if marriage had been permitted, it 
might have resulted in a reunion of Christian believers. 
Its denial, at all events, rendered the division permanent, 
and it remains for us to see whether the counter-Reforma- 
tion succeeded in removing the corruption which was 
admitted to have been one of the efficient causes in pro- 
moting the success of the Lutheran revolt. 

Clear-sighted prelates were not wanting who pro- 
claimed that the same causes continued to operate and to 
produce the same effect. Anthony, Archbishop of Prague, 
in his synod of 1565, took occasion to declare that the 
misfortunes of the Church were attributable to the dis- 
soluteness of the clergy, and that the extirpation of heresy 
could best be effected by reforming the depraved morals 
and filthy Uves of ecclesiastics.^ At the Council of 
Salzburg, in 1569, Christopher Spandel, in the closing 
address, asked the assembled prelates what title was more 
contemptible or more odious than that of priest, in conse- 
quence of the hcence in which the clergy as a body 
indulged.^ The clergy of France, assembled at Melun in 
July 1579, when addressing Henry III. with a request 
for the pubhcation of the Council of Trent, assured him 
that the heresy which afflicted Christendom was caused 

1 Sarpi, Hist. Con. Trident. Lib. vil. (Opere II. 280.) 

2 Statut. DicEces. Pragens. ann. 1565 (Hartzheim, VII. 26). 

3 Synod. Salisburg. ann. 1569 (Hartzheim, VII. 407). 


by the corruption of the Church, and that it could only 
be eradicated by a thorough reformation.^ Though the 
Inquisition took care that Spain should not be much 
troubled by heretics, yet the synod of Orihuella, in 1600, 
declared that the concubinage practised by ecclesiastics 
was the principal source of popular animosity against them.^ 
These complaints were general. In 1599, Cuyck, Bishop 
of Ruremonde, published a work aimed at concubinary 
priests, in which he assured them that they and their 
predecessors were the cause of the ruin and devastation of 
the Netherlands for the last thirty years, for their vices had 
led to the contempt felt for the clergy, and thus to the 
heresy which had caused the civil wars. Those who kept 
their vows he asserts to be as rare as the grapes that can 
be gleaned after the vintage or the olives left after gather- 
ing the crop ; but the only remedy he can suggest is 
increased vigilance and severity on the part of the prelates.^ 
Evidently the Tridentine canons had thus far been a 
failure. In 1609, at the synod of Constance, the Rev. 
Dr. Hamerer, in an official oration to the assembled pre- 
lates, deplored the continued spread of heresy, which he 
boldly told them was caused by the perpetually increasing 
immorality that pervaded all classes of the priesthood. 
The Reformation had begun, had derived its strength, and 
was still prospering through their weakness, which ren- 
dered them odious to the people and made the Catholic 
religion a by- word and a shame.* In 1610, the Bishop of 
Antwerp, in a synodal address, agreed with Bishop Cuyck 
in attributing the evils which had so grievously afflicted 
the Church of Flanders for nearly half a century to the 

1 Le Plat, VII. 238. 

2 Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap. xxxviii. (Aguirre, VI. 457.) 

3 Henr. Cuyckii Speculum Concubinariorum Sacerdotum, Monachorum ac Cleri- 
corum ; Coloniae, 1599. 

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


same cause, and, while recounting the various successive 
efforts at internal reform made since the Council of Trent, 
he pronounced each one to have been a failure in conse- 
quence of the incurable obstinacy of the clergy/ Dam- 
houder, a celebrated jurisconsult of Flanders, whose 
unquestioned piety and orthodoxy gained for him the 
confidence of Charles V. and Philip II., does not hesitate 
to speak of the clergy of his time as men who rarely lived 
up to their professions, and who as a general rule were 
scoundrels distinguished for their indulgence in all manner 
of evil.^ In a similar mood the Bishop of Bois-le-Duc, in 
opening his synod of 1612, declared that the scandalous 
lives of the ecclesiastics were a source of corruption to the 
laity and a direct encouragement of heresy.^ So, in 1625, 
the synod of Osnabruck gave as its reason for endeavour- 
ing to enforce the Tridentine canons that the true religion 
was despised on account of the depraved morals of its 
ministers, whose crimes were a sufficient explanation of 
the stubbornness of the heretics. So little concealment 
of their frailty was thought necessary that they openly 
enriched their children from the patrimony of the Church, 
and decked their concubines with ornaments and vest- 
ments taken from the holy images, even as we have seen 
was the custom among the Anglo-Saxons of the tenth 

The Thirty Years' War proved a more effectual bar to 
the spread of heresy than these fruitless efforts to cure the 
incurable malady of the Church. After the Peace of 
Westphalia, there was no further need to appeal to the 
dread of proselytising Lutheranism as a stimulus to virtue, 
but still the same process of reasoning appears in exhorta- 

1 Synod Antverp. ann. 1610 (Hartzheim, VIII. 979). 

2 Damhouder Kerum Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. No. 25 (Antverp. 1601). 

3 Synod. Boscodunens. II. ann. 1612 (Hartzheim, IX. 200). 

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


tions to regain the forfeited respect of the community. 
Thus, in 1652, the Bishop of Munster expressed his horror 
at the obstinacy with which, in spite of fines, edicts, and 
canons, his clergy persisted in retaining their concubines, 
and he declared that the discordance between the pror 
fessions and the practice of the priesthood rendered them 
a stench in the nostrils of the people and destroyed the 
authority of religion itself;^ and in 1662 the synod of 
Cologne deplored that the notorious want of respect felt 
for the ministers of Christ was the direct result of their 
own immorahty.^ A doctrine even sprang up to the 
effect that it was not requisite to force a concubinarian to 
eject his companion if she was useful to him in his house- 
keeping or if it would be difficult for him to obtain another 
servant ; and this became sufficiently formidable to entitle 
it to a place among the errors of behef formally con- 
demned by the Roman Inquisition in its decree of March 

In France the influence of the Tridentine canons had 
been equally unsatisfactory. At a royal council held in 
1560, which resolved upon the assembly of the States at 
Orleans, Charles de Marillac, Bishop of Vienne, declared 
that ecclesiastical discipHne was almost obsolete, and that 
no previous time had seen scandals so frequent or the life 
of the clergy so reprehensible.* From the proceedings of 
the Huguenot synod of Poitiers, in 1560, it is evident 
that priests not infrequently secretly married their con- 
cubines, and, when the woman was a Calvinist, her 
equivocal position became a matter of grave consideration 
with her Church.^ The only result of the Colloquy of 

1 Synod. Monasteriens. ann. 1652 (Hartzheim, IX. 786-7). 

2 Synod. Colon, ann. 1662 P. III. Tit. i. cap. 1 § iii. (Hartzheim, IX. 1006.) 

3 Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. Luxemb. 1742, T. VI. App. p. 2. 

4 Pierre de la Place, Estat. de Relig. etc. Liv. iii, 

5 Quick, Synod. Gall. Reform. I. 18. 


Poissy, in 1561, was that Catherine de Medicis prevailed 
upon the bishops to present a request to the King asking 
him to use his influence with the Pope to concede the 
marriage of priests and the use of the cup by the laity. 
Means were found, as we have seen, to prevent the former 
of these demands from being made, while the latter, when 
presented, was peremptorily refused/ In the existing 
condition of affairs, the Council of Trent could not 
reasonably be expected to effect much, for, as the orthodox 
Claude d'Espence informs us, the French prelates, like the 
Germans, were in the habit of collecting the " cuUagium " 
from all their priests, and informing those who did not 
keep concubines that they might do so if they liked, but 
must pay the licence-money whether or no.^ In 1564, 
the Cardinal of Lorraine, not long after his return from 
the council, held a provincial synod at Rheims, where he 
contented himself with declaring that the ancient canons 
enjoining chastity should be enforced.^ The next year, 
1565, a synod held at Cambray reduced the penalties to a 
minimum, and afforded every opportunity for purchasing 
immunity, by enacting that those who consorted with 
loose women, and who remained obdurate to warnings 
and reprehension, should be punished at the pleasure of 
the officials.* Thus we find Pius V., 26 January, 1567, 
granting to Archbishop Maximilian full power to correct 
the depraved morals of his canons, in spite of the 
customary oath which he had taken not to interfere with 
them. Pius further seized the opportunity to urge him 
and his suffragans to labour strenuously in the good cause, 

1 Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CLVII. Nos. 37-42. 

2 Chavard, Le C^libat des Prgtres, p. 401. 

3 Concil. Remens. ann. 1564, Stat. xvii. (Harduin. X. 477.) 

4 Concil. Camerac. ann. 1565, Ruhr. vill. c. 3. At this council, which was held 
in June 1565, the Council of Trent was formally adopted. As forming part of 
FlaTidre franqaise, 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. 


for the surest means of extirpating heresy was the reform 
of the clerical corruption that had occasioned it/ We 
may assume this to have stimulated the council held the 
same year to disregard clerical immunity by invoking the 
aid of the secular arm to remove the concubines of its 
clergy^ — a course again suggested as late as 1631.^ The 
terms in which Claude, Bishop of Evreux, at his synod of 
1576, announced his intention of taking steps to eject 
those who for the future should persist in their immor- 
ality show not only that such measures were even yet an 
innovation, but also indicate httle probability of their 
being successful.* The Council of Rheims, in 1583, while 
proclaiming that the Tridentine canons shall be enforced 
on all concubinary priests, manifests a reasonable doubt as 
to the amount of respect which they will receive in 
threatening that those who are contumacious shall be 
subdued by the secular arm.^ The Council of Tours, in 
the same year, deplores that the whole ecclesiastical body 
is regarded with aversion by the good and pious on 
account of the scandals perpetrated by a portion of them. 
To cure this evil, the residence of suspected women, even 
when connected by blood, is forbidden, as well as of the 
children acknowledged to be sprung from such unions, 
and various penalties are denounced against offenders.^ 
The Council of Bordeaux, in 1624, earnestly warns the 
clergy of the province not to allow their sisters and nieces 
to live in their houses, and especially not to sleep in the 
same room mth them ; ^ and various other synods held 
during the period repeated the well-known regulations on 

1 Pii V. Epistolar. Lib. quinque, Lib. I. Ep. ix. (Antverpae, 1640.) 

2 Concil. Camerac. ann. 1567 c. iii. (Hartzheim, VII. 216.) 

3 Synod. Camerac. ann. 1631 Tit. xviii. c. xiv. (Ibid. IX. 562.) 

4 Claudii Episc. Ebroicens. Statut. cap. III. § 1 (Migne's Patrol. Tom. 147, 
pp. 244-5). 

5 Concil. Kemens. ann. 1583 cap. xviii. § 5 (Harduin. X. 1293). 

6 Concil. Turon. ann. 1583 cap. xv. (Ibid. p. 1481.) 

7 Concil. Burdigalens. ann. 1624 cap. xiii. § 2 (Harduin. XL 96). 


the subject, which are only of interest as showing how 
httle they were respected.^ 

Avignon and the Constat Venaissin, the portion of 
modern France then belonging to the Holy See, were not 
neglected by the vigilance of Pius V. In 1569 we find 
him writing to the Cardinals of Bourbon and Armagnac, 
his legates in charge of the territory, and also to the 
individual bishops, urging them to reform the corrupt and 
depraved morals of clergy and laity, to which the growth 
of heresy was largely ascribable ; the clergy especially 
were to be looked after and be coerced with the full 
severity of the canons.^ The usual lack of success 
attended this, for a Council held in Avignon in 1594, 
declares that the numerous decrees relative to the morals 
and habits of the clergy are either forgotten or neglected, 
and then proceeds, as was customary, to forbid the residence 
of suspected women.^ 

No one, in fact, who is familiar with the popular 
literature of France during that period can avoid the 
conviction that the ecclesiastical body was hopelessly 
infected with the corruption which, emanating from the 
foulest court in Christendom, spread its contagion 
throughout the land. If Rabelais and Bonaventure des 
Periers reflect the depravity which was universal under 
Francis I., Brantome, Beroalde de Verville and Noel du 
Fail continue the record of infamy under Catherine de 
Medicis and her children.* The genealogy of sin is carried 

1 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.) 

2 Pii V. Epistolae. Lib. ill. Epist. xxi. 

3 Concil. Avenionens. ann. 1594, can, xxxii. (Harduin. X. 1854.) 

4 Du Fail, whose high official position in the Parlement of Kennes 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 Oontarini to Velly the French Ambassa- 
cor, " quaB mala attulit in ecclesia coelibatus ille I " It is true that such stories as 



on by Tallemant des R^aux, Bussy-Rabutin, and the 
crowd of memoir writers who flourished in the Augustan 
age of French Uterature. These show us how often the 
high places of the hierarchy were filled with men to whom 
the very name of virtue was a jest, and who could not be 
expected to enforce on their subjects the continence to 
which they themselves made no pretension. Yet it would 
be unjust not to keep in view also the lofty piety of such 
a prelate as Fenelon, or the austere virtue of Antoine 
Arnauld and his comrades of Port Royal. While the 
Jesuits and so-called moral theologians were smoothing 
the path of sin by the casuistry of Probabilism, there 
sprang up to resist them the Jansenistic Rigorism, which 
exercised wide influence on the side of godliness, in spite 
of unremitting persecution by the Holy See. 

It is evident from all this that the standard of ecclesias- 
tical morals had not been raised by the efforts of the 
Tridentine fathers, and yet a study of the records of 
church discipline shows that with the increasing decency 
and refinement of society during the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries the open and cynical manifestations 
of licence among the clergy became gradually rarer. It 
may well be doubted, nevertheless, whether their lives 
were in reality much purer. A few spasmodic efforts 
were made to enforce the Nicene canon, prohibiting the 
residence of women, but they were utterly fruitless, and 
were so recognised by all parties ; and the energies of the 
arch-priests and bishops were directed to regulating the 
character of the hand-maidens, who were admitted to be a 
necessary evil. The devices employed for this purpose 
were varied, and repeated with a frequency which shows 

•' Frater Fecisti " are not historical documents, yet they have their value as indi- 
cating 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 Plowman, Chaucer, Poggio, the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles, 
and all the other records of the interior life of the fourteenth, fifteenth and 
sixteenth centuries. 


their insufficiency ; and it would be scarce worth our 
while to do more than indicate some sources of reference 
for the curious student who may wish to follow up the 
reiteration which we have traced already through so many 
successive centuries.^ Among them, however, one new 
feature shows itself, which indicates the growing respect 
paid to the appearance of decency — complaints that con- 
cubines are kept under the guise of sisters and nieces. 

That the monastic orders had profited more than the 
secular clergy by the Tridentine reformation may well be 
doubted. Laurent de Peyrinnis, one of the heads of the 
Order of Minims, in 1668, issued a code of regulations in 
which he showed that scandal was more dreaded than sin 
when he promulgated an exemption from excommunica- 
tion in favour of those brethren who, when about to yield 

1 LePlat, 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. xviil. c.viii. (Ibid. 
I. 395.)— Synod. Dioeces. Mechlin, ann. 1607 Tit. xvii. c. vi. (Ibid. II. 237.)— 
Congregat. Archipresbyt. ann. 1613 (Ibid. II. 271). — Tertia Oongregat. Episc. ann. 
1624 (Ibid. I. 466).— Ibid. I. 514. 

Synod. Augustan, ann. 1567 P. in. c. ii. (Hartzheim VII. 182.) — Synod. Con- 
stant, 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., Ixii. (Ibid. X. 768-70.) — Synod. Brixiens. ann. 1603 De discip. cler. 
c. xvii. (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. Audo- 
mar. 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. ill. 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. in. cap. xix., xxv. (Aguirre 
V. 396, 405-6.)— Concil. Valentin, ann. 1565 Tit. ll. cap. xviii., xix. (Ibid. 425.)— 
Concil. Toletan. ann. 1582 Act. III. Decret. xxxv. (Ibid. VI. 12.)— Concil.' Tarra- 
conens. ann. 1591 Lib. I. Tit. viii.; Lib. III. Tit. ii. (Ibid. 256, 271-3.)— Synod. 
Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap. xxxiii. (Ibid. 456.) 


to the temptations of the flesh, or to commit theft, 
prudently laid aside the monastic habit. ^ Apparently 
this caution was exceptional for Chiericato deplores the 
constant scandal given by religious, who are not ashamed 
to be seen entering and leaving the houses of public 
prostitutes.^ Another celebrated jurist of the Order of 
Minims bears testimony to the demoralisation of his 
brethren when he declares that if the severe punishments 
provided for unchastity by the statues were enforced 
they would result in the destruction of all the religious 

That the awful sacrifice of the mass should be 
performed by a priest fresh from concubinary pollution, is 
a sacrilege, but even more to be dreaded would be the 
omission of the function which would reveal his weakness 
to his flock. For centuries the question has troubled the 
Church, and it has been forced to permit the sacrilege 
rather than to risk the exposure. The Council of Cambrai, 
indeed, devised a tolerably effective remedy, about the 
year 1300, when it ordered celebrants to confess daily to 
the episcopal penitentiaries,* but this was applicable only 
to the cathedral town and even there was too cumbrous 
to be enforced. Aquinas was more considerate to human 
frailty when he asserted that if the sinful priest could not 
confess before celebrating, he could qualify himself by 

1 Batio est quia tunc non dimittit habitum ut periculose vagetur, sed ut com- 
modius fornicetur, vel liberius furetur. — Apud. C. Chabot, Encyclopedie Monastique 
p. 2-t (Paris, 1827). 

2 Nihilominusfrequentissimumest, etsiiinobservataetiaminpeccatumcarnis . . . 
in Keligiosis qui non verentur ingredi domus publicarum meretricum et exire ex 
ipsis absque rubare, quamvis videantur ac observentur a' transeuntibus et ab aliis 
in eodem vico habitantibns, qui omnes gravissimum scandalum ultra peccatum carnis 
committunt et deturpant bonum nomen suae Ordinis. — Clericati de Virtute Poeniten- 
tiae Decisiones, p. 215 (Venetiis, 1706). 

3 Spatharius, Aurea Methodus corrigendi regulares, 1625, p. 57 — "atque mea 
sententia, in totalem ordinis ruinam et destructionem singularem religionum " 
(Apud Chabot. op. cit. p. 95). 

* Conoil. Camerac. ann. 1300-1310 (Hartzheim IV. 65). 


making a vow to confess/ The Council of Trent 
prescribes preliminary confession for a priest conscious of 
mortal sin, but this is not always easy, for confession is 
complicated with questions of jurisdiction and reserved 
sins, and it adds that if this is impossible, he must confess 
subsequently as soon as practicable.^ Jansenist rigour 
was too severe to permit this sacrilege, but even it had to 
provide for frailty and it offered the suggestion that the 
peccant ministrant should scratch his thumb with a knife, 
bind up his hand and proclaim himself incapacitated.^ 
The ordinary practice, however, with those who are 
scrupulous, seems to be to perform an act of contrition or 
to make a hasty confession in the sacristy before going to 
the altar.* 

In the New World the licentiousness of the priesthood, 
as might be expected, began to vex the infant church as 
soon as it was organised among the heathen. Little more 
than half a century had passed since the voyages of 
Columbus, when Oviedo, the first chronicler of the New 
World, speaks of the licentiousness of the clergy as 
inviting the destruction of the Spanish Colonies, even as 
the marriage of the Greek priests had been punished by 
their subjection under the Turks.^ The earliest synods 

1 S. Th. Aquinat. Summae Supplem. Q. VI. Art. 5. 

2 Concil. Trident. Sess. xiir. De Eucharistia, cap xiiii. 

3 De Charmes, Theol. Universal. Diss. v. cap. vl. Q. 5, § 3. 

4 Jo. Gersoni Regulae Morales. — Casus Conscientise Benedicti P.P. xiv., October 
1736 cas. 3. — Corella, Praxis Confessionalis. P. li. Tract, xii. cap. 1, n. 11. 

Miguel Albert alludes to a case in which a fornicating priest was convicted of 
heresy for not confessing before celebrating mass, and alleging that the virtue of 
the sacred vestments which he wore effaced all sins. — Repertor. Inquisitorum, s. v. 
Confessio (Valentise, 1494). 

See also a case decided in Rome, May 9, 1896, and reported in II Consulento 
Ecdesiastico, Vol. I., p. 165, and another decided 8 March, 1897, in which a priest 
committed incest with his sister, whom he had intoxicated for the purpose, and 
celebrated mass the next day in order not to lose a handsome fee (Ibid. Vol. II. 
p. 160). 

S. Alphonso Liguori (Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. n. 585) suggests a device for eluding 
the difficulty of reserved cases. 

5 Oviedo Valdes, Las Quinquagenas de la Nobleza de Espana, 1.383 (Madrid, 1880). 


and councils which were held contain the customary 
denunciations of concubinage and prohibitions for eccle- 
siastics to keep their children in their houses, to celebrate 
their baptisms and nuptials, and to be assisted by them in 
the ministry of the altar. Many, as we are informed by the 
first Council of Mexico, held in 1555, brought with them 
from Spain their concubines under the guise of relatives, i 
For the most part, however, they formed connections with 
the natives. 

In fact, the institution of slavery and the subject popu- 
lations among whom its ministers were scattered gave rise 
to fresh problems, which the Church sought perseveringly, 
but vainly, to solve. Thus, in New Grenada, before the 
conquest was fairly achieved. Bishop Barrios, of Santafe, 
held his first synod, in 1556, and there, after premising 
that the fruits of religion among the Indians depended 
upon the good example of their pastors, he proceeded to 
prohibit any priest stationed in an Indian town from 
having any Indian woman residing in his house ; his food 
was to be cooked by men, or, if this was impossible, his 
female servant must be a married woman, residing with 
her husband under another roof ^ — a provision repeated by 
the synod of Lima in 1585.^ A curious experiment in 
dealing with the troubles arising from slavery is seen in 
the Mexican canons, which directed that if an ecclesiastic 
had children by his slave, the ownership of the woman 
was to be transferred to the Church and the children were 
to be set free. It will be remembered (vol. i. p. 206) that 
in 1022 the Church insisted upon the continued servitude 

1 Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. Ivii. — 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 ecclesi- 
astical law. 

2 Constituciones Sinodales de Santafe, 1556 cap. iv. (Groot, Hist. Eccles. y Civil 
del Nuevo Reino de Granada, T. I. Append, ii. p. 497.) 

3 Synod Dioec. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xi., Ixvii. (Aguirre, VI. 193, 198.) 


of clerical bastards whose mothers were serfs of the Church ; 
and the contrast between this and the regulation which 
proclaimed the freedom of the children as a punishment 
inflicted upon the father is perhaps the sorriest exhibit that 
could be made of the character of those who were engaged 
in spreading the teachings of Christ among the heathen.^ 

AVhile there can be no doubt that much heroic self- 
devotion was shown in the efforts made to convert the 
new subjects of Spain, it is equally unquestionable that a 
majority of the ecclesiastics who sought the colonies were 
men of evil character. The councils held in the several 
provinces deplore the bad example which they set to their 
newly converted flocks, and the regulations which were 
issued time and again against their excesses show the 
impossibility of keeping them under control. In Peru, for 
instance, when in 1581 St. Toribio commenced the quarter 
of a century of labour as Archbishop which worthily won 
for him the canonisation accorded by Benedict XIII. in 
1726, two councils had already been held in Lima, one in 
1552 and the other in 1567, which had essayed a reforma- 
tion of morals. He, in turn, lost no time in summoning 
a provincial council, which assembled in 1583, the decrees 
of which, in their denunciation of all manner of vices, 
show how ineffectual the previous efforts had been. The 
clergy were not disposed to submit tamely to the new 
restraints which Toribio sought to impose, and, while the 
active resistance which some of them raised was subdued, 
the underhand management of others was so far successful 
that the royal assent to the proceedings of the Council 
was delayed till 1591.^ Notwithstanding the activity 
of Toribio, who, between 1583 and 1604, held three 
provincial councils and ten diocesan synods, who three 

1 Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. li. — Concil. Mexican. III. ann. 1585 Lib. v. 
Tit. X. § 8. 

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


times personally visited every portion of his vast arch- 
bishopric, and who repeatedly ordered his vicars to send 
secret reports of concubinary and dissolute priests, he was 
obliged, in the pro\dncial council of 1601, to content him- 
self with renewing the regulations of 1583, sorrowfully 
observing that they had recived scant obedience, and that 
consequently the corruption and abuses prevalent among 
the clergy deprived them of usefulness among their Indian 
parishioners.^ We can thus readily understand the grief 
with which the honest Fray Gerdnimo de Mendieta, a 
contemporary, after depicting the eager docility with which 
the natives at first welcomed Christianity, contrasts it with 
the hatred which sprang up for the very name of Christian 
when they realised the hopeless wretchedness of their 
position under their new taskmasters ; and the Fray does 
not conceal the fact that this was partly owing to the 
character of some of the clergy, while the better ones were 
disheartened and discharged their trusts mechanically, 
without expectation of accomplishing good.^ This con- 
dition of morals did not improve with time. In his 
official report of 1736, the Marques del Castel-Fuerte, 
Viceroy of Peru, remarks that the greater portion of those 
of Spanish blood born in the colonies embraced an eccle- 
siastical life, as offering an easier and more assured career 
than any other. Surrounded by their Indian subjects, the 
pastors Hved in luxury and licence, which their superiors 
did Uttle or nothing to check. In 1728 the civil power 
was ordered to make an investigation into the morals of 
the priesthood, and especially to designate those whose 
concubinage was open and notorious — an invasion of the 
sacred immunities of the Church which provoked a storm 
against the secular authorities, although only an exami- 

1 Synod Dioec. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xxxvi. — Synod. VIII. aun. 1594 
cap. XXXVI. — Concil. Provin. Limens. III. ann. 1601 Act. ii. Decret. iv. (Aguirre, 
VI. 197-8, 436, 479.) 

2 Mendieta, Historia Eccles. Indiana, Lib. iv. cap. xlvi. (Mexico, 1870.) 


nation was proposed, and there was no attempt to be 
made of conviction or punishment.^ There is therefore no 
reason to question the truthfulness of the description by 
Don Jorje Juan and Don Antonio de Ulloa, in an official 
report made about 1740, when they assert that the clergy 
of Peru, both secular and regular, live so licentiously and 
with such scandal and self-indulgence that, although all 
men have their weaknesses and human nature is fragile in 
Peru, yet it seems as though it were the special function 
of these ecclesiastics to exceed all the rest in the perverted 
habits of their disorderly lives — an assertion which the 
writers proceed to justify by abundant details of the 
most convincing character.^ 

That the monastic establishments shared in the general 
dissoluteness we may fairly conclude when we see the 
precautions which St. Toribio found necessary to preserve 
the purity of the spouses of Christ. Thus one regulation 
provides that no ecclesiastic shall visit a nun without a 
written permission, to be granted only by the Archbishop 
himself, or his Pro visor ; and so little confidence did he 
feel in the guardians whom he himself appointed, that he 
directs that the official visitors who inspected the nunneries 
should not enter them without some special and urgent 
reason.^ In fact, the report of Juan and Ulloa, declares 
that the regulars exceed the seculars in their disorders, 
which are so public and notorious as to fill one with 

1 Memorias de los Vireyes del Peru, Lima, 1659, T. III. pp. 63-70. 

2 Noticias secretas de America, Sacadas a Luz por Don David Barry, p. 490 
(London, 1826). 

Jaan and Ulloa were distinguished men of science, sent in 1735, to co-operate 
with a similar party from France in the measurement 'of an equatorial arc of the 
earth's surface. They carried instructions to make a confidential report on the 
resources, condition and administration of the colony, in fulfilment of which they 
traversed it from end to end. Their voluminous report lay hidden in the Spanish 
archives until unearthed and printed by Mr. Barry. 

3 Synod. Dicec. Limens. IIL ann. 1585 cap. xli. — V. ann. 1588 cap. ix. 
(AguirreVI. 198, 216.) 


A curious rule adopted by the first Council of Mexico 
in 1555 shows how much more scandal was dreaded than 
sin. In order, as it says, to avert danger and infamy from 
the clerical order and from married women, it prohibits 
the Fiscal, or prosecuting officer, from taking cognisance 
of cases of adultery committed by ecclesiastics, unless the 
husband be a consenting party, or the adulterer makes 
public boast of it, or the fact is so notorious that it cannot 
be passed over in silence ; and even when action thus is 
not to be avoided, in no case is the name of the woman to 
be mentioned in the proceedings. The Provisors, how- 
ever, are not forbidden to take notice of such crimes, but 
are allowed to settle them, if they can, with all due dis- 
cretion.^ As might be expected these regulations, by 
giving practical immunity, led to an increase in crime, 
and the third Council of Mexico in 1585 tells us that 
many of the clergy indulged in it, in preference to 
ordinary concubinage, in the confidence that they would 
not be prosecuted ; but the amended rule adopted by 
the Council to meet this trouble differs so little from 
its predecessors, that we may reasonably doubt whether it 
was followed by any diminution in the evil.^ And this, 
judging from Rivera's notes to his edition of 1859, is the 
existing state of ecclesiastical law in Mexico,^ although 
the Tridentine canon specially orders the Episcopal 
Ordinaries to proceed ex officio in all such cases, even of 

1 Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. Ixxxi. 

2 Concil. Mexican. III. ann. 1585 Lib. V. Tit. x. § 7. 

3 Notes 57 and 229, pp. 452, 549. 

4 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 



The Church of the post-Tridentine period was brought 
into the strongest competition with the Reform, which 
had carried away nearly half of Europe and was seriously 
threatening to secure the rest. The needs of the counter- 
Reformation rendered obligatory efforts at internal puri- 
fication, which had been superfluous during the ages of 
unquestioned theocracy, and there was no point in which 
this was more imperative than in the relations between the 
celibate priest and his spiritual daughters in the sacrament 
of penance. The power of the confessional, one of the 
most effective instrumentahties invented by the ingenuity 
of man for enslaving the human mind, was peculiarly hable 
to abuse in sexual matters. No one can be familiar with 
the hideous suggestiveness of the penitentials without 
recognising how frequent must be the temptations arising 
between confessor and penitent, while their respective 
relations render seduction comparatively easy, and un- 
speakably atrocious.^ To deprive such relations of danger 
requires the confessor to be gifted with rare purity and 
holiness, and when these functions were confided to men 
such as those who composed the sacerdotal body, as we 
have seen it throughout the Middle Ages, the result was 

The scandals of the confessional were no new source 

1 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. 


of tribulation to the Church and the people. No sooner 
had the early custom of public and lay confession tended 
to fall into the hands of the priesthood than it was found 
necessary to call attention to the dangers thence arising. 
The first Council of Toledo, in 398, forbids any familiarity 
between the virgins dedicated to God and their confessors.^ 
About the year 500, Symmachus calls attention to the 
spiritual affinity contracted between the confessor and his 
penitent, rendering the latter his daughter ; he alludes to 
Silvester as having denounced guilty relations between 
them, and proceeds to decree not only deposition in such 
cases, but life-long penitence.^ As sacerdotal confession 
gradually became customary, a decretal was forged — 
whether to give additional authority to the practice, or 
to impress upon the minds of confessors the necessity of 
prudence — by which the name of Celestin I. was used 
for a regulation confiscating all the possessions of the 
female delinquent and confining her in a monastery for 
life, while the seducer was warned that such sin with his 
spiritual daughter amounted to a grave case of adultery, 
for which he must be deposed and undergo penance for 
twelve years, provided, always, that the facts had become 
known to the people,^ thus indicating that scandal rather 
than sin was the danger most dreaded. 

It was inevitable that this trouble should continue, as 
we have seen it do throughout the whole history of a celi- 
bate priesthood.* So constantly was " solicitation " — 
solicitatio ad turpice, as it came to be technically called — 

1 Concil. I. Toletan. ann. 398 can. vi. For the gradual growth of confession 
and its conversion from public to auricular, see the author's *' History of Auricular 
Confession and Indulgences," 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1896. Confession to the priest 
was not made obligatory until the fourth Council of Lateran, in 1215-16. 

2 Gratian. Cans. xxx. q. i. can. 8. — Whether this decretal be authentic or not 
there is significance in Gratian's including it in his collection. 

3 Gratian. Cans. xxx. q. i. can. 9, 10. — Although long practically obsolete these 
canons are quoted, in 1611, as still in force by Jacobus and Graffiis, '* Decisionum 
aurearum casuum conscientijB," P. II. Lib. I, cap. vi. n. 53 (Venetiis, 1611). 

4 See Vol. I., passim, especially p. 435. 


borne in mind that the mediaeval canonists recognised that 
a parish priest known to be addicted to it forfeited his 
jurisdiction over his female penitents, who were at liberty 
to seek another confessor/ St. Bonaventura, indeed, 
declares that there are few parish priests free from this 
or from other defects that should incapacitate them.^ 
That it was the subject of frequent and indignant repre- 
hension on the part of those who sought to elevate and 
purify the church we may well believe. Calixtus II. 
freely assumes the perdition of the priest who thus betrays 
the sacred confidence reposed in him, denouncing him as 
a lion devouring sheep, as a bear attacking a traveller who 
has lost his way, as a fowler spreading lures for birds and 
attracting them with sweet sounds, while the woman he 
treats not as a partner in guilt, but as an unfortunate who 
finds destruction where she is seeking salvation.^ It is 
observable here that the fault is assumed to lie exclusively 
with the confessor, and such is likewise the case in the 
eloquent denunciations of Savonarola, who declares that 
the Italian cities are full of these wolves in sheep's cloth- 
ing, who are constantly seeking to entice the innocent 
into sin by all the arts for which their spiritual director- 
ship affords so much scope.* For this there was virtual 
immunity. Like all other sins it was made a source of 
profit to the curia, which offered absolution and a dispen- 
sation to hold benefices for the moderate price of thirty- 

1 S. Th. Aquinat, SummEe Supplem. Q. VIIT. art. 4. — Astesani Summae Lib. v. 
Tit. xiii. q. 2. — Summae Sylvestrina s.v. Confessor i. ss. 10-11. 

Guido de Monteroquer, however (Manipulus Curatorum, P. ii. cap. iii. art. 9), 
says that when snch a priest refuses to grant a licence to confess elsewhere, or there 
is no other priest accessible, the woman must confess to him, after prayer to God to 
resist his importunities. 

2 S. Bonaventura, Quaere Fratres Minores praedicant (Opusc. I. 405). 

3 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. 

* Perrens, Jerome Savonarola, p. 71. See also Cornelius Agrippa, De Vanitate 
Scientiar. c. Ixiv. 


six gros tournois} For those at a distance from Rome 
the local episcopal courts were equally lenient, if we may 
judge from the case of Alonso de Valdelamar, a priest of 
Almodovar, tried in 1535 by Bias Ortiz, vicar-general of 
the Archbishop of Toledo. The charges fully proved 
against him embraced the seduction of two of his female 
penitents and his refusal of absolution to a third unless 
she would surrender herself to him, besides a miscellaneous 
assortment of crimes — theft, blasphemy, cheating with 
bulls of indulgence, charging penitents for absolution and 
frequenting brothels. For all this he was sentenced to a 
fine of two ducats and the costs and fees of his trial, and 
to thirty days seclusion in the church to repent of his 
sins and fit himself for celebrating mass, after which he 
was free to resume his flagitious career.^ The regular 
Orders seem to have been equally benignant with their 
delinquents. In the Mexican case of Fray Juan de Valdana, 
guardian of the Franciscan convent of Suchipita, who 
made no secret of his affairs with his penitents, it was 
in evidence, on his trial by the Inquisition in 1583, that 
when remonstrated with, he asked what could his prelates 
do to him ? it was only a dozen strokes of the discipline 
and a year's suspension from his guardianship.* 

The Lutheran revolt, which found in the crime euphe- 
mistically termed Solicitation, a favourite point of attack, 
wrought a change in the view taken of it. The reforming 
Bishop of Verona, Matteo Ghiberti (died in 1543), decreed 
severe temporal punishments for all attempts on the virtue 
of female penitents, culminating in deprivation and per- 
petual imprisonment when the attempt was successful.* 
In his case this was doubtless prompted by sincere con- 

1 Taxes des Parties casuelles, p. 79 (Lyou, 1564). 

2 Archivo hist6rico nacional de Espana, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 233, 
n. 100. 

3 MSS. of David Fergusson, Esq. 

4 Salzedo, Practica criminalis canonica, p. 276 (Compluti, 1587). 


viction of the iniquity of the offence, but even those who 
thought Hghtly of it recognised that the time had passed 
for its condonation. Bernal Diaz de Lugo, in 1543, 
intimated that improper relations between confessor and 
penitent are not much worse than ordinary concubinage, 
but that when they become pubUcly known they should 
be visited with deprivation and imprisonment, seeing that 
notoriety tends to prevent men from allowing their wives 
and daughters to confess and exposes the sacrament of 
penitence to heretical assault/ In the same spirit, Arch- 
bishop Carranza of Toledo, in 1558, tells us that the enemy 
took full advantage of this weak spot in the line of defence.^ 
As the Council of Trent assumed that God would not 
deny the gift of chastity to a celibate priesthood, it could 
scarce refer to such a matter, even if the dread of scandal 
arising from any allusion to it had not imposed silence, 
and it adopted no provisions to lessen the evil. About 
that time, however, a preventive effort was commenced 
by the invention of the confessional. Hitherto the priest 
had heard confessions in the open, with the penitent at 
his knees or seated by his side, which gave ample oppor- 
tunity for temptation and solicitation. To remedy this 
the confessional was gradually evolved — a box in which 
the confessor sits while the penitent outside pours the 
tale of his sin through a grille, neither being visible to the 
other. The earliest allusion to such a contrivance that I 
have met occurs in a memorial to Charles V., by Siliceo, 
Archbishop of Toledo, in 1547.^ In 1565 a Council of 
Valencia ordered its use, especially for the confession of 
women, and between 1565 and 1575 S. Carlo Borromeo 
introduced it in his province of Milan, while the Roman 

1 Bern. Diaz de Luco, Practica criminalis canonica, cap. 75, 76 (Venetiis, 

2 Carrauza Commentarius sobre el Catechismo, Tercero Sacramento, cap. vii 

3 Burriel, Vida de los Arzobispus de Toledo (Biblioteca nacional de Espaila 
seccion de MSS. Ff. 194, fol. 9). 


Ritual of 1614 prescribes its employment in all churches.^ 
The command was obeyed but slackly, for the innovation 
had to win its way against the pronounced opposition of 
the priesthood, who objected to this seclusion from their 
penitents. In Spain we find the Inquisition, between 1710 
and 1720, busy in endeavouring to enforce the use of the 
confessional and, as late as 1781, it issued a decree to be 
printed and sent to all parish priests and superiors of 
convents who were to post it in their sacristies. In this 
it alludes to its previous repeated orders and its sorrow at 
the evils arising from their non-observance or from the 
devices used to elude them, of which it gives a curious 

A drawback to the advantages of the confessional was 
the opportunity which it afforded for laymen to ensconce 
themselves and hear confessions of women, whether from 
jealousy or to gratify prurient instincts, or because it 
enabled them to ask indecent questions. Such cases were 
not uncommon, and though the offenders were not liable 
to prosecution for solicitation, they were held subject to 
the Inquisition for suspicion of heresy. If the pretended 
confessor, however, ventured to administer absolution he 
came under the savage decrees of Paul IV., Gregory XIII., 
and Urban VIII., which prescribed burning alive for such 
sacrilege, although in Spain the Inquisition humanely 
modified this to service in the galleys.^ 

Mechanical devices, however, went but a little way 
to cure an evil so widespread and so persistent. If the 

1 Concil. Valentin, ann, 1565, Tit. II. cap. vii. (Aguirre V. 417.)— C. Mediolanens 
I. ann. 1565 P. i. cap. vi. (Harduin. X. 653.)— C. Provin. Mediolanens IV. ann. 1576 
(Acta Eccles. Mediolanens, I. 146). — Rituale Roman. Tit. iii. cap. i. 

2 Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 39, Legajo 4, fol. 34, 55, 81. — Archive 
historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 9, n. 2, fol. 236 ; Cartas del 
Consejo, Legajo 16, n. 6, fol. 9. 

3 Cozza, Dubia selecta circa Solicitationem, Dub. xxxviil. (Lovanii, 1760.) — 
Trimarchi de Confessore abutente Sacram. Poenitentiae, Tract, unicus, p. 147 
(Genuoe, 1636).— Bullar, Roman. XL 415; III. 142; IV. 144.— Archive historico 
nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 299, fol. 80. 


mouths of mocking heretics were to be closed, some 
efficacious method must be found for the discovery and 
punishment of offenders. Yet this was surrounded with 
difficulties. The crime was secret and known only to the 
confessor and penitent, and the latter, whether she yielded 
or not, was deterred from volunteering a complaint by the 
notoriety which accompanied it, compromising her with 
husband or father, to say nothing of the dangerous 
enmity which she would excite. Strictly speaking, such 
matters were not covered by the seal of the confessional, 
but she could scarce know this in the face of assertions 
freely made to the contrary.^ The spiritual courts, more- 
over, which held exclusive jurisdiction, were not, as we 
have seen, disposed to treat the offender harshly, and a 
not unnatural esprit de corps would lead them to reject 
accusations which could not be supported by witnesses 
and were so easily discredited. Then, beyond all else, 
was the ever-present dread of scandal to be aroused 
through the publicity of open trials, with the consequence 
of rendering confession odious and of affording comfort to 
the heretic. Thus the crime, although pecuHarly heinous, 
was almost assured of impunity. 

Yet there was in Spain a tribunal which, by its 
impenetrable secrecy, could avert scandal and by its 
special procedure could hope to procure convictions. 
This was the Inquisition, and, though its Apostolic 
jurisdiction was confined to heresy, yet heresy was an 
elastic term which, like charity, could be made to cover 
a multitude of sins. Pedro Guerrero, the reforming 
Archbishop of Granada, chanced to represent to Paul IV. 
the frequency of the crime and the necessity of some more 
efficacious means of repression.^ Whether or not he 
directly suggested the interpellation of the Inquisition 

1 Rodriguez, Nuova Somma de' Casi de Coscienza, P. i. cap. 53. 

2 Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 939, fol. 374. 


does not appear, but Paul resolved on tentatively trying 
the experiment, and, on 18 February, 1559, he ad- 
dressed to the Inquisitors of Granada a brief in which 
he assumed that confessors who could so abuse their 
functions must hold unorthodox views as to the sacrament 
of penitence, rendering them suspect of heresy and sub- 
jecting them to the Holy Office. The inquisitors were 
thus authorised to prosecute such offenders and punish 
them at discretion, even to " relaying " them to the secular 
area for burning. As the case was heretical, the exemp- 
tions of the Regular Orders were withdrawn, and they 
were subjected to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.^ 

We have no records to inform us what was the result 
of this in Granada, but presumably it sufficed to indicate 
the extent of the evil and the increased efficacy of the new 
method for its discovery and punishment. Accordingly, 
Pius IV., by a bull of 14 April, 1561, addressed to Valdes, 
the inquisitor-general, empowered the Inquisition, through- 
out the Spanish dominions, to investigate and punish all 
confessors who solicited women in the act of confession, 
even to the extent of degrading and relaying them to the 
secular arm for punishment at its discretion. As before, 
all exemptions of the monastic Orders were withdrawn.^ 

The Inquisition was nothing loath to exercise this new 
power, and, to render it effisctive, in the next annual 

1 Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Libro III. fol. 322 (Archivo hist, nacional). 
The theologians did not find it easy to explain the " suspicion of heresy " inferred 

in solicitation, and constructed various theories to elucidate it. — Alberghirri, 
Manuale Qualificatorum, cap. xxxi. § 2, n. 1. 

How nebulous was the subject appears from the fact that, as we shall see, in 
Italy the suspicion was held to be " vehement," and in Spain to be " light " — a dis- 
tinction of importance in inquisitorial procedure, as the former entailed relaxation, 
or burning, in case of relapse. 

2 Pii PP. IV. Bull. Cum sicut nuper (Bullar. Eoman. II. 48). 

The definition of the crime in this bull, on which a good deal subsequently 
hinged, was rather vague. It alludes to the priests who "sacramento pcenitentiae in 
actu audiendi coufessiones abutantur," and describes their offence " mulieres 
videlicet poenitentes ad actus inhonestos dum earum audiunt conf essiones, alliciendo 
et provocando seu allicere et provocare tentando." 


publication of what was known as the Edict of Faith, 
soHcitation was included among the offences which every 
one having knowledge was required to denounce to the 
Holy Office.^ As this edict was solemnly pubhshed in 
the churches on a feast-day, at which the whole population 
was summoned to attend, it was a most effective means of 
acquainting the people with the new legislation and of 
inviting information from every source. Naturally it 
produced a sensation, although this has been absurdly 
exaggerated by hostile writers." This bold abandonment 
of the traditional policy of the Church to cover such 
offences with the deepest silence evoked opposition which 
finds expression in a memorial presented to the Inquisition. 
This commences by deploring the crime which converts 
the sacrament into a snare for the ruin of souls ; but, evil 
as is this, the evils of publicity are greater. The crime 
has always existed, for men are men and women are 
women, but the Church has never before attempted so 
novel a cure. It has always been the policy to conceal 
the offences of the clergy and not to risk the diminution 
of the reverence due to them. Scandal is the very thing 
to be avoided ; the authority of the priesthood depends 
upon popular estimation, which should not be imperilled. 
To proclaim to the world that the confessional is thus 
abused is to deter people from seeking it ; fathers and 
husbands will prevent their women from confessing, respect 
for the sacrament will be destroyed and Christianity will 
be overthrown. Besides, it is usually the women who are 

1 Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 939, fol. 107. 

2 Gonzdlez de Montes relates that when the edict was published in Seville in 
1563. it brought to the Inquisition such a crowd of accusing women that twenty 
secretaries were unable to take down the depositions within the allotted term of 
thirty days, and the time had to be exteoded to four months, causing finally so great 
a popular ferment, and implicating so large a portion of the clergy, that the attempt 
had to be abandoned. — Reg. Gonsalvii Montani, Inquisitionis Hispan. Artes aliquot 
detectas, pp. 184 sqq. (Heidelbergae, 1567.) 

See also Cipriano de Valera's account of the trouble in Seville.— Los dosTratados, 
p. 271 (Reformistas antiques Espanoles;. 


the tempters, and, when their advances are repelled, they 
will bring false charges to ruin the innocent. Moreover, 
the comfort is to be considered which it will bring to the 
heretics, justifying their slanders on the morals of priests 
and friars. Altogether the document, which is not without 
learning, is a barefaced admission that morals and religion 
have nothing in common, and that the salvation of souls 
is of small account in comparison with the material 
interests of the Church.^ 

It is easy to conceive how pressure of this kind in- 
creased ; the Inquisition in time yielded, and, on 22 May, 
1571, it instructed the tribunals that solicitation was no 
longer to be included in the edict, on account of the evils 
which it caused. The inquisitors were told to devise such 
other means as they could and to notify prelates to instruct 
confessors that, when penitents confessed to having been 
sohcited, they must be admonished to denounce the 
offenders to the Holy Office. The result of this was not 
satisfactory after a few years' trial, and, on 2 March, 1576, 
an edict to be published in future was sent to the tribunals 
containing the crime of sohcitation. The reason given is 
its great increase, and the inquisitors are taken to task for 
not acting upon the denunciations which they received.^ 
This remained the settled policy of the Inquisition, and 
all who knew, directly or indirectly, of such cases, were 
required to denounce them under pain of major excom- 

The chief sufferers under this new dispensation were 
the Regular Orders, for not only was the business of con- 
fession largely in their hands, but the temptation to abuse 
it was greater than among the secular clergy who had 
fuller opportunities for less dangerous indulgence. The 
Inquisition moreover was resolute in enforcing its jurisdic- 

1 Biblioteca nacional de Espana, Seccion de MSS. S. 294, fol. 216. 

2 Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 16. 


tion over them and, when two Jesuit fathers, Sebastian 
Briviesca and Cristobal Trugillo, who were guilty of the 
offence, were quietly conveyed out of Spain, it prosecuted 
and imprisoned, in 1587, Francisco Marcen, the Provincial 
of Castile, with fathers Francisco Labata and Juan LcSpez, 
for infraction of the edict commanding all cases to be 
reported to it/ Jesuit influence was powerful in Rome ; 
Sixtus V. promptly evoked their cases to himself and, 
when the Inquisition demurred, he threatened Inquisi- 
tor-general Quiroga with deprivation of his office and 
cardinalate, which brought submission to his mandate.^ 
Encouraged by this, the Jesuits laboured strenuously to 
obtain exemption for all the religious Orders, but the 
whole influence of Spain was brought to bear and, after a 
prolonged struggle, the Congregation of the Universal 
Inquisition, in the presence of Clement VIII, issued a 
decree, 3 December, 1692, declaring that the jurisdiction 
of the Spanish Inquisition was exclusive and that the 
superiors of the regulars could not exercise it. This was 
confirmed, in 1605, by Paul V. in a general constitution, re- 
voking the jurisdiction of superiors in all cases pertaining to 
the Inquisition, and the question was permanently settled.^ 

Although Portugal had been added to the Spanish 
crown in 1580, the separate organisation of its Inquisition 
had been preserved and it was not until 1608 that Paul V. 
extended to it jurisdiction over solicitation in the same 
terms as those granted to the Spanish tribunals.* That 
the Roman Inquisition should exercise the same power 
may be assumed as a matter of course. 

In all these decrees the definition of the crime, as we 
have seen, was so loosely phrased that there was little 

1 Vatican Library, MSS. Ottobonian. Lat. 495. 

2 Archivo de Simancas, Graein y Justicia, Inquisicion, Legajo 621, fol. 139. 

3 Bulario de la Ordui de Santiago, Lib. iv. fol. 109, 111.— Archivo de Alcald de 
Herrares, Hacienda, Legajo 1049. 

4 Pauli PP. V. Bull. Cum sicut nu;per, 16 September, 1648 (Trimarchi, op. 
cit. p. 7). 


difficulty in evading the letter of the law, for in practice it 
was construed that technical solicitation was confined to 
women and that it must be committed during the very 
act of confession. As early as 1577 the Supreme Council 
of the Spanish Inquisition ruled that there was no penalty 
for soliciting penitents in the place assigned for confession 
if there was no confession, and soon afterwards that, if the 
confessor told the penitent that he did not wish to confess 
her, he was not to be prosecuted for soliciting her.^ All 
this opened the door to so many evasions that the effective- 
ness of the bulls was seriously crippled. The churches 
were for the most part deserted, the attitude of penitent 
and confessor would disarm the suspicion of any one who 
chanced to observe them and amorous endearments and 
even incredible indecencies might easily be indulged 
in so long as there was no actual sacramental confession, 
as is shown by frequent and flagrant details in the trials. 
The Roman Inquisition sought to check these abuses by 
subjecting them to the Holy Office, in decrees of 10 July, 
1614 and 6 February, 1619,^ but these decrees seem not to 
have been accepted in Spain, for de Sausa, in 1623, repeats 
the assertion that there must be actual confession and that 
the opposite opinion is destitute of all probability. In 
this he is supported by an experienced inquisitor, about 
the same time, who says that when there is an assignation 
and only an external appearance of confession there is no 
sacrament and therefore no sacrilege.^ 

1 Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 16. — MSS. of National 
Library of Lima, Protocol© 223, Expediente 5270. — "Confesores que con intento de 
solicitar d sur bijas de confesion dicen que no las quieren confesar, se puide dejar de 
proceder contra ellas." 

2 Tremarchi, op, cit. pp. 10, 11. 

3 Ant. de Sousa, Opusculum circa Constit. PauliV, Tit. 1, cap. 19 (Ulyssip. 1623). 
Biblioteca nacional de Espaiia, Seccion di MSS. B. 159, fol. 159. 

The Roman Inquisition, by decree of 24 November, 1612, extended the operation 
of the bulls to the solicitation of males, which was accepted in Spain and announced* 
to the tribunals, 8 May, 1613. — Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, 
fol. 16. 


Another and even more dangerous evasion was evolved 
from the words of the bills, implying that solicitation must 
be in the act of confession. Probabilism and casuistry were 
developing rapidly and ingenious moralists were busy in 
demonstrating how all the sanctions of the moral law 
could be eluded. It was explained that if the confessor 
should make his advances before confession actually com- 
menced, or wait until after it was concluded and absolution 
given, there would be no irreverence to the sacrament and 
consequently no suspicion of heresy for the Inquisition to 
punish. By no means all authorities assented to this, but 
it was defended by enough to render it probable and con- 
sequently safe in practice.^ Then the question as to what 
acts and words amounted to solicitation opened a wide 
field for the dialectics of the casuists. The rule that what- 
ever a priest does is to be interpreted favourably — that if 
he embraces a woman it is to be held that he is blessing 
her — was invoked to prove that winks and nods and 
praises of her beauty were not to be regarded as tempting 
her to evil. The more rigid moralists asserted that such 
acts were foreign to the sacrament and could only be con- 
strued as opening the way to further advances, while 
others held that unless the acts amounted to mortal sin 
they did not come within the papal bulls — that to tell the 
penitent that she was pretty and cultivate her friendship 
so as to be invited to her house might be imprudent but 
was not a mortal sin.^ There was another question on 
which opinions were divided — whether a priest acting in 
the confessional as a pimp for the benefit of another, or 
urging the penitent to serve as a procuress for him, came 
under the definitions of the bulls. ^ 

1 Biblioteca nacional de Espana, ubi sup. — Henriquez, Summa Theol. Moral. 
Lib. VI. cap. xvii. n. 42 (Venetiis, 1600).— Kod. a Cunha, pro SS. PP. Pauli V, 
Statuto, Q. 5 (Benavente, 1611).— Ant. de Sousa, op. cit. Tract, i. cap. xviii. — Tri- 
marchi, op. cit. p. 83.— Paranio de Grig. Officii S. Inquisit. p. 878 (Matriti, 1598). 

2 Rod. d Cunha, op. cit. Q. vii. — Ant. de Sousa, op. cit. Tract, i. cap. i. 

3 Rod. d Cunha, Q. xvii.— Ant. de Sousa, Tract. I. cap. 14.— The bull of 1622 


It was evident that papal utterances of a more defi- 
nite character were requisite if the efforts to suppress the 
crime were to have a measure of success and, in 1622, 
Gregory XV. attempted this in the comprehensive bull 
Universi Dominici Gregis, He not only confirmed the 
acts of his predecessors but extended their provisions over 
all the lands of the Roman obedience, constituting not 
only inquisitors but also episcopal Officials as special judges 
over all the clergy, including the exempted religious 
Orders, with exclusive jurisdiction, and full power to 
inflict punishment, even to degradation and relaxation to 
the secular arm. Moreover he sought to meet all the 
evasions by defining that solicitation, whether for the 
priest himself or for another, could occur either before or 
after confession, and when there was a pretext of it, 
provided it was in a place where confessions were heard, 
and he included ilhcit and indecent talk and acts within 
the definition.^ 

The success of this well-intended measure scarce 
corresponded with its merits. At first Spain would have 
none of it. The Inquisition was exceedingly sensitive as 
to its exclusiveness of jurisdiction and the terms of the 
bull appeared to restore to the episcopal courts a cumula- 
tive cognisance of solicitation. By some means the 
Ordinary of Seville obtained a copy and showed it to the 
inquisitors. The Supreme Council of the Inquisition took 

decided that acting as a priest was technically solicitation. As it said nothing about 
using the penitent as a procuress — which we are told was a more frequent practice 
— there were doctors who held that it did not subject the confessor to prosecution. 
Jo. Sanchez, Disputationes Selectae, Disp. XI. n. 3, 4 (Lngduni, 1636) — Trimarchi, 
op. cit. pp. 53, 55. 

1 Bullar. Koman. III. 484. — "Qui personas, qusecumque illae sint, ad inhonesta, 
sive inter se sive cum aliis, quomodolibet perpetranda, in actu sacraraentalis confes- 
sionis, sive ante vel post immediate, seu occasione vel prstextu confessionis hujus- 
modi, etiam ipsa confessione non sequuta, sive extra occasionem confessionis in 
confessionario, aut in loco quocunque ubi confessionis sacramentales audiantur. seu 
ad confessionem audiendam electo, simulantes ibidem confessiones audire, solicitare 
vel provocare tentaverint, aut cum eis illicitas et inhouestas sermones sive tractatus 


alarm and promptly addressed a memorial to Philip IV., 
14 January, 1623, dwelling eloquently upon the heinous- 
ness and frequency of the crime, the energy and vigour of 
the Inquisition in repressing it and the disastrous conse- 
quences of granting concurrent jurisdiction to the bishops. 
Confessors would be much emboldened in their evil 
courses by the comparative leniency of the episcopal 
courts ; the secrecy which kept a knowledge of these 
affairs from husbands and kinsmen would be destroyed, 
and, if the two complainants necessary for a trial should 
apply, one to the bishop and the other to the Inquisition, 
the culprit would escape. The King was therefore asked 
to obtain the exemption of Spain from the operation of the 
bull, which was speedily arranged. Then, after some 
delay, in 1629, the Supreme Council sent copies of the 
bull to the tribunals as a guide in practice. There was 
some trouble with bishops who revendicated jurisdiction 
under it, but the Inquisition boldly asserted that it had a 
special brief conferring exclusive jurisdiction, though this 
it could never exhibit, and it finally made good its claim. ^ 
Elsewhere, the bull had a still more inhospitable 
reception. It was not accepted or published in either 
France or Germany. In France the assemblies of the 
clergy refused to receive it, declaring that it was unsuited 
to the customs of the country and that it tended to violate 
the seal of the confessional. It was even asserted to prove 
the fallibility of the Holy See, and an attempt to publish 
it, early in the eighteenth century, was suppressed.^ 

1 Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 940, fol. 212 ; Legajo 1465, fol. 16 ; 
Gracia y Justicia, Inquisicion, Legajo 621, fol. 27. — Archivo historico nacional, In- 
quisicion de Valencia, Legajo 1, n. 6, fol. 274, 393 ; Libro 7 de Autos, Legajo 2, fol. 
114. — Biblioteca nacional, Seccion de MSS. D. 118, p. 148. 

2 Pontas, Dictionnaire de Gas de Conscience, I. 864 (Paris, 1741).— Lochou, Traite 
du Secret de la Confession, pp. 135, 144 (Brusselle, 1708).— Lenglet Du Fresnoy, 
Traite du Secret invoilable de la Confession, pp. 283, 304-20. 

In France, solicitation was a cas royal, cognisable by the secular courts. A 
spiritual director of a convent convicted of it was hanged and burnt in the Place 
Maubert, 23 June, 1673. — Du Fresnoy, loc. cit. 


Germany was either indifferent or opposed. In 1666, 
Father Gobat states that the Papal decrees have not been 
commented upon by German morahsts, either because 
they have not been received there and there is no expecta- 
tion that they will be, or because the German women 
cannot be expected to trouble with their complaints such 
exalted personages as bishops and vicars-general, and he 
adds that he can name a number of vicars-general who 
have never received such a denunciation, save one, in a 
single instance.^ Yet this absence of complaint was not 
due to the superior morality of the German priesthood. 
In 1733, Dr. Amort tells us 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 one of 
their own Order, unless she would permit him to denounce 
the offender, an example which Amort wishes were 
followed elsewhere, as it would be very useful in repressing 
many scandals which afflict the German Church.^ As 
the Roman Inquisition, in 1633, had ordered all superiors 
of rehgious houses, under pain of deprivation of office and 
of active and passive voice, to assemble the brethren once 
a year and admonish them as to the observance of the 
bulls, this shows how completely they had been ignored.^ 
When Gregory included illicit and indecent acts and 
words in his definition of solicitation, he merely opened a 
field of unlimited debate. Every moralist had his own 
standard, from the extreme of rigorism to the most 
abandoned laxity. Thus already, in 1635, there was a 
discussion whether handing a love-letter to a penitent in 
the confessional came under the definition ; if it was to be 

1 Gobat, Alphabetum Confessariorum, n. 576-77. 

2 Amort, Diet. Selectt. Casuum Conscientise, I. 704-5 (Aug. Vindel. 1733). — See 
Reusch (Beitrage zur Geschichte des Jesuitenordens, p. 236, Miinchen, 1894) for 
scandals recorded in the memoranda of a Jesuit visitor in South Germany. 

3 Trimanchi, op. cit. p. 17. 


read on the spot, it was generally so considered ; if to be 
read subsequently, the stricter theologians condemned it, 
while others argued that the woman had been absolved 
and reconciled to God, so that the sacrament was out of 
the way. It was not until 1665 that Alexander VII. 
condemned the proposition that love-letters could be thus 
given without incurring the penalties of solicitation.^ It 
was a received rule among moralists that parvitas mater ice 
— or the trifling character of an offence such as theft — 
reduced mortal sins to venial, but it was likewise agreed 
that there was no parvitas mateiice in usury or lust. 
Whether there was in solicitation was a disputed point 
until, in 1661, the Roman Inquisition decided in the 
negative. Still this settled little, for at the same time it 
decided that praising the beauty of a penitent or giving 
her a present might be solicitation or not according to 
intention.^ Thus the question of intention threw every- 
thing in doubt and justifies Bodonus in applying it to 
such utterances as " Remember me, for I love you," " If I 
were a layman I would marry you," " Wait for me at 
home, for I have to speak with you about a matter of 
importance," and even advising a penitent to kill her 
husband, none of which justify denunciation for they may 
be innocent.^ In 1741, Benedict XIV. endeavoured, in 
the bull Sacramentum Poenitentice, to define the indefinable 
more accurately, but he could do little more than copy 
Gregory XV.* Subsequently to this, St. Alphonso de 

1 Trimanchi, op. cit. pp. 48-50. — Bullar. Roman. T. VI. Append, p. 1. 

2 Berardi de Sollicitatione, p. 5 (Faventiae, 1897). 

3 Bodoni Sacrum Tribunal Judicum, cap. xxiii. n. 53-4, 60, 61 (Romae, 1648) ; 
Ejusdem Manuale Consultorum, Sect. xxv. n. 91 (Romae, 1693). 

There were even doctors who held that a priest confessing a rich woman and 
taking advantage of her falling into stupor or delirium was not liable to denuncia- 
tion, for in that condition she was no longer his penitent, and the papal bulls 
were directed not against fornicating priests, but soliciting confessors. Berardi, 
however, assures us (pp. 36-7) that the weight of authority is against this line of 

4 Bullar, Benedicti XIV. I. 23. 


Liguori, the most authoritative moralist of modern times, 
incHnes to the laxist view — not wholly, but in many of the 
debatable cases. He follows the laxist system in constru- 
ing strictly the words of the papal decrees and limiting 
them to the letter, not developing their spirit. The effort 
to subject the crime to the Inquisition, since all other 
jurisdictions had failed to curb it, rendered necessary the 
figment of suspicion of heresy arising out of flagrant con- 
tempt for the sacrament. Thus, even in lands where there 
was no Inquisition and since the Inquisition has been 
abolished, the sacrament came to be the one thing vital ; 
the relation between confessor and penitent and the 
morals involved were lost to sight. Any vileness might 
be committed unless it could be proved that the sacrament 
was made the direct instrument of seduction. This is 
Liguori's guide, and the only difference between him and 
the extreme laxists is that he sometimes brushes aside the 
flimsy casuistry by which they sought to justify the 
unjustifiable.^ All this discussion is not merely academic ; 
it is of the utmost practical importance in guiding the 
confessor in granting or refusing absolution to a woman 
who has been solicited, if she declines to denounce the 
offender, and the net result is to prove that solicitation is 
a purely technical offence, which has nothing to do with 

Another source of perplexity in this matter, arising 
from the indispensable confidences of the confessional, 
is the difficulty of determining the limits of indecency 

1 S. Alph. de Ligorio Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. n. 676-91. 

It is true thatBerardi (op. cit. pp. 21-5) controverts Liguori's tendency to laxity, 
but nevertheless he remains the chief authority relied upon by the congregation of 
the Inquisition. Thus, in answer to a request for a definition as to the degree of 
guilt which would bring a confessor absolving his partner in guilt under the consti- 
tutions of Benedict XIV., it replied, 15 September, 1859, to consult approved authors 
and especially Liguori (II Consulenti ecclesiastico, IV. 19, Romse, 1899). In fact, 
his canonisation and elevation to the dignity of a Doctor of the Church imply that 
his writings have been closely scrutinised and found to be flawless. 


permissible to a confessor with his penitent, so long as he 
abstains fi'om positive acts about which there can be no 
doubt. Suggestive questions and ribald talk might be 
merely for the delectation which the moraHsts tell us holy 
men experience in discussing these matters, or they might 
be for the purpose of insidiously inflaming the passions 
and corrupting a prospective victim, or again they might 
come within the scope allowed to the confessor of 
acquainting himself accurately with the spiritual and 
moral condition of the penitent. Where the line is to be 
drawn is incapable of practical definition. It is for the 
confessor to decide how far his conscience or his brutality 
may lead him, and, if the penitent complains, each case 
has to be settled on its own merits. This was not always 
by any means easy. In 1786 a nun of the Convent of 
Santa Clara of Jativa complained of Fray Vicente 
Gonzalez, and reported a number of irregularly indecent 
and wholly irrelevant questions which he repeatedly put 
to her in confession. Under the advice of the definitor of 
his Order, she empowered him to denounce Gonzalez to 
the Inquisition, whereupon the ordinary confessor of the 
Council intervened and persuaded the definitor to write a 
letter withdrawing the charges. The licence which some 
confessors permitted to themselves was shown in the case 
of Fray Vicente Sarria, in 1773, in which his interrogations 
were brutally indecent and completely superfluous, and 
in that of Maestro Diego de Agumanes, in 1742, who used 
to discourse at length, with a young nun, on sexual 
matters in a manner most provocative of passion.^ In 
fact, the details of some of these trials would be incredible 
if they were not matters of judicial record, with every 
evidence of authenticity, and it is difficult to estimate the 

1 Archivo historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 365, n. 46, fol. 26, 
31 ; Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 227, n. 7. 

That this sort of instruction in the confessional was not unknown in Italy may 
be gathered from Cardinal Cozza's Dubia selecta, Dub. 30. 


filthy contagion which such men spread in the confes- 

Gregory XV., in his bull of 1622, endeavoured to 
overcome the greatest obstacle to the punishment of 
offenders — the difficulty of inducing solicited penitents to 
denounce their seducers. It was the only mode by which 
the crime could be known, while the reluctance of the 
woman was almost insuperable. In Spain, as we have 
seen, the Inquisition sought to accomplish this by the 
Edict of Faith, excommunicating those who failed to do 
so, and by ordering confessors to admonish their penitents 
as to their duty, when, as sometimes happened, the woman 
would include her sin in making another confession. 
There were authorities who denied that she was under 
this obligation, arguing that no one is obliged to denounce 
an accomplice when it may involve his own infamy,^ and 
it required the severest pressure to compel performance. 
Gregory essayed this in a clause ordering all confessors, 
who learn that a penitent has been solicited, to admonish 
her to denounce the culprit ; any who should neglect this 
or teach their penitents that soliciting confessors were not 
to be denounced, were to be duly punished by the 
inquisitors or ordinaries. The Spanish Inquisition, accord- 
ingly, in 1629, granted faculties to inquisitors to punish 
all confessors who taught such erroneous doctrine,^ and 
Urban VIII. issued an encyclical ordering that when 
episcopal approbations were issued to confessors, they 
should be instructed to require denunciation by all peni- 
tents who had been solicited.^ It illustrates the inde- 
pendence of the Gallican Church that it flatly contradicted 
these papal utterances. In 1707, with the support of the 
Faculty of Douai, the Sorbonne pronounced it to be a 

1 Biblioteca nacional, Seccion de MSS. B. |159, fol. 161. — Sayri Clavis Regio 
Sacerd., Lib. xil. cap. xiv. n. 26, 32. 

2 Archive historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 1, Libro 6, fol. 274. 

3 Summa Diana, s.v. Denuntiare, n. 9. 


mortal sin for a confessor to oblige a penitent to denounce 
a priest who had seduced her in the confessional.^ 

In Spain, the woman who failed to denounce incurred 
excommunication, and consequently was incapable of 
absolution until she did so, a rule enforced there as early 
as 1571, and at a later period elsewhere.^ That it proved 
effective to some extent is seen in the fact that a large 
portion of the cases tried by the Spanish Inquisition 
derived from it their origin. Even the Edict of Faith 
was less productive in overcoming the deep-seated repug- 
nance of women to expose their weakness, but, at some 
time or other, in making a general confession, they would 
chance to mention a slip of this kind, when denial of 
absolution would compel them to act. Yet that at best 
this was uncertain, is shown by the long interval which 
frequently occurred between the crime and its denuncia- 
tion — in some cases twelve, fifteen, and even eighteen 

It was doubtless with the object of overcoming the 
repugnance of women to expose their shame that the 
Roman Inquisition, by a decree of 25 July, 1624, ordered 
that neither the penitent nor the confessor was to be 
questioned as to her consent, and that, if either of them 
volunteered the information, it was not to be entered on 
the record.* The casuists, indeed, agreed that the woman, 
if interrogated, could deny, using the mental reservation 
that she had not so consented as to reveal it to the 
examiner.^ Be this as it may, the wholesome rule of the 
Roman Inquisition was long in winning its way in Spain, 
where the reports of the trials show that the unfortunate 
witness was spared nothing. Indeed, as late as 1750, 

1 Lochon, Traite du Secret de la Confession, pp. 197 sqq. 

2 Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 939, fol. 107. — Trimarchi, op. cit. pp. 
95, 100, 104. 

3 Archive historico nacienal, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 365, fel. 10, 18, 35. 

4 Cozza Dubia selecta, Dub. xiv. 

5 Trimarchi, op. cit. p. 119. 


instructions to commissioners appointed to take deposi- 
tions in these cases require them to ascertain and record 
all details with the utmost minuteness, no matter how 
obscene they may be.^ Towards the close of its career, 
however, the Spanish Inquisition learned mercy, and 
instructions issued in 1816 require the examiner to warn 
the witness that she is not required to state whether she 
consented, and if she says that she did so, it is to be 
omitted from the record. It is likely, however, that this 
received scant respect, for, in 1819, the Supreme Council, 
in ordering the arrest of Fray Juan Montes, feels it 
necessary to call special attention to the rule.^ 

There was one thing which greatly reduced the pres- 
sure on the consciences of women, thus seduced, to 
denounce the delinquents — the habitual practice of the 
latter in granting them absolution for the sin committed. 
This destroyed the sin so effectually that it no longer 
counted before God or man ; it need not be recited in any 
subsequent confession, and it could be denied without sin 
for it no longer existed.^ This was an old custom both 
with the concubinary priesthood and soliciting confessors, 
and, though it was deprecated by the schoolmen, the 
absolution was universally conceded to be valid as, indeed, 
it necessarily must be under the doctrine that the sacra- 
ments are not vitiated in polluted hands.* In every way 
the practice was scandalous and demoralising ; it gave the 
tempter an enormous advantage in overcoming the virtue 

1 Archive historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 299. — "A las 
quales procurara satisf azer con la mayor individuacion y claridad, declarando formal- 
mente las palabras y acciones que intervinieron, por obsenas que sean." 

2 Oartilla de Comisarios, §§ 9, 10 (Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 
1473).— Ibidem, Libro 890. 

3 Herzig, Manuale Confessarii, P. ii. n. 52.— Gury, Casus Conscientiae, i. 418 ; ii. 
872.— 6y. S. Alphonsum de Ligorio, Theol. Moral. Lib. ill. n. 162. 

4 S. Th. Aquinat. Summae Supplem. Q. xx. Art. ii. ad. 1.— Astesarri Summae, 
Lib. V. Tit. xxxix. Q. 4. — Sumraa Sylvestrina s.v. Confessio sacramentalis, i. § 17 ; 
III. § 9. 


of his penitent by promising her immediate pardon for 
their mutual sin, and it interfered greatly with the obli- 
gation of denunciation. It is therefore remarkable that 
Gregory XV., in his bull of 1622, should have omitted all 
reference to it. Apparently the abuse was so venerable 
and rested on foundations so dangerous to disturb that 
prudence counselled silence, while great canonists like 
Sanchez and Diana were found to argue that not only 
could the confessor absolve his partner in guilt, but that it 
was expedient for him to do so if it would soothe her con- 
science and avert defamation from her, and this although 
the relations between them were notorious.^ Even in 
1661, when the Roman Inquisition settled sixteen 
questions relating to solicitation, there was no allusion 
ventured to this.^ 

Had there been a sincere desire to put an end to the 
practice, a way could readily have been found by limiting 
the jurisdiction of the confessor in such cases, as had 
already been done by some thirteenth-century councils in 
the Low Countries, In 1661 the provincial synod of 
Cambrai revived their canons, and decreed that no con- 
fessor in such cases should have power to absolve, except 
in articulo mortis, a rule which was soon afterwards pro- 
mulgated by the congregation of archpriests of the province 
of Mechlin.^ Rome was slow to follow the example. In 
1665, it is true, Alexander VII., in condemning a number 
of propositions, included one which affirmed that absolution 
under such circumstances reHeved the woman from the 
obhgation to denounce, but he went no further.^ That 
such a proposition should have been defended shows the 
audacity of the latitudinarian morahsts, but its condemna- 
tion did not affect the evil, which was left in the hands of 

1 Summa Diana, s.v. Confessarius, n. 35 (Venetiis, 1646). 

2 Berardi, de SoUicitatione, p. 5. 

3 Hartzheim, III. 86; IV. 68 ; IX. 388.— Synodicon Mechlinense, II. 319. 

4 Bullar. Roman. T. VI. Append, p. 1. 



the episcopate. In the province of Mechhn the power to 
grant such absolutions was specially excepted in the certi- 
ficates issued to confessors, but this accomplished little, and 
in 1698 the synod of Namur peremptorily inhibited the 
abuse.^ In the province of Besan9on a canon of 1689 
declares that although the practice had long been forbidden, 
yet it continued to flourish, and a cure was sought in 
withdrawing the power to absolve such penitents — a 
regulation which had to be repeated in 1707.^^ In 1709 
the Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, forbade it 
in his diocese, but Pontas informs us that such absolutions 
were valid everywhere, except where prohibited by epis- 
copal authority, and Dr. Amort in 1732 makes the same 
statement as to Germany.* This discreditable condition 
continued until the accession of Benedict XIV., who in 
his constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, in 1741, de- 
nounced the device of sacrilegious ministers of Satan 
rather than of God in absolving their partners in guilt, and 
erected into a general law what had previously been mere 
local regulations in some dioceses. He absolutely pro- 
hibited such absolutions for the future, except in articulo 
mortis when no other priest was to be had ; he pronounced 
them when granted to be null and void, and punished 
the attempt with ipso facto excommunication, removable 
only by the Holy See.* In the next year, 1742, he 
extended these provisions to the Greek Churches in the 
Roman obedience, and four years later he showed how 
overmastering was the dread of scandal by permitting 
absolution in articulo inortis in all cases where another 
confessor could not be called in without exciting sus- 

1 Hartzheim, X. 219. 

2 Ibid. p. 323. 

3 Pontas, Diet, de Gas de Conscience, I. 837. — Amort, Diet. Select. Casuum Con- 
Bcientise, I. 932. 

4 Bullar. Bened. PP. XIV. I. 23. — For a discussion on the subject see his De Synodo 
dioecesana, Lib. vii. cap. xiv. 


picion, which was virtually a removal of the prohibi- 

These well-intentioned measures had little practical 
result. To what extent the bulls were admitted in the 
various European states I have no means of knowing, but 
the synod of Namur, in 1742, felt it necessary to remind 
confessors that they could not absolve women whom they 
had seduced in the confessional, and in 1768 the Bishop 
of Ypres was obliged to recall the attention of his clergy 
to the bulls of Gregory and Benedict, and to threaten 
their transgresssors with excommunication.^ In 1775 the 
Apostolic Vicar of Cochin China had the effrontery to ask 
Pius VI. whether the provisions of Benedict XIV. applied 
to the Franciscan missionaries under his charge, and, if so, 
whether they could not be moderated, to which somewhat 
shameless questions Pius replied affirmatively as to the 
first and negatively as to the second ; while the continu- 
ance of the abuse is shown by a pastoral letter of the 
Apostolic Vicar of Suchuen in 1803.^ The Spanish Inqui- 
sition, after some little delay, accepted the bull Sacramen- 
tum Poenitentige,* and in 1763 it told Padre Felipe Garcia 
Pacheco that his asserted ignorance of it did not relieve 
him from its operation. It produced, however, little or no 
practical effect. In the great majority of subsequent cases 
of solicitation the culprits had absolved the women, and 
the only result of the bull was that in their sentences 
they were told to secretly advise their penitents to repeat 
all subsequent confessions, as being invalidated, and, as 

1 Bull Etsi pastoralis, § ix. n. 5 (Concil. Collectio Lacensis II. 618). — Constit. 
cxx. § 3 (Bullar. I. 219). 

2 Hartzheim, X. 487, 638. 

3 Collectio Lacensis, III. 554 ; VI. 646-7. 

4 There was always delay in accepting papal utterances that had not been asked 
for. This bull must have occasioned considerable debate, for it was not until 
22 December, 1743, that the papal nuncio transmitted to the Inquisitor-General, 
Manrique di Lara, two copies, with instructions to publish it in his diocese of San- 
tiago.— Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. IV. fol. 283 (Archiva historico 


for themselves, to consult their consciences as to the 
irregularity of celebrating Mass while under the censures 
of the bull.'"^ In this, as in so much else, the wholesome 
measures of the Holy See were virtually nullified in 

The confessor in search of easy victims had a resource 
in requiring male penitents, who confessed to carnal sins, 
to name their partners in guilt, when the knowledge thus 
gained could be utilised in selecting objects for solicitation. 
The custom was an old one, for the information thus 
sought might be used for good purposes as well as for 
evil. In the thirteenth century, Caesarius of Heisterbach 
disapproves of it, for though it may sometimes be service- 
able, priestly proclivity to sin, he says, renders it dangerous.^ 
Towards the close of the sixteenth century, Bartolome de 
Medina declares that, if a confessor refuses absolution 
unless the penitent reveals the name of his accomplice, he 
should be denounced to the Inquisition as a heretic, and 
the penitent should be refused absolution until he makes 
the denunciation.^ It is somewhat remarkable that 
Benedict XIV. should have been the first to take action 
on this abuse. In 1745, in a brief addressed to Portugal, 
he prohibited utterly, as scandalous and pernicious, the 
custom of inquiring the name of the accomplice, and 
in 1746 he decreed excommunication, latce sententice, 
reserved to the Holy See, on all who should teach it as 
being permissible. It was assumed that these briefs were 
confined to Portugal, and in a few months he was obliged 
to issue another declaring the prohibition to be general and 
to be enforced everywhere. Still another utterance was 
required in 1749, placing the offence in Portugal under 

1 A number of cases illustrating this will be found in the Archivo historico 
nacional, Inquisicione de Toledo, Legajos 1 and 2. 

2 Csesar. Heisterb. Dial. Moral, iii. cap. 28-31. 

3 Bart, a Medina Instruct. Confessar. Lib II. cap. iv. De Complicibus, § 1 
(Colonic, 1609). 


the Inquisition.^ I have not met with any formal grant 
of the kind to the Spanish Inquisition, but it assumed the 
power and, in spite of the papal prohibitions, until its 
suppression, there were cases brought before it of con- 
fessors who refused absolution unless the names of the 
guilty partners were revealed to them.^ The abuse seems 
ineradicable. Pius IX., in the bull Apostolicse Sedis 
(1849), deemed it necessary to decree reserved excom- 
munication for all who should teach it to be lawful, and 
various recent councils have felt called to condemn the 
practice.^ Notwithstanding all this, in modern times it is 
agreed that there are circumstances under which the con- 
fessor is justified in demanding the name of the accomplice 
under threat of withholding absolution, and as such neces- 
sity must of course be left to the discretion of the confessor, 
the door is kept open to the misuse of the power.* 

Seduction in the confessional was not wholly confined 
to one side. The relations of confessor and penitent 
expose both to temptation, and what is known as passive 
solicitation occurs when the woman is the tempter. As 
the matter is not referred to in the papal decrees, writers 
on the subject are very much at odds as to its treatment 
and what is to be done to either party. They discuss the 
liabiHty of the confessor when the solicitation is mutual, 
and when he yields to threats of making an outcry after 

1 Benedict! PP. XIV. Constitt. Suprema, July 7, 1745 ; Ubi primum, 4 June, 
1746 ; Ad eradicandam, 28 September, 1746 ; Apostolic! minister!!, 9 December, 
1749. See also his De Synodo dicEcesana, vi. xi. 

2 Archivo historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 100. 

3 CoUectio Lacensis, VI. 159, 334. — Acta Concili! Plenarii Baltimorens, 1866, 
p. 305. 

4 Schieler's Theory and Practice of the Confessional, p. 354 (New York, 1906). 
This work may be assumed to represent authoritatively the received practice 

of the Church, at least in Germany and the United States. It bears the imprimatur 
of ^Archbishop Farley of New York, it is translated under the supervision of the Eev. 
H. J. Heuser, Professor of Theology at Overbrook Seminary, and it has an Introduc- 
tion by Archbishop Messmer, of Milwaukee. Moreover the publishers, Benziger 
Brothers, style themselves " Printers to the Holy Apostolic See," 


he has rebuifed the temptress, and they draw distinctions 
between yielding on the spot and postponing the final act.^ 
An authoritative decision was postponed until 1661, when 
the Roman Inquisition decided that the confessor was to 
be denounced, under the papal decrees, when the soHcita- 
tion was mutual, and also when he yielded through fear, 
and nothing was said about the woman. ^ Subsequently to 
this Cardinal Cozza asserts that she is not liable to denun- 
ciation ; she is not alluded to in the papal decrees, and the 
case, although equally an insult to the sacrament, is so rare 
in comparison with the converse that the Popes have not 
deemed it worthy of special animadversion.^ From this 
we may assume that the space devoted to the matter by 
the commentators, and their assertions of its frequency, 
may reasonably be attributed to their desire to minimise 
the guilt of confessors and exaggerate that of their peni- 
tents. Still, such cases did sometimes occur, and I have 
met with two or three in which the woman was 
denounced to the Spanish Inquisition.* 

Classed with solicitation was a somewhat kindred abuse 
of the confessional known to the Inquisition as flagellation. 
This was prescribing the discipline as penance, and either 
administering it personally or causing its self-infliction in 
presence of the confessor, the penitent being stripped as 
far as necessary. As the lash .could be ordered for any 
peccant portion of the body, this gave opportunity for the 
vilest indecency, and it was fully exploited by those of 
brutish instincts. In fact, it was not confined to the 
penitent, for confessors sometimes found gratification in 

1 Paramo de Grig. Officii S. Inquis., p. 886. — Rod. a Cuuha, Q. ix. xi. — Ant. de 
Sousa, Tract, i. cap. 6, 7, 17. — Alberghini Man. Qaalificatorum, cap. xxxi. § i. n. 10, 
11, 17.— Trimarchi, pp. 193-212.— Bibl. Nacional de Espana, Seccion deMSS. V. 377, 
cap. XX. §§ 5, 10. 

2 Berardi de SoUicitatione, p. 5. 

3 Cozza, Dubia Selecta, Dub. 9. 

4 Archive historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 376. — Archive de 
Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 1006, fol. 25 ; Registro de Solicitantes, A. 7, fol. 2. 


making the women discipline them, like Fray Francisco 
Calvo, who in 1730 denounced himself to the Inquisition 
of Madrid for having caused himself to be flagellated.^ At 
first there was considerable doubt as to whether such 
cases came under the papal decrees, but it was finally 
decided to be a form of solicitation, and after this con- 
clusion had been reached the Inquisition had no hesitation 
in j^Tosecuting Jlagelantes,^ Culprits were not treated with 
deserved severity, for the records show to what an extent 
the abuse was sometimes carried ; cases are not infrequent, 
and continue until the suppression of the Holy Office.^ 

It remains for us to see what was the practical applica- 
tion of the papal decrees directed against the abuse of the 
sacred relation established between the confessor and his 
spiritual daughters. As France and Germany had refused 
to receive the bull of Gregory XV., the matter remained 
as before in the hands of the bishops, who for the most part 
were indifferent, and, as we have seen, no effective measures 
were taken, beyond the occasional comminatory proceedings 
of synods, which serve rather to prove the existence of the 
evil than to promise^ its suppression, though occasionally, it 
is true, a prelate like Fenelon might instruct mission 
priests, to whom women should confess to have been 
solicited, to refuse absolution unless the penitent would 
authorise denunciation to be made to him.* As he felt it 
necessary, moreover, to promise protection both to the 
woman and the mission priest, it indicates the risk to which 
were exposed all those who sought to obey the papal 

From such desultory and local attempts no remedy 

1 Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 1006, fol. 25. 

2 Ibid., Inquisicion de LogronOjProcesas de fe, Legajo 1. — De Sousa, Aphorismi 
Inquisitionis, Lib. I. cap. xxxiv. n. 40. — Alberghini, op. cit. cap. xxxi. § i. n. 19. 

3 Archive historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 100. — Archivo 
de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 890. 

4 Fenelon, Avis aux Confesseurs (CEuvres, Ed. 1838, II. 349). 


could be expected of an evil so inveterate and widespread. 
In Italy and in Spain, however, the crime was subjected 
to the respective Inquisitions, which were armed with 
power and organisation sufficient for its suppression, if 
that were practicable under the conditions of human 
nature and the temptations and opportunities offered by 
the confessional to a celibate priesthood. 

As regards Italy, the data are lacking to enable us to 
ascertain what use the Inquisition made of its faculties. 
The dread of scandal rendered secrecy the one essential 
matter. The culprit, if found guilty, was not sentenced 
and punished in public as an example, but in the chambers 
of the Holy Office, or in his convent if a member of a 
religious Order. No one was to know that the crime had 
been committed and expiated. Under such circumstances 
the inquirer can ask in vain for statistics or for instances 
to determine whether culpable leniency or wholesome 
severity was shown to offisnders. We only know that 
nominally the prescribed regulations assume the crime to 
require stern repression. The suspicion of heresy implied 
in it was classed as vehement, and the culprit was obliged 
to abjure de vehementi, which assumed that he was to be 
burnt without ceremony in case of relapse. If he denied 
the accusation and the evidence was insufficient for con- 
viction, he could be tortured, as was the practice of the 
Roman Inquisition in other crimes ; or if he admitted the 
facts and denied evil purpose, he could similarly be tortured 
to discover his intention. If convicted, the bull of 
Gregory XV. prescribed a wide range of punishments, 
according to the degree of culpability, even to the cul- 
minating rigour of the stake. Although the latter extreme 
may be regarded as merely a deterrent threat, never 
intended to be executed, yet we are told that the punish- 
ment was five or seven years in the galleys, which was 
sufficient to inspire wholesome fear. In 1677, moreover, 


the Roman Inquisition manifested a laudable desire to 
discover offenders by following Spanish example in an 
edict requiring all persons, under pain of excommunication 
latce sententice, to denounce within a month all cases 
coming within their knowledge/ 

It is not stated, however, that this edict was ever 
repeated, as in Spain, and in practice there was much to 
soften the severity of the law. Obstacles to trial were 
interposed by a decree of the Inquisition, 17 July, 1627, 
providing that arrests were not to be made on the 
denunciation of a single penitent, but only a report was to 
be made to it. Two denunciations were required for 
arrest and imprisonment, and three, or according to some 
authorities, four, for conviction, the reason alleged being 
the untrustworthiness of female evidence and the difficulty 
otherwise of getting learned and conscientious men to 
confess women. Similarly, the punishment was much 
milder than the threat. For a single solicitation, duly 
proved, it sufficed to deprive the offisnder of his faculty to 
confess ; if he had repeatedly solicited two women, 
deprivation of priestly functions was added ; and if there 
had been scandal, a regular priest was to be perpetually 
secluded in a convent and a secular one in a hospital. If 
the penitent were the wife or daughter of a magnate, or if 
there had been many women concerned and much public 
scandal, then came degradation and the galleys.^ Con- 
sidering the extreme difficulty of inducing women to 
denounce their confessors, it will be seen that the chances 
of escape were great and the danger of severe penalties 
small. It is true that in 1745 the Roman Inquisition 
decreed that soliciting confessors incurred perpetual 
disability for celebrating Mass,^ but there was always the 
prospect of obtaining dispensations from an indulgent 

1 Trimarchi, pp. 288, 301, 302.— Berardi de Sollicitatione, p. 6, 

2 Trimarchi, pp. 289-92, 304, 306. 

3 Berardi, op. cit. p. 126, 


Mother Church, and all this legislation seems virtually to 
have become a dead letter, for, as we shall see hereafter, 
when Leopold I. of Tuscany endeavoured, in 1774, to 
reform the nunneries in his dominions, they were found to 
be the scene of the worst disorders between the nuns and 
their spiritual directors, and the reformatory efforts of 
Leopold met their chief opposition in the Roman Curia 

There was also always the resource, when a soliciting 
priest found himself in danger of denunciation, of de- 
nouncing himself, for those who spontaneously confessed 
were treated with exceptional leniency. According to 
rule, if he did this before denunciation, and had been guilty 
with only one woman, a severe reprimand sufficed, while, 
if two witnesses accused him, he was to be deprived of 
confessing.^ One or two cases, however, of which we 
chance to have the record, would seem to show that self- 
denunciation conferred virtual immunity. The minim, 
Hilario Caone, of Besan9on, was domiciled in Seville. He 
probably had intimation that he was about to be de- 
nounced, for he fled to Rome in 1653, and confessed to 
the Inquisition that in the church of San Francisco de 
Paula of Seville he had solicited some forty women, mostly 
with success. For this he was merely sentenced to abjure 
de vehementi, to visit the seven privileged altars of St. 
Peter's, and to recite the chapters of the Virgin weekly for 
three years. That this was the ordinary treatment of such 
cases may be inferred from that of Vincenzo Barzi, in the 
same year, who had a similar sentence on denouncing 

1 De Potter, Vie de Scipion de' Ricci, T. I. pp. 87 sqq. 258 sqq. 

2 Trimarchi, p. 310. 

3 MSS. of Trinity College, Dublin, Class II. vol. IV. pp. 63, 294. 

It should be added that this leniency did not extend to cases in which there had 
been a prior denunciation. In 1695 Dr. Agustin Velda, rector of La Sallana, was 
accused of solicitation before the tribunal of Valencia. To avoid arrest he fled to 
Rome, and presented himself before the Inquisition there, which ordered him to 


In Spain, access to the voluminous archives of the 
Inquisition gives us for the first time an opportunity of 
acquaintance with these secrets of the confessional which 
the Church has always guarded so carefully from the 
profane, thus rendering possible a fairly accurate under- 
standing of its attitude towards soliciting confessors. The 
Inquisition had accepted in good faith the jurisdiction 
conferred on it, but it always had a leaning in favour oi 
clerical delinquents, and the rules which it established for 
this class of cases show how much more benignantly it 
regarded this particular suspicion of heresy than other 
suspicions. It is true that no ecclesiastic could be arrested 
on any charge by a tribunal without referring the case to 
the Supreme Council and awaiting its orders, so that in 
this respect confessors had no advantage over their 
brethren, but, as, in Italy, two independent denunciations 
of soHcitation were required, where one sufficed in ordinary 
heresy. Where denunciation was so difficult to secure, 
this was a most important advantage to the delinquents, 
and saved thousands of them from trial. A woman 
who chanced in a general confession to mention her sin 
with a previous confessor might be refused absolution 
until she denounced him. If she did so, the Inquisitors, 
after the introduction of postal facilities, sent letters of 
inquiry to all the other tribunals, to learn whether they 
had the culprit's name on their register of solicitors. If 
the rephes were in the negative, the papers were filed away, 
and nothing more was done, unless at some future time 
another denunciation was made to some tribunal. Mean- 
while the woman was left under the impression that her 
seduction by her confessor was too trivial a matter to 
require investigation, and the offisnder was left at liberty 
to continue his assaults on the virtue of his penitents. 

return and stand trial at home, and he did so. — MSS. of Royal Library of Copen- 
hagen, 218b, p. 339. 


Perhaps if, after the lapse of years, a second accusation 
came, the first accuser was dead and could not make the 
indispensable ratification of her testimony, so that the 
culprit had another respite. The records are full of cases 
in which a second denunciation did not come until ten, 
fifteen, and sometimes even twenty, thirty, or forty years 
after the first ; and there are many in which three denuncia- 
tions are specified, showing that the first victim must 
have died before the second came forward. The pro- 
longed impunity thus enjoyed by offenders whose offences 
must have been habitual shows how disastrous was the 
favour thus extended to them. The reason given for 
this double denunciation was the assumed unreliability 
of female testimony, but in ordinary heresy all witnesses 
were welcome, irrespective of sex, character, and almost 
of age ; while, if there was enmity or infamy, the accused, 
from whom the knowledge of their names was with- 
held, had to grope his way to identify and disable them. 
But in these cases the Inquisition saved him from all 
this and protected him, before it would act on the 
denunciation, by a searching inquiry into the character 
of the witness and any possible enmity that might exist. ^ 
Regrets were expressed that female testimony was ad- 
mitted at all ; it was justifiable only because the nature 
of the crime admitted of no other, and writers like Paramo 
discredit it in advance with the customary monastic abuse 
of women. ^ 

Another favour shown to the accused was immunity 
from torture. While in ordinary accusations of heresy a 
single witness sufficed to expose the defendant to the rack 
or strappado, in case of his denial, the confessor was 
exempt, no matter how many witnesses appeared against 
him. In the earlier time there was some question as to 

1 Archive historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 365. 
? Paramo, op. cit. pp. 867 871. — Rod, a Cunha, op. cit. A. xxii. n. 3. 


this, and some dialectics as to fact and intention, but the 
question was settled on the common-sense basis that it 
would be a greater infliction for the uncertain than for 
the certain, as the penalties for conviction were not equal 
to torture/ When, however, doctrinal errors led to 
solicitation there was no hesitation in the use of torture to 
detect the aberrations of lUuminism, as in the case of the 
priest Manuel Madrigal, voted to torture to discover 
intention, " por solicitante, Molinista y flagelante," by the 
tribunal of Madrid in 1725.^ 

There was also the broad avenue to escape in the 
strictness with which the formulas of the papal utterances 
were construed. Solicitation is a purely technical crime, 
based on inferential misbelief as to the sacrament, and it 
is wholly unconnected with morals. The Church cares 
nothing as to the relations between confessor and penitent 
so long as the confessional and the sacrament are not 
involved, and even there the confidences deemed necessary 
in confession, the obligation on the confessor to acquaint 
himself with all details, afford ample opportunity for 
pruriency, which the casuist can approve or condemn 
with equal facility. All this is one of the incidents 
inseparable from auricular confession, and the Church 
can only make the best of it with vague general regula- 
tions, construed and enforced by imperfect human nature. 
The decisive importance attached to locality meets one 
constantly in the trials of these cases. In that of 
Fernandez Pujalon, parish priest of Ciempozuelos, before 
the tribunal of Toledo, in 1744, he confesses to vile 
indecencies committed with his penitent Sor Cayetana de 
la Providencia in the convent of Santa Clara, and chanced 

1 De Sousa, Aphorismi Inquisit. Lib. r. cap. xxxviii. n. 64, 65 ; Ejusd. Opusc. 
circa Constit. Pauli PP. V. Tract, ii. cap. 13, 21. — Biblioteca Nacional, Seccion de 
MSS. V. 337, cap. xx. § 9. — Archive hist6rico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, 
Legajo 61. 

2 Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 876, fol. 208. 


to mention that once in the parlour of the convent she 
said that she never indulged in this in the confessional, 
but that it was bad for Padre Colmenas and Sor Antonia 
Blanca, who had illicit relations in the confessional. The 
tribunal commissioned the superintendent of convents, 
Canon Miguel Barba, to examine Sor Cayetana as to 
when he should next visit Ciempozuelos, which he did in 
1747, but she naturally did not care to implicate herself; 
Barba discreetly did not push his investigations, and the 
matter was dropped.^ So, in the case of Fray Joseph 
Rives, tried in Valencia in 1741, the evidence of two of his 
penitents shows the beastliness of the practices employed 
to inflame the passions of the women, while arguments of 
his advocate are devoted to prove that the precautions 
which he took to evade the letter of the papal decrees 
proved his respect for the sacrament, and that technically 
he was not guilty. This was unavailing, but he escaped 
with deprivation of his faculty to confess and three years' 
exile from Valencia, Bocayente, and all royal residences.^ 
It was to meet this customary line of defence that the 
tribunals, in their instructions as to taking testimony, 
always laid special stress on ascertaining the exact spot 
where the incriminating acts occurred ; what would be 
guilt in the confessional would escape animadversion 

Another favour shown to these delinquents was that, 
in place of being shut up incoviunicado in the secret prison 
during trial, like ordinary heretics, they were at liberty and 
could devise means of defence. What these sometimes were 
is shown in the case of a priest who had been denounced, 
and who threatened to kill the confessor who had sent the 
denunciation unless he would write that the women had 

1 Archivo hist6rico nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 229, n. 32. 

2 Archivo historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 365, n. 45, fol. 4. 
In the sentences to temporary exile, which was a favourite punishment for minor 

offences, Madrid and royal residences are always included. 


withdrawn their charges. More crafty was Dr. Joseph 
Soriano, vicar of Vinaroz, in 1796, against whom we find 
pending in the tribunal of Valencia two prosecutions, one for 
solicitation and another for the ingenious device of suborning 
several women to denounce him and then to retract.^ 

When, in spite of all facilities for evasion, conviction 
was obtained, the punishment meted out to the criminal 
was singularly disproportionate to the moral turpitude of 
the offence and its damage to the Church and to society. 
In the first place, the dread of scandal shielded him from 
public reprobation and the shame of exposure, thus 
exempting him from what in Spain was one of the 
heaviest penalties visited on other crimes — the infamy 
inflicted on the lineage of one who had been penanced by 
the Inquisition. There was not only the secrecy in which 
all the operations of the Holy Office were jealously 
guarded, but the culprit was not exposed to view in an 
auto da fe like ordinary offenders — heretics, bigamists, 
blasphemers, petty sorcerers, and the like. From the 
earUest period, as soon as the form of procedure was 
reduced to rule, strict injunctions were issued that the 
sentence was to be read in the audience-chamber with 
closed doors, the only witnesses present being a specified 
number of members of the culprit's Order, if he were a 
regular, or priests of parish churches, if a secular. The 
same instructions prescribe as the punishment in all cases 
abjuration for Hght suspicion of heresy and perpetual 
deprivation of the faculty of confessing, to which might be 
added others suited to the gravity of the offence. Thus 
for frailes there might be a discipHne inflicted in his 
convent, while the sentence was read in the presence of 
the assembled brethren, or, if the case were especially 

1 Archive historico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 365, n. 46 > 
Legajo 100. 


aggravated, a previous one in the audience-chamber also ; 
there might further be seclusion in a convent, suspension 
or deprivation of orders, of the right of voting and being 
voted for, as well as the last place in choir and refectory, 
together with penance for heavy sin, such as the discipHne 
and prayer. For secular priests there might be exile or 
seclusion, or suspension or deprivation of functions and 
benefice, together with fines and secret discipline and fasts 
and prayers/ As regards fines, they were a favourite 
penalty for all offences, as they accrued to the tribunal 
inflicting them. They could not be imposed on the 
regulars, who held nothing, but the secular priests were 
sometimes rich and were valuable culprits. Thus in the 
case, alluded to above, of Fernandez Pujalon, parish priest 
of Ciempozuelos, a feature of his sentence was a fine of 
half his property, but his guilt was greatly enhanced by 
some heretical propositions that he had uttered. 

Inadequate as all this may seem in comparison with 
the penalties habitually imposed by the Inquisition on 
other classes of offenders, it was rarely inflicted to the full 
extent, and as time wore on there appears to be a distinct 
tendency to regard the crime with increasing leniency. 
The indulgence, indeed, with which it was viewed, in 
spite of the rhetorical horror expressed in the utterances 
of popes and inquisitors, is reflected in the adjuration of a 
Cunha not to drive the delinquents to despair nor to 
impose more penalty than is just, and he thinks that 
it would be much better for the Inquisition to hand 
offenders over for punishment to their own prelates.^ It 
is impossible, in fact, not to recognise a fellow feeling 
and a certain amount of sympathy, as for a matter in 
which any priest might involve himself, but the temper 
in which the Inquisition exercised the jurisdiction con- 

1 Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 1465, fol. 16. 

2 Rod. a Cunha, op. cit. Q. xxiv. 


ferred on it can best be estimated from a few illustrative 

In 1594, in Mexico, the Dominican Fray Thomas 
Maldonado was tried on the evidence of five of his 
penitents. He made no defence, except alleging that his 
conduct with them had been jocular, and he presented 
witnesses as to his character, especially his prior. Fray 
Cristdval de Sepulveda, all of whom testified to his being 
a good servant of God and a man of irreproachable life. 
While the trial was in progress, the prior asked for his 
release, as the convent wanted his services to take 
charge of some mills, to which the tribunal promptly 
assented. Finally he was sentenced to abjure for light 
suspicion, to be deprived of confessing women, and to exile 
for six years from the convent of Cuyvacan.^ It is evident 
that his offence was regarded rather in the light of an 
indiscretion than of a crime. More severe, in 1674, was 
the sentence in Toledo ofFray Miguel Martin deEugenio, 
whose powers of seduction had been exercised in a number 
of places. He was subjected to a " circular discipline " in 
his convent, he was deprived of confessing men and women, 
and was secluded for four years in a convent, where he 
was to have the last place in choir and refectory and to serve 
in the most humble positions ; during the first year he had 
Friday fasting on bread and water, eating on the floor of 
the refectory, and he was deprived of voting and being 
voted for.^ As regards the galleys, the only case that I 
have happened to meet in which they were imposed is that 
of the licentiate Lorenzo de Eldora, who was suspended 
from orders, in 1691, by the tribunal of Toledo, and con- 
demned to the galleys for five years, with instructions at 
the expiration of the term to present himself to the 
inquisitors for further orders ; but he was evidently deemed 
an incorrigible relapsed, as he had already been punished 

1 Proceso de Fray Thomas Maldonado (MS. penes me). 

2 Archive historico nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 1. 



for the same offence by the Inquisition of Granada.^ It 
must have treated him with undeserved leniency, and not 
have deprived him of the faculty of confession. 

As a rule, however, the sentences were moderate, and 
grew more so as time wore on. In 1647 the Valladolid 
tribunal considered a reprimand sufficient for Padre 
Antonio Escobar, S.J., who was accused by a nun of the 
Monasterio de la Penitencia of Salamanca — a reformatory 
for loose women — although he had previously been de- 
nounced in Logrono, and the testimony obtained from 
there revealed almost incredible brutality on his part and 
on that of Padre Vilarde, S.J.' In 1649 the tribunal of 
Toledo merely deprived the licentiate Bernardo de Amor 
of the faculty of confessing, with four years of exile from 
Madrid, Toledo, and Andujar, although his offence was 
that of soliciting youths in the confessional.^ 

Progressive leniency is seen in the Toledo case, in 1763, 
of Felipe Garcia Pacheco, a priest with various dignities, 
who was condemned only to seclusion in a convent for six 
months, and was left in the enjoyment of his dignities and 
the faculty of confession, although the injunction cautiously 
to warn his accomplices that they must repeat the confes- 
sions made to him shows that his guilt was complete.* 
The nineteenth century saw no increase in severity. In 
1816 the case of Dr. Pedro Luceta must have been 
especially foul, for when his sentence was read before the 
twelve ecclesiastics in the audience-chamber, portions of 
the details of his offences were ordered to be omitted ; but 
he was only deprived of confessing, with some spiritual 
exercises, one year's seclusion, and five years' exile from 
certain places. He was ungrateful for this leniency, and 
broke his seclusion, which was a more serious offence than 

1 Archive historico nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo I. 

2 Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Legajo 552, fol. 35. 

3 Archivo historico nacional, loo. cit. 

4 Ibid. Legajo 2. 


solicitation, for he was then sent to the presideo of Ceuta 
(implying hard labour as in the bagne) for the remainder 
of the six years, but he was allowed to return to Algeciras 
on the plea of ill-health.^ In this same year the tribunal 
of Santiago, in sentencing Gerdnimo Gonzalez, priest of 
Requeijo, speaks of his enormes delitas, but only condemned 
him to spiritual exercises, a suspension of three months 
from celebrating mass, of one year from confessing men 
and perpetually women, and eight years' exile from certain 
places ; then, within three months, on the plea of ill-health, 
it allowed him to reside with his parents in Requeijo, warn- 
ing him to avoid the taverns and highways, which had led 
to his misdeeds, and ordering the priest there to keep a 
watch over him. The case in 1818 of Fray Antonio de la 
Porteria y Vela, also in the Santiago tribunal, must have 
been especially atrocious, for he was perpetually deprived 
of both confessing and preaching, but beyond this he was 
subjected only to temporary exile from certain places and 
to two months' seclusion devoted to spiritual exercises.^ 

As in Italy, so in Spain, a favourite device to disarm 
severity, especially when accusation was expected, was 
self-denunciation, for the espontaneado, as he was called, 
earned a claim to merciful consideration, provided always 
that he expressed due contrition and made full confession 
of his misdeeds. A very large portion of the cases tried 
by the Inquisition are of this character ; in one list of a 
hundred and eight, thirty-two, or thirty per cent., are 
esponianeados.^ The customary impulse to this is seen in 
the case of Fray Nicholas de Madrid, who denounced 
himself to the tribunal of Madrid, 8 June, 1757. He was 
a trifle tardy, for a denunciation against him had been 
received two days before.^ 

1 Archive de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 890 : Lib 435, n. 22. 

2 Ibid. Lib. 890. 

3 Ibid. Lib. 1006. 4 Ibid. fol. 105. 


As a matter of course, the espontaneado was apt to 
soften the details of his guilt and extenuate his offences as 
far as possible. In ordinary Inquisitorial procedure this 
only increased the culpability, for a confession which was 
the result of contrition was required to be complete, and 
the di7ninuto who partly withheld or palliated his faults 
was but a hardened sinner seeking to escape punishment. 
Confessors, however, were not ordinary criminals. It is 
true that, in the earUer period, during the first flush of 
exercising its new jurisdiction, the Inquisition pursued its 
ordinary course of testing the confession by examining 
witnesses, and if it found that the culprit was a diminuto, 
his self-denunciation did not save him jprom the customary 
penalties, but this severity was gradually relaxed. About 
1640, an experienced inquisitor lays down the rule that, if 
a confessor accuses himself before there is any evidence 
against him, and if the women concerned are numerous, 
they are examined, and if they admit it, he is deprived of 
confessing ; if they deny, as sometimes happens, the case 
is suspended mth a warning to him ; if there is but one 
woman, and the case is not grave, he is reprimanded 
without other penalty. If he accuses himself before there 
is more than one denunciation against him, the penalties 
are lighter than if he had not done so.^ 

It could not have been long after this that the Inquisi- 
tion manifested its indifference by simply accepting the 
self-denunciation without examining the women. In 1669 
the licentiate Fernando de Valdes denounced himself to 
the tribunal of Santiago for having solicited in confession, 
with indecent acts, seven single and three married women, 
to whom, in a subsequent confession, he added a pregnant 

1 Biblioteca Nacional de Espana, Seccion de MSS. V. 377, cap. xx. § 8. 

Suspension of a case was virtually acquittal, in the estilo of the Inquisition, which 
rarely acquitted. It, however, remained on record, and could be reopened if subse- 
quent testimony came. 

Keprimand and warning were an ordinary feature of all sentences rendered in the 
sola or audience-chamber of a tribunal. 


woman and several others unmarried. The records were 
examined, and no previous accusation was found against 
him. Without summoning the witnesses, the tribunal 
reported the case to the Supreme Council, which ordered 
it simply to be suspended and the culprit to be repri- 
manded.^ The fact that out of so many women solicited 
not one accused him indicates how few were the denuncia- 
tions in comparison with the offences. The indifference 
of the tribunals grew with time. In 1724, Fray Manuel 
Pablo Herraiz denounced himself to the tribunal of Toledo 
for a somewhat complicated illicit connection with two 
penitents. Inquiries were sent to the other tribunals, with 
negative results. Without further action, the case was 
laid aside, and in 1732 the fiscal or prosecuting officer 
reported that there was nothing more to be done with it.^ 
These cases indicate that the only danger incurred by the 
esponianeado was that some previous denunciation might 
be lying in the records awaiting a second, provided the 
tribunal took the trouble to make inquiry. 

In time even this seems to have been abandoned, and 
so completely did it come to be understood that the 
esponianeado was not to be prosecuted that, in 1783, the 
Supreme Council interrogated the tribunals, asking 
whether they suspended such cases or dismissed the self- 
accuser with abjuration and absolution.^ So it continued 
until the extinction of the Inquisition. In 1815, Padre 
Fray Francisco Gdmez Somoerotro, sacristan mayor of 
the Mercenarian convent of Madrid, denounced himself to 
that tribunal for solicitation and doctrines suspect of 
Molinism, and his case was suspended. In 1819 he was 
denounced for solicitation to the tribunal of Valladolid, 
and again the case was suspended.* 

1 Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion de Santiago, Relaciones de Causas, Legajo 1. 

2 Archivo historico nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 229, n. 40. 

3 Ibid. Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 16, n. 6, fol. 4. 
* Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1002. 


No class of ecclesiastics, privileged to hear confessions, 
was exempt from this contaminating sin, but the great 
mass of culprits belonged to the regular Orders. Llorente 
explains that the secular priests, having comparative 
wealth and freedom, were able to gratify I heir passions in 
ways less dangerous, and that it was precisely the Orders 
that were most rigid which produced the greatest number 
of culprits/ To verify this last assertion would require 
statistics of the different Orders now unattainable, and an 
accurate knowledge of the degree to which they devoted 
themselves to the duties of the confessional. A factor in 
their activity was the special faculties granted to the 
mendicant Orders to absolve for cases reserved to the 
Holy See, except those included in the Coena Domini bull 
and six others specified in a decree of Clement VIII. in 
1601 — these mendicant Orders being Dominicans, Fran- 
ciscans, Augustinians, Carmelites, Minims, Jesuits, and 
Servites.^ This, of course, rendered their ministrations 
more attractive, and secured them a larger number of 
penitents, which helps to explain their undue proportion 
of offenders. In analysing an aggregate of 3775 cases I 
find that the great body of the secular clergy, including 
parish priests, vicars, canons, &c., contributed only 981, 
while the regular Orders furnished 2794.^ 

. Spain was the only land in which solicitation was 
systematically prosecuted where the conditions were such 
as to remove some of the impediments to denunciation, 
and where the records are accessible. If any methods 
could reduce the abuse to a minimum, it was there, and, 
from what we learn as to its prevalence in Spain, we may 
reasonably infer that in other countries, where no such 

1 Llorente, Historia Critica, cap. xxviil. art. 1, n. 14. 

2 Tiimarchi,, op. cit. p. 279. 

3 Archivo historico nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 233, MS. 108 ; Inqui- 
sicion de Valencia, Legajo 66. — Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1002, 


machinery existed for its discovery and repression, it was 
even more prevalent. 

It is thus only in the records of the Inquisition that an 
insight can be gained into this phase of ecclesiastical 
development, which has always been shrouded from public 
view with such anxious care. In exploring these records 
one seems to live in a world of brutal lust, where disregard 
of the moral law is accepted as a matter of course by all 
parties, where the aim of the confessor is to inflame the 
passions by act and speech, or to overcome resistance by 
coarse \iolence ; where women regard it as natural that 
the awful authority of the priesthood is to be exercised to 
their undoing, and their consciences are to be soothed 
with pardon granted in the name of God by the hypocrite 
who has destroyed their honour ; and where the inquisitor 
busies himself, not with the moral and spiritual questions 
involved, but with ascertaining whether certain technical 
rules have been violated. I have spared the reader all 
details, for the most debased pornographic Hterature can 
have nothing more foul to offer, and the divorce of morals 
from religion is complete. 

Morals, in fact, have nothing to do with solicitation as 
viewed by the Church. The priest can indulge his passions 
with his penitents in safety, so long as he commits no 
technical offence and so long as the danger of scandal 
is not incurred. The Church sees nothing specially sinful 
in solicitation itself, notwithstanding the vehement rhetoric 
of papal utterances. In the forum of conscience it is 
classed with simple fornication — a mortal sin indeed, for 
in lust there is no parvitas viaterice, but one not calling 
for any special reprobation. Heinous offences are dis- 
tinguished by being "reserved" — that is, absolution for 
them can be obtained only from the Holy See or from the 
sinner's prelate. The Holy See has never reserved to 
itself the sin of seducing a penitent in the confessional. 


Bishops have power in their dioceses to reserve to them- 
selves what sins they choose, and occasionally some puritan 
prelate has done so with this. In 1635, while the bull of 
Gregory XV. was still the subject of discussion, Trimarchi 
tells us that it was thus reserved in the provinces of 
Geneva and Benevento, and in some dioceses of Naples, 
but nowhere else.^ The consequence of this is that 
absolution can be given by any confessor, and the culprit 
is told that he need only confess to simple fornication, 
without mentioning that it has been with his spiritual 
daughter. He therefore obtains pardon from God on the 
easiest possible terms, his conscience is clear, and he is 
ready to repeat the offence. This forms a strange contrast 
with the excommunication directed against the victim who 
fails to denounce her seducer, for this is reserved to the 
Holy See, and we are expressly told that the censures of 
the bulls are directed against her and not against him.^ 
May we not attribute all this to a callousness eagendered 
by the prevalence of concubinage among a celibate priest- 
hood, where the woman must in almost all cases necessarily 
be the penitent of the priest and thus be his spiritual 
daughter ? 

1 Trimarchi, op. cit. p. 272. 

2 Trimarchi, p. 273. — Ant. de Sousa, op. cit. Tract. Ii. cap. xx.— Job. Sanchez, 
Disputationes Selectae, Disp. xi. n. 3, 4 (Lugduni, 1636). — Potestatis Examen. Ecclesi- 
asticum, T. II. n. 601 (Venetiis, 1728). 

For the modern aspect of this subject see below, in chapter xxxii. 



If the Council of Trent had thus failed utterly in its 
efforts to create that which had never existed — purity of 
morals under the rule of celibacy — it had at length 
succeeded in its more important task of putting an end 
to the aspirations of the clergy for marriage. With the 
anathema for heresy confronting them, few could be found 
so bold as openly to dispute the propriety of a law which 
had been incorporated into the articles of faith, and the 
ingenious sophistries and far-fetched logic of Bellarmine 
were reverently received and accepted as incontrovertible. 
Urbain Grandier might endeavour to quiet the conscience 
of his morganatic spouse by writing a treatise to prove the 
lawfulness of priestly wedlock, but he took care to keep 
the manuscript carefully locked in his desk.^ A man of 

1 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 been printed (Petite Biblioth^que 
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 remnant une pierre on n'esbranlat la puissance papale ; car hors cette con- 
sideration d'Estat, I'Eglise romaine pense assez que le celibat n'est pas d'institution 
divine ni necessaire au salut, puisqu'elle en dispense les particuliers, ce qu'elle ne 
pourroit faire si le celibat avoiteste ordonne d'en haut" (pp. 34-5). 


bold and independent spirit, fortified by unfathomable 
learning, like Louis Ellies Du Pin, might secretly favour 
marriage, and perhaps might contract matrimony.^ Du 
Pin's great antagonist, Bossuet, might incur a similar 
imputation, and be ready to partially yield the point if 
thereby he might secure the reconciliation of the hostile 
Churches.^ All this, however, could have no influence on 
the doctrines and practice of Catholicism at large, and the 
principle remained unaltered and unalterable. 

Yet it was impossible that the critical spirit of inquiry 
which marked the eighteenth century, its boldness of 
unbelief, and its utter want of faith in God and man, could 
leave unassailed this monument of primeeval asceticism, 
while it was so busy in undermining everything to which 
the reverence of its predecessors had clung. Accordingly, 
the latter half of the century witnessed an active contro- 
versy on the subject. In 1758, a canon of Estampes, 
named Desforges, who had been forced to take orders by 
his family, published a work in two volumes in which he 
attempted to prove that marriage was necessary for all 

1 Notwithstanding his Sorbonne 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 correspond- 
ence he assented to the propriety of sacerdotal marriage. 

2 I cannot pretend to decide the controversy as to the alleged marriage between 
Bossuet and Mile. Desvieux de Mauleon, 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 " Memoires de Madame de Maintenon " 
given by the Abbe Chavard (Le Celibat des Pretres, 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 negotia- 
tion as to the terms on which the Lutherans could re-enter 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 pro. 
posed 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 under- 


ranks of ecclesiastics. The book attracted attention, and 
by order of the Parlement it was burnt, 30 September, 
1758, by the hangman, and the unlucky author was thrown 
into the Bastile. These proceedings were well calculated 
to give publicity to the work : it was reprinted at Douay 
in 1772 ; a German translation was published in 1782 at 
Gottingen and Munster, and an Italian one, with some 
omissions, had already appeared in 1770, without an 
acknowledged place of publication. The Abbe Villiers 
undertook to answer Desforges in a weak httle volume, 
the " Apologie du Cdlibat Chretien," pubHshed in 1762, 
which consists principally of long extracts from the Fathers 
in praise of virginity. Even Italy felt the movement, and 
an anonymous work, entitled " Pregiudizi del Celibato," 
appeared in Naples in 1765, and was reprinted in Venice 
in 1766. Some more competent champion was necessary 
to answer these repeated attacks, and the learned Abate 
Zaccaria brought his fertile pen and his inexhaustible 
erudition to the rescue in his " Storia Polemica del Celi- 
bato Sacro," which saw the light in 1774, and which not 
long afterwards was translated into German. In 1781 
appeared a new aspirant for matrimonial liberty in the 
Abb^ Gaudin, who issued at Geneva (Lyons) his work 
entitled "Les inconveniens du ceUbat des pretres," a 
treatise of considerable learning and no little bitterness 
against the whole structure of sacerdotalism and Roman 
supremacy. This was followed, in 1782, by Andreas 
Forster, in his " De Coelibatu Clericorum Dissertatio," 
published at Dillingen, and dedicated to Pius VI., for the 
purpose of replying to the attacks of the innovating 

The latter, indeed, had some hope for the approaching 
realisation of their demands. The reforms which illus- 
trated the minority of Ferdinand IV. of Naples excited the 
priests of Southern Italy to petition him for the right of 


marriage, and Serrao, the Jansenist Bishop of Potenza, 
does not hesitate to say that the request would have been 
granted if the unfriendly relations between the courts of 
Rome and Naples had continued much longer.^ The 
Emperor Joseph II., amid his many fruitless schemes for 
philosophical reform, inclined seriously to the notion of 
permitting marriage to the priesthood of his dominions. 
In an edict of 1783 he asserted incidentally that the 
matter was subject to his control,^ and the advocates for 
clerical marriage confidently expected that in a very short 
period they would see the ancient restrictions swept 
away by the imperial power. A mass of controversial 
essays and dissertations made their appearance throughout 
Germany, and the well-known Protestant theologian 
Henke took the opportunity of bringing out, in 1783, a 
new edition of the learned work of Calixtus, " De Con- 
jugio Clericorum," as the most efficient aid to the good 
cause. It is a striking illustration of the temper of the 
times to observe that this work, so bitterly opposed to the 
orthodox doctrines and practice, is dedicated by Henke 
to Archdeacon Anthony Ganoczy, canon of the cathedral 
church of Gross- Wardein and apostolic prothonotary. 
The hope of success brought out other writers, and the 
movement made sufficient progress to cause some hesi- 
tation in Rome as to the propriety of yielding to the 

1 Chavard, Le Celibat des Pretres, p. 314-5. — Davanzali, Bishop of Canossa, was 
also in favour of abrogating the rule of celibacy. 

2 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 I'Etat Monastique et Ecclesiastique," 
written by a good Catholic, asserts (p. 204), " Si le cas de donner des citoyens k la 
patrie devenoit urgent, le legislateur, en autorisant le mariage des pretres, n'entre- 
prendroit rien sur le sacrement de I'Ordre." 

3 Zaccaria, in the introduction to his "Nuova Giustificazione " (p. ix.), denies 
that the papal court entertained any idea of making the concession ; but, in con- 
sidering 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. 


Zaccaria again entered the lists, and produced, in 
1785, his " Nuova Giustificazione del Celibato Sacro," 
in answer to the Abbd Gaudin and to an anonymous 
German writer whose work had produced considerable 
sensation. To this he was principally moved by a report 
that he had himself been converted by the facts and argu- 
ments advanced by the German, an imputation which he 
indignantly refuted in three hundred quarto pages. 

The half- formed resolutions of Joseph II. led to no 
result, and the subject slumbered for a few years until the 
outbreak of the French Revolution. At an early period 
in that great movement, the adversaries of sacerdotal 
asceticism bestirred themselves in bringing to public 
attention the evils and cruelty of the system. Already, 
in 1789, a mass of pamphlets appeared urging the abro- 
gation of celibacy. In 1790 the work of the Abbe 
Gaudin was reprinted, and was promptly answered by 
the prohfic Maultrot. Even in Germany the same spirit 
again] awoke, and a Hungarian priest named Katz pub- 
lished at Vienna, in 1791, a " Tractatus de conjugio et 
coelibatu clericorum," in which he argued strongly for a 
change. In Poland these doctrines made considerable 
progress, for in 1801 we find a little tract issued at 
Warsaw vehemently arguing against those who imperil 
their souls by violating their vows and the laws of the 
Church.^ In England a Catholic priest distinguished for 
talents and learning. Dr. Geddes, published in 1800 a 
work in which he denied the apostolic origin of celibacy, 
and urged that, at most, delinquents should only be 
punished by degradation from the priesthood, without 
disgrace. Indeed, he argued that the rule caused more 
proselytes to Protestantism than any other cause.^ 

1 Vetus et Constans in Ecclesia Catholica de Sacerdotum Coelibatu Doctrina, 
Varsaviae, 1801. 

2 "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 


During this period it can hardly be supposed that the 
defiant immorahty which characterised the eighteenth 
century had been favourable to the purity of a celibate 
priesthood. That the Church, indeed, had made but 
scanty improvement in the character of its ministers is 
visible throughout the literature of the age, and I need 
only allude to a few instances where efforts at reform 
revealed the prevailing corruption. 

In France the attacks upon the vow of celibacy, to 
which allusion has already been made, seem to have given 
rise to a spasmodic attempt to regulate the Church. In 
1760 an arret of the Parlement of Paris prohibited the 
organisation of religious congregations without express 
royal permission, verified by that body. The assembly of 
the clergy in Paris in 1766 produced no notable improve- 
ment, nor was greater success obtained when the temporal 
power intervened in the edicts of 1766 and 1767. Further 
effort apparently was requisite, and in the edict of March 
1768, Louis XV. undertook to diminish in some degree 
the causes of the more flagrant disorders among the 
regular clergy. Men were not to be allowed to take the 
vows under the age of twenty-two, nor women under nine- 
teen ; and as the smaller religious houses were especially 
notorious for laxness of discipline, all were suppressed 
which could not number at least fifteen professed monks 
or nuns, except those attached to larger congregations. 
The ecclesiastical authorities, moreover, were emphatically 
commanded to make a thorough visitation, and to compel 
the observance of the rules of discipline of the several 
Orders.^ The enforcement of this edict created no little 
excitement, and several of the smaller Orders narrowly 
escaped destruction in their endeavours to evade its 

suspended from his functions in consequence of a translation of the Bible which he 
had published. See AUibone's Dictionary, I. 657. 

1 Dupin, Manuel du Droit Pub. Eccles. Fran^aise, 4th Ed. Paris, 1845, p. 274. — 
Edit de Mars 1768, concernant les Ordres Religieux (Isambert, XXIII. 476). 


provisions. That these efforts did not succeed in accom- 
pHshing their object we may well beheve, even without the 
testimony of an eye-witness.^ As for the secular clergy, 
when Louis XV. amused himself by ordering the arrest of 
all ecclesiastics caught frequenting brothels, the number of 
victims in a short time amounted to 296, of whom no fewer 
than 100 were priests actively engaged in the service of 
the altar. ^ 

When the Grand-Duke Leopold of Tuscany undertook 
to reform the monasteries of his dominions and to put an 
end, if possible, to the abuse of the confessional, it led to 
a long diplomatic correspondence with the papal curia as 
to the jurisdiction over such cases. A public document of 
the year 1763 had already stated that the special crime in 
question had become less frequent, and attributed this 
improvement to the exceeding laxity of morals everywhere 
prevalent, for few confessors would be so foolish as to 
attempt seduction in the confessional when there was so 
little risk in doing the same thing elsewhere.^ Specious 
as this reasoning might seem, the facts on which it was 
based were hardly borne out by the investigations of 
Leopold shortly after into the morals of the monastic 
establishments. Nothing more scandalous is to be found 
in the visitations of the religious houses of England under 
Morton and Cromwell. The spiritual directors of the 
nunneries had converted them virtually into harems, and 
such of the sisters as were proof against seduction armed 
with the powers of confession and absolution, suffered 
every species of persecution. It was rare for them to 
venture on complaint, but when they did so they received 
no attention from their ecclesiastical superiors, and only 
the protection of the grand-ducal authority at length 

1 See Lasteyrie's Hist, of Auricular Confession, translated by Cocks, London, 
1848, Book II. chap, iv., vi. 

2 Bouvet, De la Confession et du Celibat des Pretres, Paris, 1845, p. 504. 

3 Archives of Florence — Segreterio di Stato nella Reggenza, Filza 194, No. 6. 


emboldened them to reveal the truth. The prioress of 
S. Caterina di Pistoia declared that, with three or four 
exceptions, all the monks and confessors with whom she 
had met in her long career were alike ; that they treated 
the nuns as wives, and taught them that God had made 
man for woman and woman for man ; and that the visita- 
tions of the bishops amounted to naught, even though 
they were aware of what occurred, for the mouths of 
the victims were sealed by the dread of excommunication 
threatened by their spiritual directors/ When it is con- 
sidered that the convents thus converted into dens of 
prostitution were the favourite schools to which the girls 
of the higher classes were sent for training and education, 
it can readily be imagined what were the moral influences 
thence radiating throughout society at large, and we can 
appreciate the argument above referred to, as to the ease 
with which the clergy could procure sexual indulgence 
without recourse to the confessional. Leopold's chief 
assistant in this struggle was Scipione de' Ricci, Bishop of 
Pistoia and Prato, whose experiences in the investigation 
caused him to induce the Council of Pistoia, in 1786, to 
declare the duties of the confessional wholly incompatible 
with the monastic state, and, in view of the improbability 
of any permanent reform, to propose the abolition of the 
monastic Orders by restricting vows to the duration of a 
twelvemonth ^ — propositions which were not approved by 
the congregation of Tuscan prelates held at Florence in 
1787, and which were scornfully condemned by Rome.^ 
Leopold, however, sought to palliate the evil by raising to 
the age of twenty-four the minimum limit for taking the 
vows, which the Council of Trent had fixed at sixteen, but 

1 De Potter, Mdmoires de Scipion de' Ricci, I. 284 sqq. 

3 Atti e Decreti del Concilio di Pistoja dell' anno 1786, Pistoja, 4to, pp. 237, 

3 Acta Congr. Archiep. et Episc. Hetrurise Sess. xviii. (Bambergae, 1790, T. I. 
p. 453).— Bull. Auctorem fidei ann. 1794 §§ 80-84. 


the benefit of this salutary measure was neutralised by the 
ease with which parents desiring to get rid of their 
children could place them in the institutions of the neigh- 
bouring states, such as Lucca and Modena.^ 

Rome itself was no better than its dependent provinces, 
despite the high personal character of some of the pontiffs. 
When the too early death of Clement XIV., in 1774, cut 
short the hopes which had been excited by his enlightened 
rule, St. Alphonso Liguori addressed to the conclave 
assembled for the election of his successor a letter urging 
them to make such a choice as would afford reasonable 
prospect of accomplishing the much-needed reform. The 
saint did not hesitate to characterise the discipline of the 
secular clergy as most grievously lax, and to proclaim 
that a general reform of the ecclesiastical body was the 
only way to remove the fearful corruption of the morals 
of the laity. ^ When we hear, about this time, of two 
CarmeUte convents at Rome, one male and the other female, 
which had to be pulled down because underground passages 
had been established between them, by means of which 
the monks and nuns lived in indiscriminate licentiousness, 
and when we read the scandalous stories which were 
current in Roman society about prelates high in the 
Church, we can readily appreciate the denunciations of 
St. Alphonso.* A curious glimpse at the interior of con- 
ventual life is furnished by a manual for Inquisitors, 
written about this period by an official of the Holy Office 
of Rome. In a chapter on nuns he describes the scandals 
which often cause them to fall within the jurisdiction of 
the Inquisition, and prescribes the course to be pursued 
with regard to the several offences. Among those who 
were forced to take the veil, despair frequently led to the 

1 Chiesi (Kivista Cristiana, Die. 1876 p. 470).— Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. De 
Reg. et Mon. cap. xv. 

2 Panzini, Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 333. 

3 Vie de Scipion de' Ricci I. 289 : II. 373 sqq. 



denial of God, of heaven, and of hell ; feminine enmity 
caused accusations of sorcery and witchcraft, which threw 
not only the nunneries, but whole cities, into confusion ; 
vain-glory of sanctity suggested pretended revelations and 
visions ; and these latter were also not infrequently caused 
by licentiousness, for in these utterances were sometimes 
taught doctrines utterly subversive of morality, of which 
godless confessors took advantage to teach their spiritual 
daughters that there was no sin in sexual intercourse. As 
in Spain, it was the practice of the Roman Inquisition to 
treat the offenders mildly, partly in consideration of the 
temptations to which they were exposed, and partly to 
avoid scandal.^ The contaminating influence on society 
at large, emanating from a Church so incurably corrupted, 
was vastly heightened by the overgrown numbers of the 
clerical body. In 1775, for example, a census of the terra- 
firma provinces of Venice showed in that narrow territory 
no less than 45,773 priests, or one to every fifty inhabitants, 
while in the kingdom of Naples, exclusive of Sicily, there 
were, in 1769, one to every seventy-six.^ Such over- 
crowding as this was not only in itself an eflicient cause 
of disorder, but intensified incalculably the power of 

The virtues of the clergy, therefore, could offer but a 
feeble barrier to the spirit of innovation when the passions 
of the French Revolution were brought to bear upon the 
immunities and distinctive laws of the Church. The attack 
commenced on that which had been the strength, but 
which was now the weakness, of the ecclesiastical estab- 
lishment. As early as 10 August, 1789, preliminary steps 
were taken in the National Assembly to appropriate the 
property of the Church to meet the deficit which had been 

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

2 Esaminatore, Firenze, April 15, 1867, p. 100. In Spain, the census of 1768 
gave the number of ecclesiastics, male and female, regular and secular, as 183,966. 


the efficient cause of calling together the high council of 
the nation. This property was estimated as covering one- 
fifth of the surface of France, yielding with the tithes an 
annual revenue of three hundred millions of francs. So 
vast an amount of wealth, perverted for the most part 
from its legitimate purposes, offered an irresistible tempta- 
tion to desperate financiers, and yet it was a prelate who 
made the first direct attack upon it. On 10 October, 1789, 
Talleyrand, then Bishop of Autun, introduced a motion 
to the effect that it should be devoted to the national 
wants, subject to the proper and necessary expenses for 
pubhc worship ; and on November 2 the measure was 
adopted by a vote of 568 to 346. This settled the 
principle, though the details of a transaction of such 
magnitude were only perfected by successive acts during 
the two following years. One of the earliest results was 
the secularisation of those ecclesiastics whose labours did 
not entitle them to support, a preliminary necessary to 
the intended appropriation of their princely revenues. 
This was accomplished by an act of 13 February, 1790, by 
which the religious Orders were suppressed, monastic vows 
were declared void, and a moderate annuity accorded to 
the unfortunates thus turned adrift upon the world. 

The great body of the parochial clergy, patriotic in 
their aspirations, and suffering from the abuses of power, 
had hailed the advent of the Revolution with joy ; and 
their assistance had been invaluable in rendering the 
Tiers-Etat supreme in the National Assembly. These 
measures, however, assailing their dearest interests and 
privileges, aroused them to a sense of the true tendency 
of the movement to which they had contributed so power- 
fully. A breach was inevitable between them and the 
partisans of progress. Every forward step embittered the 
quarrel. It was impossible for the one party to stay its 
course, or for the other to assent to acts which daily 


became more menacing and revolutionary. Forced, 
therefore, into the position of reactionaries, the clergy ere 
long became objects of suspicion and soon after of perse- 
cution. The progressives devised a test-oath, obligatory 
on all ecclesiastics, which should divide those who were 
loyal to the Revolution from the contumacious, and lists 
were kept of both classes.^ Harmless as the oath was in 
appearance, when it was tendered, in December 1790, 
five-sixths of the clergy throughout the kingdom refused 
it. Those who yielded to the pressure were termed 
asse?^mentes, the recusants insey^nentes or refractaires, and 
the latter, of course, at once became the determined 
opponents of the new regime^ the more dangerous because 
they were the only influential partisans of reaction belong- 
ing to the people. To their efforts were attributed the 
insurrections which in La Vendue and elsewhere threatened 
the most fearful dangers. They were accordingly exposed 
to severe legislation. A decree of 29 November, 1791, 
deprived them of their stipends and suspended their 
functions ; another of 27 May, 1792, authorised the local 
authorities to exile them on the simple denunciation of 
twenty citizens. Under the Terror their persons were 
exposed to flagrant cruelties, and a pretre refractaire 
was generally regarded, ipso facto, as an enemy to the 

Under these circumstances, sacerdotal marriage came 
to be looked upon as a powerful lever to disarm or over- 
throw the hostility of the Church, and also as a test of 
loyalty or disloyalty. Yet the steps by which this con- 
clusion was reached were very gradual. In the early 
stages of the Revolution, while it was still fondly deemed 

1 "D'etre fidele k la nation, k la loi, au roi, et de veiller exactement sur le 
troupeau confie ^ 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 secularisation of ecclesiastical property and of the monastic 
Orders. It was ordered in the Constitution civile du Clergi, Tit. II. Art. 21, 38 
adopted July 12, and promulgated August 24, 1790. 


that the existing institutions of France could be purified 
and preserved, the National Assembly was assailed with 
petitions asking that the privilege of marriage should be 
extended to the clergy.^ These met with no response, 
even after the suppression of the monastic Orders. As 
late as September 1790, when the Abbd Professor Cour- 
nand, of the College de France, made a motion in favour 
of sacerdotal marriage in the assembly of the district of 
St. Etienne du Mont in Paris, the question, after con- 
siderable debate, was laid aside as beyond the competence 
of that body. It was not until 3 September, 1791, that 
Mirabeau introduced into the Assembly a decree pro- 
viding that no profession or vocation should debar a 
citizen from marriage or be considered as incompatible 
with marriage, and forbidding the public officials and 
notaries from refusing to ratify any marriage contract on 
such pretext. Though no allusion was made in this to 
ecclesiastics, its object was evident, and was so admitted 
in the eloquent speech with which he urged its adoption — 
a speech which contained a very telhng resume of the 
arguments in favour of priestly marriage, but which, in 
its glowing anticipations of the benefits to be expected 
from the measure, affords a somewhat lamentable contrast 
to the meagreness of the realisation.^ The principle, when 
once established, was considered of sufficient importance 
to deserve recognition in the Constitution of September 
1791, a section in the preamble of which declares that 
the law does not recognise religious vows or any en- 
gagements contrary to the rights of nature or to the 

1 I have before me one of the pamphlets issued about this time (Le Mariage des 
Pretres, 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 eccle- 
siastics is generally recognised and understood. 

2 This speech is printed in full from a MS. in the public library of Geneva, by 
the Abb^ Chavard (Le Celibat des Pretres, pp. 483-600). 


constitution ^ ; and this was followed, as Mirabeau had 
proposed, by a decree of 20 September, 1791, which, in 
enumerating the obstacles to marriage, does not allude to 
monastic vows or holy orders. 

Professor Cournand was probably the first man of 
position and character to take advantage of the privilege 
thus permitted, and his example was followed by many 
ecclesiastics who had won an honourable place in the 
Church, in literature, and in science. Among them may 
be mentioned the Abbe Gaudin of the Oratoire, the 
author of a work already alluded to on the evils of celi- 
bacy, who in 1792 represented La Vendee in the Legis- 
lative Assembly, and who in 1805 did not hesitate to 
publish a little volume entitled " Avis a mon fils age de 
sept ans " — although in the preface to his work in 1781 
he had described himself as long past the age of the 
passions. Even bishops yielded to the temptation. 
Lom^nie, coadjutor of his uncle the Archbishop of Sens, 
Torn^, Bishop of Bourges, Massieu of Beauvais, and 
Lindet of Evreux were publicly married. Many nuptials 
of this kind were celebrated with an air of defiance. 
Pastors announced their approaching weddings to their 
flocks in florid rhetoric, as though assured of finding 
sjnnpathy for the assertion of the triumph of nature over 
the tyranny of man. Others presented themselves with 
their brides at the bar of the National Convention, as 
though to demonstrate that they were good citizens who 
had thrown off all reverence for the obsolete traditions 
of the past. 

A nation maddened and torn by the extremes of hope, 
of rage, and of terror, which met the triumphal march of 
three hundred and fifty thousand hostile bayonets with 
the heads of its king and queen, which blazoned forth to 

1 La loi ne reconnait ni voeux religieux, ni aucun autre engagement qui serait 
contraire aux droits naturels ou ^ la constitution. 


Etirope its irrevocable breach with the past by instituting 
festivals in honour of a new Supreme Being and parading 
a courtesan through the streets of Paris as the goddess 
of rcison, was not likely to employ much tenderness in 
coercing its internal enemies, and chief among these it 
finally numbered the ministers of religion. To them it 
soon applied the^marriage test. To marry was to acknow- 
ledge tte supremacy of the civil authority and to sunder 
allegiance to foreign domination ; celibacy was at the least 
a tacit adierence to the enemy and a mute protest against 
the new rlgime. Matrimony, therefore, rose into impor- 
tance as at once a test and a pledge, and every effort was 
made to ercourage it. Among the records of the revolu- 
tionary trihmal is the trial of Mahue, curd of S. Sulpice, 
13 August, 1793, accused of having written a pamphlet 
against prietly marriage, and he was only acquitted on 
the ground hat his crime had been committed prior to 
the adoptioLof the law of 19 July, 1793.^ A decree of 
19 Novembe, 1793, relieved from exile or imprisonment 
all priests wio could show that their banns had been 
published, ani when, soon afterwards, at the height of the 
popular frenz;, the Convention sent its deputies through- 
out France vA\i instructions to crush out every vestige of 
the dreaded taction, those emissaries made celibacy the 
object of theirespecial attacks. Thus, in the Department 
of the Meuse deputy De la Croix announced that all 
priests who wee not married should be placed under sur- 
veillance ; whi3 in Savoy the harsh measures taken against 
the clergy wert modified in favour of those who married 
by permitting :hem to remain under surveillance. One 
zealous deputy ordered a pastor to be imprisoned until 
he could find a wife, and another released a canon from 
jail on his pledging himself to marry. Many of those 
thus forced ino matrimony were decrepit with years, 

1 Desmze, Penalites Anciennes, p. 222, Paris, 1866. 


and chose brides whose age secured them from all siis- 
picions of yielding to the temptations of the flesh. Sach 
was the venerable Martin of Marseilles, who, after seeing 
his bishop and two priests, his intimate friends, led io the 
scaffold, took, at the age of 76, a wife nearly 60 yea's old. 
As an unfortunate ecclesiastic, who had thus succeeded 
in weathering the storm, fairly expressed it, in defending 
himself against the reproaches of a returned emigre 
bishop, he took a wife to serve as a lightnng rod. 
These unwilling bridegrooms not infrequently leposited 
with a notary or a trusty friend a protest against the 
violence to which they had yielded, and a declaation that 
their relations with their wives should be merey those of 
brother and sister. \ 

Yet in this curious persecution the officials mly obeyed 
the voice of the excited people. The press, tie stage, all 
the organs of public opinion, were unanimou in warring 
with celibacy, ridiculing it as a fanatical remnant of 
superstition, and denouncing it as a crim^ against the 
state. The popular societies were especiallyvehement in 
promulgating these ideas. The Congres fraternel of 
Ausch, in September 1793, ordered the Leal clubs to 
enlighten the benighted minds of the poplace on the 
subject, and to exclude from membership al priests who 
should not marry within six months. A ptition to the 
National Assembly from the republicans of Auxerre 
demanded that all ecclesiastics who persis^d in remain- 
ing single should be banished ; while a nore truculent 
address from Condom urged imperiouslythat ceUbacy 
should be declared a capital crime, and hat the death 
penalty should be enforced with relentlesi severity. In 
times so unsparing, when suspicion was ionviction and 
conviction death, and when such were thejviews of those 
who swayed public affairs, it is not to if wondered at 
if many pious Churchmen, unambitious o the crown of 


martyrdom, thought matrimony preferable to the guil- 
lotine or the noyade. 

Indeed, the only source of surprise is that so few were 
found to betray their convictions. In the vast body of 
the Gallican Church it is estimated that only about 2000 
marriages of men in orders took place after the Reign of 
Terror had rendered it a measure of safety. In addition to 
this, about 500 nuns were also married ; and though this 
proportion is larger, it is still singularly small when we 
consider that these poor creatures, utterly unfitted by habit 
or education to take care of themselves, were suddenly 
ejected from their peaceful retreats and cast upon a 
world which was raging in convulsions so terrible.^ 

This is doubtless attributable to the steadfast resistance 
which the better part of the clergy made to the innovation, 
in spite of the danger of withstanding the popular frenzy, 
and in disregard of the laws which denounced such oppo- 
sition. Even the assermentes, who had pledged themselves 
to the Revolution by taking the oath of allegiance, were 
mostly unfavourable to the abrogation of celibacy, and the 
position thus maintained by the clergy gave tone to such 
of the people as retained enough of devout feeling still to 
frequent the churches and partake of the mysteries of 
rehgion. The existence of an active and determined oppo- 
sition is revealed by an act of 16 August, 1792, guarantee- 
ing the salaries of all married priests, thus showing that 
in some places at least their stipends had been withheld. 

1 I have not found it easy to form a satisfactory estimate of the number of 
French ecclesiastics previous to the Kevolution. Le Bas (Dictionnaire Encyclo- 
pedique de I'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 (Congregations Keli- 
gieuses, pp. 5, 6) quotes from the Abbe 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 (Encyclopedie 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. 


Many pastors, indeed, were driven from their parishes by 
their congregations, in consequence of marriage, to put an 
end to which a decree of 17 September, 1793, ordered the 
communes to continue payment of salaries in all such cases 
of ejection. 

There were not wanting courageous ecclesiastics who 
opposed the innovation by every means in their power. 
Although Gobel, Bishop of Paris, a creature of the 
Revolution, favoured the marriages of his clergy, a portion 
of his curates openly and vigorously denounced them, and 
Gratien, Archbishop of Rouen, addressed to him a severe 
reproach for his criminal weakness. The same Gratien 
excommunicated one of his priests for marrying, and pub- 
lished, 24 July, 1792, an instruction directed especially 
against such unions. For this he was thrown into prison, 
where he was long confined. Fauchet of Bayeux, for the 
same offence, was reported to the Convention, but was 
fortunate enough to elude the consequences. Philibert 
of Sedan issued, 20 January, 1793, a pastoral in which he 
more cautiously argued against the practice, and, after a 
long persecution, he was lucky to escape with a decree 
of costs against him. Pastorals to the same effect were 
also promulgated by Clement of Versailles, Heraudin of 
Chateauroux, Sanadon of Oleron, Suzor of Tours, and 

The Convention was not disposed to tolerate proceed- 
ings such as these. To put a stop to them, it adopted, 
19 July, 1793, a law punishing with deprivation and exile 
all bishops who interfered in any way with the marriage 
of their clergy. For a while this appears to have put a stop 
to open opposition, but when the Reign of Terror was past, 
and the Catholics saw a prospect of reorganising the dis- 
tracted Church, one of the earliest efforts was directed to 
the restoration of celibacy. On 15 March, 1795, some 
assermentes bishops, members of the Convention, issued 


from Paris an encyclical letter to the faithful, in which 
they denounced sacerdotal marriage in the strongest terms. 
Those who entered into such unions were declared un- 
worthy of confidence ; the fearful constraint under which 
they had sought refuge in matrimony was pronounced to 
be no justification, and even renunciation of their wives 
was not admitted as entitling them to absolution for the 
one unpardonable sin.^ In a second letter, issued 15 De- 
cember of the same year, this denunciation was repeated 
in even stronger terms. 

In these manifestoes the bishops did not speak by 
authority. They could not threaten or command, for they 
were acting beyond or in opposition to the law. With 
the progress of reaction they became bolder. In 1797 the 
Church ventured to hold a national council, in which it 
forbade the nuptial benediction to those who were in 
orders or were bound by monastic vows, thus reducing 
their marriages to the mere civil contract, and depriving 
them of all the sanction of religion. The local synods 
which, encouraged by the fall of the Directory, were held 
in 1800, adopted these principles as a matter of course, 
and took measures to enforce them. That of Bourges 
even prohibited the churching of women who were wives 
of ecclesiastics. 

This condemnation of the married clergy carried despair 
and desolation into the households of those who had 
offended, and upon whom the door of reconciliation was 
so sternly closed. Gregoire of Blois, a leading actor in all 
these scenes, records the innumerable appeals received 
from the unfortunates, who, torn by remorse and thus 
repudiated by the Church, begged in vain for the mercy 
which was incompatible with the respect due to the 
ancient and inviolable canons. 

All this, however, was merely local action. The 

1 Lett. Encyc. 15 Mars, 1795, art. ix. (Gregoire, p. 109.) 


Gallican Church had not yet been reunited to Rome. In 
reconstructing a system of social order, Napoleon speedily 
recognised the necessity of religion in the state, and, 
despite the opposition of those who still believed in the 
Republic, the Concordat of 1801 restored France to its 
place in the hierarchy of Latin Christianity. There is 
nothing in the Concordat interfering with the right of the 
priest, as a citizen, to contract marriage ; but as, in all 
affairs purely ecclesiastical, the internal regulation and 
discipline of the Church were necessarily, left to itself, 
the rights of the priest, as a priest, became of course 
subject to the received rules of the Church, which could 
thus refuse the nuptual benediction, and suspend the 
functions of any one contravening its canons. In conse- 
quence of the power thus restored, when the question 
soon after arose as to the legality of sacerdotal marriages 
contracted during the troubles, the cardinal-legate Caprara 
issued rescripts to those whose unions were anterior to the 
Concordat, depriving them of their priestly character, 
reducing them to the rank of laymen, and empowering the 
proper officials to absolve them and remarry them to the 
wives whom they had so irregularly wedded. This created 
a strong feeling of indignation among the prelates who 
had carried the tabernacle through the wilderness, and who 
while opposing such marriages most strenuously, regarded 
this intervention of papal authority as a direct assault upon 
the Hberties of the Gallican Church. Their time was past, 
however, and their denunciations of this duplication of the 
sacrament were of no avail. Yet the legality of such 
marriages as civil contracts, and the unimpaired right of 
priests to contract them, were asserted and proved by 
PortaHs, in his masterly speech of 15 April, 1802, before 
the Corps L^gislatif, advocating the adoption of the 
Concordat as a law, although he admitted that the Church 
could withhold its sanction and could exercise its discipline 


while the feehng of the people rendered sacerdotal celibacy 

One phase of the situation thus created was aptly 
illustrated in the curious affair of Prince Talleyrand's 
marriage, which attracted at the time the attention of 
Europe. Forced into the Church by family exigencies, 
and elevated to the bishopric of Autun, he had earned the 
permanent hatred of the hierarchy by throwing himself 
into the revolutionary movement, where he bore a leading 
part in the secularisation of ecclesiastical property and 
utilised his episcopal functions in consecrating the Consti- 
tutional bishops. This could not be condoned, even in 
view of the active assistance which, as Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, under the Consulate, he rendered in the negotia- 
tions for the Concordat. In these he had vainly sought 
to introduce a clause releasing from their obhgations all 
ecclesiastics who had contracted marriage or had other- 
wise renounced their clerical status — a clause which would 

1 This speech of Portalis p^re 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 follow- 
ing, as embodying a clear exposition of the intentions of those who negotiated the 
Concordat : 

" Quelques personues se plaindront peut-etre de ce que Ton n'a pas conserve le 
mariage des pretres. . . . En eflfet, d'une part nous n'admettons plus que les 
ministres dont I'existence est necessaire a I'exercice du culte, ce qui diminue con- 
siderablement le nombre des personnes qui se vouaient anciennement au celibat. 
D'autre part, pour les ministres memes que nous conservons, et ^ qui le cdlibat 
est ordonne par les reglements ecclesiastiques, la defense qui leur est faite du mariage 
par ces reglements n'est point consacree comme empichement dirimant dans I'ordre 
civil : ainsi leur mariage, s'ils en contractaient un, ne serait point nul aus yeux des 
lois politiques et civiles, et les enfans qui en naitraient seraient l^itimes ; mais dans 
le for interieur et dans I'ordre religieux, ils s'exposeraient aux peines spirituelles 
prononcees par les lois canoniques : ils contiaueraient k jouir deleurs droits defamille 
et de cite, mais ils seraient tenus de s'abstenir de I'exercice du sacerdoce. Conse- 
quemmentj sans affaiblir le nerf de la discipline de I'eglise, on conserve aux individus 
toute la liberte et tous les avantages garantis par les lois de I'etat ; mais il eut ete 
in juste d'aller plus loin, et d'exiger pour les ecclesiastiques de France, comme tels, 
une exception qui les efit deconsideres aupres de tous les peuples Catholiques, et 
aupres des frangais memes, auxquels ils adminlstreraient les secours de la religion.' 
(Dupin, Manuel du Droit Public Eccles. Frangaise, 4eme ed. pp. 196-8.) 


have covered his own case — but Pius VII. was obdurate, 
and, while promising to give to his legate Caprara faculties 
to absolve simple priests, he refused to comprehend bishops 
and members of the religious Orders/ 

The Concordat adopted in this shape left Talleyrand 
in an awkward position. A fascinating woman with a 
dubious past, known as Madame Grand, had for some 
years been his acknowledged mistress, doing the honours 
of his house. In the easy morality of the Directory this 
had caused no scandal, but Napoleon, in re-establishing 
order, insisted on external decency, and moreover, when 
relations were resumed with foreign powers, ambassadorial 
ladies murmured at being obliged to associate with a 
concubine. He therefore offered Talleyrand the per- 
emptory alternatives of marrying Madame Grand or of 
dismissing her, and Talleyrand chose the former. Two 
pressing applications were made to the Holy See and 
urged with all the force that Napoleon could bring to 
bear, but in each case the only outcome was a brief 
enabling Talleyrand to be unfrocked, to be reduced to lay 
communion, deprived of sacerdotal functions, and author- 
ised to lead a secular hfe, without a word as to marriage. 
Thus checked, Talleyrand made the best of the situation. 
He caused the second brief to be laid before the Council 
of State, which duly accepted it and ordered its registra- 
tion, and it was officially gazetted in a concise form stating 
that it restored citizen Talleyrand to secular life. All the 
world assumed this as conferring on him the full privileges 
of the laity, and it was in vain that the Holy See caused 
the insertion in foreign journals of a statement that it 
reduced him to lay communion without relieving him of 
his vows. His civil marriage with Madame Grand was 
celebrated on 10 September, 1802, and the lady had the 

1 Bernard de Lacombe, Le Mariage de Talleyrand (Ze Correspondant, Paris, 25 
Aout et 10 Septembre, 1905). 

It is to this exhaustive article that I owe the details of this celebrated case. 


satisfaction of styling herself Talleyrand-Perigord, or 
subsequently Princess of Benevento. A sacramental 
marriage, it is said, followed, performed quietly by the 
cur^ of Epinay, but the parish register of that place has 
disappeared and the assertion cannot be confirmed, though 
there is little reason to disbelieve it, for no one at the 
time, save the Curia, doubted the legal validity of the 

The question of celibacy was not settled by the Con- 
cordat. Notwithstanding the certainty of ecclesiastical 
penalties following such infraction of the Tridentine 
articles of faith, the practice which had been introduced 
could not be immediately eradicated. Priests were con- 
stantly contracting marriage, and the question gave con- 
siderable trouble to the Government, which hesitated for 
some time as to the policy to be pursued. PortaHs, in 
1802, as w^e have seen, declared the full legality of such 
marriages, and the unimpaired right of ecclesiastics to 
contract them ; and the provisions of the Code respecting 
marriage, adopted in 1803, make no allusions to vows or 
religious engagements as causing incapacity.^ Yet in 
1805, when Daviaux, Archbishop of Bordeaux, opposed 
the application of a priest named Boisset to the civil 
authorities for a marriage contract, Portalis, then Minister 
of Religious Affairs, on being appealed to, replied that 
the Government would not allow its officers to register 
such contracts. The local administrations sometimes 
assented to such applications and sometimes referred them 
to the central authority, until at length, in 1807, a definite 
conclusion was promulgated. This was to the effect that 
although the civil law was silent as regards such marriages, 
yet they were condemned by public opinion. The 
Government considered them fraught with danger to the 
peace of families, as the powerful influence of the pastor 

1 Code Civil, Liv. i. Tit. v. 


could be perverted to evil purposes, and, if seduction 
could be followed by marriage, that influence would be 
liable to great abuse. The Emperor therefore declared 
that he could not tolerate marriage on the part of those 
who had exercised priestly functions since the date of the 
Concordat. As for those who had abandoned the ministry 
previous to that period and had not since resumed it, he 
left them to their own consciences. Thus in practice, 
although marriage was regarded as purely a civil institu- 
tion, a limitation was introduced which was not authorised 
by the Code, which rested solely upon the authority of the 
Emperor, and which, far from indicating respect to the 
Church, was a flagrant insult. As Napoleon withdrew 
himself more and more from the principles of the new 
order of things, we find him disposed to take even stronger 
ground in opposition to the civil privileges accorded to the 
priesthood by the Concordat. The question of sacerdotal 
marriage continued to present itself under perplexing 
shapes, and at length the Emperor, on the eve of his 
downfall, perhaps with a view to propitiate the sacerdotal 
power, proposed to apply to married priests the penalty 
imposed by the law on bigamy.^ It was too late, how- 
ever : the Empire was rapidly vanishing, and these sug- 
gestions were soon forgotten in the hurrying march of 

1 In an address to the Council of State, December 20, 1813, Napoleon said : "Le 
sacerdoce est une sorte de mariage ; le pretre etant uni k I'eglise comme I'^poux k 
son epouse, il n'y aurait aucun inconvenient k appliquer au pretre qui se marierait la 
peine de la bigamie : un tel ecclesiastique ne merite aucun sorte de consideration." — 
Bouhier de I'Ecluse, de I'Etat des Pretres en France, Paris, 1842, p. 17. 

2 For many of the above details I am indebted to the curious but ill-digested 
little work, " Histoire du Mariage des Pretres en France," published by Gregoire in 
1826. Gregoire, though a priest of the ancien rdgime, 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 Kevolu- 
tion, 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 7 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 Gre- 
goire 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 
Kevolution, but the same inflexibility which maintained his Catholicism through 
the ordeal of 1793 and 1794 caused him to stand by his repubUcanism 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 Kestoration 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. 




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

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

Even yet, however, the matter was not held to be 
finally disposed of. In 1828, Louis Therese Saturnin 
Dumonteil, a priest of Paris, who desired to contract 
marriage, failed to obtain from the courts the customary 
assistance required by the law to set aside the refusal of 

1 Gregoire, op. cit. p. 102. 


his parents, who dedined their assent to his projected 
union. The case was argued in all its bearings on civil 
and ecclesiastical law, and he found the tribunals resolutely- 
opposed to him. When the Revolution of July unsettled 
the public mind with visions of the revival of the principles 
of '89, Dumonteil endeavoured to carry out his project. 
The lower court decided in his favour, 26 March, 1831, 
but the higher courts reversed the decision, and pro- 
nounced definitely that priests could not contract civil 
marriage,^ and this in spite of the Charter of 1830, which 
simply affirmed Catholicism to be the religion of the 
majority of Frenchmen, while that of 1814 had declared 
it to be the religion of the state. 

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

1 Bouhier de TEcluse, 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. 


Again, in 1864, in the case of the Abbe Chataigneu, 
the court of Angouleme decided that a priest was, under 
the law of France, not competent to contract civil 
marriage.^ On the other hand, in 1870 the court of 

Algiers, in the case of a M. Q , delivered an elaborate 

decision to the effect that in France there is no law for- 
bidding the civil marriage of priests.^ Yet in 1878 the 
Court of Cassation confirmed a decision of the court of 
Rennes, pronouncing null and void the marriage of a 
priest, at the instance of his nephew and niece, to whom 
he had bequeathed his property by a will anterior to the 
marriage. When M. Loyson (Pere Hyacinthe) married 
Mrs. Merriman, in 1872, the ceremony was performed in 
London, at the office of the registrar of marriages, and 
M. Loyson gave as the reason of his seeking a foreign 
land the refusal of the French officials to confirm the civil 
ceremony. So the Abbe Chavard, vicar of Marseilles, in 
1874 went to Geneva for the same purpose, where he con- 
tinued his priestly functions ; and this leads me to regard 
as exceedingly improbable a public statement in the daily 
journals that priestly marriages occur in France at the rate 
of twenty or thirty a year. In fact, so lately as September 
1883 there was before the courts a case which shows how 
uncertain is the question still in France. A certain Abbe 
Junqua was expelled from the Church and was condemned 
to three months' imprisonment for continuing to wear the 
priestly robes. He subsequently married and engaged in 
trade, when he failed, and his wife sought to secure her 
dowry from the bankrupt assets, but was resisted on the 
ground that her marriage was illegal under the Concordat, 
although the Church had itself deprived the husband of his 
ecclesiastical character. Yet at last, when in 1888 the 
Court of Cassation, the supreme tribunal in France, 

1 Talmadge's Letters from Florence, p. 166. 

2 Chavard, Le Celibat des Pretres, pp, 525-30. 


definitely decided in favour of priestly marriage, the 
decision was acquiesced in with scarce a remonstrance and 
hardly attracted attention. It is evident that the world 

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

In Wiesbaden, in 1821, a priest named Koch, with the 
permission of the authorities, abandoned the priesthood 
and applied to the cure of the place to marry him, when, 
meeting with a refusal, he had the ceremony performed by 
a Protestant pastor, and was promptly excommunicated by 
the vicar of Ratisbon. Not deterred by this, in 1828 a 
hundred and eighty priests of Baden petitioned the secular 
power for permission to marry, and the Chamber of 
Deputies showed a disposition to grant the request. This 
effort was imitated in 1831 by the Catholic clergy of 
Silesia, but the movement was repressed by the Prussian 
Government ; and in 1833, at Treves, a clerical association 
was formed to carry out the same object.^ These efforts led 
Gregory XVI., in the encyclical Mirari vos (15 August 
1832), to urge the bishops to constant vigilance and earnest 
effort in defence of a law of the greatest importance, 
against a foul conspiracy which was daily extending. 
Some similar movements in Austria in the next decade 
led Pius IX., almost immediately after his accession to 
the papal chair, in his encyclical letter Qui pluribus 
(9 November, 1846), to repeat the words of his predecessor. 
In 1851, moreover, he took especial pains to stigmatise a 

1 J. M. Cayla, Les Cures maries par le Concile, Paris, 1869. 


work, published in Lima by Francisco de Paula in 1848, 
entitled " Defensa de la Autoridad de los Goberinos," 
which impiously sought to decentralise the Church, and 
which took strong grounds against enforced celibacy/ 

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

Now, Panzini's persecution arose solely from his affirm- 
ing that enforced celibacy is impolitic and unnatural. He 
professed unbounded reverence for the Church in all 
matters of faith, and claimed that the point at issue was 

1 Litt. Apostol. Multiplices inter. 


merely one of discipline on which the Church might make 
a mistake. Even here, however, he was careful to declare 
his measureless admiration for voluntary asceticism. Vir- 
ginity he believed to be immensely superior to matrimony, 
and he anathematised as cheerfully as the Council of Trent 
could wish all who should proclaim the contrary. Even 
monasticism he defended as a state of perfection recom- 
mended by Christ. His sole objective point was the 
rigidity of the law which renders the single state indis- 
pensable to all ecclesiastics, and he essayed to prove that 
this is in direct antagonism to all the general principles of 
Catholic theology ; that the purity which is its pretext is 
impossible to enforce, and that the effort itself is most 
disastrous to the Church and to the faithful. The authori- 
ties were not disposed to consider that these opinions were 
an allowable dissidence on matters of pohcy, and they 
hastened to brand them as heretical. In the sentence 
passed upon Panzini the Inquisition took occasion to 
stigmatise as heresy the assertion that enforced celibacy is 
contrary to nature, that it is a stumbling-block and the 
cause of perpetual transgression.^ That this theory was 
enforced in practice so long as the Church could control 
the secular power is shown in the case of an Itahan priest 
who, preferring to sanctify love by marriage rather than to 
indulge in illicit intrigue, married and fled with his bride 
to Africa, seeking among the infidel the liberty denied him 
in Christendom. Three children blessed his union, but the 
unresting vigilance of the Church discovered his retreat, 
when, with the aid of the French consulate, he was seized, 
carried back to Naples, and thrown into prison to repent 
indefinitely of his errors.^ 

There evidently could be no reasonable ground for 
expecting a change of policy in this respect on the part of 

1 Panzini, pp. 16, 58, 102, 143, 201, 401. 

2 Ibid. p. 123. 


the Roman Curia, and this was recognised in 1866 by 
some Cathohc priests of Hungary, who, desiring liberty of 
marriage, and seeing the futihty of anticipating it at the 
hands of their superiors, united in petitioning the National 
Diet for the requisite permission. Yet in spite of the 
extravagance of supposing that a body which, since the 
Council of Trent, has become so thoroughly centralised 
as the Church, would listen to the wishes of its lower 
classes, there were not wanting those who imagined that 
the Council of the Vatican in 1870 would adopt the 
discipline of the Eastern Church and permit marriage to 
the inferior orders. Any such expectations were destined 
to be disappointed as soon as the preliminary machinery 
of the council became known. A congregazione centrale 
was appointed by Pius IX. in advance, consisting exclu- 
sively of cardinals connected with the Inquisition, and to 
this body was delegated the sole determination of the 
matters to be submitted to the council for discussion. 
Under this congregazione, and presided over by its mem- 
bers, were five consulte, to act as sub-committees on the 
subjects respectively confided to their deliberations. The 
consulta on faith and dogma was under the presidency of 
Cardinal Bilio, notorious as the compiler of the Syllabus 
of December 1864, and that on canons and discipline was 
committed to Cardinal Catarini, whose whole career had 
been passed in the Inquisition, and who had acquired a 
sinister fame by his rigorous punishment of all attempts 
at reform. If, as the Church asserts, the proceedings of 
general councils are under the immediate operation of the 
Holy Ghost, it will be seen what reverent care was 
observed to keep Him in due subjection, and to spare the 
Church the scandal of being brought by thoughtless 
innovators into opposition with Him. 

As the destined outcome of the council was simply the 
dogma of papal infallibility, the hopes of the anti-celiba- 


tarians were transferred to the schism precipitated by it, 
and known as that of the Old Cathohcs. In 1875 a 
Dean Suczinsky married the Baroness Gazewaska, and 
joined the schismatics, when the Prussian Government 
decided to protect him in the enjoyment of his temporah- 
ties, and his new brethren agreed to receive him, and thus 
committed themselves on the question of celibacy — a 
decision confirmed in 1878 by the synod of Bonn, which 
decreed, by a vote of 75 against 22, that the prohibition of 
the canons is not an obstacle to the marriage of ecclesias- 
tics, or to the cure of souls by married priests. It required 
no common conscientiousness and strength of purpose for 
men like von Dollinger, von Schulte, Reusch, and their 
companions, upheld by their intimate knowledge of the 
past, to sever themselves from the Church in which they 
had been nurtured, when so many of those on whose co- 
operation they had relied allowed themselves to be coerced 
into subscribing to a doctrine the untenability of which 
they had exposed/ What, however, is to be the eventual 
outcome of their self-sacrifice time alone can determine. 
The struggle in France over the separation of Church and 
State shows that Ultramontanism is unyielding, and that 
the Vatican is resolved to rule or ruin. It is irrecon- 
cilable, and those who will not submit blindly to its 
demands have no choice but heresy or schism. This can 
scarce fail to broaden the movement of Los von Rom, which 
in Austria has already cost the Church so many thousand 
souls ; and while most of these have gone over to the 
EvangeHcals, the Old Cathohcs in the German portions 
of the Austrian Empire claim 23,000 members, and are 
growing at the rate of a thousand a year. In Bavaria and 
the Rhine lands they are said to be numerous, and in 
Switzerland the canton of Geneva alone numbers them 

1 See Goetz, Franz Heinrich Reusch : eine Darstellung seiner Lebensarbeit, 
Gotha, 1901. 


at 4300. Holland has its share ; and in the United States 
they have long been organised, having had about four 
thousand communicants as early as 1892. A cognate 
movement is on foot in France, where the uncompromis- 
ing stand of the Vatican on the Law of Separation is 
directly provocative of schism. Akin to this is the 
separatist Polish National Church of America, which at 
the present moment is considering the question of abrogat- 
ing priestly celibacy. It is useless to forecast the future, 
but he is blind to the portents of the times who does not 
recognise that there are elements at work which, if met 
with the eternal non possumus, may seriously threaten 
unity. ^ 

Another serious blow in the matter of marriage has 
been dealt by the adoption in successive Catholic states of 
what is known as civil marriage, by which matrimony is 
withdrawn from the exclusive control of the Church, and 
the sacrament and benediction are declared to be accidents 
not necessary to the legal status of husband and wife or to 
the legitimacy and heritable capacity of children. We have 
already seen that this was one of the legislative results of 
the French Revolution, and the example thus early set by 
France has been followed of late by Italy and Austria 
after its adoption in 1853 by Sardinia, as one of the 
earliest reformatory measures of Cavour. Yet the Church 
positively refuses to regard such marriages as entitled to 
respect. This is a trouble of old date, for when, in 1744, 
Benedict XIV. was informed that in Belgium parties who 
were obliged by the law to present themselves before the 
civil magistrate and declare their intention to be man and 
wife frequently neglected to invoke the ministration of 
the priest, he pronounced such marriages to be invalid, 

1 There may be possible promise of a new alignment in the report (January 
1907), that Archbishop Messmer, of Milwaukee, publicly holds out the prospect 
that Episcopal clergymen may be received as priests in the Catholic Church with- 
out being obliged to abandon their wives. 


and this was repeated by Pius VI. in 1791 and Pius VII. 
in 1808. It is therefore not surprising that when the 
project was under discussion in Italy, the Unitd Cattolica, 
one of the papal organs, in its issue of 16 July, 1864, did 
not hesitate to assert that the establishment of civil 
matrimony was establishing the liberty of licentiousness, 
and that, after having scattered houses of ill-fame through- 
out Italy, it would convert the whole peninsula into one 
brothel. In a similar spirit, the Papal Penitentiary, 
15 January, 1866, issued instructions reciting a decision of 
Pius IX. in secret consistory, 27 September, 1852, that 
civil marriage without the sacrament was nothing but a 
foul and destructive cohabitation, whence it was deduced 
that the civil authorities have no power over marriage or 
divorce, and Pius IX. followed this by an allocution of 
30 October, 1866, denouncing it as leading to an organised 
system of scandalous concubinage.^ When, in May 1868, 
Austria followed the example of Italy, Pius within a 
month delivered an allocution in which he not only 
condemned the " abominable law," but declared it to be 
null and void ; and Cardinal Rauscher, Archbishop of 
Vienna, issued a manifesto in which he not only denied 
that the civil contract constituted marriage, and directed 
that children sprung from such unions should be entered 
on the parish registers as neither legitimate nor illegiti- 
mate, but gave positive instructions that absolution should 
be denied, even in ariiculo inortis, to all parties who had 
cohabited in such unions — thus stigmatising them as worse 
than concubinage. In a similar spirit, when, in 1869, civil 
marriage was proclaimed under the short-lived republic of 
Spain, the clergy, under inspiration from the Vatican, 
denounced it as concubinage, and threatened to suspend 
the celebration of the Mass. The law, in fact, excited 
much popular feeling, for it made the civil ceremony 

1 Appendix ad Concil. Plenar. Americse. Latinae, pp. 739-42. 


essential, and declared that without it the solemnisation in 
church did not confer the legal status of man and wife, 
so that with the restoration of the monarchy it was 
promptly repealed, and an effort to restore it was rejected 
by an emphatic vote of the Cortes in February 1883. 
With the more liberal tendencies that have since prevailed, 
the matter has been again taken up, and its recognition has 
been the subject of fierce dissension. Leo XIII. was 
vigorous in his opposition to the innovation. In his first 
encyclical, issued 21 April, 1878, he declared that 
"citizens, profaning the dignity of Christian marriage, 
have adopted legal concubinage in place of religious 
matrimony " ; and he returned to the attack in a special 
encyclical on the subject, published 10 February, 1880. 
In this he assumes that, as "by the will of Christ the 
Church alone can and ought to legislate and decide con- 
cerning sacraments, so it is out of the question to attempt 
to transfer any, even the smallest part, of her power to 
the government of the state," and therefore "judicial 
sentences on conjugal contracts, as to whether they have 
been entered upon rightly or wrongly," are a direct 
infringement of the rights of the Churchy whether those 
judgments be adverse or not to the canons.^ 

The earlier passages of this encyclical are so warm and 
eloquent a defence of the holiness of matrimony, as the 
natural condition of man decreed by God, that it would 
probably trouble its author to explain why so exalted and 
divine a state should be prohibited to the ministers of the 
God who devised it and fitted his creatures specially for it. 
It is easy, however, to account for the bitter and persistent 
opposition of the Church to the civil marriage laws without 
attributing it to the control which the monopoly of the 
sacrament gives it over the faithful, and the lucrative nature 
of the business thus brought to the Curia. More important 

1 Acta Leonis, PP. XIII., T. I. p. 54 ; T. II. p. 10. 


than these is the fact that under the laws the State has 
the power to permit clerical marriage. For more than 
half a century such laws had existed in France, but as the 
French tribunals leaned towards upholding ecclesiastical 
celibacy, they were acquiesced in comparatively in silence. 
When Italy, however, followed the example, it was seen 
that the temper of the Italian Government would lead to 
construing them in a sense favourable to priestly liberty, 
and hence the opposition, which has been justified and 
intensified by the result. Immediately on the passage of 
the Civil Marriage Act, Dr. Prota, of Naples, an energetic 
reformer within the Church, in a letter of 30 October, 
1865, advised all his clerical friends to marry and to persist 
in the exercise of their functions, " and the more who do 
so at once and simultaneously the safer for all, for the 
bishops will venture the less to persecute you in the face 
of public opinion. " Accordingly, cases of priestly marriage 
commenced to occur, and when they were contested their 
validity was confirmed by the tribunals. The superior 
courts of Genoa, Trani, and Palermo successively decided 
in this sense ; and finally, in 1869, occurred the case of 
Andrea Treglia, of the diocese of Salerno, which settled 
the question in Naples. The municipal officers of Vietri 
refused to marry him ; the court of Salerno decided against 
him, but when the matter was carried up to the court of 
appeals of Naples judgment was rendered in his favour, 
and he was married forthwith — thus legitimating the 
unions of some fifty priests who had preceded him, with- 
out the question having been settled by the tribunal of last 
resort. In the organ of the reforming Catholics of Naples, 
the Emancipatore Cattolica, it was not without interest to 
see the successive marriages chronicled with the same 
satisfaction as that evinced by Spalatin in the stormy days 
of Luther.^ In Austria the Church succeeded better in 

1 Naples was perhaps the first kingdom in Europe to promulgate a civil 


maintaining its hold upon those who had once entered 
its service. The Civil ]\Iarriage Law encouraged a 
number of priests to marry, but in 1891 the journals 
announced a decision by the High Court of Appeals, in 
the case of one who abandoned the Catholic faith in 1870 
and who married in 1879, to the effect that a man who 
had vowed a life of celibacy could not be released from 
his vow. 

Yet the whole question is one of but slender practical 
importance. In no country is the Catholic Church sub- 
servient to the State. It controls its own sacraments, and 
no government is likely to venture upon interference with 
it in its own sphere. While therefore it may be deprived 
of the power to persecute and punish those of its members 
who enter upon civil marriage, it yet possesses the ability 
to deprive them of their functions, which in most cases is 
equivalent to depriving them of bread ; and it has an 
unquestioned right to expel them from its communion. 
The priest who marries, therefore, is virtually separated 
from his Church and deprived of his means of livelihood — 
motives which, combined with the moral forces at work 
to keep men within the accustomed bounds, are quite 
sufficient to prevent defection from growing common, or 
to render marriage with a priest attractive to women above 
the lowest class. Even in the United States, where there 
is no legal impediment to priestly marriage, and the tone 
of society is such as rather to welcome those who escape 
from the pale of Rome, such cases are rare, although of late 
years they seem to be increasing. While, therefore, the civil 
marriage laws of Europe unquestionably loosen the ties 
which in this respect bind the priest to his Church, there 
are still sufficient material and moral forces at work to 

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. 


prevent desertions from this cause from assuming any 
serious proportions. 

The monastic Orders have not escaped the innovating 
spirit of modern times, and CathoHc lands have followed, 
to a large extent, the example set in the sixteenth century 
by Henry VIII. and the German Protestant princes. 
The excessive multiplication of the " religious " and the 
enormous accumulation of property in mortmain were 
recognised as an evil calling for repression as soon as 
the old-time veneration for the Church declined in 
the irreverential spirit of the eighteenth century. The 
expulsion of the Jesuits, from Portugal, France, and 
Spain, between 1759 and 1767, and the suppression of 
the Order by Clement XIV. in the bull Dominus ac 
Redemptor, 24 July, 1773, gave the impulse. The Em- 
peror Joseph II., in a series of measures from 1772 to 
1784, greatly reduced the religious Orders in his own 
dominions and suppressed the contemplative ones, which 
contributed nothing visible to the benefit of society.^ 
His brother, Leopold of Tuscany, desired to abolish all 
the Orders and replace them with one which should serve 
as a retreat for pious souls, but he felt himself not strong 
enough, and ventured only on partial measures.^ The 
French Revolution followed, with its decisive action of 
secularising all Church property by the decree of the 
National Assembly of 2 November, 1789, and the sup- 
pression of the Orders, 13 February, 1790. Germany 
yielded to the temptation, and by the Reichsrecess of 
25 February, 1803, secularised the bishoprics and monastic 
foundations ; everywhere but in Austria the religious 
houses were gradually suppressed, and their buildings 

1 Wetzer und Welte, Encyclopadie, VI. 1853. — Herzog, Real Encyclopadie, 
XIV. 50. 

2 Scaduto, Stato e Chiesa sotto Leopolde I. p. 296 (Firenze, 1885). 


were converted into barracks, prisons, insane asylums, 
and the like/ In Spain, the Napoleonic invasion laid 
waste many convents, and the Cortes of Cadiz in 1813 
decreed that none should be restored which had less than 
twelve inmates, and that there should not be more than 
one of each Order in any one place. ^ The Revolution of 
1820 went further, suppressing the monastic Orders and 
consolidating the houses of the mendicants, all of which 
was revoked by the reaction of 1823.^ In the troubles 
following the death of Ferdinand VII. in 1833, the Regency 
was forced to rely on the Liberals : a policy was adopted 
of suppressing the religious Orders and secularising 
Church property, which during the ensuing fifteen years, 
amid various fluctuations, gradually destroyed them. The 
process was by no means always peaceable. In 1835 the 
revolutionary juntas rose against them, burning many of 
the houses, ejecting the inmates and slaying some of them. 
The decrees of 8 March, 1836, and 29 July, 1837, extin- 
guished the convents with few exceptions ; even the nuns 
were turned out and left to perish in misery, although the 
funds of their convents consisted largely of the dowers 
which they had brought.* The Concordat of 1851, how- 
ever, re-established the Orders devoted to works of charity 
and education ; but the royal decrees issued in execution 
of these provisions placed them under Government super- 
vision and subject to strict limitations,^ in spite of which 
they have flourished and multiplied largely, leading to 
political vicissitudes of which the end is not as yet apparent. 
In Portugal the process was more summary. The Emperor 

1 Wetzer und Welte, X. 1528-9.— Herzog, XIV. 52.— Bruck, Kathol. Kirche in 
Deutschland, I. 3, 192. 

2 Lafuente, Hist. Gen. de Espana, XXV. 412. — Collecion de los Decretas* de las 
Cortes, III. 211. 

3 Lafuente, XXVII. 207.— Castillo y Maiyone, Frailesmonia, II. 236-7. 

4 Castillo y Ayensa, Negociaciones con Roma, I. 120. — Vicinte de la Fuente, 
Hist. Eclesiastica de Espana, III. 497. 

5 El Concordato del851, pp. 125-8, 145-6 (Madrid, 1882). 


Pedro I. of Brazil, as regent for his daughter, Maria da 
Gloria, by decree of 15 August, 1833, suppressed the 
convents and the military Orders ; the promised pensions 
of the ejected inmates were not paid, and they suffered the 
extremity of want.^ When Italy ceased to be a geo- 
graphical expression and was consolidated under Victor 
Emanuel, the law of 28 June, 1866, with its supplements 
of 15 August, 1867, and 19 June, 1873, completed the 
destruction of the religious houses, confiscated their 
property, and pensioned the inmates with from 144 to 600 
lire per annum, according to their position. Two excep- 
tions were made : Monte Cassino, the venerable mother 
of Western monachism, was spared, and provision was 
made for its maintenance as a national monument ; while 
Savonarola's convent of San Marco was preserved, rather 
perhaps on account of its frescoes than of its associations. 
The process of ejectment was summary. Panzini speaks 
with indignation of the files of soldiery sent to drive from 
their houses the terrified nuns, who were thrown upon 
a world with which they were by their training utterly 
unfit to cope ; ^ and early in 1867 the journals reported that 
nearly all the inmates of the monasteries were dispersed, 
some of them returning to their families, some of them 
accepting refuge offered to them by the charitable, but 
most of them clubbing together and hiring houses in 
which to live as of old. 

In France, under the Concordat of 1801, the re-estab- 
lishment of monachism was strictly prohibited, but some 
organisations succeeded in forming themselves. Charitable 
associations of females were encouraged and flourished^ 
while male brotherhoods which proved politically dan- 
gerous were crushed without ceremony. Even under the 
Restoration popular antagonism was still so strong that 

1 Wetzer und Welte, X. 1533. 

2 Panzini, op. cit. pp. 596-7. 



the efforts made by Charles X., from 1825 to 1827, to 
introduce the Jesuits and other male Orders aroused strong 
opposition, and the elections of 1827 settled the question 
definitely in the negative.^ The constitutional Government 
of Louis Philippe, from 1830 to 1848, showed itself per- 
sistently hostile ; but the Second Republic was more liberal, 
and the Second Empire ostentatiously sought the alliance 
of the Church. After the fall of Louis Napoleon, the 
reactionary Government of Marshal MacMahon continued 
this alliance, and the result was seen in the enormous 
growth of the regular Orders in wealth, members, and 
influence. This, after republicanism had been firmly 
established by the will of the people, became a serious 
menace to the tranquillity of the State, for by its vital 
principle monachism owes its allegiance first to the Holy 
See and secondarily to the land from which its members 
are drawn. A long struggle ensued, commencing with 
the Ferry laws on education in 1879 — a struggle in which 
the expatriation of the monastic Orders became merely an 
incident, and culminating in the separation of Church and 
State. The struggle thus has assumed the wider aspect 
of the internecine conflict between mediaeval theocracy on 
the one side and civil and religious liberty on the other. 
The issue is still undecided, and it is not for us to predict 
the result. 

Nor has this anti-monastic movement been confined to 
the Old World, for the example of Europe has been fol- 
lowed in many of the former Spanish colonies. Paraguay 
led the way, in 1824, by suppressing all monasteries as use- 
less, and Brazil, in 1829, prohibited the entrance of men 
devotees, thus condemning the existing institutions to 
gradual extinction. Mexico, by a series of laws from 
1856 to 1863, suppressed the religious Orders and confis- 

1 Dutibleul, Histoire des Corporations religieuses, pp. 411 sqq. (Paris, 1846). — 
Dupin, Droit ecolesiastique, pp. 285-98. 


cated their property. New Granada was even more 
prompt, by legislation commencing in 1852 and culminat- 
ing in 1863. Venezuela did the same in 1874. Ecuador 
in 1899 secularised all ecclesiastical property, and Nicaragua 
is understood to be preparing for similar action. 

So general a movement in both hemispheres, by nations 
professing Catholicism, cannot be explained simply by 
greed for the overgrown possessions of the Church, 
although that has unquestionably borne its share in 
tempting governments to replenish their exhausted 
treasuries. It is an evidence that mediaeval monasticism 
has outlived the influences which fostered its growth to 
such enormous proportions, and that, whatever may have 
been its services of old, they no longer correspond to the 
wants of the present sufficiently to justify its absorption 
of so large a portion of the resources and productive 
energies of society. It further indicates the convictions 
of statesmen that such corporations, dissociated from their 
environment by the vow of celibacy, having interests dis- 
tinct from those of their fellow citizens, indissolubly bound 
together and owing allegiance, not to their own rulers but 
to a foreign chief, are politically as well as economically 

It only remains for us to consider what is the present 
effect of celibacy on the moral condition of the Church, 
and whether it has succeeded, after fifteen centuries of 
fruitless effort, in at last obtaining a priesthood whose 
chastity is more than nominal. At the commencement 
of the struggle, the great apostle of asceticism, St. Jerome, 
calmed the fears of those who dreaded a diminution of 
population from the spread of vows of continence, by 
assuring them that few would be found to persevere to the 
end in a task so difficult as the maintenance of virginity.^ 

1 Noli metuere ne omnes virgines fiant ; difficilis res est virginitas, et ideo rara, 


Has, then, human nature changed during the interval, and 
has the Church been justified in its assertion at the Council 
of Trent that God would not withhold the gift of chastity 
from those who rightly seek it, or permit us to be tempted 
beyond our strength ? ^ It is certainly not so easy to 
answer this question now as we have seen it in former 
ages, when men were more plain-spoken and less decent, 
when offences against morality were committed more 
openly, and when they were denounced both by the 
Church and its enemies with a distinctness of utterance 
unfit for modern ears. Yet it is not impossible to find 
some evidence bearing on the question which may enable 
the impartial inquirer to arrive at a conclusion. 

The Church is unquestionably violating the precept 
" Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God " when, in its 
reliance that the gift of chastity will accompany ordination, 
it confers the sub-diaconate at the age of twenty-two and 
the priesthood at twenty-five ^ — or even earlier by special 
dispensation — and then turns loose young men, at the age 
when the passions are the strongest, trained in the seminary 
and unused to female companionship, to occupy a position 
in which they are brought into the closest and most 
dangerous relations with women who regard them as 
beings gifted with supernatural powers and holding in 
their hands the keys of heaven and hell. Whatever may 
have been the ardour with which the vows were taken, 
the youth thus exposed to temptations hitherto unknown 
finds his virtue rudely assailed when in the confessional 
female lips repeat to him the story of lustful longings, and 

quia difficilis. Incipere plurimorum est, perseverare paucorum. — Hieron. adv. Jovin. 
I. 36. 

1 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxiv. De Sacrament. Matrim. c. ix. 

2 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxiii. De Eeform. c. xii. The Abbe Chavard relates 
(Le Celibat des Pretres, p. 269) that be once asked the directors of a seminary 
whether the age for assuming the burdens of the priesthood ought not to be post- 
poned 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. 


he recognises in himself instincts and passions which are 
only the stronger by reason of their whilom repression. 
That a youthful spiritual director, before whom are thrown 
down all the barriers with which the prudent reserve of 
society surrounds the social intercourse of the sexes, should 
too often find that he has over-estimated his self-control, 
is more than probable. 

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

1 Possibly some insight into the moral status of the American priesthood may 
be obtained from the work of Father Miiller, a zealous Eedemptorist, which bears the 
approbation of Cardinal McCloskey and of the Eedemptorist Superior. As regards 
chastity, he tells us that " God calls no man to any state or office without giving 
him at the same time the necessary graces" (Part ii. p. 260). In spite of this he 
utters the warning, " The good priest should also beware lest he become too affec- 
tionate and familiar with some favourite niece or cousin, because she may easily 
become pitch and bird-lime" (Ibid. p. 278). One may gather from his long and 
fervid exhortation to beware of drink that intemperance is the besetting sin of the 
priesthood (Part iv. pp. 98-112), and he couples wine and women together in a 
manner to imply that the combination produces many blasted careers. *' How 
many have renounced the priesthood altogether on account of women and drink ? 
How many have apostatised and even turned preachers on account of women and 


In lands where Catholicism is dominant I fear that 
there can be little doubt as to this, although Ernest 
Renan, a witness of unquestionable impartiality, whose 
clerical training gave him every opportunity of observa- 
tion, declares emphatically that he has known no priests 
but good priests, and that he has never seen even the 
shadow of a scandal/ In spite of the Niceean canon, on 
which the rule of celibacy has virtually rested, the 
Church, after a struggle of more than a thousand years, 
was forced to admit the " subintroducta mulier " as an 
inmate of the priest's domicile. The order of Nature 
on this point refused so obstinately to be set aside that 
the Council of Trent finally recognised women as a 
necessary evil, and only sought to regulate the necessity 
by forbidding those in holy orders from keeping in their 
houses or maintaining any relations with concubines or 
women liable to suspicion.^ It is true that the severe 
virtue of St. Charles Borromeo refused to grant to a 
septuagenary priest a licence for more than a year for 
the residence of a sister equally aged, and forced him to 
apply annually for its renewal ; it is also true that the 
Council of Rome, in 1725, allowed the residence of 
women only within the first and second degrees of kin- 
dred ; ^ but in modern times the Tridentine canon has been 
interpreted as allowing the residence of female servants or 
housekeepers, in view of the hardship of doing without 
domestics and the expense of employing men. In order 

drink ? How many have met an untimely end on account of women and drink ? " 
(Part II. p. 275.) Mtillei's The Catholic Priesthood, New York, 1885. 

1 Souvenirs d'Enfance et de Jeunesse, Paris, 1883, p. 139. " Le fait est que ce 
qu'on dit des moeurs clericales est, selon mon experience, denue de tout fondement. 
J'ai passe treize ans de ma vie entre les mains des pretres, je n'ai pas vu I'ombre 
d'un scandale ; je n'ai connu que de bons pretres. La confession 'peut avoir, dans 
certains pays, de graves inconvenients. Je n'en ai pas vu une trace dans mon 
jeunesse ecclesiastique." 

2 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. De Reform, cap. xiv. 

3 Convent. Episcc. Mediolanens. ann. 1849 Sess. in. No. 18 (Collect. Lacens. 
VI. 717).— Concil. Roman, ann. 1725 Tit. xvi. c. iii. (ib. I. 372). 


to meet the Tridentine caution to avoid suspicion, efforts 
have sometimes been made to define a minimum " canoni- 
cal " age for these women, varying from thirty to fifty 
years, but usually placed at forty — a palliative which, as 
might be expected, accomplishes little, even when, as is 
not always the case, the rule is observed more scrupulously 
than by the device of dividing the canonical age and 
keeping two girls of twenty/ The careful provisions as to 
the age and character of these " Marthas," and the prohibi- 
tions of manifestations of undue familiarity with them — 
especially in public — are scrupulously enumerated in the 
latest assembly of Catholic prelates, the Plenary Council 
of Latin America, held in Rome in 1899.^ These pre- 
cautions are not uncalled for if there is truth in the state - 

1 For the varying legislation on this subject the reader may refer to C. Bene- 
ventan. ann. 1693 Tit. xviil. c. iii. (Collect. Lacens. I. 44.) — Synod. Bahiens. ann. 
1707 Lib. III. (I. 854.)— C. Tarracon. ann. 1717 c. xxxi. (I. 779.)— C. Avenionens. 
ann. 1725 Tit. xxxvii. c. iii. (I. 554).— Synod. Firmanens. ann. 1726 Tit. ix. (I. 599.) 
— C. Ebredunens. ann. 1727 c v. No. 5 (I 626).— Synod. Nat. Hungar. ann. 1822 
De Discip. renov. 3 (V. 940).— C. Baltimor. IV. ann. 1840 Deer. x. (III. 72.)— Conv. 
Episcc. Mediolan. ann. 1849 Sess. m. No. 18 (VI. 717). — C. Turon. ann. 1849 Deer. 
XI. i. (IV. 268-9.)— C. Avenionens. ann. 1849 Tit. vi. c. v. No. 16 (IV. 348).— C. 
Remens. ann. 1849 Tit. xii. c. ii. (IV. 129.)— C. Albiens. ann. 1850 Tit. i. Deer. v. 
No. 1 (IV. 411).— C. Burdigal. ann. 1850 T. iv. c. xii. No. 3 (IV. 588).— 0. Bituricens. 
ann, 1850 Tit. vi. (IV. 1122.)— C. Tolosan. ann. 1850 Tit. iv. e. iv. No. 126 (IV. 
1069).— C. Senonens. ann. 1850 Tit. IV. e. iv. (IV. 904.)— C. Aquens. ann. 1850 
Tit. V. § 2, c. ix. No. 1 (IV. 985).— C. Rothomag. ann. 1850 Deer. xi. No. 3-5 (IV. 
525).— C. Lugdunens. ann. 1850 Deer, xviil. No. 1-3 (IV. 475).— Synod. Thurlesiens. 
ann. 1850 Deer. xvii. No. 14 (III. 785).— Conv. Epp. Lauretan. ann. 1850 Sect. i. v. 
(VI. 778.)— Conv. Epp. Sicilice Tit. ii. c. i. No. 9 (VI. 815).— C. Auscitan. ann. 1851 
Tit. IV. e. i. No. 147 (IV. 1200).— C. Quebeeens. I. ann. 1851 Deer. xiv. (III. 615.)— 
C. Westmonasteriens. I. ann. 1852 Deer. xxiv. No. 4 (III. 939).— C. Quebeeens. II. 
ann. 1854 Deer. xiv. No. 20 (III. 652).— C. Armaeens. ann. 1854 Deer, xxiii. (III. 
852.)— C. Portus Hispanic ann. 1854 Sect. II. No. 5 (III. 1100-1).— C. Ravennat. 
ann. 1855 P. iv. e. iv. No. 3 (VI. 198).— C. Scti. Ludoviei II. ann. 1858 Deer. vii. 
(III. 318.)— C. Viennens. ann. 1858 Tit. v. c. vi. (V. 197).— 0. Strigonens. ann. 1858 
Tit. VI. No. 9 (V. 53).— C. Venetie. ann. 1859 P. ll. e. xvii. No. 10-11 (VI. 317).— 0. 
Urbinatens. ano. 1859 P. ii. Tit. vii. No. 148 (VI. 51).— C. Pragens. ann. 1860 Tit. i. 
c. vi. No. 1 (V. 426).— C. Coloniens. ann. 1860 Tit. ii. c. xxxiv., xxxviii. (V. 378-80.) 
— C. Cincinnatiens. III. ann. 1861 Deer. ix. (III. 226.)— 0. tColoniens, ann. 1863 
Tit. IV. c. iv. (V. 670.)— C. Quitens. ann. 1869 Deer. iv. No. 2 (VI. 403).— C. 
Ultrajeetens. ann. 1865 Tit. viii. e. iv. (V. 905.)— C. PI. Baltimor. II. ann. 
1866 Tit. III. e. vi. No. 164 (III. 446).— C. Halifaxiens. ann. 1868 Deer, xviii. 
(III. 751.) 

2 Acta et Decreta Concil. Plenar, Ameriese Latinae, p. 281 (Romae, 1900). 


ment that statistics submitted to the council showed that 
in Latin America, of 18,000 priests three thousand were 
Uving in regular wedlock, four thousand in concubinage 
with their so-called housekeepers, and some fifteen hundred 
in relations more or less open with women of doubtful 

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


of the authorities, argument is gravely made that as 
priestly marriage is incestuous, such adultery is vastly 
worse than simple licentiousness, the latter being only a 
lapse of the flesh, while marriage would be schism and 
arrogant disobedience, involving sin of a far deeper dye.^ 

It would, of course, be vain to expect at the present 
day, from the rulers of the Church, the outspoken candour 
of the Middle Ages, when evils were denounced openly 
and in the coarsest terms. In those days councils could 
speak, because none but those connected with the Church 
were likely to be cognisant of their proceedings, while in 
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the immorality of 
ecclesiastics was so notorious that no harm could arise 
from admitting it in the efforts made for its correction. 
In modern times, however, when an external veil of 
decency is to be maintained before the eyes of antagonistic 
critics, when scandal is of all things to be avoided, and 
when the proceedings of ecclesiastical bodies are carefully 
revised at Rome before they are allowed to become 
public, ^vith the consciousness that they may be spread 
by the press before a world of hostile mockers, ready to 
jeer at the woes of the Church, only the most guarded 
allusions can be made to such subjects, and these only 
when the case is urgent.^ When, therefore, we see that 
almost every council held in modern times has deemed it 
necessary to insist on the supreme importance of preserv- 
ing chastity — lying, swearing, stealing, and other sins not 
being even alluded to ; when the caution against undue 
familiarity with women, even devotees, is constantly 
urged ; and when the relations between the priest and 
his servant are frequently indicated by directions that he 

1 De Sacerdotum Ccelibatu Doctrina, Varsovise, 1801, pp. 62-3. 

2 There is in Kome a standing congregation for the revision of provincial 
councils, consisting of twenty-five members — viz., seven cardinals, a secretary, and 
seventeen " consulters." It is connected with the Congregation of the Council of 
Trent.— Herzog's Real Encyclopadie, VII. 253.— Bangen, Die Romische Curie, 
p. 180 (Munster, 1854). 


must not admit her to companionship at the table, or on 
walks and journeys, and especially in visiting fairs and 
merrymakings, it would be difficult not to recognise under 
this guarded phraseology an admission of the actual 
relationship existing between the good pastors and their 
female inmates, and a friendly warning, si non caste saltern 

It is not often that we can obtain an inside view of 
these matters, especially from a source that is at once well 
informed and not hostile, but such a view is afforded by 
an indignant remonstrance addressed, in 1832, to Mon- 
seigneur Sterckx, Archbishop of Mechlin, by the Abbe 
Helsen, who for twenty-five years had been a popular 
preacher in Brussels.^ The abbe calls upon his prelate to 
enforce the Tridentine canon by banishing the women 
who are universally inmates of the houses of priests, and 
thus put a stop to the sin and the scandal which destroy 
the influence of the Church and spread immorality among 
the faithful. Even the bishops and dignitaries of the 
Church are not spared, and the archbishop himself is 
summoned to dismiss the " Petronilla " who had accom- 
panied him from the curacy of Bouchout to the cathedral 
of Antwerp, and from Antwerp to the metropolitan See 
of Mechlin.^ Throughout this plain-spoken epistle the 
author assumes as a matter of course not only that the 
relations between the clergy and their servants are guilty, 
but that they are so recognised by every one — so notorious, 
indeed, as to need no proof; and as a natural conse- 
quence he regards the priesthood as a source of infection 
destructive to public morals. The cure is to be found in 

1 The Council of Ausch, in 1851, even ventures to allude to the grave incon- 
veniences which may arise from the residence of a sister or aunt if young, and if 
there is not also the mother or a female servant in the house. 

2 Helsen, Avis k I'Archeveque de Malines, Monseigneur Sterckx, sur les abus du 
Celibat des Pretres, 4to, Bruxelles, 1833. 

3 Helsen, pp. 19-20. 


putting a stop to these irregular unions : " If women were 
forever banished from the houses of ecclesiastics vowed to 
cehbacy, I think we should not see so great a number of 
prostitutes who ply their trade at night in our great cities, 
nor so many illegitimate children who curse their destiny 
as they multiply more and more around us. We ridicule 
the seraglio of the Grand Turk and the polygamy of the 
Moslem, but they too, on their side, ridicule the infinite 
number of strumpets with whom Christian Europe is 
deluged, and the custom of keeping as many concubines 
as can be afforded. Whence comes to us this shameful 
trade, so hurtful to society, which is found under our 
religion more than under any other ? We dare not doubt 
that it is the result of our own misconduct ; we dare not 
accuse only the heretics and the philosophers of modern 
times. No, no ! the most poisonous spring is in us, among 
us, with us, and it will not dry up without us. Let us 
blush to our eye-balls ; let us hide ourselves from public 
sight ! Oh for the times and the virtues of the primitive 
Church ! Why come ye not again ? "^ That this sort of 
scarcely veiled concubinage is, in fact, a fruitful source of 
prostitution can scarcely be doubted if, as Helsen asserts, 
the ordinary custom is, when one of these priest's servants 
becomes pregnant and cannot be saved by a prudent 
absence, to dismiss her and take another, perhaps younger 
and more attractive ; and that this may occur repeatedly 
without the ecclesiastic being subjected to any special 
annoyance or supervision — unless, indeed, he is so ill- 
advised as to take pity on the unfortunate girl and refuse 
to send her away. In that case he becomes a public con- 
cubinarian, liable to the canonical penalties, with which he 
is sometimes disciplined. As Helsen indignantly exclaims, 
" Would the Mahometans tolerate such infamy in their 
fakirs and dervishes ? The Japanese, the Chinese, the 

1 Helsen, pp. 74-5. 


Hindus in their bonzes ? The pagans in their Vestals ? 
Our ancestors in their Druids ? Even the Jews and Pro- 
testants have blushed for it, since they advise their Rabbis 
and ministers to marry rather than thus to contaminate 
themselves."^ Helsen does not fail to allude to the public 
familiarity of these servants with their employers — the 
familiarity condemned in almost the same words by many 
of the councils cited above — and it would seem the 
extreme of Pyrrhonism to doubt that almost universal 
concubinage is tolerated, even where on the surface there 
are no public scandals to attract the attention of the 

There would therefore seem no reason to call in ques- 
tion the remarks of the Rev. William Chauncy Langdon, 
whose long residence in Italy as the agent of the American 
Episcopal Church gave him ample opportunity of observa- 
tion. " I learned to regard a priest who had lived all his 
mature life openly and faithfully with a woman to whom 
of course he had not been married, by whom he had 
children now grown up, and for all of whom he was faith- 
fully providing — with a relative respect as one who had 
greatly risen above the morality of his Church and of the 
society around him, and whose life really might be con- 
sidered, on the dark moral background behind him, a 
source of relative light." ^ 

All this in fact may be inferred from sundry propositions 
presented to the Vatican Council in 1870. The Neapolitan 
bishops asked for legislation to check the frequency with 
which priests entered into civil marriage. They argued 
that the existing rule under which such offenders cannot 
be deprived until they have lain for a year under excom- 
munication is inefficient, and that it would be much better 
to suspend them at once from office and benefice while 

1 Helsen, pp. 13, 16, 100. 

2 Keport to the Italian Committee of the American Episcopal Church (The 
Episcopalian^ Philadelphia, September 11, 1867). 


awaiting the expiration of the year. The French bishops 
proposed that priests should be required to exclude women 
from their houses, or, if their services were indispensable, 
at least they should be of undoubted good repute and not 
less than forty years of age, except the near kindred per- 
mitted by the ancient canons. The German bishops also 
desired this question to be settled, and further suggested 
that, to avert the serious evils arising from the scandalous 
lives of priests, such offences as notorious fornication, 
manifest concubinage, drunkenness, and incorrigible pro- 
digality he added to the legitimate causes for deprivation 
of benefice.^ From all this it would appear that the old 
scandals still flourish, and that something more efficacious 
is needed than the reformatory legislation of Trent. The 
managers of the council were of the same mind, and pre- 
pared a constitution De vita et honestate clericoi^um^ in 
which Chapter iii. provided that a cleric living in concu- 
binage or keeping a suspected woman in his house or 
elsewhere should be subjected to the Tridentine penalties, 
enforcible without the formalities of justice and solely on 
the strength of the facts ; but bishops were warned that, 
to prevent the too facile aspersion of priests and the 
reproach to themselves of inconsiderate action, the evidence 
both of the offence and of the three warnings provided by 
the Council of Trent should be carefully preserved, to be 
used in case of appeal.^ 

Slender as was this provision for the cure of imme- 
dicable evils, it was not adopted. The work for which 
the council was assembled was accomplished, 16 July, 1870, 
when it accepted the Constitutio dogmatica de Ecclesia 
Christi, defining the infallibility of the Pope and his supreme 
jurisdiction over the whole Church. Its further existence 
was superfluous, and before another session was held the 

1 Concil. Collect. Lacensis. T. VII. pp. 813, 835, 873, 875. 

2 Ibid. p. 664. 


Italian occupation of Rome, September 20, afforded an 
ostensible reason for its dissolution, which was effected 
October 20 by its suspension/ 

The fact is that if the priesthood is to be purified, some 
more summary process must be devised than the existing 
cumbrous formalities of ecclesiastical procedure. Few 
reforming bishops can be expected to undergo the expenses 
and delay incident to prosecutions, if we may judge from 
the recent case of Luigi Bidone, parish priest of Ohva 
Gessi. In 1901 he was accused before the Bishop of Tortona 
of keeping as a servant, with suspicion of evil relations, 
Angela Chiappano, a girl of twenty-two, in contravention 
of the synodal constitutions. The bishop ordered her 
dismissal, but Bidone retained her, in spite of the three 
successive commands, whereupon the bishop suspended 
him and deputed another priest to replace him. Other 
charges were brought against him of dissipating the 
parochial temporalities, and of having received 5071 lire 
for Masses never celebrated: the case was tried by the 
episcopal court, but it was not until 11 February, 1904, 
that he was formally deposed, nor till 17 June, 1905, that 
this judgment was confirmed by the Congregation of the 
Council of Trent. ^ The laws exist, as of old, and can be 
enforced, but more than common tenacity is requisite for 
their enforcement, in face of the labour involved and the 
dread of scandal. 

It is not to be supposed that the Church suffers less 
than formerly from the solicitation of female penitents by 
confessors. Indeed, the numerous utterances on the sub- 
ject during the last half-century would perhaps justify 
the assumption that the evil is increasing rather than that 
the Church is more alive to the duty of its repression, for 
in the forum of conscience it is not regarded as a more 

1 Concil. Collect. Lacensis. T. VII. p. 498. 

2 II Consulente ecclesiastico, Ottobre 1905, 353. 


heinous sin than of old. It is still not a reserved case, its 
commission does not incur excommunication, and absolu- 
tion for it can be obtained from any confessor whom the 
culprit may select/ Even the disability to celebrate Mass, 
prescribed in 1745, was virtually nullified by a decision of 
the Congregation of the Inquisition, 18 March, 1863, that 
it is not latce senteiitice, but ferendce — that is, that it does 
not operate of itself, but as the result of a conviction and 
sentence pronounced.^ As formerly, scandal is the one 
thing dreaded. All other considerations are of minor 
importance, and the subject is treated on the basis of the 
principle laid down by the Glossator ; " Nothing is to be 
done that creates scandal ... to avoid scandal the rigour 
of ecclesiastical law often yields."^ To this end, the pro- 
ceedings in all cases are conducted with the most im- 
pressive secrecy from the beginning to the end. When 
a priest obtains a delegation to receive a denunciation 
from an accusing penitent, which we shall see is a neces- 
sary preliminary, he is sworn in presence of his bishop to 
perform the duty faithfully and to observe inviolate secrecy, 
and this oath is taken on the gospels and not by merely 
touching the breast, as is customary with priests. All 
names are scrupulously suppressed, and what testimony 
is shown to the accused is to be so carefully disguised as not 
to give him an inkling as to the witness. All papers are 
to be kept by the bishop in a special cabinet to which even 
his vicar-general is debarred access, the accuser is kept in 

1 II Consulente ecclesiastico, Vol. IV. p. 19 (1898). — Berardi, De Sollicitatione et 
Absolutione Complicis, p. 129. 

This latter work, of which a second edition was issued at Faenza in 1897, shows 
the attention which the subject is attracting in recent times, and furnishes a con- 
temporary view of the light in which it is regarded, with the received practice 
under late decisions. 

2 II Consulente ecclesiastico, loc. cit. p. 20. 

3 Gloss, in Cap. 5 Extra, Lib. I. Tit. xi. — Quoted approvingly by Berardi, p. 127 
as also Liguori's dictum, "Superior peccata subditi saepe potest dissimulare ad 
vitandas turbas et majora mala, quae alioqui teneretur punire." — Theol. Moral. Lib. Ii. 
Tract, iii. Cap. 2, Dub. 5, Art. 2, n. 52. 


ignorance of the result, and when the case is ended it is 
to be buried in obUvion/ Under these circumstances it is 
impossible even to guess what may be the frequency of 
either the crime or its detection, but that it is kept in 
mind as an ever-present possibility is suggested by the 
recommendation that priests engaged in "missions" or 
revivals should always provide themselves with the neces- 
sary faculties to receive denunciations,^ and by the 
frequent recurrence, in the councils of the nineteenth 
century, of injunctions that the confessions of women shall 
always be heard at times and in places open to public 

There is the same difficulty as of old in defining the 
exact limits to which the confessor may go without 
subjecting himself to the definitions of the bulls of 
Gregory XV. and Benedict XIV. The licence allowed 
in the confessional is necessarily great, and the discretion 
of the confessor is a variable quantity. Even without evil 
intention on his part, the pure-minded penitent may be 
scandalised, and indecency, though perhaps not so common 
as in former times, would still seem to exist. We are 
told that some confessors are so habitually scurrilous that 
they forget themselves without seeking to corrupt their 
penitents, but the law is not simply for the punishment 
of guilt, but for the prevention of scandal. Yet impru- 

1 Instruct. S. Inquisit. Roman. February 20, 1867 (Collect. Concil. Lacensis. ill. 
553_6)._Berardi, op. cit., pp. 134, 160, 223-4. 

2 Berardi, p. 190. 

8 Concil. Baltimor. I. ann. 1829, Deer. xxv. (Collect. Lucens. III. 30-1.) — C. 
Baltimor. V. ann. 1843, Deer. ix. (III. 90.) — C. Australians. I. ann. 1844, Deer. xii. 
(III. 1051).— C. Thurlesens. ann. 1850, Deer. xii. 41 (III. 782).— C. Rothomagens. 
ann. 1850, Deer. xvii. 3 (IV. 530).— C. Tolosan. ann. 1850, Tit. iii. cap. 1, n, 70 (IV. 
1054).— C. Casseliens. ann. 1853 Tit. iii. (III. 837.)— C.Tuamens. ann. 1854, Deer. viii. 
(III. 860.)— C. Quebecens. II. ann. 1854, Deer. ix. § 7 (III. 639).— C. Port. Hispan. 
ann. 1854, Art. iv. n. 1, 2 (III. 1098).— C. Halifaxiens. I. ann. 1857, Deer. xiv. (III. 
745)._C. Viennens. ann. 1858, Tit. iii. cap. 7 (V. 169).- C. Coloniens. ann. 1860, Tit. ii. 
cap. 15 (V. 351).— C. Pragens. ann. 1860, Tit. iv. cap. 7 ; Tit. v. cap. 8 (V. 508, 543). 
—Synod. Ultraject. ann. 1865, Tit. iv. cap. 8 (V. 830.)— C. Plenar. Baltimor. II. ann. 
1866, Append. X. (III. 553.) — Concil. Plenar. Americee Latinze, ann. 1899, Tit. v. 
cap. 5, n. 549 (Romae, 1900, p. 239). 


dence is so exceedingly common and inevitable that, if 
it were subject to denunciation, who would venture to 
hear the confessions of women ? ^ The discussion still 
goes on, as it did in the seventeenth century ; there are 
still opposing opinions of greater or less laxity, into the 
details of which it is scarce worth while again to enter. 
We may content ourselves with the general impressions 
derived from the debate that the kind of talk which seems 
to be common between the confessor and his penitent must 
frequently lead to temptation difficult for average human 
nature to resist ; that, amid the mass of conflicting 
opinions, the priest who avoids the gi'osser and more direct 
forms of seduction has the opportunity of attaining his 
object without running much risk, and that it is not the 
flagitious character of the act but the disrespect to the 
sacrament which is still the subject of repression.^ 

The oflence thus is still technical and not moral, for 
the priest who learns the frailty of a penitent and visits 
her the next day is not subject to denunciation.^ The 
laxity of this strict construction is seen in the decision of 
a case, 6 June, 1898, in which the laundress of a priest 
was accustomed to confess to him. On one occasion she 
confessed to adultery, when he told her to wait for him in 
the ante-room of the monastery. There, after some talk 
about his clothes, he made indecent advances, and subse- 
quently when she attended Mass he would beckon to her 
from his confessional and make appointments to visit her 
at her house, finally taking her and supporting her as 
his mistress. The decision by the Congregation of the 
Inquisition was that he was not guilty of solicitation 
under the bulls, for although some authorities hold that a 
priest is guilty who makes use of knowledge gained in the 
confessional, this cannot be accepted in practice, for the 

1 Berardi, pp. 28-9, 39-40. 

2 Ibid. pp. 32-43. a Ibid. p. 147. 



somewhat significant reason that it would hinder the full 
confession of such sins because of its imposing on the 
penitent the obligation of denouncing the confessor who 
takes advantage of the knowledge/ Liguori lays down 
the rule that, where there is doubt, the confessor is not to 
be denounced ; there must at least be moral certainty : 
appearances may deceive, while on the other hand solici- 
tation may be so shrewdly disguised as to render it 
difficult of recognition or proof.* 

When these preliminary difficulties are solved by the 
confessor to whom the woman reveals the fact of her 
having been solicited — for it is assumed that denunciations 
are made only under pressure of a refusal of absolution for 
not denouncing — the rules of procedure are not such as to 
facilitate conviction and punishment. In 1867 the Con- 
gregation of the Inquisition addressed all archbishops, 
bishops, and ordinaries, complaining that the papal 
constitutions on the subject were neglected, and that 
abuses had crept in, both as to penitents denouncing guilty 
confessors and as to the punishment of the latter. It 
therefore urged the prelates everywhere to greater vigi- 
lance and vigour, and gave a summary of the current 
practice of the Inquisition, which affords us an insight into 
the methods deemed sufficient for the repression of this 
persistent and perennial abuse.^ The success of the Holy 
See since the seventeenth century in making good its 
claims on the obedience of the faithful is warrant sufficient 
for assuming that this utterance has been accepted as 
authoritative, and that it has nowhere been treated with 
the contempt shown by France and Germany for the 
decrees of Gregory XV. 

As formerly, the woman solicited is compelled to accuse 

1 II Consulente ecclesiastico, III. 373. 

2 S. Alph. le Ligorio, Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. Tract, iv. n. 702. 

3 Instruct. S. Inquisit. Roman, 20 February, 1867 (Collect. Concil. Lacens. III. 


the culprit, and Pius IX. in the great bull Apostolicee Sedis, 
12 October, 1869, which superseded the old bulls In 
Coena Domini, included among those subject to excom- 
munication latce sententice women who neglected to do so 
within a month after the commission of the offence.^ It 
is, however, apparently impossible to induce them to do 
this, and it is only when they chance to confess their sin 
to some other confessor and are refused absolution that 
they are compelled to do it, although the rule is absolute 
that they are not to be interrogated as to consent. 
Strictly speaking, the denunciation should be made before 
a notary, but it is excessively difficult to secure this, and 
a special faculty must be obtained from the bishop to 
enable the confessor to take it. When obtained he 
forwards it to the bishop, keeping no copy, burning all 
memoranda and returning the faculty, so that all trace of 
the matter shall be destroyed. The denunciation is then 
sent to the Roman Inquisition, and its orders are awaited.^ 
Strict as are the injunctions to denounce, there are 
various ways in which they can be eluded. Dispensations 
reheving the penitent from the duty can be obtained from 
the bishop, the Inquisition, or the Papal Penitentiary. 
Danger to life, reputation, or property, whether of herself 
or her near kindred, relieves her of the obligation ; even 
close kinship, gratitude for favours received, and friendship 
serve as an excuse.^ Confessors who do not admonish 
their penitents of this duty are liable to punishment, but 
they are advised to abstain from initiating inquiries about 
the matter ; they are warned not to be over-zealous in 
starting denunciations without close investigation, and are 
told not to admonish the penitent if, on the one hand, they 

1 Acta Pii PP. IX. T. V. p. 66. 

2 Berardi, op. cit. pp. 85, 89-94, 224. 

3 Ibid. pp. 154-7, 164, 175-8. — Consulente ecclesiastico, IV. 13-15. 

Schieler, however (Theory and Practice of the Confessional, pp. 374-5), is much 
stricter as to the reasons exonerating the penitent from denunciation. 


feel convinced that she will not obey, and thus incur 
mortal sin, or, on the other, if her character is such as to 
cause apprehension that she may talk about it and thus 
create scandal. Anything, in fact, which may lead to a 
knowledge of the affair is sufficient to prevent its prosecu- 
tion/ In 1880 the Inquisition issued further instructions, 
saying that it often happened that denunciations contained 
allusions to other solicited penitents, who had not been 
examined, as they should have been and must be in future ; 
also that prosecutions frequently failed because the 
denunciations were not in proper form, wherefore it sent 
a formula to be followed in all cases. In 1897 additional 
instructions were issued, relative to the investigations as 
to the character of the accuser and accused, which were 
necessary as a guide in weighing the credibility of the 

It is evident that there is no little difficulty in obtaining 
denunciations and in formulating them properly, but when 
this is accomplished the culprit is still reasonably safe, for 
no action is taken, except to have him watched, until 
three separate ones have been transmitted against him — a 
thing which can happen but rarely.^ When such an 
accumulation occurs, they are duly investigated, and if 
he is found guilty the only punishment indicated is de- 
privation of the faculty of hearing confessions, leaving to 
the bishop the commutation of the other penalties into 
spiritual exercises. In practice, however, we are told that 
when the offender is a parish priest he is simply forbidden 
to hear confessions outside of his parish, and is required 
to resign it within a given time.* Inadequate as these 

1 Berardi, pp. 180, 182, 189. — Consulente ecclesiastico, IV. 13, 14, 16. 

2 Berardi, pp. 116, 225. 

3 Instruct S. Koman. Inquis. ubi sup. 

4 Ibid.— Berardi, pp. 126, 128. 

Schieler, however (op. cit. p. 375), says nothing about episcopal commutation 
of the other penalties prescribed in the papal briefs, which are assumed to be 
still in force. 


provisions must seem for an offence so grievous, they can 
be greatly reduced by self-denunciation. One who accuses 
himself before any evidence has been received against him 
escapes with spiritual penances and the advice to avoid 
confessing those whom he has solicited, and it is the same 
if a single accusation has been sent in ; if there are 
several accusations against him and he presents himself 
and confesses before the trial is ended, he obtains ^a miti- 
gation of the customary sentence/ It would appear from 
all this that the active legislation on the subject of 
recent years is rather an indication of the prevalence of 
the trouble than of a sincere desire to eradicate it by 
measures of suitable vigour and severity. 

Even the long-standing abuse of the absolution of the 
accomplice is still existent. Various councils in the nine- 
teenth century felt impelled to call attention to the pro- 
hibitions uttered by Benedict XIV.,^ and the Inquisition 
of recent years has found it necessary to issue repeated 
decrees on the subject. An obscure decision, 16 May, 1877, 
led to the assumption that the censures of the bull Sacra- 
mentum Poenitentias could be eluded by the confessor 
leading his accomplice to omit allusion to their mutual 
sin in the confession to him in which he absolved her — 
either persuading her that it was no sin, or that, as it 
was already known to him, there was no necessity of 
mentioning it. To meet this the Inquisition, 19 February, 

1 Instruct. S. Roman. Inquisit. ubi sup. — Cf. Benedict! PP. XIV. De Synodo 
Dicecesana, Lib. VI. cap. xi. n. 8. 

a Conoil. Tuamens. ann. 1817, Deer. xvii. (Coll. Lacens. III. 765).— C. Austra- 
liens. I. ann. 1844, Deer. xiii. (III. 1052).— C. Remens. ann. 1857, cap. vi. n. 57 
(IV. 211). 

While it is admitted that, since Benedict XIV., the jurisdiction of the seducer 
over the seduced is forfeited, still it revives when she is absolved of the sin by 
another priest ; but she should be admonished not again to resort for confession 
to her accomplice, which assumes that he is undisturbed in the performance of 
his sacred duties, although his guilt has been revealed. When some too zealous 
dioceses adopted a rule forbidding seducers from hearing the confessions of their 
accomplices, the Congregation of the Council of Trent emphatically ordered it to be 
withdrawn. — Schieler, op. cit. pp. 355-6. 


1896, decided that the excommunication could not be 
thus evaded, as it would virtually neutralise the bull. 
A decree of 9 November, 1898, specified certain cases in 
which the delinquent was excused from personal appli- 
cation to the Papal Penitentiary for absolution, but when, 
in 1899, a bishop in a foreign land asked whether this 
applied to one of his priests who had confessed to absolving 
an accomplice, but who declared that his duties and his 
poverty precluded him from appearing before the Peniten- 
tiary, the answer was in the negative.^ Evidently in the 
struggle with human nature the Church is not wholly 

Perhaps its success might be greater if it exerted its 
powers unreservedly, but such is its dread of scandal that 
rather than incur the risk of publicity it prefers to shield 
the criminal. If the punishment cannot be secret, there 
must be no punishment and no admission of priestly 

How powerfully and how unscrupulously its influence 
is exerted to this end may be judged from a few examples. 
In 1817, at Availles, in France, the sacristan complained 
to the mayor that his daughter was received every night 
by the cure, to the scandal of the people. The mayor 
thus invited entered the priest's house suddenly one night, 
and found the girl in deshabille, hidden in a corner. He 
drew up an official statement of the facts and forwarded it 
to the authorities, and the response to this was his summary 
dismissal from office on the ground of having violated the 
domicile of the cure and increased the scandal.^ A case 
which attracted much attention at the time was that of 
Antoine Mingrat, who as priest of Saint- Aupe, near 
Grenoble, created scandal by his amours, when, in place 
of being punished, he was transferred to Saint-Quentin. 

1 Cousulente ecclesiastico, I. 78 ; IV. 296. 

2 Bouvet, De la Confession et du C^libat des PrStres, p. 516 (Paris, 1845). 


Here he was attracted by a young married woman 
named Marie G^rin. An unsuccessful attempt upon 
her virtue rendered it necessary to despatch her. He 
choked her to death in the parsonage, and dragged the 
body three-quarters of a league to the Isere, where he 
cut off the legs and threw the fragments into the river. 
Suspicion pointing to him, he was about to be arrested, 
when he escaped across the frontier and found refuge in 
Savoy. Protected by a mysterious influence, he was never 
surrendered, although he was condemned to death in 
absentia by the court of Grenoble, 9 December, 1822, and 
the only result was the persecution of the family of his 
victim, who had dared to complain.^ Similarly, in 1877, 
the Abbe Debra, condemned at Liege in default, for no 
fewer than thirty-two offences, was, after proper seclusion in 
a convent, given a parish in Luxembourg by the Bishop 
of Namur.^ In the case of the Abbe Mallet, which 
occurred in 1861, the Church was unable to save the 
culprit from punishment, but did what it could to conceal 
his crimes from the faithful. Asa canon of Cambray, he 
seduced three young Jewish girls and procured their con- 
finement in convents under pretext of labouring for their 
conversion. One of his victims lost her reason in conse- 
quence of her sufferings, and the court of Douay condemned 
him to six years at hard labour — a sentence which was 
announced by an orthodox journal thus : " M. le chanoine 
Mallet de Cambrai, accuse de detournement de mineurs 
pour cause de proselytisme religieux, a ^te condamnd a six 
ans de reclusion " — where the skilful use of the masculine 
" mineurs " and the characterisation of his offence as re- 
ligious proselytism elevate the worst of criminals into a 
martyr for the faith. ^ It is quite within the bounds of 

1 L'impunite de Mingrat, ou la police de Charles X., Paris, 1830. 
a Wahu, op. cit. p. 423. 

3 Sauvestre, op. cit. p. 144. It is by this policy that the Church renders itself 
responsible for the evil committed by its members. No human organisation is 


probability that, as such a martyr, he may since the 
expiration of his sentence have been enjoying, in some 
cure of souls, the opportunity of repeating his missionary 

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

1861 3 cases. 

1862 2 „ 

1863 1 „ 

1864 . . 1 „ 

1866 ' . . . 2 „ 

1867 3 „ 

1868 3 „ 

1869 3 „ 

1872 10 „ 

1873 6 „ 

1875 5 „ 

1876 1 „ 

1877 16 „ 

1878 35 „ 

1879 (January to April) . . . . 19 „ 

without its share of the weak or vicious, and there is no lack of scandals in the 
Protestant denominations ; but in these there is a wholesome jealousy which 
usually seeks at once to cast out and punish the offender. Thus when, in July 
1867, the Kev. Mr. Wendt, at an orphan institution near Philadelphia, was dis- 
covered to be tampering with the virtue of the children under his charge, those 
who were most nearly connected with the management of the asylum were the first 
to take steps for his prosecution, and, as soon as the necessary legal proceedings 
could be had, he was undergoing a sentence of fifteen years' solitary confinement 
without a voice being raised in palliation of his crime. 


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

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

1 Op. cit. pp. 188-44. 


Ondes, and Pleurtuit, for 67. It would be a libel on 
human nature to assert that this catalogue of sin does not 
represent more than an average of wickedness, and the 
responsibility for the existence of so shocking a condition 
of morahty must, at least in part, be attributed to the rule 
of celibacy. 

Irrespective of questions of morality, the rule of celi- 
bacy in modern society is harmful to the State in pro- 
portion as it contributes to the aggrandisement of those 
who enforce it. A sacerdotal caste, divested of the 
natural ties of family and of the world, with interests in 
many respects antagonistic to the communities in which 
its members reside, with aims which, from the nature of 
the case, must be for the temporal advancement of its 
class, is apt to prove a dangerous element in the body 
politic, and the true interests of religion as well as of 
humanity are almost as likely to receive injury as benefit 
at its hands, especially when it is armed with the measure- 
less power of confession and absolution, and is held in 
strict subjection to a hierarchy. Such a caste would seem 
to be the inevitable consequence of compulsory celibacy 
in an ecclesiastical organisation such as that of the 
Catholic Church, and the hierarchy based upon it can 
scarce fail to become the enemy of human advancement, 
so long as the priest continues to share the imperfections of 
our common nature. How little the aims of that hierarchy 
have changed with the lapse of ages may be seen in the 
pretensions which it still advances, as of old, to subject 
the temporal sovereignty of princes and peoples to the 
absolute domination of the spiritual power. The temper 
of Innocent III. and Boniface VIII. is still the leading in- 
fluence in its policy, and the opportunity alone is wanting 
for it to revive in the twentieth century the all-pervading 
tyranny which it exercised in the thirteenth. Even the 


separation of Church and State is condemned as a heresy, 
and as the State is denied the privilege of defining 
the Hmits of its own authority, and as the right of the 
Church to use force is asserted, it would be difficult to 
set bounds to the empire which is its rightful heritage, 
and of which it is deprived by the irreligious tendencies 
of the age.^ 

Yet, in spite of its reactionary efforts, and of its 
antagonism to the progress which has made the centuries 
since the Reformation the most important in the annals 
of civilisation, the Church has still a part to play, more or 
less beneficent as its rulers may be more or less sagacious. 
Conservatism has its uses, and mankind at large has not 
outgrown the necessity of the bridle as well as of the spur. 
There were ages in which the Church was the leader in 
knowledge and enlightenment ; that it has become obscu- 
rantist is due to the use which it made of its leadership to 
so organise its temporal and spiritual domination that 
further development of human intelUgence could only be 
accomplished through revolt, and it thus became the 
enemy in place of the friend of advancement. The policy 
then adopted rendered a reactionary position inevitable, 
because in support of its theocratic aspirations it framed a 
system of dogma assumed to be of divine revelation and 
therefore unalterable as the will of God. Entrenched 
behind this, it has, with varying success, defended its 
position for more than three centuries. From the storms 
of the Revolution it emerged with centralised Ultra- 
montanism triumphant over the particularism known as 
Gallicanism and Jansenism — a triumph which culminated 
in the Council of the Vatican. This was too complete, 
and since then signs have not been lacking of a growing 
restlessness which may be provoked to schism or may be 
soothed by wise concessions. The spirit of the age is not 

1 Syllab. Dec. 1864, No. xix., xlii., lir., Iv. 


propitious for relentless discipline which will tolerate 
nothing but bhnd obedience, and the Church may find 
that only by yielding can it preserve its unity. The lesson 
of the sixteenth century should not be forgotten, when 
unwisdom cost it nearly half of its membership. 


Abbey lands, disposition of, in Germany, 
ii. 63-4, 66 ; England, ii. 91-2, 130 ; 
Scotland, ii. 164-5 ; confiscated in 
France, ii. 306-7 ; Italy, ii. 337 

Abbo, St., of Fleury, inculcates beauty of 
purity, i. 176; murdered by his monks, 
i. 177 

Abbot of Crossed Friars, immorality of, 
ii. 97 

Abbot of Langdon, immorality of, ii. 

Abbot of Walden, secret marriage of, 
ii. 105 

Abbots, of Hungary in fifteenth century, 
ii, 19; execution of English, ii. 97; 
parliamentary, ii. 98 

Abelard, description of monastic life by, 
i. 319 ; marriage of, i. 324 ; " Sic et 
Non ". by, i. 389 ; speculations ad- 
dressed to Heloise by, i. 433, note ; on 
abuse of confessional, i. 436, note 

Abingdon, abbey of, i. 193 

Absalom of Scania, i. 301 

Absolution, marketable commodity in 
Kome, i. 443; given by "soliciting" 
priests to penitents, ii. 272 ; by " solicit- 
ing" priests forbidden by Benedict 
XIV., ii. 274; by "soliciting" priests 
forbidden in Greek Church, ii. 274 ; by 
guilty confessors denounced, ii. 273 

Abstinence (sexual) in pagan priesthood, 
i. 42 

Abstinentes, heresy of, i. 20 

Abuse of confessional {see Confessional) 

Abyssinian Church, customs of, i. 99 

Accomplice, immunity of, i. 355, note 

Acephali, vagabond monks, i. 122 

Adalbero of Metz ordains sons of priests, 
i, 178 

Adam de la Halle on Alexander IV., i. 

Adamites, i. 470 

Adam of Marisco, i. 357 

Adela of Flanders, seeks to enforce celi- 
bacy, i. 312 ; miraculous cure of, ii. 
23, note 

Adelaide of Savoy, Damiani asks inter- 
position of, i. 239 

Adolph of Nassau, ii. 34, note 

Adrian I. asserts morality of his clergy, 

i. 153 
Adrian VI., receives complaint. Diet of 

Niirnberg, ii. 34, note ; reproaches Diet 

of Nurnberg, ii. 49 ; compares Luther 

to Mahomet, ii. 60 
Adulphe,Frere, prosecuted for 67 offences, 

ii. 361-2 
Adultery by ecclesiastics, Council of 

Mexico on, ii. 250 
Adulterous wives, of priests to be put 

away, i. 27 ; of Calvinist ministers 

ii. 152 
iElfric, St. , of Canterbury, pastoral letter 

of, i. 199 
iEneas, Sylvius {see Pius II.) 
Africa, Church of, Siricius enforces cell 

bacy on, i. 64 ; celibacy not openly 

resisted in, i. 74 
African Church, celibacy discussed in 

Carthage, i. 74 ; Donatist monks in, 

i. 118, note 
Agapetse, scandals of, condemned by 

Council of Elvira, i. 43 ; Council of 

Ancyra in 314, i. 47 ; arouse St. 

Jerome's indignation, i. 47-8 ; Epi- 

phanius testifies against, i. 48 ; worthy 

attention Nicene fathers, i. 48 
Age, minimum, for vows, in early Church, 

i. 109, 116 ; in eighteenth century, ii. 

302 ; for subdiaconate and priesthood, 

ii. 340 ; canonical, for women resident 

with priests, ii. 343 
Agen, Manichseism in iioo, i. 244 
Agnes, Empress, made regent, i. 224 ; 

deprived of regency, i. 235 
Agumanes, Diego de, indecency of, in 

confessional, ii. 269 
Agrippa, Cornelius, on the clergy, ii. 37 ; 

licences to sin, ii. 55, note ; character 

of Eoman prelates, ii. 57, note 
Aix la Chapelle, Council of, in 836, i. 156 ; 

817, i. 156, note 
Alain Chartier, Archdeacon of Paris, on 

clerical morals, ii. 9 
Alain de I'lsle, " Universal Doctor," on 

clerical morals, i. 396-7 



Alberic, Cardinal, and heretics, i. 463 

Alberic of Marsico, crimes of, i. 176 

Alberic of Ostia, legate to England, i. 341 

Albero of Liege permits priestly mar- 
riage, i. 295 

Albero of Mercke, heresy of, i. 230, note 

Albero of Verdun, efforts at reform by, 
i. 318 

Albert II. (Emperor) fines concubinary 
priests, ii. 12 

Albert of Bavaria, asks for clerical mar- 
riage, ii. 195 ; presents request to 
Pope, ii. 208 ; letter from Pius V. to, 
ii. 223 

Albertof Brandenburg,becomesLutheran, 
i. 457, ii. 63 ; founds hereditary duke- 
dom of Prussia, i. 457 

Albert, Primate of Germany, ii. 63, note 

Albert of Hamburg, exhorts clergy to 
continence, i. 211 ; measures of reform 
by, i. 221 

Albert of Mainz, addresses Frederic of 
Saxony on marriage, ii. 42 ; imprisons 
married priest, ii. 43 

Albert, Miguel, and Mass of immoral 
priest, ii. 245, note 

Albigenses, heresy of, i. 245 ; attacked 
by St. Bernard, i. 409 ; tenets of, i. 

Alboin defends sacerdotal marriage, i. 51 

Alby, heresy in, i. 464 

Alcdntara, Order of, i. 454 

Alcobaga, Abbot of, head of Order of 
St. Michael, i. 456 

Alcuin on disorders of Saxon nunneries, 
i. 190 

Aldebert of Le Mans, shameless licen- 
tiousness of, i, 318 

Aldhelm, St., on errors of faith and disci- 
pline, i. 188 

Alemanni, unchastity of, i, 131, note 

Alexander II., estimate of St. Peter 
Damiani, i. 217 ; addresses Milanese 
on heresies, i. 253 ; suppresses the 
Liber Gomorrhianus, i. 219, note ; en- 
forces reform, i. 237 ; is discouraged, 
i. 241 ; protects the Jews, i. 242 ; 
authorises war against priestly mar- 
riage, i. 254 ; sends legation to Milan, 
i. 256 ; efforts in Spain by, i. 371 : 
sends letter to William the Conqueror, 
i. 329 ; death of, i. 242 ; enforcement 
of celibacy attributed to, i. 266 

Alexander III., on married canons, i. 
326 ; ceaselessly attempts reform in 
England, i. 342 ; strives with Bar- 
barossa, i. 393 ; on dissolution of mar- 
riage, i. 396 ; thinks of introducing 
discipline of Greek Church, i. 402 ; on 
hereditary transmission of benefices, 
ii. 174, note 

Alexander IV., on licentious ecclesiastics, 
i. 413 ; on corruption of laity by 
priests, i. 436 

Alexander VI., character of, i. 428 ; 
grants marriage to Portuguese mili- 
tary Orders, i. 455 

Alexander VII., on love-letters in confes- 
sion, ii. 267 ; on denunciation of a con- 
fessor, ii. 273 

Alfonso the Wise admits clerical celi- 
bacy not apostolic, i. 14 

Alfonso VI. (Castile) asks for a legate, 
i. 372 

Alfonso VIII., expedition of , to Portugal, 
i. 374 ; becomes a canon and marries 
following year, i. 375-6 

Alfonso I. (Portugal) founds Orders of 
St. Avis and St. Michael, i. 455, 456 

Alfred on chastity of nuns, i. 191 

Algiers, court of, decides on civil mar- 
riage of priests, ii. 324 

Alphonso Liguori, St., on clerical cor- 
ruption, ii. 245, note 

Altmann of Passau, enthusiastic papalist, 
i. 271 ; renowned for piety, i. 273 ; 
expelled by Henry IV. i. 273 ; returns 
to diocese, i. 273 

Alva, Duke of, success of, ii. 73 ; issues 
commands to prelates at Utrecht, ii. 

Alvarez Pelayo on Spanish clergy, i. 

Amalfi {see Melfi) 

Amandus of Maestricht, i. 141, note 

Amandus, Bishop, papal legate to Spain, 
i. 371 

Amaury of Bene, i. 469 

Ambrogio Caterino disputes with Lu- 
ther, ii. 41 

Ambrose, St., admits ancient custom of 
non - celibacy, i. 66 ; synod under 
auspices of, condemns Jovinian, i, 69 ; 
general of Order of Camaldoli, ii. 8 ; 
succeeds in labours for celibacy, i. 81 

Ambrose, St. , of Camaldoli and amorous 
abbot, ii. 8 

Amedeus of Savoy, ii. 27 

America [{see United States, Canada, 
and Spanish Colonies) 

Ammonius Saccas and Neo-Platonic 
philosophy, i. 28 

Ammonius, St., triumphs over the flesh, 
i. 220, note 

Amort, Dr., on morals in eighteenth 
century, ii. 266 

Anabaptists, ii. 68 

Anaclet (anti-pope) enforces celibacy, 
i. 294 

Anastasius (Emperor), insurrection 
against, i. 118 

Anathema for disbelief in celibacy, 
ii. 204 

Ancarono, opinion of, upon concubines 
of priests, i. 421 

Ancyra, Council of, in 314, allows mar- 
riage of priests, i. 47 ; denounces 
agapetae, i. 47 



Andrea of Vallombrosa on Milanese 

clergy, i. 247, note 
Andreas of Lunden on concubines,!. 231, 

Andrew, Bishop of Tarentum, case of, 

i. 138, note 
Angelric, priest of Vasnaw, publicly 

married, i. 162 
Angers, demoralisation of clergy in, 

ii. 8 
Anglican bishops, marriage of, ii. 146 
Anglican clergy, restrictions on marriage 
of, ii. 122 ; flexibility of faith of, 
ii. 140 ; evil influence of marriage of, 
ii. 145-6 ; position of, according to 
Macaulay, ii. 149 
Anglican Church, the, ii. 77-149 ; Queen 

Elizabeth, estimate of the, ii. 141 
Anglican ritual, marriage service in, 

ii. 122 
Anglo-Irish Church, disorders of, i. 361 
Anglo-Saxon Church, disorders of, i. 168 ; 

celibacy enjoined in, i. 39 
Angouleme, amour of Archdeacon of, 

i. 325 
Anjou, Council of, in 453, i. 82 
Ann of Cleves, marriage of, ii. 115 
Annates, increase of, by Popes, ii. 33 ; 

withdrawn by Henry VIII., ii. 85 
Anse, Council of, in 990, i. 181 
Anselm, St., on sacraments of sinful 
priests, i, 229, note ; reforms by, i. 331, 
332 ; exiled, i. 334 ; death of, i. 337 
Anselmo di Badagio, afterwards Pope 
Alexander II., i. 235, 246 ; sent to 
Milan, i. 251 [set Alexander II.) 
Anthony, Bishop of Ephesus, crimes of, 

Anthony, Archbishop of Prague, ii. 232, 

Antony, St., retires to the desert, i. 105 ; 

has many followers, i. 117 
Antichrist, anticipation of, ii. 9 
Antidicomarianitarians, heresy of, i. 68 
Antoin, married canons of, i. 326 
Antonelli, Cardinal, imprisons Panzini, 

ii. 326 
Antwerp, synod of, in 16 10, ii. 236 
Apel, John, punished for marrying, ii. 49 
Apocalypsis Golise, i. 345 
Apollinaris of Rhodez, i. 132, note 
Apollo, compulsory celibacy of priest- 
esses of, i. 43 
Apostolic canons on digami, i. 24 ; permit 

priestly marriage, i. 40, 44 
Apostolic constitutions on digami, i. 24 ; 
allow retention of wives married before 
ordination, i. 28 ; regarding widows, 
Apostolici, heresy of, i. 105, note 
Apologie du Celibat Chretien, ii. 299 
Appeals to Rome, immunity caused by, 
i. 158-9 ; effect of, i. 398 ; forbidden 
by Alexander IV., i. 414 ; forbidden in 

cases of immorality by Council of 
Trent, ii. 206 
Ap Rice visits monastic houses in 

England, ii. 87, 105 
Aquinas, St. Thomas, admits that Christ 
did not enforce celibacy, i. 13 ; on sac- 
raments of sinful priests, i. 229, note ; 
on vows, i. 396, note 
Arab monachism, nature of, i. 46, note 
Arabic version of Nicene canons, i. Ill 
Aranda, Council of, in, 1473 ii. 17 
Arbuckle, Friar, disputes with Knox, ii. 

Archembald of Sens, evil example of, 

i. 175 
Archives, Spanish, researches in, ii. 249, 

note ; recent access to, ii. 283 
Arechis of Beneventum, edict of, i. 143 
Aretino, abuses in Church of, i. 168 
Arfastus of Thetford, i. 329 
Arialdo, St., candidate for archbishopric, 
Milan, i. 246 ; accompanies Erlembaldo 
to Rome, i. 254 ; is excommunicated, 
i. 250 ; procures excommunication of 
Archbishop Guido, i. 255 ; put to death 
by satellites of Guido, i. 256 ; miracles 
at tomb of, i. 256 
Arianism, celibacy under, i. 135 
Arith, William, on abuses, ii. 155, 
Aries, Council of, in 314, i. 43, note ; in 

443, i. 82 
Armagh, hereditary Archbishops of, i. 

Armagnac, Cardinal of, Pius V. urges 

reforms on, ii. 241 
Armenia, Council of, in 1362, i. 96, note; 

hereditary priesthood in, i. 96 
Arnaldo de Peralta attempts reforms, 

i. 379 
Arnold of Brescia drives Eugenius III. 

from Rome, i. 388 
Arnolfo, a reformer, fate of, i. 424 
Arran, Regent, favours Reformation, 

ii. 158 ; power wrested from, ii. 162 
Artemis, celibate priestesses for, i. 43 
Arthur of Brittany, a canon of Tours, 

i. 376, note 
Artices, Thirty-nine, clerical marriage in, 

ii. 140 
Articles, Forty-two, clerical marriage in, 

ii. 121 
Articles, the Six, enacted by Parliament, 
ii. Ill ; heretics burned under, ii. 97, 
note ; modification of, ii. 115 ; repeal 
of, ii. 117 ; popular call for restoration 
of, ii. 120 ; virtually revived under 
Mary, ii. 137 ; repealed under Eliza- 
beth, ii. 137 
Arundel of Canterbury on Lollards, i. 476 
Asceticism, foreign to Hebrew tradition, 
i. 4 ; of early Christians, i. 17 ; of 
heretical sects, i. 20 ; stimulated by 
Buddhism, i. 22 ; growing tendency 
towards, i. 22 ; Neo-Platonism borrows 



from, i. 28 ; is influenced by Mani- 
chseism, i. 34 ; after combat, Church 
virtually assents to, i. 36 ; triumph of, 
is not undisturbed, i. 39-40 ; of pagans 
of the Empire, i. 42 ; furthered by 
prohibition of women as ministers, i. 
56; demands artificial purity, i. 57 ; not 
yet an article of faith and discipline, 
i. 57 ; Bonosus, Jovinian, and Vigilan- 
tius, leaders against, i. 67 ; voluntary, 
in fourth century, i. 53 ; becomes obli- 
gatory, i. 59 ; voluntary in the East, i. 
88-9 ; not adopted in Armenia, i. 96 ; 
fanciful views regarding, i. 269, note ; 
gains adherents among laity, i. 287 ; 
in Irish Church, i. 184, 360 ; virtually 
ignored in Spain in twelfth cen- 
tury, i. 376 ; in middle ages, i. 431 ; 
rigid, of monk of Vallis Dei, i. 448 ; of 
military Orders, i. 451, 454 ; of Albi- 
genses, i. 463 ; of Petrobrusians, i. 463; 
opposed by Brethren of the Free Spirit, 
i. 470 ; of Wickcliffe, i. 475 ; of Hussites, 
i. 479 ; Clement VII. on Lutheran stig- 
matising of, ii. 151 ; Hosius, Bishop of 
Ermeland, on, ii. 192 

Ashera, worship of, i. 4 

Assembly, National, secularises Church 
property, ii. 306-7 ; legalises clerical 
marriage, ii. 309 

Assermentes, ii. 308 

Assideans, i. 8 

Astorga, Bishop of, on Tridentine canons, 
ii. 207 

Astrolabius, son of Abelard, 1. 324 

Athanasius, St., testifies to freedom iof 
priests to marry, i. 52-3 

Athenagoras, references by, to chastity 
and marriage, i. 19 ; on second mar- 
riage, i. 23 ; on asceticism, i. 113 

Athravas, hereditary transmission by, 
i. 6 

Atto of Vercelli, on female ministration, 
i. 57 ; on marriage of priests, i. 167 

Attys, myth of, i. 42 

Auditors, Manichsean, i. 37 

Augsburg, Council of (tenth century), i. 
48, note ; in 952, i. 171 ; Diet of, in 
1530, ii. 64 ; " Confession " of, ii. 65 ; 
synod of, in 1548, ii. 187 ; Diet of 
adopts code of reformation, ii. 186 

Augsburg formula of reformation, ii. 188; 
formula published, ii. 191 ; confession 
of, examined by Cochlseus, ii. 210, note 

Augustin of Canterbury and celibacy, i. 

Augustin, St., special pleading of, on 
Jewish priesthood, i. 5, note ; on mar- 
riage, i. 38 ; promotes asceticism, i. 75 ; 
succeeds in labours for celibacy, i. 81 ; 
describes morals of wandering monks,i. 
112; says that marriage of nuns is 
binding, i. 114 ; on danger arising from 
female residence, i. 157, note 

Augustin, rule of, adopted by military 

Orders, i. 451 
Augustinians, of Gloucester, suppression 

of, ii. 96 ; Martin Luther belongs to 

Order of, ii. 43, 44 ; of Wittenberg 

throw open their doors, ii. 44 ; enfran- 
chise themselves at Nurnberg, ii. 51 
Aunts, residence of , forbidden for priests, 

i. 156 
Aurelian, St., of Aries, rule of, i. 125 
Aurelius, St., advocates celibacy, i. 74 ; 

proposes canon ordering married 

priests to leave wives, i. 75 
Auricular confession, commencement of, 

ii. 252, note 
Ausch, Congrhs fraternel of, in 1793, ii* 

Austin Friars of Gloucester suppressed, 

ii. 96 
Austria, enforcement of celibacy in, i. 

300 ; " Old Catholics " in, ii. 329 ; civil 

marriage in, ii. 330 
Autun, Prince Talleyrand Bishop of, ii. 

317 ; marries, ii. 317 
Auvergne, Council of, in 535, i. 84, note 
Auxerre, Council of, in 578, i. 84, note ; 

persecution of celibates in, ii. 312 
Availles, case occurring at, in 181 7, ii. 358 
Avellana, monks of, i. 217 
Avesbury, nunnery of, shamelessness of 

abbess of, i. 343 
D'Avesnes, case of, i. 399-400 
Avignon, residence of Popes in, i. 425 ; 

scandalous morals of, i. 425 ; Council 

of, in, 1594, ii. 241 
Avila, Pedro de, ii. 214 ; envoy of Philip 

II. to Pius IV., ii. 216-17 
Avis, Order of, i. 455 
Avranche, Council of, in 1172, i. 394 
Ayenbite of Inwyt, i. 434, note 

Babeus grants ecclesiastical marriage, 

i. 98-9 
Babueus, Patriarch of Seleucia, excom- 
municates Barsuma, i. 98 
Bachelors ineligible for episcopate, 1. 27, 

Badegisilus of Le Mans, i. 132, Tiote 
Baden, priests of, ^petition for leave to 

marry, ii. 325 
Baithusin, hereditary priesthood of, i. 5 
Baldric of Dol, i. 312 
Bale, Bishop of Ossory, controversial 

writing of, ii. 118 
Bale, Council of, in 1432, i. 477, note ; 

Hussites reconciled at, i. 477, note ; 

clerical marriage suggested at, ii. 26, 

canons of, affirmed in Scotland, ii. 159 
Balfour, Andrew, ii. 157 
Balsamon on legislation of Greek Church, 

i. 93, nx)te 
Balthazar Cossa, afterwards John XXIII., 

i. 426 
Balthazar Sturmius, married monk, ii. 45 



Baltimore, Council of, in 1829, 11. 352 
Bamberg, troubles of, in 1431, 11. 11 ; 

morals of clergy in 1505 in, 11. 58, 

Bandello, Bishop, on clerical immorality 

in Italy, 11. 57 
Bangor, morals of clergy in. ii. 105-6 
Baptism by immoral priests, 1. 187, 437 ; 

repetition of, refused by Ecgberht, 1. 

Baptisma igneum, 11. 68 
Barba, Canon Miguel, superintendent of 

convents, 11. 286 
Barbarians, the, and the Church, 1. 130- 

40 ; superior morality of, 1. 86 
Barbarossa, strife of, with Alexander III., 

I. 393 ; not allowed to enter Fulda, 11. 
23, note 

Bardsey, Culdees of, 1. 367, note 
Bari, military Bishop of, 1. 209 
Baronius on Gregory of Nazlanzum, 1. 53, 

Barrios, Bishop of Santafe, regulations of, 

II. 246 

Barry, Mr., researches of, in Spanish 

archives, ii. 249, note 
Barsuma, Metropolitan of Nislbi, 1. 98 
Bartelot, John, on bribes by Abbot of 

Crossed Friars, 11. 97, note 
Bartholomew of Bracara demands re- 
forms, 11. 198 
Barzi, Vincenzo, has light punishment 

for solicitation, 11. 282 
Basil, St., strict enforcement of canon by, 

i. 88, note 
Basilica of Leo the Philosopher, quoted 

by Photius, 1. 93 
Basilldes, heresy of, 1. 21 
Basinus of Treves, 1. 145 
Bastardv Increased by enforced celibacy, 

11. 347 
Bathing, promiscuous, rebuked by 

Cyprian, 1. 31 
Baumgartner, August, speaks at Council 

of Trent, 11. 178, 221 
Bavaria, marriage of nuns forbidden in 

772, 1. 153, 7iote ; demand for clerical 

marriage in, 11. 75, 194-6 ; rising in, 

to demand priestly marriage and cup 

for laity, ii. 201, note ; " Old Catholic " 

movement in, ii. 329 
Beards, clergy insist on wearing, 11. 231 
Beatoun, Cardinal, immorality of, 11. 

Beauvais, Massleu, Bishop of, publicly 

married, ii. 310 
Bede, the Venerable, on Aaron's linen 

breeches, 1. 63, note ; praises St. 

Columba's disciples, 1. 185 
Beggars' Petition, the, ii. 90 
Beggars, legislation against, under 

Henry VIIL, 11. 94 
Begghards In Germany, i. 469; errors 

of, i. 471, note 


Beguines, brotherhood of, i. 469 

Belgium, Mgr. Sterckx, Archbishop of 
Mechlin, addressed on morals in, 11. 

Bellarmine, Cardinal, on story of Paph- 
nutlus, 1. 51 ; far-fetched logic of, on 
celibacy, 11. 297 

Beltis, Babylonian, 1. 4 

Benchor, monastery of, 1. 860, note 

Benedict VIII. enforces celibacy, i. 

Benedict IX., scandalous life of, i. 208 ; 
driven out of Eome, 1. 214 ; returns, 
and sells papal dignity, 1. 214 ; re- 
instated as Pope, 1. 218 

Benedict XIII. canonises St. Torlbio of 
Peru, ii. 247 

Benedict XIV., bull on "solicitation" 
by, 11. 267, 274 ; denounces inquiry of 
name of partner in guilt, 11. 276 ; on 
civil marriage, ii. 330 

Benedict of Camln on clerical morals, 
11. 19 

Benedict the Levite on residence of 
female relatives, 1. 157, note 

Benedict, St., of Nursia, 1. 122, note, 123 ; 
rule promulgated by, 1. 124-5 ; be- 
comes universal, 1. 125 ; supplemented 
by Louis le Debonnaire, 1. 154 ; 
adopted by military orders, 1. 451 

Benedictine Order, saints in the, 1. 126 ; 
contentions of, with Franciscans, 1. 
415 ; peaceful arts owe preservation 
to, 1. 445 

Benefices held, by tenure of chastity, i. 
382 ; bestowal of, on servants, 11. 173 ; 
hereditary (see Hereditary transmis- 

Benefit of clergy extended to concubines 
of priests, i. 421 

Benevento, "Madame Grand" becomes 
Princess of, ii. 318-19 

Benzo, Bishop, account of Hildebrand by, 
1., 231, note ; use of term *' Paterlni " 
by, 1. 249, note; on Nicolltlsm, i. 
284, note 

Berardi, on confessional, 11. 267, note, 
351, note; on laxity in Liguori, ii. 
268, note 

Berengaria of Barcelona, 1. 376 

Berenger of Tours, on priestly marriage, 
1. 307 

Bernald of Constance disputes on celi- 
bacy, 1. 50- 1 ; disbelieves story of 
Paphnutius, 1. 51 

Bernard, St., reforms by, i. 319 ; miracle 
wrought by, 1. 321-2 ; on barbarism 
of Ireland, 1. 361, note ; hymn by, on 
St. Malachi, 1. 362, note ; on dissolu- 
tion of priestly marriage, 1. 389 ; on 
the Albigenses, i. 409 ; on Petrobu- 
slans, 1. 463 ; on licentiousness of 
Kome, i. 430; on revival of Manl- 
cheeism, 1. 409 

2 A 



Bernard of Font Cauld on Waldenses, 
i. 468 

Bernard of Tiron preaches reform, i. 

Bernhardi, Bartholomew, pastor, mar- 
riage of, ii. 42 

Bernhardus Baptisatas, ii. 4 

Beroalde de Verville, ii. 241 

Bertolf, Duke of Carinthia, has menacing 
letter from Pope Gregory, i. 277 

Bertrand, St., of Comminges, miracle of, 
i. 325 

Berytus, synod of, i. 86 

Besangon, synod of, in 1689, ii. 274 

Beth Sopherim uphold doctrine of future 
life, i. 8 

Beverege, John, burnt, ii. 3 66 

Beza, Theodore, on Anglican priestly 
marriage, ii. 139, note 

Beze, charter to monastery of, i. 320 

Bhagavad-gita and Christianity, i. 99, 

Bhikshus and Bhikshunis (Buddhist), i. 

Bidone, Luigi, priest of Oliva Gessi, case 
of, ii. 350 

Bigamy of priests in tenth century, i. 
194 ; in eleventh century, i. 200 ; in 
twelfth century, i. 295 ; caused by 
celibacy, i. 338 

Bigorre, legalised concubinage in, i. 231, 

Bilio, Cardinal, author of the Syllabus, 
ii. 328 

Bird, Bishop of Chester, repudiates wife, 
ii. 126, note 

Bisantio of Bari, i. 209 

Bishops, marriage of {see Marriage) 

Bishop of Le Mans son of priest, i. 241 

Bishops, to be husband of one wife, i. 
26 ; number of digamous, i. 26, 183 ; 
retain wives, in Coptic Church, i. 100 ; 
must have witnesses to purity of living, 
i. 147 ; nominated by Merovingians, i. 
132 ; immoral character of many, i. 133 ; 
to provide security for diocesan pro- 
perty, i. 137 ; increase of power for, i. 
162 ; military, i. 175, note ; debate in 
assembly of German, i. 178 ; warlike 
character of, in tenth century, i. 175, 
note ; in eleventh century, i. 209 ; 
openly married in Kome itself, i. 210 ; 
Damiani declaims against depravity 
of, i. 233 ; disaffected at synod of 
Pavia, i. 259 ; Scandinavian, take con- 
cubines to visitations, ii. 2 ; ordered 
to eject concubines or lose prefer- 
ment, ii. 6 ; ordered by Henry VIII. 
to arrest married priests, ii. 107 ; de- 
prived under Edward VI. and Mary, 
ii. 126 ; under Elizabeth, ii. 126 ; 
French, ordered not to interfere with 
priests' marriages, ii. 314 
Bishoprics, hereditary in Brittany, i. 312 ; 

in Ireland, i. 361 ; created from English 
monasteries, ii. 99-100 

Blacater, Bishop, persecutes Lollards, 
ii. 155 

Blanca, Sor Antonio, illicit relations in 
confessional, ii. 286 

Bias Ortiz, Vicar General of Toledo, tries 
immoral priest, ii. 254 

Blood-letting of monks, i. 156 

Boccaccio, plain speaking of, i. 432 

Bodonus on " intention " in confessional 
questions, ii. 267 

Bohemia, enforcement of celibacy in, 
i. 293-4; Calixtins in, i. 480; Maxi- 
milian of, ii. 199, 210, 211 ; communion 
in both kinds for, ii. 212 

Bois le Due, synod of, in 16 12, ii. 237 

Boisset, Father, appeals to civil au- 
thorities for marriage, ii. 319 

Bologna, Balthazar Cossa legate in, 
i. 427 

Bonafede, Niccol5, Bishop of Chiusi, 
ii. 15 " 

Bonaventura, on absolution, i. 431, note ; 
on abuse of confessional, i. 436, note ; 
quoted by Boussard, ii. 27-8 ; on 
priests and female penitents, ii. 253 

Boniface of Canterbury, i. 353 

Boniface of Lausanne, i. 423 

Boniface, St., asceticism of, i. 142 ; as- 
sists Carloman to reform morals, i. 144 ; 
relations with Gervilius, i. 146 ; admits 
universal licentiousness, i. 146 ; ad- 
vised by Pope Zachary to leave Milo 
to divine vengeance, i. 145 ; reforms 
Frankish clergy, i. 147 ; falls under 
sword of Frisians, i. 150 ; appeal of, to 
Cuthbert of Canterbury, i. 188 

Bonizo deposed and martyred, i. 263 

Bonn, " Old Catholic " synod of, in 1878, 
ii. 329 

Bonner, Bishop, deprives married priests, 
ii. 125, note ; visitation of London by, 
ii. 126 ; scandals concerning, ii. 135 

Bonosiacs, i. 67 

Bonosus opposed to ascetic spirit, i. 67 ; 
denounced by Siricius, i. 67 ; and fol- 
lowers, by Council of Capua, i. 67-8 ; 
followers of, referred to in Penitential 
St. Columban, i. 68 

Book of Discipline, Knox, ii. 164 

Books of canon law burned by Luther, 
ii. 41 

Bora, Catharine von, escapes from con- 
vent of Nimptschen, ii. 50 ; marries 
Luther, ii. 51 

Bordeaux, Council of, in 1624, ii. 240 

Borgia, Eoderic, character of, i. 428 

Borromeo, St. Charles of, ii. 227 

Bosnia, heretics of, i. 462, note 

Bossaert d'Avesnes, case of, i. 398-9 

Bossu d' Arras, Le, on Alexander IV. 
i. 414 

Bossuet, probable marriage of, ii. 298 



Botoa, monastery of, i. 374 
Bouhier de I'Ecluse, ii. 323, note 
Bourbon, Cardinal of, ii. 241 
Bourges, Council of, in 1031, i. 207 ; in 

1528, ii, 173; in 1800, ii. 315; Torne, 

Bishop of, publicly married, ii. 310 
Bourne, Sir John, complains of dean and 

chapter, Worcester, ii. 142 ; quarrels 

with Dr. Sandys, ii. 148 
Boussard, Geoffroi, dissertation of, on 

priestly continence, i. 15, ii. 27 
Boyer on "droit de marquette," i. 441, 

Bracton on position of concubines, i. 231, 

Bracara, Archbishop of, ii. 198 
Braga, Councils of, i. 84, tiote 
Brahmanism, asceticism of, i. 7 
Branda, Cardinal, reforms of, ii. 7 
Brantome, on shameless papal court, i. 

426 ; on Cardinal de Chatillon, ii. 153, 

note ; on morals under Catherine de 

Medicis, ii. 241 
Brazil, suppression of monasteries in, ii. 

Brecislas of Bohemia, i. 290 
Bremen, Council of, in 1266, 1. 303 
Bremen, Archbishop of, receives letter 

from Pius IV., ii. 222, note 
Breslau, Council of, in 1416, i. 419 ; in 

1580, ii. 233 
Brethren of the Free Spirit, i. 469 ; re- 
suscitation of, ii. 68 
Bribes to avert suppression of monas- 
teries, ii. 93, note 
Brice, St., story of, concerning paternity 

of child, i. 79-80 
Bridfrith, Life of St. Dunstan, i. 192, note 
Bristol, see of, created, ii. 100 
Brittany, Church of, i. 134, note ; priestly 

marriage in, i. 312 
British clergy, corruption of, i. 183 ; 

Church, discipline of, i. 184 ; in ninth 

century, i. 198 
Briviesca, Sebastian, guilty priest, quietly 

sent away, ii. 216 
Brothels, kept by prelates, ii. 57 ; Louis 

XV. orders arrest of priests frequent- 
ing, ii. 303 
Brou-Lauriere, M. de, case of marriage 

of, ii. 323 
Brixen, schismatic synod of, in 1080, 

i. 284 
Briick, "Kirche in Deutschland," ii. 336, 

Brunhilda appeals to Gregory the Great, 

i. 139 
Bruno of Toul created Pope as Leo IX., 

i. 218 
Bruno, St., reforms by, i. 319 ; founds 

Grande Chartreuse, ii. 23, note ^ 
Brunswick, chapter of, in 1476, ii. 18 
Brut y Tywysogion on married priests, 

i. 198 

Buccer insists on priestly marriage, ii. 

72, note 
Buchanan, David, on Langlande, ii. 78, 

Buddha, reduces Sankhyism to religious 
system, i. 6-7 ; supposed virgin birth 
of, i. 22 
Buddhism, many observances of Latin 
Christianity derived from, i. 23 ; mo- 
nastic orders of, i. 101-2 
Bulgaria, Manichseism transmitted 

through, i. 244, 459 
Bulgarian Church, rules for, i. 161 
Bull, Pius III., suppressed, ii. 185 
Bull, papal, Exsurge Domine, ii. 40 ; In- 
junctum nobis, ii. 131 ; Ad canonum, 
ii. 174, note ; Quenadmordum soUicitus, 
ii. 229, note ; Cum sicut nuper, ii. 258, 
note ; Universi Dominici Gregis, ii. 264 ; 
Sacramentum Poenitentia, ii. 267, 275, 
357 ; Etsi pastoralis, ii. 275, note ; 
Apostolicse sedis, ii. 277 ; Dominions 
ac Kedemptor, ii. 335 ; In ca3na Do- 
mine, ii. 355 
Burchardi Decretorum, ii. 251, note 
Burchard, master of ceremonies to Alex- 
ander VI., i. 429 
Burckhardt of Worms on celibacy, i. 206 
Burdino, Maurice, anti-pope, i. 385 
Bure, Idelette de, wife of Calvin, ii. 151 
Burghley tries to restrain Queen Eliza- 
beth, ii. 143 
Burgos, Council of, in 1080, i. 372 
Burial, Christian, denied to married 

priests, i. 225 ; to concubines, i. 380 
Burmah, number of " lamas " in, i. 103 
Burnet, Bishop, on English monasteries 
ii. 90, 98, 99 ; on date of Beggars' Peti- 
tion, ii. 91, note ; on matrimonialists 
under Edward VI., ii. 118 ; on Anglican 
doctrine and worship under Edward 
VI., ii. 121 ; on Articles of English 
Church, ii. 140, note 
Burning alive threatened for married 

priests in 1524, ii. 48 
Bassy-Kabutin, ii. 242 
Butler, John, on priestly marriage, ii. 
109, note 

Cabassut on apostolic canons, i. 41, note 

Cadalus, elected anti-pope, i. 235 ; party 
of, broken up, i. 237 

Cadam, transaction of, in 1553, ii. 69-70 

Cadiz, Cortes of, in 181 3, ii. 336 

Caesarea, synod at, i. 58 

Caesarius, St., of Aries, on marriage of 
nuns, i. 123 ; rule of, i. 125 

Csesarius of Heisterbach, on influence of 
priesthood, i. 431 ; on priestly " solici- 
tation," ii. 276 

Caietano, Cardinal, at Diet of Augsburg, 
ii. 46 

Cain Patraic, i. 360 

Caisho, priest of, ii. 134, note 



Calabria, celibacy enforced in, i. 78, 395 

Calatrava, Knights of, allowed to marry, 
i. 454 

Calini, Archbishop, reports from Trent, ii. 

Calixtins, the, i. 479 

Calixtus I., Hippolytus enumerates evil 
ways of, i. 25 

Calixtus II., enforces celibacy in France, 
1. 323 ; scanty success of, i. 385 ; lines 
written on, i. 349 ; sermon of, on abuse 
of confessional, ii. 253 ; declares mar- 
riage dissolved by orders, i. 385-6 

Calixtus, work on celibacy by, ii. 300 

Calne, Council of, in 978, i. 198 

Calvi, Donate, on religious orders, i. 104- 
5, note 

Calvin, Confession of Faith, ii. 151 ; mar- 
riage of, ii. 151 

Calvinism, ii. 150-170 

Calvinists, marriage of, ii. 152 ; dispute 
with Lutherans and Philippists, ii. 225, 
note ; marriage of Calvinist woman to 
priest, ii. 238 

Calvo, Fray Francisco, denounces him- 
self for improper flagellation, ii. 279 

Camaldoli, monks of, i. 213 ; demoralisa- 
tion of, ii. 8 

Cambrai, Manichseism at, in 1025, i. 244; 
man burned at, for Hildebrandine 
doctrine, i. 282, 812 ; neglects to adopt 
Augsburg Formulary, ii. 191 ; Council 
of, in 1300, ii. 244 ; 1550, ii. 191 ; 1565, 
ii. 239 ; 1661, ii. 273 

Camin, synod of, in 1454, ii. 20, note 

Campeggi, Cardinal, persecutes married 
priests, ii. 48 ; sent to Germany to 
check heresy, ii. 57 ; co-legate in Queen 
Katherine's divorce, ii. 83 ; assists in 
suppression of monasteries, ii. 83 

Canonical age for women resident with 
priests, ii. 186 

Canons, apostolical {see Apostolical) 

Canons, regular, institution of, i. 152 ; of 
Fecamp, expulsion of, i. 179, note ; dis- 
cussion on marriage of, i. 317 ; forced 
to cloistered life, i. 319 ; marriage of, 
in twelfth century, i. 326; hereditary in 
England, i. 330 ; replace Culdees in 
Scotland, i. 367 ; laxity of rule of, i. 
375-6 ; demoralisation of, in fifteenth 
century, ii. 15 ; unclerical habits of 
German, in fourteenth century, i. 422, 
note ; morals of, in Brunswick in 1476, 
ii. 18; Gardiner ordered to eject from 
Westminster, ii. 126, note 

Canterbury, Christ Church, in eleventh 
century, i. 199 ; number of married 
clergy in archdeaconry of, ii. 139, note 

*' Capacities " given to ejected monks, ii. 

Capito, Wolfgang Fabricius, persecutes 
married priests, ii. 43 ; is married, ii. 

Caprara, Cardinal, legate, on married 

priests, ii. 316 
Capua, Council of, in 389, i. 68 
Caraffa, Cardinal, becomes Pope, ii. 131 ; 

head of commission for reform, ii. 183 
Cardinalate, childlessness requisite for, 

ii. 227 
Cardinal's College, Ipswich, Wolsey's 

foundation, ii. 83 
Cardinal's College, Oxford, Wolsey's 

foundation, ii. 82 
Carloman seeks aid of Church, i. 144 ; 

endeavours to reform Church, i. 148 ; 

enters monastery of Monte Casino, i. 

Carlostadt, advocates priestly marriage, 

ii. 43 ; treatise of, ii. 43 
Carlovingians, the, i. 141-63 
Carmelites, miraculous scapular of, i. 

415 ; Franciscan attacks in *' Creed of 

Piers Ploughman," i. 439, note 
Carmelite convents, male and female, at 

Kome, with underground communica- 
tion, ii. 305 
Carnarvonshire, complaint regarding 

priests in, ii. 16-17 
Carpocrates, heresy of, i. 20 
Carracioli, Bishop of Troyes, married, ii. 

152, note 
Carranza, Archbishop of Toledo, on 

" solicitation," ii. 255 
Carterius, Bishop, case of, i. 26 
Carthage, Council of, in 348, i. 109; third 

and fourth Councils, in 397 and 398, i. 

74 ; fifth Council of, in 401, i. 75 
Carthusian asceticism, i. 448 
Carthusians of London resist Henry VIII., 

ii. 85-6 
Cashel, Archbishop, interrogates Clement 

III. on children of bishops, i. 363 
Cashel, Council of, in 1171, i. 364 
Cassander, George, advocates priestly 

marriage, ii. 210 
Cassation, Court of, ii. 322, 324 
Cassianus, heretical views of, i. 20 
Cassianus, John, abbot of St. Victor, 

Marseilles, i. 122 
Cassiodorus relates story of Paphnutius, 

i. 52 
Caste, priestly, hereditary transmission 

would create, i. 347 
Castel-Fuerte, Marques del, ii. 248 
Castillo y Ayensa, ii. 336, note 
Castration of Galli, i. 42 
Casuistry, applied to "solicitation," ii. 

263, 271 ; effect of, on morality, ii. 

Catalini, work on Congregation of Index, 

ii, 184, note 
Catarini, Cardinal, president of Consulta, 

on canons and discipline, Vatican 

Council, ii. 328 
Catarino, Ambrogio, controversy with 

Luther, ii. 41 



Caterina, St., de Pistoia on immorality of 
confessors, ii. 304 

Cathari, heresy of, i. 245, 459 

Catharine von Bora, ii. 50, 51 

Catherine de Medicis and the Council of 
Trent, ii. 221-2 ; request on priestly 
marriage and cup for laity, ii. 239 

Catholicism, observances of, borrowed 
from Buddhism, i. 23 

Catholics " Old," ii. 329 

Catholics, persecution of, in Scotland, 
ii. 169-70 

Caumont, case of married priest in, i. 310 

Cavour introduces civil marriage in 
Sardinia, ii. 330 

Cayetana de la Providencia, Sor, case of, 
ii. 285-6 

C6]e-de or Culdee, i. 366 

Celestin III. sends legate to Bohemia, 
i. 293 ; on hereditary transmission of 
benefices, i. 404 

Celestin I. (pseudo) on abuse of confes- 
sional, ii. 252 

Celibacy, argument as to early practice 
of, i. 12 ; St. Jerome admits lack of 
injunction for, i. 13 ; first command to 
clergy to practise, i. 59, 62 ; decretal 
of Siricius to Archp. Himerius on, i. 
63 ; evidence that discipline of, was 
new, i. 65 ; Jovinian denies eflScacy of, 
i. 69 ; decretal of Siricius opposed by 
Vigilantus, i. 71 ; decretal of Siricius 
made compulsory in Gaul and Spain, i. 
72; progress of, not effectually resisted, 
i. 74 ; not enforced by third or fourth 
Council of Carthage, 74-5 ; Church in 
Gaul neglects rule of, i. 78 ; resisted 
after decretals of Siricius, i. 78 ; 
Western Church committed to, i. 81 ; 
numerous councils discuss, i. 83; in 
West, matter of discipline, not doc- 
trine, i. 94 ; canons of Quinisext on, 
i.94; laxity of practice of, i. 96; 
views of Abyssinian and Coptic Chris- 
tians on, i. 99-100 ; Saxon Church re- 
gardless of, i. 203 ; zeal of Gregory 
VII. for, i. 260 ; attributed to Gregory 
I. and Gregory VII., i. 139, 266 ; 
Alexander II. and Leo IX. on, i. 266 ; 
great influence of, upon Church, i. 267 ; 
enforcement of, causes riots in Passau, 
i. 273 ; of military orders, i, 451, 454 ; 
of heretical sects, i. 459 ; Wickcliffe's 
views upon, doubtful, i. 474: ; attacked 
by John Laillier, ii. 29 ; Luther stig- 
matises rule of, ii. 41 ; Bernhardi stigma- 
tises rule of, ii. 42 ; numerous books in 
sixteenth century ridicule, ii. 103 ; a 
point of faith, in Council of Paris, 
1528, ii. 172 ; dispensations from vows 
of, ii. 173-4 ; supported by better part 
of clergy, Reign of Terror, ii. 313 ; ques- 
tion of, not settled by Concordat, ii. 

Celibates, disabilities of, removed, i. 107 

Celsus of Armagh, i. 361 

Celtic Churches, original pure simplicity 

of, i. 360 
Cenobites, beginning of society of, i. 105 ; 

janizaries of Cyril, i. 117 
Cent Nouvclles Nouvelles, ii. 242, iiote 
Ceres, celibacy of priestesses of, i. 43 
Cesarini, Cardinal, refuses to dissolve 

Council, ii. 10 
Ceuta, hard labour in, ii. 291 
Ceylon, number of monks in, i. 103 
Chabot, M. Charles, computes number of 

French ecclesiastics, ii. 313, note 
Chalcedon, Council of, in 451, i. 118 
Chaldean and Mazdean belief in future 

life, i. 8 
Chalons, Council of, in 893, i. 162 
Charibert, laws of, on forcible marriage, 

i. 134 
Charity of monastic orders, i. 446, 

ii. 101 
Charity and education, Concordat of 1851 

re-establishes orders devoted to, ii. 336, 

Charlemagne, carries out Church organi- 
sation, i. 152-3 ; representations to 

Adrian I. by, i. 153 
Charles, Archduke, asks for clerical mar- 
riage, ii. 212 
Charles Borromeo, St., ii. 227 ; orders 

use of confessional box, ii. 255 
Charles-le-Chauve argues against papal 

pretensions, i. 159 
Charles the Lame, i. 420 
Charles Martel, oppresses the Church, 

i. 145 ; condemned to eternal torture, 

i. 146 ; tomb of, opened, i. 146 
Charles IV. (Emperor) urges reform, 

i. 422, note 
Charles V., policy of, in 1530, ii. 64; 

temporises with Reformation, ii. 69, 

72 ; issues the Interim, ii. 73 ; demands 

dispensations for married priests, ii. 

74 ; accepts Reformation, ii. 75-6 ; 

demands reassembling of Council of 

Trent, ii. 75 ; objects to transfer of 

Council to Bologna, ii. 74 ; seeks to 

reform German Church, ii. 179, note 
Charles VII. (France) fines concubinary 

priests, ii. 12 
Charles VIII., Neapolitan conquest by, 

ii. 31 
Charles IX. (France) favours clerical 

marriage, ii. 197 
Charles X. tries to introduce Jesuits, 

ii. 338 
Charles de Valois intervenes in Flanders, 

i. 400 
Charter House, fate of monks of, ii 

Charter of Oswald's Law, i. 195 
Chartrier, Alain, on condition of Church. 

ii. 9 



Chartreuse, strictness of rule of, ii. 23, 

Chassidim (Assideans of the Vulgate), 
i. 8 

Chastity, of barbarians praised by Sal- 
vianus, i. 131 ; feudal tenure by, i. 
176 ; gift of to be obtained by seeking, 
i. 409 ; Archbishop of Treves on, ii. 
187 ; sacrifice of, i. 4 ; vows of, intro- 
duced, i. 30 ; perversion of vows of, 
i. 142-3 ; vow of, necessary for holy 
orders, i. 207 

Chastity, proverbial, of Irish women, ii. 

Chataigneu, Abbe, court of Angouleme 
on, ii. 324 

Chatelleraut, Duke of, ii. 163 

Chdtillon de, Bishop of Beauvais, mar- 
ried, ii. 153, note 

Chaucer, description of priest's wife and 
children, i. 420 ; plain speaking of, i. 
432 ; Personne's Tale, i. 437 

Chavard, Abbe, Le Cdibat des Pritres, ii. 
298, 7iote, 300, 309, 340, notes : marries 
at Geneva, ii. 324 

Chelsea, Council of, in 787, i. 190; 
canons of, i. 190 

Chepstow, Abbess of, accuses Dr. Lon- 
don, ii. 97 

Cheregato, legate, on priestly immunity, 
ii. 49, note 

Chertsey, reformation of monastery of, 
i. 195 

Chester, see of, created, ii. 100 

Chichester, Bishop of, on commission to 
try married bishops, ii. 125 

Chiericato and religious scandals, ii. 

Childebert, laws of, on forcible marriage, 
i. 134 

Children cause ineligibility to episco- 
pate, i. 93 ; to cardinalate, ii. 227 

Children of ecclesiastics {see also Here- 
ditary transmission), in tenth century, 
i. 165, 166, 170 ; Otho the Great issues 
edict on, i. 170 ; Church stripped to 
benefit, i. 175 ; Adalbero of Metz does 
not refuse ordination to, i. 178 ; dis- 
abilities of, in the eleventh century, 
i. 207 ; yet openly provided for, i. 
210 ; considered ineligible for ordina- 
tion, i. 215 ; admitted to holy orders 
by Alexander II., i. 241 ; Archdeacon of 
Salzburg bewails ordination of, i. 295 ; 
follow father's profession in Poland, 
i. 301 ; pronounced infamous, i. 303 ; 
given as hostages in Friesland, i. 
304 ; Paschal II. addresses Anselm on, 
• i. 335 ; Thibaut of Etampes on, i. 335 ; 
treated as legitimate in deed of thir- 
teenth century, i. 354 ; Gweutian code 
on, i. 358 ; Archbishop of Cashel ques- 
tions Clement III. on, i. 363 ; recog- 
nised in diocese of Salamanca, i. 379 ; 

ineligible for knighthood, i. 404 ; 
fathers not to oflBciate at marriage of, 
ii. 17 ; not to assist fathers in the 
Mass, ii. 17 ; dispensations for, ii. 21 ; 
taxes of penitentiary for, ii. 55 ; posi- 
tion under Edward VI., ii. 122 ; Queen 
Mary repeals Act legitimaticg, ii. 
124; formally legitimated under Eliza- 
beth, ii. 138 ; may inherit property of 
parents, ii. 153-4 ; promotion of, pro- 
hibited in Scotland, ii. 160 ; daughters 
not to be married to barons or lairds, 
sons not to be barons or lairds, ii. 
160 ; dispensations for legitimation of, 
ii. 219 ; not to live with parents in 
Salzburg, ii. 231-2 ; prohibited from 
holding father's benefices, ii. 234 ; 
enriched with patrimony of Church, 
ii. 237 

China, development of Buddhism in, 
i. 102 

Christ College, Oxford, founded by 
Wolsey, ii. 82 ; endowed by confis- 
cated monasteries, ii. 82 

Christian Church, puritanism of early, i. 

Christianity, purifying influence of, i. 

Chrodegang, St., of Metz, rule of, i. 

Chrysostom, St. John, extravagant praise 
of virginity, i., 90 

Church, Catholic, morals of {see Morals) 

Church, the Ante-Nicene, i. 17 ; the 
Latin, great fact in history of civilisa- 
tion, i. 1 ; accession of property due 
to celibacy, i. 61 ; early characteristics 
of Greek, i. 87 ; severity of discipline 
in Latin, i. 93 ; independent organi- 
sation of Latin, i. 130 ; oppressed by 
Austrasian mayors of palace, i. 142 ; 
grows independent of secular control, 
i. 163 ; responsibility of, i. 442 ; corrup- 
tion of, discussed in Vienna, ii. 193, 
note; subservient in no country to 
State, ii. 334 ; present reactionary 
efforts of, ii. 363 ; part still to be 
played by, ii. 363 

Church lands, fate of, in Scotland, ii. 
163-4 ; in England, ii. 90 ; in France, 
ii. 306-7 

Churching of priests' wives forbidden, ii. 

Ciempozuelos, case of Sor Cayetana in, 
ii. 285-6 

Circilliones, vagabond monks, i. 122 

Circular discipline, ii. 289 

Cirita, Juan, case of, i. 124, note 

Cistercian discipline, St. Malachi ini- 
tiates his attendants in, i. 362 

Cities, monks not allowed to enter, i. 

Citra, justiciary of, fines clerical concu- 
bines, i. 420-1 



Civil marriage, ii. 330 ; absolution denied 
to parties contracting, ii. 331 ; made 
essential by law, ii. 332 
Civilisation helped by monachism, i. 126, 

445 ; helped by puritanism, i. 445 
Clair sur Epte, treaty of, i. 158 
Clairvaux, story of monk of, i. 321-2 
Clarembald, Abbot, evil reputation of, i. 

Claude of Evreux attempts reform, ii. 

Claude of Macon, ii. 173 
Clemanges, De, on condition of Church, 

i. 426, ii. 1, 4 
Clement II., appointed by Emperor Henry 
III., i. 214 ; tries to suppress simony, 
Clement III., on self-mutilation, i. 30, 

note ; on children of bishops, i. 363 
Clement IV. , enforces celibacy in Austria 
and Denmark, i. 303 ; bulls from, to 
Wolsey, ii. 82, 83, 84 ; on hereditary 
transmission, ii. 174 
Clement VIII. on jurisdiction of Spanish 

Inquisition, ii. 261 
Clement X., i. 415 
Clement III. (anti-pope), on concubinage, 

i. 284 ; death in iioo, i. 288 
Clement of Alexandria, on heresies, i. 20, 

note ; on the Virgin, i. 67-8, note 
Clement, Bishop, a "pestilent heresiarch," 

i. 149 
Clement of Versailles, pastoral of, on 

priestly marriage, ii. 314 
Clement XIV. suppresses Order of Jesuits, 

ii. 335 
Clergy, Aniglican, Macaulay's estimate of, 
ii. 149 ; French, antagonistic to Revo- 
lution, ii. 307 ; resistance to celibacy, 
i. 211, 249, 263, 270, 273 
Clermont, Councils of, in 1095 and 1130, 

i. 317, 387 
Cleves, Duke of, asks for priestly mar- 
riage, ii. 194 
Climene, Frere, prosecuted for 25 offences, 

ii. 361 
Clotair I., law on forcible marriage, i. 134 
Clotair II. on monastic excesses, i. 128, 

Clovesho, Council of, in 747, i. 189 
Cnut, ecclesiastical laws of, i, 201 
Cochin China, Apostolic Vicar of, appeals 

to Pius VI., ii. 275 
Cochlaeus, John, on Confession of Augs- 
burg, ii. 210, note 
Coelestin III. on hereditary transmission, 

i. 404 
Coklaw, Thomas, marriage of, ii. 166 
Colet, John, good work of, in sixteenth 
century, ii. 78 ; on vices of the Church, 
ii. 78-9 
Colloquy of Poissyin 1561, ii. 238-9 
Colmenas, Padre, illicit relations in con- 
fessional, ii. 286 

Cologne, Manichseism in, in 1146, i. 245 ; 
Council of, in 1260, i. 418 ; 1306, i. 470 ; 
1423, ii. 7 ; 1527, ii. 171, note ; speech 
of "Orator" at Council of, ii. 171, 
note ; Herman von Wied, Archbishop 
of, ii. 176 ; Archbishop of, issues 
Augsburg Formula, ii. 188 ; deplores 
licence of times, ii. 188 

Coloman, King, enforces celibacy in 
Hungary, i. 298 

Colonies, Spanish, immorality of clergy 
in, ii. 245, 247-8 

Columba, St., asceticism of, i. 142 ; rule 
of, i. 185 ; establishes Christianity in 
Scotland, i. 185 

Columban, St., Penitential of, i. 68 

Comedians forbidden to perform in 
nunneries, ii. 189 

Commendone, legate, holds out hope 
of clerical marriage, ii. 194 ; sent by 
Pius V. to Augsburg, ii. 218 

Comminges, miracle in, i. 325 

Communion in both elements, in early 
Church, i. 35 ; refused to laity, i. 35 ; 
demanded in Bohemian Church, i. 480, 
ii. 212 ; open question at Diet of Augs- 
burg, ii. 66 ; people of Merseberg de- 
mand, ii. 72 ; demanded by Emperor 
Ferdinand, ii. 193 ; by Duke of Bavaria, 
ii. 75 ; granted to Germany, ii. 209 ; 
withdrawn, 212 

Comparative merits of virginity and 
marriage, i. 37, 38, 432 ; ii. 204 

Comparative morality of secular and 
regular clergy, ii. 294 

Compiegne, marriage of priests in, i. 326 

Compostella, Council of, in 11 14, i. 376 

Concordat, of 15 16 with Francis I., 
ii. 55 ; 1801, ii. 316 ; re-establishment 
of monachism forbidden by, ii. 337 ; 
of 1851, ii. 336 

Concordia discordantium canonum, i. 

Concubinage, punishment for, under 
Justinian, i. 92; less objectionable 
than matrimony, i. 166 ; prohibited in 
Councils of Anse and Poitiers, i. 181 j 
less odium attached to, in Middle 
Ages, i. 230, note ; of escaped priest of 
Clairvaux, i. 321 ; denounced by John 
of Crema, himself guilty of, i. 338-9 ; 
not defended as a right in thirteenth 
century, i. 357 ; condemned under 
pressure in Spain, i. 378 ; difficulty in 
suppressing, i. 379 ; attempts to sup- 
press, in thirteenth century, i. 380 ; 
scale of confiscation for those guilty 
of, i. 381 ; Antonio Fluviano upon, 
i. 456 ; priest practising, guilty of 
heresy, i. 478 ; curious German tract 
against, ii. 54 ; capital punishment for, 
changed to confiscation, ii. 115 ; uni- 
versality of, a reason for condoning, 
ii. 176 ; clergy of Mainz, Treves, and 



Cologne in league to defend, ii. 178 ; 
pronounced heretical, i. 478 ; for- 
bidden by Augsburg code, ii. 186 ; 
Archbishop of Treves, mandate 
against, ii. 187 ; provision against, in 
Council of Trent, ii, 206 ; forbidden at 
Utrecht, ii, 230-31 ; callousness con- 
cerning, ii. 296 ; in United States, 
ii. 344 ; toleration of, almost universal, 
ii. 348 

Concubines of clergy, in Spain, i. 136 ; 
to be visited with stripes and shaving, 
i. 171 ; openly kept by canons, St, 
Ursman and Antoin, i. 326 ; a bishop 
confesses to keeping, i. 355 ; position 
of, less odious in Middle Ages, i. 230, 
note ; in Scotland, i. 231, 7iote ; excom- 
munication and "burial of asses " for, 
i. 380 ; Cortes of Castile on shameless- 
ness of, i. 382 ; Pedro the Cruel, orders 
concerning, i. 382 ; not to be kept 
openly, i. 411 ; Ferdinand and Isabella 
fine, ii. 17 ; legends concerning, i. 414 ; 
fined by Charles the Lame, i. 420 ; de 
familia clericorum, i. 421 ; scourged in 
Trani, ii. 15-16 

Confessio Golise on celibacy, i. 353, note 

Confession of Augsburg, ii. 65 ; refutation 
of, ii. eQ 

Conf ession of Faith, Calvinistic,ii. 151, 169 

Confession, auricular, commencement of, 
ii. 252, note ; dispensation from, ii. 

Confessional, abuse of, in Middle Ages, 
i. 435 ; celebrants ordered to use daily, 
ii. 244 ; Council of Trent on, ii. 245 ; 
Miguel, Albert, on priest misusing, ii. 
246, 7iote; scandals of, ii. 251 ; casu- 
istry regarding solicitation in, ii. 263 ; 
difficult to determine limits of inde- 
cency in, ii. 268-9 ; filthy contagion 
spread in, ii, 269-70 ; secrets of, in 
Spanish archives, ii. 283 

" Confessional, Theory and Practice of 
the," Schieler, ii. 277, note 

Confessional box, first evolved, ii. 255 ; 
to be used in all churches, ii. 256 ; 
priests oppose seclusion of, ii. 256 

Confessors, exempt from torture by 
rack, ii. 284 ; denounced, not in secret 
prison during trial, ii. 286; St. Caterina 
di Pistoia on immorality of, ii. 304 ; 
rules for, with regard to ''denuncia- 
tion," ii. 355-6 

Confiscation of estates of married priests, 

Congregation of the Index, Fr. Catalini 
on, ii. 184, note 

Congregation, of the Inquisition, ii. 219 ; 

Lords of (Scotland), ii, 168 
Conjo, convent of S. Maria in, i. 376 

Conrad, King of Lombardy, i. 260 
Conrad, legate, holds Council of Mainz, 
i. 418 

Conrad of Prague, the Hussite, i. 47 

Conrad of Wurzburg, imprisons two 
married canons, ii. 49 ; on immorality 
of clergy, ii. 58, note 

Consilium de emendanda ecclesia, ii. 
183 ; on Index Librorum Prohibi- 
torum, ii. 184 ; translated by Luther, 
ii. 184 

Constance, enforcement of celibacy in, 
i, 272 ; Assembly of, in 1094, i. 290; 
(Ecumenical Council of, deposes John 
XXIII., i. 426-7 ; Council of, orders 
burning of Huss and Jerome of Prague, 
ii, 3 ; failure of Council of, ii. 5 ; 
marriage of clergy suggested at Coun- 
cil of, ii. 25 ; synod of, in 1567, ii. 58, 
note; synod of, in 1609, ii. 236 

Constantino, assembles first General 
Council (of Niceea), i. 46 ; encourages 
monachism, i. 107 

Constantino Copronymus persecutes 
monks, i, 97, note 

Constantino of St, Symphorian, i. 178 

Constantinople, Council of, in 381, i. 
88-9 ; in 400, i. 90 ; in 680, i. 94 

Constat Venaissin, ii. 241 

Constitutions, apostolical (see Apostoli- 

Constitution of 1791, clerical marriage 
in, ii. 309 

Contarini, Cardinal, on commission for 
reformation, ii. 183 ; on evils of celi- 
bacy, ii. 241, note 

Continence overbalanced by pride, i. 19 

Continence, vows of {see Chastity) 

Consulento Ecclesiastico, il, ii. 245, note 

Convention, National, on bishops and 
priestly marriage, ii. 314 

Convents {see Nunneries and Monachism) 

Conventuals, ii. 21 

Converts from Catholicism, marriage of, 
ii. 152 

Convocation of 1536 on heresy and celi- 
bacy, ii. 106 ; of 1538 on celibacy, 
private Masses, and communion in one 
kind, ii. 109 ; of 1554 enforces celibacy, 
ii. 127 ; of 1557, legislation of, ii. 133 

Coptic Church, customs of, i. 99 

Cordova, Fray Francisco di, on success 
of Lutheranism, ii, 224 

Cormecte, Thomas, wandering preacher, 
ii. 25 ; burned at stake, ii. 26 

Cornelius Agrippa, ii. 37 

Cornaro, Cardinal, ii. 202 

Corruption of laity by clergy, 1. 323, 370, 
ii. 237 

Cosmo, Bishop of Prague, i. 290 

Cosmo, Dean of Prague, married, i. 293 ; 
relates case of married priest, i. 293 

Cossa,Balthazar, afterwards John XXIII., 
i. 426 

Councils vary on canonical age for 
women, ii. 343 



Councils, revision of proceedings at 

Rome, ii. 345, note 
Countesses, priests' wives rank as, i. 

Cournand, Abbe, proposes clerical mar- 
riage, ii. 309 ; marriage of, ii. 310 
Court of Augmentations, ii. 92 
Courts, mixed, for married priests, i. 308 
Coutances Cathedral, no Mass in, for 

seventy years, i. 158 
Cowl, Luther's wearing of, ii. 44-5 
Cows as source of ecclesiastical revenue, 

i. 363 
Cox, Bishop, on Queen Elizabeth's In- 
junctions, ii. 143 
Cozza, Cardinal, on abuse of confessional, 
ii. 269, note ; on papal decrees on con- 
fessional, ii. 278 
Cranach, Lucas, present at Luther's 
marriage, ii. 61 ; portrait of Luther's 
bride by, ii. 52 
Cranmer, Confutation of Unwritten Veri- 
ties, ii. 81 ; intercedes for Patmore, ii. 
104 ; secret marriage of, ii. 105 ; on 
celibacy for ejected monks, ii. 113 ; 
second wife of, niece of Osiander, ii. 
Creed of Piers Ploughman, on foreign 
prelates, i. 354, note ; on corruption of 
clergy, i. 438 ; on Carmelites, i. 439, 
Cremona, reform of priesthood in, i. 256, 

Cristofori di Vercelli, ii. 228 
Cristoval de Septilveda and solicitation, 

ii. 289 
Cromwell, Thomas, and English religious 
houses, ii. 87-8 ; exaggerated accounts 
of monasteries sent to, ii. 88-9 ; bribes 
tendered to, ii. 93, note ; favours priestly 
marriage, ii. 105 , does not enforce 
harshest measures, ii. 115 ; fall of, ii. 
Crossed Friars, case of abbot of, ii. 97 
Culdees, i. 366 ; rule of, relaxed, i. 366 ; 

disappearance of, i. 367 
Cullagium {see Licences) 
Cumad Espuc, virgin bishop, i. 360 
Cunegunda, St., asceticism of, i. 204, 

Cunibert of Turin reproached for laxity, 

i. 239 
Cuno of Ratisbon, i. 215 
Curia, denounced by Cormecte, ii. 26 ; 

power of, in Germany, ii. 39 
Cuthbert of Canterbury, reforms Saxon 
Church, i. 188 ; holds Council of 
Clovesho, i. 189 
Cuthbert of London prohibits Beggars' 

Petition, ii. 91, note 
Cuyck, Bishop Ruremonde of, on cor- 
ruptions, ii. 236 
Cynog, Book of, rules for married priests, 
i. 359 

Cyprian, St., rebukes promiscuous bath- 
ing, i, 31 ; shows consideration for 
human weakness, i. 32 ; compares vir- 
ginity and marriage, i, 37 
Cyril, St., Cenobites, janizaries of, i. 117 
Cyrillus converts Bohemia, i. 290, note 

Dabealis of Spalatro degraded by 
Leo IX., i. 220 

Daimbert of Sens and conduct of his 
dignitaries, i. 317 

Dalmatia, priestly marriage in tenth cen- 
tury, i. 220 ; relaxation of canons in, i. 
241 ; enforcement of celibacy in, i. 299 ; 
synod of, in 1199, i. 300 

Damasus I. (Pope) asserts clerical celi- 
bacy, i. 63 

Damasus II., pontificate of twenty-one 
days of, i. 218 

Damhouder, jurisconsult of Flanders, on 
character of clergy, ii. 237 

Damiani, St. Peter, relates story of 
Alberic of Marsico, i. 176 ; bewails 
fate of responsible abbots, i. 177 ; 
goads Clement II. to efforts for reform, 
i. 216 ; story of life of, i. 216-18 ; essay 
of, paints depravity of time, i. 219 ; 
supports Alexander II. against anti- 
pope, i. 235 ; nearly loses life while on 
mission, i. 237 ; in deadly peril at 
Milan, i. 251 

Dampierre, Guillaume de, case of, i. 

Dancing mania considered due to vitiated 
baptism, i. 437 

Danes, effect of incursions of, i. 158 

Danes, Pierre, Bishop of Vaur, repartee 
of, at Council of Trent, ii. 34, note 

Darius, Silvester, papal collector in 
England, ii. 39 

Daughters {see Children) 

Davanzati, Bishop, favours clerical mar- 
riage, ii. 300, note 

Daviaux of Bordeaux forbids clerical 
marriage, ii. 319 

David I., reforms of, i. 367 

Deacons, allowed to marry, i. 28, ii. 121 ; 
marriage of, forbidden, i. 77, 92, 171, 
299, 300, 303, 331, 394 

Deacon, case of married, left in peace, 
i. 327 

Deaconesses, ordination of, in early 
Church, i. 56 ; marriage of, forbidden, 
i. 104, note 

Deans of Friesland, i. 304 

Death penalty, for marrying a nun, i. 109 ; 
for seducing a nun, i. 154 ; for clerical 
marriage under Six Articles, ii. 112 

Deaz de Luzo, Bernardius, canon lawyer, 
ii. 176 

Debra, Abbe, case of, ii. 359 ; 32 offences 
of, in one year, ii. 361 

Decretals, false, on clerical celibacy, i. 



Decretum Gratiani, compilation of, i. 13; 
denies apostolic origin of celibacy, i. 13 
Defilement for Jewish priests, i. 5 
De Captivitate BabylonicaEcclesiaa, ii. 41 
De la Croix on immoral priests, ii. 311 
De Matrimonia Sacerdotnm, ii. 29 
De Vanitate Scientiarum, ii. 37, note 
Delfini, nuncio, ii. 201 
Demeter, hierophants of, maintain conti- 
nence, i. 42-3 
Democratic element in Church, i. 268 
Denis, St., Council of, in 995, i. 177 
Denmark, position of concubines in, i. 

231, note 
Denunciation, duty of,by seduced women, 
ii. 270, 272, 281 ; often slighted or dis- 
believed, ii. 284 ; decision on case of, 
in 1898, ii. 353 
Denunciation, self-, ii. 291, 292, 357 
Denunciations, two required for case to 
be heard in Italy, ii. 283 ; second often 
after delay of years, ii, 284 
Desforges, on clerical marriage, ii. 298 ; 

book of, burned, ii. 299 
Desiderius of Monte Cassino, afterwards 

Pope Victor III., i. 210 
Devonshire rebels demand the Six Ar- 
ticles, ii, 120 
Devotees allowed to return to the world, 

i. 30 
Diabolic possession of priests' wives, i. 

Diaconate, women admitted to, i. 56 
Dialogus Naturae et Sophias de Castitate 

Clericorum, i. 440 
Diego Gelmirez, commanded to reform 
diocese, i. 373 ; reforms of, do not in- 
clude celibacy, i. 374 ; accompanies 
Alfonso VIII. to Portugal, i. 374-5 ; 
experiences of, on expedition, i. 374-5; 
founds convent of S. Maria of Conjo, 
i. 376 
Diet, German, complaints of, in 15 10, ii. 

Diet, Hungarian, in 1498, ii. 19 
Diether, Archbishop, case of, ii. 34, note 
Digami, subject to penance, i. 24 ; not 
admissible to holy orders, i, 25, 91, 
94, 138 ; Eastern Church preserves 
early tradition concerning, i. 91 ; nu- 
merous in Church, i. 94 ; Gregory I. 
enforces neglected laws on, i. 138 ; 
Theodore of Canterbury, orders con- 
cerning, i. 187 ; prevalence of, in 
British Church, i. 183 ; condemned by 
Council of Spalatro, i. 170 ; ineligible in 
Anglo-Saxon Church, i. 187 ; recogni- 
tion of, in eleventh century, i. 238 ; 
not allowed in Milan, i. 247 ; con- 
demned in Hungary, i. 297 ; some re- 
formers condemn, ii. 53 
Dilapidation of Church property, i. 1 65, 

ii. 71 
Dimetian Code on sons of priests, i. 368 

Dimitri of Dalmatia assumes crown, i. 

Dionysius of Corinth reproves attempt to 

make celibacy compulsory, i. 21-2 
Dionysius, King, founds Order of Jesus 

Christ, i. 455 
Disabilities of married priests, i. 358-9 ; 

of "soliciting" confessors nullified, 

ii. 351 
Dispensations, papal, evil influence of 

sale of, i. 397, ii. 14-15 ; power of, de- 
bated, ji. 27 ; for unchastity, i. 148 ; 

for married priests, ii. 74, 183; for 

concubinage, ii. 55 ; from vows of 

chastity, ii. 173-4 ; for marriage in 

England, ii. 209, note ; for priests 

abusing confessional, ii. 253-4, 281-2 ; 

relieving penitents from obligation to 

" denounce," ii. 355 
Diversity of opinion. Act for abolishing, 

ii. Ill 
Divorces of married priests in England, 

ii. 114-15, 128 
Dogma, celibacy a matter of, ii. 172 
Dolcino, leader of heretical sect, i. 471 
Dollinger and "Old Catholic" move- 
ment, ii. 329 
Dominicans, influence of, i. 467 
Donati, Girolamo, engaged to murder St. 

Charles Borromeo, ii. 228 
Donatist heresy, i. 118, note ; approached 

by Theodore of Canterbury, i. 186-7 ; 

Nicholas II. trenches upon, i. 228, see 

note ; revived by Innocent II., i. 294 ; 

condemned by Lucius III. i. 229, note 
Doringk on sale of indulgences, ii. 14, 

Dormitantius, nickname of St. Jerome 

for Vigilantius, i. 72 
Dorothea of Denmark, marriage of, ii. 63 
Dortmund, synod of, in 1005, i. 178 
Down, St. Malachi's episcopate of, i. 

Dracontius, marriage of, acknowledged 

by St. Athanasius, i. 53 
Dress, clerical, regulated at Constance, 

ii. 5 
Drogo of Terouane persecutes Brethren 

of Watton, i. 313 
Droit de marquette, i. 441 
Douai, Faculty of, ii. 270 ; Desforges' 

book on priestly marriage reprinted at, 

ii. 299 
Dualistic theory in Manichaeism, i. 33 ; 

recognised in Catharan creed, i. 459 
Dublin, Council of, in 1186, i. 364 ; 1217, 

i. 365 
Dumonteil, Louis Therese Saturnin, case 

of, ii. 322-3 
Dunbar, Bishop of, immorality of, ii. 

Dunstan, St., monastic vows of, i. 192 ; 

exacts severe penance for Bang Edgar,i. 

193 ; summons Council which punishes 



unchastity, i. 196 ; preserved from ac- 
cident at Calne Council, i. 198 

Du Pin, Louis Ellies, on clerical mar- 
riage, ii. 298 

Dupin on discipline of Orders, ii. 302, 
note ; on Droit ecclesiastique, ii. 338, 

Duprat, Cardinal, efforts at reform by, 
ii. 172 

Durand, Bishop William, advocates cleri- 
cal marriage, ii. 25 

Durham, Council of, in 1220, i. 350, note 

Durham, Bishop of, to report on married 
priests, ii. 125 

Eadmer on canons enforcing celibacy, 
i. 334-5, note, 337-8 

East Anglia, defence of monasteries in, 
i. 197 

Eastern Church, divergence of, i. 87 ; 
rules as to celibacy, i. 91 ; monachism 
of, i. 116-17 

Easter, different computations of, i. 185, 

Ebionim (or Poor Men), i. 11 ; honour 
virginity, i. 12 ; tainted by heresies 
allowing immorality, i. 21 

Ebrard, history of Watten by, i. 313, note 

Ecclesiastical procedure and immunity, 
i. 159-60 

Ecclesiastics, children of {see Children) ; 
immorality of {see Morals) 

Ecgberht (King) and St. Boniface, i. 146 

Ecgberht of York, condemns priestly 
irregularities, i. 187 ; appealed to by 
Bede, i. 188 

Eck, Dr. John, views of, on clerical 
celibacy, i. 15 ; confers with Melanch- 
thon, ii. 72 

Ecuador, ecclesiastical property secular- 
ised in, ii. 339 

Edgar the Pacific, remorse of, i. 192-3 ; 
St. Dunstan's condition for absolution 
of, i. 193 ; charter of " Oswald's Law " 
by, i. 195 ; purifies many religious 
houses, i. 195-6 ; restores obsolete 
discipline, i. 196 ; charter of last year 
of reign of, i. 196 

Edict of Faith, "solicitation" in, ii. 
259, 270 

Edict of Pacification, ii. 153 

Edict of Rousillon, ii. 153 

Edinburgh, Council of, ii. 159, note ; ap- 
points a commission, ii. 160 

Edith, wife of Edward the Confessor, 
anecdote of, i. 205 

Edmund I., laws of, regarding clerical 
immorality, i. 191 

Education, Ferry laws on, ii. 338 

Edward and Guthrun on clerical immo- 
rality, i. 191 

Edward the Martyr supports Dunstan, 
i. 197 

Edward, Bishop of Scaren, i. 338 

Edward VI., robbing of monasteries 
under, ii. 101, note ; succeeds to throne, 
ii. 116 ; funeral of, in Westminster 
Abbey, ii. 123 ; mortuary Mass for, in 
presence of Queen Mary, ii. 123 
Eggard of Sleswick, attempts to reform 
clergy, ii. 20 ; forced to abandon see, 
ii. 20 
Egypt, purity demanded of priests in, 

i. 42 ; neglect of celibacy in, i. 90 
Egyptian monasteries, commencement 

of, i. 109 
Eldora, Lorenzo de, condemned to 

galleys, ii. 289 
Elect, Manichtaan, i. 37 
Election of Pope limited to Roman 

clergy, i. 235 
Eleuchadio, Abbot of Fiano, son of a 

priest, i. 209 
Elthere, Ealdorman of Mercia, supports 

married priests, i. 197 
Elfritha, intrigues against Edward, i. 197; 
seeks alliance of secular clergy, i. 198 
Elizabeth, Queen, number of bishops de- 
prived under, ii. 126 ; allows no innova- 
tions till Parliament assembles, ii. 136 ; 
repeals Mary's legislation, ii. 136 ; dis- 
like of, for marriage of clergy, ii. 138 ; 
insolence of, to Archbishop Parker's 
wife, ii. 141 
Elna, Council of, in 1027, i. 370 
Elphege of Winchester and St. Dunstan, 

i. 192 
Elvira, Council of, in 305, on digami, i. 

Emanuel, King, and marriage of mili- 
tary orders, i. 455 
Emancipation of nuns in 1523, ii. 50 
Emancipatore Cattolica, ii. 333 
Embden, Count of, promotes marriage of 

nuns, ii. 64 
Emmo of Wittewerum on priestly mar- 
riage, i. 303-4 
Empire, Roman, licentiousness under, i. 

Empire, Second (French), fall of, ii. 338 
Emser, Jerome, epithalamium on Luther, 

ii. 52, note 
Encomium Morise, ii. 36-37, note ; on first 

Index Expurgatorius, ii. 37, note 
Encratians, heresy of, i. 34 
Encyclical letters (Leo. XIII.) on civil 

marriage, ii. 332 
Encyclical, papal, Mirari vos, ii. 325 ; 

Qui pluribus, ii. 325 
Enforcement of celibacy, in fourth cen- 
tury, i. 66-86 ; by Gregory I. i. 138 ; 
in eighth century, i. 148 ; attributed 
to Gregory VII., i. 266 ; difficulties 
attending, i. 271-3 ; in twelfth century, 
i. 291 ; in Bohemia, i. 293-4 ; in Ger- 
many, i. 294 ; in Hungary, i. 297 ; in 
Poland, i. 300-1 ; in Sweden, i. 302 ; in 
Denmark, i. 303; in Friesland, i. 304; in 



France, 306 ; in Normandy, i. 308 ; in 
Flanders, i. 313 ; by Calixtus II. i. 323; 
modified by Lanfranc, i. 330 ; by Henry 
I. of England, i. 340 ; in Ireland, i. 
364 ; in Scotland, i. 367-8 ; in Spain, 
delay in, i. 373 ; continual legislation 
for, i. 412 ; influence of, on world at 
large, i. 430 ; after (Ecumenical 
Council, Constance, ii. 5-6 ; in series 
articles, University of Oxford, ii. 9 ; 
called " a devellishe thinge," ii. 104, 
Twte ; maintained by Henry VIII., ii. 
103 ; abandoned under Edward VI., ii. 
117, 118; maintained under Queen 
Mary, ii. 134 ; relaxed under Queen 
Elizabeth, ii. 139 ; new ideas on, in 
Scotland, ii. 162 ; in France in six- 
teenth century, ii. 172 

Engelheim, synod of, in 948, i. 171 

England, Anglo-Saxon priests corrupt in, 
i. 183 ; celibacy at first enforced in, i. 
186 ; sacerdotal marriage introduced 
in, i. 191 ; disorders of, in tenth cen- 
tury, i. 191 ; reformation attempted, 
i. 192 ; fails, i. 196 ; Church in, under 
Cnut, i. 201 ; position of concubines in, 
i. 201, note ; Edward the Confessor, i. 
203 ; Manichseism in twelfth century 
in. i. 245; papal collector in, bound by 
oath in 15 17, ii. 39 ; power of Pope in, 
abolished by proclamation, ii. 85 ; visi- 
tation of monastic houses in, ii. 87 ; 
assault on monasteries, in Beggars' 
Petition, ii. 90 ; acknowledgment of 
papal authority a crime in, ii. 95 ; re- 
conciled to Eome, ii. 129 ; wives of 
Elizabethan clergy in, ii. 145-6 ; mar- 
riage established by connivance rather 
than as a right, ii. 149 

Enham, Council of, in 1009, i. 200 

Eon de I'Etoile, i. 465 

Epaone, Council of, in 513, i. 57, note ; 
517, i. 84, note 

Epiphanius, on self -mortification, i. 
20, note ; on Ebionites, i. 21 ; declares 
Church based on virginity, i. 39 ; on 
agapetae, i. 48 ; stigmatises Antidico- 
marianitarians, i. 68 ; compiles " Pana- 
rium," i. 89 ; asceticism of, i. 89 

Episcopissa, i. 175 

Epistolfe Obscurorum Virorum, ii. 37 

Erasmus, on religious immorality, i. 444, 
note ; relation of, to the Eeformation, 
ii. 35 ; on purgatory, ii. 35 ; on indul- 
gences, ii. 40, note 

Erchenbald on infanticide, i. 156 

Erfurt, synod of, in 1074, i. 274 

Eriberto of Milan, episcopate of, i. 245 ; 
reported marriage of, improbable, i. 
245, note 

Erlembaldo, St., popular chief, at Milan, 
i. 246 ; becomes leader of Paterins, i. 
254 ; seeks fresh cause of quarrel with 
Guide, i. 257 ; mortally WQunded,i. 269 

Ermeland, synod of, in 1497, ii. 20, note 
Ernest of Magdeburg, cynicism of, ii. 14 
Ernest of Salzburg, ii. 190 
Erskine, Lord, refuses to sign Book of 

Discipline, ii. 164 
D'Espeisses, President, on Italian morals, 

ii. 229 
D'Espense, Claude, on perpetual virginity 

of the Virgin, i. 69, note ; on clerical 

morality, ii. 239 
Espontaneado, or self-denunciation, ii. 

291, 293 
Essenes, asceticism of, i. 9 ; John the 

Baptist belonged to, i. 10; probably 

James of Jerusalem belonged to, i. 10 
Ethelbald of Mercia, epistle of St. Boni- 
face to, i. 156 
Ethelred the Unready and incursions of 

Danes, i. 198 
Ethelwold, St. , austerity and zeal of, i. 

194 ; legend concerning, i. 194 
Eucharist, adopted by Manes in Mazdean 

form, i, 35 ; ordeal of the, i. 356 
Eucherius, St., vision of, i. 146 
Eugenius II. on concubinage, i. 230, wofe 
Eugenius III., dissolves marriage of 

priests, i. 388-9 ; is warned by St. 

Bernard, i. 430; convicts Eon de 

I'Etoile, i. 466 
Eugeuius IV. releases Order of Cala- 

trava from obligation of celibacy, i.454; 

dissolves Council of Bale, ii. 10 
Eulalius condemns his son Eustathius, i. 

Euphronius of Autun, i. 82 
Euphronius of Tours, i. 132, note 
Euron Abbey, i. 318 
Eusebius condemns priestly marriage, i. 

Eustathius, Bishop, horror of priestly 

marriage, i. 57-8 
Eutyches, career of, i. 118 
Eutychian controversies, i. 118 
Evangelical doctor, Wickcliffe the, i. 477, 

Evenus, of St. Melanius, i. 311 
Evreux, synod of, in 1576, ii. 240 ; Bishop 

Lindet of, publicly married, ii. 310 
Excalceati, heresy of, i. 20 
Exile, punishment of, for " solicitation," 

ii. 286, note, 290 
Expilly, Abbe, on number of French 

ecclesiastics, ii. 313, note 
Expulsion of, monks for disobedience or 

diocontent i. Ill 
Exuperius, St., inclined to favour 

Vigilantius, i. 72 

Fah-Hian finds thousands of Buddhist 
monasteries in Ceylon, i. 103 

Fail, Du, ii. 241, note 

Faith, celibacy as a matter of, ii. 172 ; 
priestly marriage not held to be point 
of, ii. 140 



Faith, Edict of, ii. 259, 270 
False decretals on clerical chastity, i. 154 
Faricius of Abingdon, case of, i. 269, note 
Farley, Archbishop of New York, ii. 277, 

Fasting in penance, i. 184 ; severe, for 

case of " solicitation," ii. 289 
Fauchet of Bayeux, ii. 314 
Faustinus on separation from wives, i. 76 
Faustus the Manichaean, i. 37 
Fecamp reformed by Richard the Fear- 
less, i. 179, note 
Feini civilised, prior to times of St. 

Patrick, i. 360 
Felix of Nantes., story of, i. 133 
Fellows of universities, celibacy of, ii. 

Felony, priestly marriage is, in " Six 

Articles," ii. 112 
Fenelon, lofty piety of, ii. 242 ; on priestly 

" solicitation," ii. 279 
Ferdinand, Archduke, zeal of, ii. 225, 

Ferdinand, Emperor, asks for cup for 

laity, i. 480 ; demands General Council, 

ii. 49 ; tolerates Protestantism, ii. 69 ; 

on German monasteries, ii. 89 ; on 

clerical immorality, ii. 178, 191-2 ; 

asks for clerical marriage, ii. 195-6 ; 

demands of, at Council of Trent, ii. 

Ferdinand of Aragon supports Ximenes, 

ii. 21 
Ferdinand IV. of Naples, reforms of, ii. 

299 ; enacts civil marriage, ii. 333-4, 

Fergusson, David, MSS. of, on Mexican 

clerical irregularities, ii. 254, note 
Ferrers, Alexander, speaks plainly of 

priests, ii. 156 ; plain speaking of, con- 
strued as heresy, ii. 157 
Ferry laws on education, ii. 338 
Ferry of Orleans, murder of, and its 

cause, i. 414 
Feudal system, independence of, i. 212 ; 

tenure of, by chastity, i, 176 
Fifteenth century, the, ii. 1-30 
Fiscal prosecuting officer, ii. 250 
Fischer, Frederick, punished for marry- 
ing, ii. 49 
Fish, Simon, Beggars' Petition said to 

be written by, ii. 91, note 
Fishponds, absurd stories of bodies of 

children in, i, 139 
Flagellantes, prosecuted by Inquisition, 

ii. 279 
Flagellation, opportunities given by, for 

indecency, ii. 278 
Flamen Dialis, second marriage forbidden 

to, i. 24 
Flanders, enforcement of celibacy in, i. 

312 ; case of Bossaert d'Avesnes in, i. 

398-9 ; character of post-Tridentine 
. Church of, ii. 236 

Florence, synod of, in 1057, i. 224 ; Coun- 
cil of, in 1573, ii. 230 ; congregation of , 
in 1787, ii. 304 

Focaria, term of, first introduced, i. 344 

Foix, Cardinal de, papal legate, i. 384 

Fontaneto, Council of (1058), on priestly 
marriage, i. 250 

Fontevraud, nuns of, i. 343 

Forcheim, Diet of, in 1077, i- 282 

Formal vow dissolves marriage, i. 386, 

Forster, Andreas, defends celibacy, ii. 

Fortescue, Sir John, on case of married 
priest, i, 393 

Foulques of Rheims consulted on clerical 
marriage, i. 162 

Fox, Bishop of Winchester, ii. 81 

France, celibacy introduced in, i. 62 ; 
difficulty in enforcing celibacy in, i. 78 ; 
popular support of celibacy in, i. 79 ; 
constant efforts to enforce celibacy in, 
i. 83 ; morals of, in fifth century, i. 84 ; 
monasticism in seventh century in, 
i. 128 ; state of Church in, under 
Merovingians, i. 132 ; in eighth cen- 
tury, i. 143 ; in ninth century, i. 153 ; 
in tenth century, i. 167, 177 ; Council 
of Bourges in 103 1, i. 207 ; of Rheims 
in 1049, i. 221 ; heresies in, of eleventh 
and twelfth centuries, i. 244 ; celibacy 
again enforced in, i. 306 ; Council of 
Paris, i. 307 ; immorality of clergy in, 
not exceptional, i. 412 ; Council of 
Paris (1521) describes monastic life 
in, ii. 89 ; effort of Church in, to 
check Lutheranism, ii. 172 ; willing- 
ness in, to see celibacy abolished, ii. 
197 ; Bishop of, suggests old men for 
priesthood, ii. 197 ; depraved clerical 
morals in sixteenth century, ii. 241 ; 
bull on " solicitation " not accepted 
in, iL 265 ; spasmodic attempts in, to 
regulate Church, ii. 302 ; question of 
priestly marriage during Revolution,ii. 
301, 307 ; Church property in, ii. 306-7; 
cruelty to priests in, under Reign of 
Terror, ii. 308 ; estimates of num- 
ber of ecclesiastics in, ii. 313, note ; 
marriage of clergy in, under Concordat, 
ii. 316 ; Napoleon decides against 
priestly marriage in, ii. 320 ; civil 
marriage in, ii. 330 ; bishops on women 
residents in priests' houses in, ii. 349 

Francis Joseph, Emperor, and Leo XIII., 
i. 458 

Francis, St., of Assisi, on unquestioning 
obedience, i. 113, note ; annual visits 
of, to purgatory, i. 415 

Francis I., favours League of Schmal- 
kalden, ii. 69 ; Melanchthon submits 
Articles to, ii. 70 

Francis II. marries Mary Queen of Scots, 
ii. 159 



Franciscan, a, turns Wickliffite, i. 438 

PVanciscans, contend with Benedictines, 
i. 415 ; legends of, i. 415 ; Order 
called " Seraphic," i. 438 ; of Cochin 
China, exemptions asked for, ii. 275 

"Frater Fecisti," ii., 242, note 

Fredegonda, contentions inflamed by, i, 

Frederic of Lorraine becomes Pope 
Stephen IX., i. 225 

Frederic Barbarossa, strives with Alex- 
ander III., i. 393 ; visits Fulda, ii. 23, 

Frederic II., on Milanese heresies, i. 249, 
note; on children of ecclesiastics, i. 
399 ; Neapolitan code of, i. 416 

Frederic of Saxony, eludes question of 
clerical marriage, ii. 42 ; married pastor 
seeks preferment from, ii. 46 ; sponsor 
for Pastor Gunther's child, ii. 47 

Frederic, King of Denmark, and Albert 
of Brandenburg, ii. 63 

Frediswood, St., priory of, suppressed, 
ii. 82 

Frere, Mr., on clergy deprived under 
Queen Mary, ii. 128 

Fressanges, Mile., case of, ii. 323 

Freysingen, Council of, ii. 13 ; Pius V. 
addresses abbots and priors of, ii. 58, 

Friars, preaching, support Queen Kath- 
arine, ii. 84 

Fricius disputes with Orzechowski, ii. 
209, note 

Frideswide, St., treatment of remains of, 
ii. 132, note 

Fringe, John, married priest in England, 
case of, i. 393 

Froude, on systematic immorality of 
priests, ii. 16-17, note ; on Ap Eice 
and Thomas Cromwell, ii. 105, note 

Fulbert of Chartres on military bishops, 
i. 175, note 

Fulbert of Paris and Heloise, i. 324 

Fulda, Abbey of, strict rule of, ii. 23, 

Future life, doctrine of, not held by Jews, 
i. 4 ; derived from Chaldean and 
Mazdean sources, i. 8 

Gagaein, Father, on " The Eussian 

Clergy," i. 98, note 
Galicia, Council of, in thirteenth century, 

i. 377 
Gall, St., severe asceticism of, i. 141-2 
Galleys, Lorenzo de Eldora condemned 

to, ii. 289 
Galli, castration of, i. 42 
Galilean Church {see France) 
Gallicanism, Ultramontanism triumphs 

over, ii. 363 
Gangra, provincial Council of, i. 58 
Ganoczy, Archdeacon, Henke dedicates 

book to, ii 300 

Gardiner, Bishop, celebrates mortuary 
mass for Edward VI , ii. 123 ; sits in 
judgment on married bishops, ii. 125 ; 
scandals concerning, ii. 135 

Garendon, monastery of, ii, 88 

Gasquet, ** Henry VIII. and the English 
Monasteries," ii. 89, note ; pious and 
laborious rehabilitation of monasteries, 
ii. 89 ; on Beggars' Petition, ii. 91, note 

Gaudin, Abbe, defends priestly marriage, 
ii. 299 ; represents La Vendee in 
Assembly ii. 310 ; " Avis k mon fils, 
ag^ de sept ans," ii. 310 

Gaulo of Paris, i. 317 

Gauthier de Chatillon, i. 346 

Gauthier, St., de Pontoise, i. 307 

Gazewaska, Baroness, marries Dean 
Suczinsky, who becomes " Old Catho- 
lic," ii. 329 

Gea-Eurysternus, priestesses of, to be 
celibate, i. 42 

Gebhardt of Constance, election of, i. 

Gebhardt of Eichstedt, created Pope as 
Victor II., i. 215 ; legend of miracle 
concerning, i. 224 

Gebhardt of Eatisbon urges claims of 
Archpriest Cuno, son of a priest, i. 

Gebhardt of Salzburg ordered to enforce 
celibacy, i. 269 

Geddes, Dr., on apostolic origin of celi- 
bacy, ii. 301 

Gelasius, St., Pope, on second marriages, 
i, 24 ; on marriage of nuns, 123 

Gelasius of Cyzicus on Paphnutius, i. 52 

Gemma Ecclesiastica, i. 403, 435, note 

Genebaldus of Laon, story of marriage 
and penance of, i. 132-3 

Geoffrey Boussard, tract of, i. 15, ii. 27 

Geoffrey of Chartres fails in reforms, i. 

Geoffrey of Llanthony, case of, i. 269, 

Geoffrey of Eouen enforces celibacy, i. 

Gerard of Angouleme, i. 325 

Gerard of Florence made Pope, i. 225 

Gerard of Lorsch interrogates Leo. VII., 
i. 169 

Gerard of Munster assists deans of Fries- 
land, i. 304 

Gerard of Nimeguen on clerical morality, 
ii. 56 

Gerard of Sabina, reforms of, i. 420 

Gerbert of Aurillac, afterwards Pope 
Silvester II., i. 181 ; pays little atten- 
tion to incontinence, i. 181-2 

Germany, virtue of Teutonic tribes of, i. 
86 ; reforms in, attempted by Carlo- 
man, i. 144 ; condition of Church in 
tenth century, i. 169; Council of 
Mainz in 1049, i. 220 ; heresies in 
eleventh and twelfth centuries, i. 



244-5 ; enforcement of celibacy by 
Gregory VII. in, i. 274 ; princes of, in- 
trigue against Gregory VII. , i. 278 ; 
papalists in, called Paterini, i. 283 ; re- 
bellion of Henry v., i. 291 ; supremacy 
of papacy established in, i. 291 ; 
Geroch of Reichersperg^on heresies in, 
i. 392 ; hereditary tr'ansmission of 
benefices in, i. 404 ; children of eccle- 
siastics in thirteenth century, i. 416 ; 
children of ecclesiastics, testamentary 
provisions for, i. 418 ; state of mona- 
chism in fifteenth century, i. 422 ; 
Marian or Teutonic Order founded, i. 
457; I Waldensian heresy in, i. 460 ; 
Brethren of the Free Spirit in, i. 469 ; 
Inquisition in, i. 470; Cardinal 
Branda's crusade against Hussites, ii. 
7 ; Pope's letters-patent prove de- 
pravity in, ii. 7 ; synod of Ermeland 
scandalised by immorality in, ii. 20, 
note ; signs of coming Reformation in, 
ii. 32 ; Leo X. appeals for tithe for 
war from, ii. 38 ; reformed doctrines 
take hold of, ii. 53 : contest of two 
parties at Augsburg, ii. 64-5 ; Confes- 
sion of Augsburg, ii. 65 ; Anabaptists 
in, ii. 68 ; negotiations with Henry 
VIII., ii. 109 ; suggestions to leave 
with Pope decision of question of 
marriage, ii. 110 ; Lutherans not con- 
nected with Council of Trent, ii. 180 ; 
Lutheranism under heel of Charles V., 
ii. 181 ; scarcity of priests in, ii. 197, 
note ; ill fitted to deal with Italy in 
diplomacy, ii. 202 ; Lutherans tri- 
umphant on accession of Pius V., ii. 
218 ; Francisco di Cordova on suc- 
cessful Lutheranism, ii. 224 ; bull on 
"solicitation" not published in, ii. 
265 ; " Old. Catholic " movement in, ii. 
329 ; bishoprics and monastic founda- 
tions secularised, ii. 335 ; exclusion of 
women from priests' houses proposed 
in, ii. 349 

Geroch of Reichersperg, on sacraments of 
sinful priests, i. 229, note ; on Nicolitan 
and Simoniacal heretics, i. 392 

Geronda, Council of, in 517, i. 84, note ; 
1068, i. 371 ; 1078, i. 371 , 1257, i. 380 

Gerdnimo de Mendieta, ii. 248 

Gerson, on introduction of celibacy, i. 
14, 440 ; on abuse of confessional, i. 436, 
note ; stigmatises nunneries, ii. 1 ; on 
concubinage, ii. 2 ; answers Zabarella, 
ii. 25 

Geruntius (King) addressed by St. Aid- 
helm, i. 188 

Gervilius of Mainz and St. Boniface, i. 

Gervinus of St. Riquier, anecdote of, i. 205 

Ghaerbald of Liege, canons of, i. 153 

Gherardo Segarelli, heresiarch, i, 471 : 
burned in 1300, i. 471 

Ghiberti, Matteo, reforming Bishop of 
Verona, ii. 254 

Gieus, Li, de Robin et de Marion, i. 438, 

Gilbert, Bishop, papal legate in Ireland, 
i. 361 

Gilbert of Chichester on abuse of con- 
fessional, i. 435, note 

Gilbert de la Porree, teaching of, con- 
demned, i. 388 

Gildas describes British clergy as cor- 
rupt, i. 183 

Giles Cantor, heresy of, i. 470 

Giovanni Gaulberto, St., life of, as an- 
chorite, i. 213 

Giraldus Cambrensis, on apostolic 
warrant for celibacy, i. 14 ; Gemma 
Ecclesiastica by, i. 220, note ; dispute 
over election to St. David's, i. 344 : 
death, about 1220, i. 347 ; comments 
on Church matters in Wales, i, 358 ; 
exhortations in Gemma Ecclesiastica, 
i. 403 

Giuliano Csesarini, Cardinal, ii, 10 

Glastonbury, abbey of, i. 193 

Glossator, the, on scandal, ii. 351 

Gloucester, Augustinians of, suppressed, 
ii. 96 ; see of, created, ii. 100 

Gnesen, clerical marriage in, i, 301 ; 
synod of, in 1577, ii, 233 

Gnostics, heresy of, i. 20 

Gobat, Father, on papal decrees, ii. 

Gobel, Bishop of Paris, favours priestly 
marriage, ii. 314 ; opposed by Gregoire 
of Blois, ii. 320-1, note 

Godsons of bishops, wer-gild for, i. 186 

Godstow, last of English abbeys, ii. 99 

Golias Episcopus, i. 339, note 

Gomorrhianus, Liber, i. 219, note 

Gonzalez, Fray Vicente, accused by nun, 
ii. 269 

Gonzalez, Geronimo, case of solicitation 
by, ii. 291 

Goodacre, Anne, ii. 170 

Gostar, Manichaeism at, in 1052, i. 244 

Gotefrido, Archbishop of Milan, i. 257 ; 
defence against Erlembardo, i. 258 

Gotfrid of Wurzburg, will of, i. 418 

Goths, Spanish, immorality of, i. 135 

Grace Dieu, monastery of, ii. 88 

Grace, Pilgrimage of, ii. 94 

Graffiis on abuse of confessional, ii. 252 

Gran, synod of, in 1099, by Primate 
Seraphin, i. 297 ; in 1450 and 1480, 
ii. 19 

Granada, New, suppression of monas- 
teries in, ii. 339 

Granada, Pedro Guerrero, reforming 
Archbishop of, ii. 257 

Grand, Madame, and Talleyrand, ii. 318 

Grandier, Urbain, on priestly marriage, 
ii. 297, note ; tried for sorcery, ii, 297, 



Gratian, on celibacy, i. 13 ; on dissolution 

of priestly marriage, i. 390-1 
Gratien, Archbishop of Rouen, on priestly 
marriage, ii. 314 

Greek Church, characteristics lead to 
schism, i. 87-8 ; rules as to celibacy, 
i. 88 ; residence of suspected women 
forbidden in, i. 97 ; Swedes regarded 
as schismatics of, i. 302 ; efforts of 
Council of Lyons to reunite, i. 407 ; 
Stanislas Hosius of Ermeland on 
customs of, ii. 192 

Gregoire of Blois, on repudiated clergy, 
ii. 315 ; " Histoire du mariage des 
Pretres en France," ii. 320, note; 
opposes Gobel, ii. 321, note 

Gregory, St. Theologus, Bishop Nazian- 
zum, i. 53 ; son of a married ecclesi- 
astic, i. 53 

Gregory the Great, declaration on 
monastic life and marriage, i. 39 ; 
monastic reforms by, i. 126-7 ; states- 
manship of, i. 137 : enforcement of 
celibacy by, 1. 138 ; conversion of 
England, i. 185, 186 ; story related by, 
i. 434, note 

Gregory II. , condemns marriages of nuns, 
i.l42;appealedtobySt. Boniface, i. 143 

Gregory VI., miracle at death causes 
papal funeral honours, i. 219, note 

Gregory VII., discredits story of Paph- 
nutius, i. 51 ; causes its condemnation 
at Roman synod, i. 51 ; refuses ordina- 
tion to illegitimates, i. 242, note ; ex- 
communicated by disaffected bishops, 
1. 259 ; urges Erlembaldo to persevere, 
i. 260 ; early life of, i. 264 ; wild 
dreams of ecclesiastical supremacy, 
i. 264 ; persistent advocate of celibacy, 
i 267 ; stories of, i. 268-9 ; renews 
legislation of Nicholas II., i. 269 ; en- 
forces celibacy on Siegfrid of Mainz, 
i. 275 ; authorises laity to disown 
incontinent priests, i. 276-7 ; opposed 
by German princes, i. 278 ; called 
" praeceptor impossibilium," i. 296 

Gregory VIII. prevents abolition of 
celibacy, ii. 402 

Gregory IX. and Swedish priests, i. 302 

Gregory X. on corrupting influence of 
prelates, i. 436 

Gregory XIII. complains of marriage of 
priests, ii. 231 ; savage decrees on 
false confessors, ii. 256 

Gregory XV. on abuse of confessional, 
ii. 264 ; bull of Benedict XIV., copies 
definitions of, ii. 267 

Gregory XVI., encyclical, "Mirari vos," 
on priestly marriage, ii. 325 

Gregory, St., of Nazianzum on priestly 
marriage, i. 53 

Gregory of Tours, on nomination of 
bishops, i. 132, note ; on enforcement 
of celibacy, i. 134, note 

Gregory of Vercelli convicted of incest, 
i. 222 

Greyfriars of Perth, Knox reports as 
luxurious, ii. 165 

Grillandus, Papal Vicar, Rome, reports 
case, ii, 58-9 

Grindal, Archbishop, Elizabeth's dislike 
of sermons expressed to, ii. 141, note ; 
on residence of women with clergy, 
ii. 145 ; on position of married clergy, 
ii. 147 

Grosseteste, Robert, of Lincoln, supports 
regularity, while opposing papal en- 
croachment, i. 356 ; inveighs against 
corruption of papal court, i. 425 

Guala, Cardinal, constitutions of, i. 410 

Guarino of Modena requires oath of 
chastity, i. 176 

Guastalla, Council of, in i io6, i. 292 

Guerrero, Pedro, reforming Bishop of 
Granada, ii. 257 

Guibert de Nogent, case of, i. 316 

Guiberto of Ravenna, on concubinage, i. 
284 ; driven out of Rome, i. 285 

Guide, Cardinal, enforces celibacy in 
Austria, i. 300 ; in Denmark, i. 303 

Guide di Valate, made Archbishop of 
Milan, i. 246 ; swears to destroy Si- 
moniacal heresy, i. 252 ; imposes 
penitence on himself, i. 252 ; is ex- 
communicated, i. 255 ; expelled from 
Milan, i. 256 ; resigns archbishopric, 
i. 257 

Guilielmus Appulus on Nicholas II., i. 
232, note 

Gunther, Pastor, Elector Frederic spon- 
sor for child of, ii. 47 

Gunzo Grammaticus, i. 169, note 

Guthrun on clerical immorality, i. 191 

Haarlem, synod of, in 1564, ii. 231, 

Habit, monastic, efficacy of, i. 415 
Hainscheidt, ancient monastery of, ii. 64 
Hali Meidenhad, i. 348, note 
Hamburg, reforms at, i. 221 ; Council of, 

in 1406, i. 415, note 
Hamerer, Dr., on clerical corruption, ii. 

Hamilton, Patrick, Scottish proto-martyr, 

ii. 162, note 
Hamilton, Catherine, escape of, i. 162, 

Hamilton, Archbishop, licentiousness of, 

ii. 158 
Hanno of Cologne earns canonisation, i. 

Hardouin of Anger condemns clerical 

immorality, ii. 8 
Heads of colleges, position of wives of, 

ii. 146 
Heisterbach, Caesarius of, on influence 

of priesthood, i. 431 ; on priestly 

"solicitation," ii. 276 



Helena, Queen of Adiabene, Nazirate 

vow of, i. 6 
Heliodorus of Trica, rigorous asceticism 

of, i. 91' 
Helisacar, Abbot, ii. 23, note 
H^loise, reforms convent, i. 319 ; mar- 
riage of, i. 324 

Helsen, Abb§, on women resident in 
priests' houses, ii. 346, note 

Helvidius, heresy of, i. 67, note 

Henke, edition of Calixtus, ii. 300 

Henning, Bishop, ii. 20, note 

Henrician or Petrobusian heresy, i. 463 

Henry II. (Emperor), on sons of priests, 
i. 178 ; endeavours to enforce celibacy, 
i. 206 

Henry III. (Emperor) desires Ohurch re- 
form, i. 214 ; appoints Suidger Pope 
Clement II., i. 214 ; conscientious 
labours, of for papacy, i. 226 ; makes 
Bruno of Toul, Pope, i. 218 ; President 
d'Espeisses presents memorial to, ii. 
229 ; assembly of Melun addresses, ii. 

Henry III., Bishop of Li^ge, his sixty- 
five children, i. 417 

Henry IV. (Emperor), accession of, as an 
infant, i. 224; has ofifer of golden crown, 
and title of Patrician, i. 235 ; appoints 
Tedaldo Bishop of Milan, i. 259 ; volun- 
tary humiliation of, at Canosa, i. 259 ; 
expels Altmann of Passau, i. 273 ; pro- 
tects simoniacal and married priests, i. 
283 ; triumphs over the Church, i. 287; 
mission of two legates to, i. 270, note 

Henry V. (Emperor), rebellion of, i. 291 

Henry I. (France) attempts to enforce 
celibacy, i. 207 

Henry III.(France),edicts of pacification, 
ii. 153 

Henry I. (England) confiscates property 
of priests, i. 334 ; summons Council in 
London, i. 336 ; enforces regulations of 
Council, i. 337, 340 

Henry V. (England) persecutes Lollards, 
i. 476, ii. 3 ; attempts reform, ii. 9 

Henry VIII. (England) favours League of 
Schmalkalden, ii. 69 ; confirms incorpo- 
ration of Christ Church, Oxford, ii. 83; 
miserable quarrel of, with Rome, ii. 85; 
divorce of. from Queen Katharine, ii. 
85; supreme head of Church of England, 
ii. 85; enriches Treasury by secularising 
Church property, ii. 86, 99 ; excommu- 
nicated by Paul III., ii, 94 ; opposes 
priestly marriage, ii. 103, 107 ; title of 
Defender of the Faith, ii. 103 ; decides 
against proposals of 8chmalkaldic 
League, ii. 109; death of, ii. 116; refuses 
connection with Councilof Trent, ii. 180 

Henry of Huntingdon, i. 198, note ; son 
of a priest, i. 331, note; on John of 
Crema, i. 339, note ; on system of " cul- 
lagium," i. 340-41, note 


Henry of Norwich, married cleric with 

legitimate children, i. 364 
Henry the Petrobusian, i. 463, 464 
Henry of Ravenna supports anti-pope, i. 

Henry of Salzburg, i. 295, note 

Henry of Speyer, i. 278 

Hepburn, Prior Patrick, immorality of, 
ii. 156 

Hera, compulsory celibacy for priestesses 
of, i, 43 

Heracles, celibate priestesses of, i. 43 

Heraudin of Chateauraux on priestly mar- 
riage, ii. 314 

Hercules (Gaditanian), celibacy of priests 
for, i. 42 

Hereditary Levitical priesthood, i. 5 

Hereditary tendency in Greek Church, i. 97 

Hereditary transmission, Gregory VII. 
and danger of, i. 267 

Hereditary priesthood allowed by Alex- 
ander IL, i. 241-2 

Hereditary transmission, of benefices in 
Ireland, i. 361 ; Friesland, i. 304 
Normandy, i. 312 ; in bishopric of Toul 
i.320 ; forbidden at Rheims, i. 323 
condemned by Lucius II., i. 341 
would create sacerdotal caste, i. 347 
Innocent III. forbids in Ireland, i. 364 
claimed under Lucius III., i. 397 , 
Coelestin III. upon, i. 404 ; Bishop 
Martin of Camin on, ii. 20 ; in fifteenth 
century, ii. 21 ; Clement VII. issues 
bull on, ii. 174 ; Scottish Queen Regent 
petitioned on, ii. 174 

Heresies, the, i. 459-81 ; a device for 
extirpating, ii. 110, note 

Heresy, Thirty Years' War bars spread of, 
ii. 237 

Heresy, "vehement," culprit to abjure 
"de vehementi,"ii. 280 

Heresy, Lutheran, justified by clerical 
corruption, ii. 57, 171, 177, 190, 192, 

Heretics, outwardly orthodox, i. 460 

Herluca, vision of, i. 281 

Herman von Wied of Cologne attempts 
reform, ii. 176-7 

Hermann, Bishop of Prague, i. 290 

Hermann (King) condemns priestly mar- 
riage, i. 285 

Herraiz, Fray Manuel Pablo, self-accused 
of "solicitation," ii. 293 

Heuser, Rev. H. J., professor of theology, 
Overbrook, ii. 277, note 

Heydeck, Baron, marries a nun, ii. 62 

High Commission, Court of, ii. 140, note 

Hilarion introduces monachism into 
Palestine, i. 106, note 

Hilary of Poitiers, instance of a married 
bishop, ii. 42 

Hildebert of Le Mans tries to reform 
clergy, i. 318 ; poem attributed to, i. 
349, note 




Hildebrand the Monk, i. 218 ; all-power- 
ful at papal court, i. 230-1 ; far more 
shrewd than Damiani, i. 240 ; sent on 
mission to Milan, i. 251 ; requires sub- 
jection to Rome, i. 251 
(For further story, see Gregory VII.) 

Hildebrandine doctrine, man burned at 
Cambrai for upholding, i. 282 ; slow 
progress of, i. 305 ; revived in Catharan 
heresy, i. 460 ; " Poor Men of Lyons " 
hold,'i. 468 

Hildebrandine reforms not altogether 
successful, i. 262 

Hilles, Richard, on the Six Articles, ii. 
115, note 

Himerius of Tarragona and new disci- 
pline of celibacy, i. 64 

Hincmar of Rheims on appellate jurisdic- 
tion of Rome, i. 159, 430 

Hiouen Thsang describes Buddhist mon- 
asteries, i. 103 

Hippolytus on self- mortification, i. 20, 

Hippolytus of Portus on digami, i. 25 

" Historia Tripartita '' contains story of 
Paphnutius, i. 52 

Hof, immorality of priests in, ii. 54-5 

HoUand, " Old Catholic " movement in, 
ii. 330 

Honorius (Emperor), forbids "mulieres 
extranese," i. 49 ; persecutes Jovinian, 
i. 70 ; edict of, in 420, i. 79, 82 

Honorius I. addresses Scottish clergy, 
i. 185, note 

Honorius II. (anti-pope), i. 235 

Honorius III., orders enforcement of 
laws, i. 326 ; denounces laxity in Ire- 
land, i. 365 ; approves rules of Order 
of Santiago, i. 453 

Hooper, Bishop, on effect of Six Articles, 
ii. 116 ; questions by, for visitations, 
ii. 121 

Horn, Bishop, on position of married 
clergy, ii. 147 

Hosius, Bishop, on celibacy, ii. 192 ; on 
communion in both kinds, ii. 215 

Hospitallers, the, i. 451 ; suppressed in 
England, ii. 98 

Hostility to Church in fifteenth century, 
ii. 9 

Hoya, Johann von, Bishop of Osnabruck, 
ii. 224 

Hubert, Abbot, marriage of, i. 162 

Hugh, Bishop of Die {see Hugh of Lyons), 
i. 308 

Hugh of Grenoble, i. 269, note 

Hugh of Lincoln, anecdote told of, i. 343 

Hugh of Lyons, reproved by Gregory 
VII., i. 310 ; efforts by, in Brittany, i. 

Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen, charactRr 
of, i. 179 : on marriage in orders, i. 392 

Hugo of Constance, Zwingli's demand 
on, ii. 45 

Hugo of Silva Candida at Council of 

Geronda, i. 371 
Hugo, Cardinal, speech of, at Lyons, i. 

Huguenots, priestly marriage among, ii. 

Hugues, Archbishop of Rouen, and Eon 

de I'Etoile, i. 465-6 
Humbert of Silva Candida, on Greek 

errors, i. 223 ; arguments used by, i. 

236, note 
Humphrey, Lawrence, epigram on Dr. 

Richard Smith, ii. 119, 'note ; on posi- 
tion of married clergy, ii. 147 
Hungary, introduction of celibacy in, i. 

297 ; fines exacted by Church in, ii. 

18 ; some priests petition diet in, ii. 

Huss, John, on sacraments of sinful 

priests, i. 230, note ; heresy of, i. 460 ; 

reformer rather than heresiarch, i. 477 
Hussites, negotiations with, in Magde- 
burg, Passau, and Bamberg, ii. 11 
Hyacinthe, Pere, marriage of, ii. 324 
Hyde, Council of, miraculous mandate 

by crucifix at, i. 197 
Hydroparastitse heresy, i. 34 
Hypatia, Synesius, philosophic disciple 

of, i. 90 ; tragedy of, i. 118 

Ibas, Metropolitan of Edessa, accusation 
against, i. 86 

Idelette de Bure marries Calvin, ii. 151 

Ignatius, St., allusions to abstinence 
from marriage, i. 19 

Ilchi, Chinese Tartary, Buddhist monas- 
teries in, i. 103 

Ildefonso, St., attacks Jovinian and 
Helvedius, i. 68 

Ilgenthal, Elector John of Saxony forbids 
election of abbot in, ii. 64 

Illegitimates, ineligible to priesthood in 
Coptic Church, i. 100; in Latin Church, 
i. 241-2 

Illegitimacy of children of ecclesiastics, 
i. 92 ; of Anglican clergy, sixteenth 
century, i. 147 

Illuminism, aberrations of, ii. 285 

Images burned at Smithfield, ii. 108 

Immorality, arising from vows of celi- 
bacy, i. 31 ; less reprehensible than 
marriage, i. 165, 236, 434 ; favours 
shown to, i. 395 

Immorality of Church {see Morals) 

Immunity, caused by appellate power of 
Rome, i. 158 ; by forms of ecclesias- 
tical procedure, i. 159 ; for adultery by 
priests, ii. 253 ; from torture for con- 
fessors, ii. 284 

Impostures regarding relic and images, 
ii. 97 

Ina, King, adopts monastic life, i. 187 

Incest, resulting from celibacy, i. 156 ; 
common in Ireland, i. 363 ; diminished 



by marriage, i. 212 ; shocking case of, 
in Rome, ii. 245, note 

Indelibility of priesthood, i. 386 

Index Expurgatorius, the first, ii. 37, 

Index Librorum Prohibitorum, ii. 184 

India, influence of, on Jewish thought, 
i. 6 

Indians, bad example of Spanish priests 
among, ii. 248 

Indians of New Granada, Bishop Barios 
makes rules for, ii. 246 

" Indulgence, the St. Peter's," preached 
in Woerden, ii. 50 

Indulgences, a marketable commodity, 
i. 443 ; suspicions regarding use of 
money from, ii. 13 

Infallibility of Pope, ii. 328, 349 

Infanticide result of laws of celibacy, i. 
31, 108, 156 

Infessura, character of Sixtus IV., i. 428, 

Injunctions to clergy and laity, Queen 
Elizabeth, ii. 138 

Innocent of Rhodez, i. 132, note 

Innocent I., complains of marriage be- 
tween priests and widows, i. 27 ; in 
supporting celibacy does not refer to 
Nicene canon, i. 49 ; condemns the 
Bonosiacs, i. 68 ; condemns Vigilan- 
tius, i. 72 ; enforces celibacy in Cala- 
bria, i. 78 

Innocent II. driven from Rome, i. 294 ; 
prohibits priestly marriage at Liege, i. 
294 ; dissolves marriage of priests, i. 

Innocent III., enforces celibacy, i. 301, 
302 ; reforms convent of St. Agatha, 
i. 319 ; excommunicates Otho IV. and 
John of England, i. 345, note ; requires 
ejection of sons of priests, i. 348 ; re- 
gards himself responsible for English 
Church, i. 349 ; sends legate to Ireland, 
i. 364 ; refuses application of Bossaert 
d'Avesnes, i. 399 ; summons Christian 
world to Vatican Council, i. 405 ; de- 
cisions of, i. 400 ; decisions of, on di- 
gami, i. 434-5 ; approves principles of 
Order of Santiago, i. 453 ; brings back 
to fold heretics of Bosnia, i. 462, note 

Innocent IV., enforces celibacy in 
Sweden, i. 302 ; gives judgment on 
marriage of Bossaert d'Avesnes, i. 399- 
400 ; responds to appeal of abandoned 
wives, i. 401 

Innocent VIII., licentious character of, 
i. 428 ; forces Laillier to recant, ii. 29 

Inquisition, Congregation of, addresses 
archbishops, bishops, and ordinaries, 
ii. 354 

Inquisition, issues instructions on denun- 
ciation in i88o, ii. 356 ; in 1897, ii. 356 ; 
decision of, February 19, 1896, ii. 358; 
decree of, on November 9, 1898, ii. 358 

Inquisition in Germany, i. 470 ; occupied 
with heretics, i. 472 ; forces recanta- 
tion of John of Oberwesel, ii. 28 

Inquisition, Roman, extends operation 
of bulls on solicitation, ii. 262, note ; 
orders observance of bulls, ii. 266 ; on 
questions of " intention " in confes- 
sional questioning, ii. 267 ; orders no 
question on "consent" to be asked, 
ii. 271 ; settles sixteen cases of solici- 
tation, ii. 273 ; pronounces on questions 
regarding solicitation, ii. 273 ; exacts 
denunciation under pain of excommu- 
nication, ii. 281 ; declares soliciting 
confessors disabled from saying Mass, 
ii. 281 ; Hilario Caone confesses to 
forty charges before, ii. 282 ; con- 
demns Panzini's work on celibacy, ii. 

Inquisition, Spanish, teaching of, on celi- 
bacy and marriage, ii. 204 ; heretics 
and the, ii. 286 ; requires use of con- 
fessional box in confessions, ii. 256 ; 
orders laymen to serve in galleys if 

. giving absolution, ii. 256 ; crowds of 
accusing women throng, ii. 259, note ; 
solicitation no longer to be included in 
edict of, ii. 260 ; case of Fray Vicente 
Gonzalez, ii. 269 ; on denunciation by 
penitents, ii. 270; change of attitude 
of, regarding solicitation, ii, 272 ; ac- 
cepts bull Sacramentum Poenitenti;c, ii. 
275 ; pronounces on number of denun- 
ciations required for conviction, ii. 
281 ; condemns Lorenzo de Eldora to 
galleys, ii. 289 

Inquisitors, manual for, chapter on nuns, 
ii. 305 

Insermentes clergy, ii. 308 

Interdict on England, i. 344:-5; on Milan, 
i. 258 

Interim instituted by Charles V., ii. 73, 

Interpretation of Scripture, Poor Men of 
Lyons claim the, i. 468 

Isabella of Castile supports Ximenes, ii. 

Isidor of Pelusium on neglect of celibacy, 
i. 91, note 

Isidor, St., of Seville, on impostors, i. 

" Isidor Mercator," i. 155 

Isidorian forged decretals, i. 155 

Italy, enforcement of celibacy in 384 in, 
i. 69 ; resistance to celibacy in, i. 78 ; 
condition of morals in fifth century, i. 
85 ; apostle of, St. J Benedict of Nursia, 
i. 123 ; monachism reformed in, by 
Gregory I., i. 126-7 ; state of Church 
in, sixth century, i. 136 ; state of 
Church in, eighth century, i. 142 ; 
Charlemagne and Roman clergy in, i. 
153 ; state of Church in, tenth century, 
i. 164 ; Ratherius of Verona, com- 



plaints of, i. 167 ; Atto of Vercelli, 
complaints of, i. 167 ; Guarino of 
Modenaand Alberic of Marsico, i. 176 ; 
Silvester II. lightly treats celibacy in, 
i. 181 ; state of Church in eleventh 
century, i. 208-10 ; S. Giovanni Gaul- 
berto and austerities, i. 213 ; Henry 
III. and the papacy, i. 214-15 ; St. 
Peter Damiani and, i. 216 ; vain at- 
tempts at reform in, i. 222 ; Damiani 
and Hildebrand foremost figures in, 1. 
226 ; Council of Melfi in 1059, i. 231 ; 
schism of Lombard clergy in, i. 235 ; 
anti-pope Cadalus repudiated, i. 237 ; 
failure of attempts to reform, i. 240-1 ; 
reforms in Milan, i. 244-62 ; condition 
of regulars in sixteenth century, ii. 89 ; 
abuse of confessional in, ii. 269, note ; 
priest guilty of solicitation in, not 
publicly punished, ii. 280 ; tvsro de- 
nunciations required before considera- 
tion of case, ii. 283 ; case of Panzini 
and the Inquisition in, ii. 326 ; con- 
solidated under Victor Emanuel, ii. 
337, 350 ; suppression of religious 
houses in, ii. 337 
Ivo of Chartres, on the canons, i. 317 ; 
reproves measureless scandal, i. 318-19 

Jacobinbs, number of, i. 99 

Jacobus quotes canons, ii. 252 note 

Jacopo della Marchia, ii. 18 ; rebukes 
immorality, forced to fly, ii. 19 

Jainas, the, i. 22, note 

Jalikiah, Church of, independent of 
Rome, i. 369 

James of Jerusalem Nazirite and pro- 
bably Essene, i. 10 

James IV. of Scotland protects Lollards, 
ii. 155 

James V., attempts at reform under, ii. 

Jameson, Margaret, marriage of, ii. 166 

Jan de Backer (Pistorius) of Woerden, 
case of, ii. 50 ; burned alive, ii. 60 

Jane of Flanders, i. 398 

Jansenism, Ultramontanism triumphs 
over, ii. 363 

Jansenistic rigorism, ii. 242 

Jean d'Hullier, puritan Bishop of 
Meaux, i. 477, note ; condemned by 
Sorbonne, i. 477, note 

Jean Laillier condemned by Sorbonne, ii. 

Jean de Rely on morals of the Church, 
ii. 15 

Jean de Varennes accused of heretical 
teaching, i. 472 

Jephthah's daughter, story of, illustrates 
Jewish views of virginity, i. 6 

Jerome, St., on origin of celibacy, i. 13 ; 
on virgin birth of Buddha, i. 22 ; con- 
tempt of, for marriage, i. 38 ; de- 
nounces agapetae, i. 47-8, 81 ; de- 

nounces Bonosiac heresy, i. 68; roundly 
abuses Jovinian, i. 69 ; quarrels with 
Vigilantius, i. 71 ; uses coarse invective 
against Vigilantius, i. 72 ; successful 
labour for ecclesiastical celibacy, i. 81 ; 
urges custom of Antioch, Alexandria, 
and Rome, i. 89 ; on difficulty of 
maintaining virginity, ii. 339 

Jerome of Prague on Huss, i. 478 

Jerusalem, impression produced by cap- 
ture of, i. 403 

Jessopp, Dr., prints deed of thirteenth 
century, i. 354 ; on miscreants who 
robbed monasteries, ii. 101, note 

Jesuits, guilty of solicitation favoured by 
Sixtus V. , ii. 261 ; influence of, power- 
ful in Rome, ii. 261 ; try to gain ex- 
emption for religious orders, ii. 261 ; 
Reusch on Order of, ii. 266, note ; ex- 
pelled from Portugal, France, and 
Spain, ii. 335 ; Order of, suppressed 
by Clement XIV., ii. 335 ; attempt by 
Charles V. to introduce, opposed, ii. 

Jesus Christ, Portuguese Order of, i. 455 

Jews, relation of, to asceticism, i. 4-12 ; 
polygamy of, i. 26 

Jodocus of Lubec, deputy of papal 
legates, ii. 74, note 

John IV. reproves laxity of Saxon 
monasteries, i. 188 

John XIL, extreme depravity of, i. 165 

John XIII., holds Council of Ravenna, 
upholding celibacy, i. 172 ; St. Dunstan 
procures bull from, i. 195 

John XXII., Emperor Ludwlg undertakes 
to depose, i, 401 

John XXIII., brutal licentiousness of, i, 
426-7 ; convokes Council of Constance, 
ii. 3 ; releases Hospitaller from vow on 
payment of 600 ducats, ii. 14-15 

John, King of England, Innocent III. 
places interdict on kingdom of, i. 844- 
5, 405 

John Merlaw of Fulda relaxes rules, ii. 
23, note 

John of Alexandria (Eleemosynarius), i. 
138, note 

John of Crema, hypocrisy of, i. 338 ; visits 
Scotland, i. 367 

John of Engheim, murder of, i. 417, note 

John of Frankfort on papal authority, ii. 
14, note 

John of Leyden, ii. 24 

John of Liege, i. 417, note 

John of Lisieux, i. 319 

John of Niklaushausen (rustic prophet), 
ii. 24 ; burned at stake, ii. 24 

John (Ruchrath) of Oberwesel, ii. 28 

John of Pirna, i. 472 

John of Rouen, i. 308 

John of Salisbury, i. 319 

John of Saxony forbids election of Abbot 
Ilgenthal, ii. 64 



John of Utrecht prohibits men entering 
nunneries, i. 422, note 

John, St., of Jerusalem, Knights of, i. 451 

John, St., the Evangelist, condemns the 
Nicolites, i. 21 

John the Baptist undoubtedly an Essene, 
i. 10 

Jonas, Justus, on Luther's marriage, ii 51 

Joseph II., reforms monastic orders, i. 
450 ; inclines to priestly marriage, ii. 
300 ; reduces religious orders in his 
possessions, ii. 335 

Jovian on marriage of sacred virgins, i. 

Jovinian, claims equal merit for maidens, 
wives, and widows, i. 37-8 ; opposes 
ascetic spirit, i. 67 ; attacked by St. 
Ildefonso, i. 68 • condemned by St. 
Ambrose and Siricius, i. 69 ; driven to 
Milan, i. 69 ; abused by St. Jerome, i. 
69 ; openly assembles followers at 
Rome, i. 70 ; scourged and exiled to 
rock of Boa, Dalmatia, i. 70 

Juan, Don Jorje, ii. 249 

Judas, Leo, marries a beguine, ii. 46 

Judah and Tamar, story of, i. 5 

Judhael of Dol, simony and marriage of, 
i. 311 

Julian (Emperor) on Syrian asceticism, i. 
42, note 

Julian, Cardinal, legate to Ireland, i. 364 

Julius, Bishop of Wurzburg, ii. 232 

Julius III., grants powers to Cardinal 
Pole, ii. 125, note, 130; bull of indul- 
gence for England, ii. 130 ; re-convokes 
Council of Trent, ii. 181 

Junqua, Abb^, case of, ii. 324 

Jurisdiction, appellate, of Rome, i. 158 ; 
of seducer over seduced forfeited, ii. 
357, note 

Jus primae noctis, i. 441 

Jus spolii enforced by Robert the Frisian, 
i. 313 

Justification, by works, doctrine of, i. 129; 
by faith, doctrine in Scottish Reforma- 
tion, ii. 162 

Justin Martyr on chastity and marriage, 
i. 19 

Justinian, constitution on ecclesiastical 
marriage, i. 92 ; adds provision to legis- 
lation on monachism, i. 120 

Juvenal on shameless papal court, i. 426 

Kaesgeng, Our Lady of, ii. 155-6 

Katharine of Aragon divorced, ii. 83 

Katz, work on celibacy, ii, 301 

Keledeus or Culdee, i. 366 

Killore, John, burned, ii. 166 

King's College, Cambridge, enriched by 

spoils of monasteries, ii. 83 ; Windsor 

enriched by spoils of monasteries, ii. 

Kirkham, Bishop of Durham, prohibits 

priestly marriage, i. 353-4 

Knade, James, married priest of the 
Reformation, ii. 42 

Knights, of Avis, i. 455 ; of St. John of 
Jerusalem, i. 451 ; of Rhodes, or of 
Malta, i. 451 ; of Santiago, i. 455; of 
Marian Order, i. 457 

Koch of Wiesbaden, case of, ii. 325 

Kokkius, Dr., denounces clerical immor- 
ality, ii. 13 

Kolderup-Rosenvinge, Latin text of 
Cnut's laws, i. 202 

Kopp, Leonhard, helps nuns to escape, 
ii. 50 

Krishna, similarity of, to Christ, i. 99, 

Kyle, Lollards of, ii. 155 

Labata, Francisco, imprisoned, ii. 261 
La BaumeUe, M^moires de Mme. de 

Maintenon, ii. 298, note 
Lactantius, condemns asceticism, i. 40 ; 

denounces hermit's life as that of 

beast, i. 106 
Ladak, lamas in, i. 103 
Ladislas, St., introduces celibacy into 

Hungary, i. 297 
Lafitau, Bishop of Sisterion, on priestly 

marriage, ii. 298, note 
Lafuente, ii. 336, note 
Lagr^ze, Histoire du Devil dans les 

Pyrenees, i. 441 
Laity, corrupted by clergy, i. 320, 343, 

ii. 237 ; in favour of priestly marriage, 

i. 301, ii. 48; in favour of celibacy, 

i. 279 ; ii. 108, 148 
Lambert of Artois enforces celibacy, 

i. 315 
Lamentatio ob Coelibatum Sacerdotum, 

ii. 25 
Lammer on scarcity of priests, ii. 197, 

Lancisky, synod of, i. 301 
Landolfo, leader of Paterins, wounded, 

i. 254 
Lands of Church, in German Reforma- 
tion, ii. 64, 65 ; in England, ii. 92, 130 ; 

in Scotland, ii. 160 ; in France, ii. 335 ; 

in Italy, ii. 337 
Lanfranc, moderation of reforms of, 

i. 329 
Langdon. Abbot of, ** drunkennest knave 

living," ii. 88 
Langdon, Rev. William Chauncy, on 

clerical morality, ii. 348 
Langlande, on foreign prelates, i. 354, 

note ; on venalitylof officials, i. 358, note ; 

on the Church, ii. 77 
Langssac, M. de, instructions on, at 

Trent, ii. 197 
Lanzo of Milan, i. 245 
Laodicea, Council of, in 352, i. 56 
Laon, case of married sub-deacon of, i. 

La Reole, monks of, kill St. Abbo, i. 177 



Lara, Manrique di, Inquisitor-General, 

ii. 275, note 
Lateran, Council of, in 1123, i. 385, note ; 

in 1179, i. 363 ; in 1215, i. 405 ; in 1870, 

ii. 349 
Latimer, Bishop, an intermediary, ii. 93, 

Latin America, Plenary Council in 1899, 

ii. 343 
Latin Church dominates history of 

modern civilisation, i. 1 
Laurentius, Gallus, i. 434, note 
Lausanne, clergy of, drive out bishop, 

i. 423 
La Vendee, insurrections in, ii. 308 
Lawney, chaplain to Duke of Norfolk, 

hon mdt of, ii. 113, note 
Lead, value of, in English monasteries, 

ii. 99 note 
League of Schmalkalden formed, ii. 67 
Le Bas, estimate of number of French 

ecclesiastics, ii. 313, oiote 
Lecky, History of European Morals, i. 

117, oiote ; History of Kationalism, i. 

450, note 
Lefevre d'Etaples, ii. 150 
Legacies, to Church restricted, i. 61 ; 

void, to priests' children, treated as 

legitimate, i. 382 
Legitimation, letters of, ii. 161 
Leibnitz on Lutherans returning to 

Eoman communion, ii. 298, note 
Leo I., on marriage between priests and 

widows, i. 27 ; treats recalcitrant 

Cenobites tenderly, i. 115 
Leo VIL answers inquiry of Gerard of 

Lorsch, i. 169 
Leo IX., ascends pontifical throne, i. 218; 

takes Monk Hildebrand to Eome, i. 

218 ; degrades Dabralis, i. 220 ; Council 

of, at Mantua, broken up, i. 222 ;| death 

of, i. 223 
Leo X., character of, ii. 34 ; propositions 

of, opposed in Diet of Augsburg, ii. .88; 

issues bull against Luther, ii. 40 ; 

feeble efforts of, for reform in morals, 

ii. 55 ; Wolsey applies to, ii. 81 
Leo XIII., concessions of, to Francis 

Joseph, i. 458 
Leo and Anthemius forbid monks to go 

beyond monasteries, i. 119 
Leo Marsicanus on Alberic of Marsico, i. 

176, note 
Leo the Isaurian, i. 144 
Leo the Philosopher, regulations in 

basilica, i. 92, 93, note ; orders recalci- 
trant monks to return to convent, i. 120 
Leonistae, St. Ambrose countenances 

tradition of, i. 66 
Leopold of Austria, Bishop, dispensations 

for marriage, ii. 219 
Leopold of Tuscany tries to reform 

religious houses, ii. 282, 303 
Leptines, synod of, in 743, i. 148 

Lerida, Council of, in 1250, i. 379-80 ; 
1314, i. 380 

Lhassa, monasteries and lamas in, i. 103 

Liber de Amabili Ecclesiae, Concordia 
(Erasmus), ii. 62, note 

Liber Gomorrhianus, i, 219, 7iote 

Licences, to sin, tribute known as cuUa- 
gium, i. 309 ; inveighed against in 
Apocalypsis Golite, i. 345-6 ; con- 
demned by Lateran Council, i. 406 ; 
for concubinage must in all cases be 
paid, ii. 239 ; bishops sell to women, 
for immorality, ii. 55, note 

Licentiousness, treated more lightly than 
marriage, i. 165, 236, 434-5 ; of clergy 
treated as result of celibacy, ii. 211 ; 
regarded as a matter of course, i. 412; 
of Middle Ages, i. 423 

Liege, Manichaeism in, in 1025, i. 244 ; 
priestly marriage in, in twelfth century, 
i. 295 ; Bishop of, on corruption of 
priesthood, ii. 193, note ; Council of, in 
1 131, i. 294, 387 ; heretics in, i. 464 ; 
Bishop of, on gift of continence, ii. 
193, note 

Lignana, Girolamo, attempts to murder 
St. Charles Borromeo, ii. 228 

Liguori, St. Alphonso de, on papal de- 
crees, ii. 268 ; letter to conclave for 
election of Pope, ii. 305 

Lillebonne, Council of, in 1080, i. 308 

Lima, synod of, in 1585, ii. 246 ; in 1552 
and 1567, ii. 247 

Lincoln, case of subdeacon of, i. 396, 

Lindet of Evreux, marriage of, ii. 310 

Link, Wenceslas, Vicar Augustine Order, 
marriage of, ii. 46 

Lisieux, case of Archdeacon of, i. 435, 
note ; synod of, in 1055, i. 308 

Litchfield, Saxon Bishop of, i. 329 ; 
visitation of diocese of, ii. 87 

Liturgy, the new, enforced in 1549, ii. 

Livonia, privilege in, for sons of priests, 
i. 416 

Lizka makes short work with heretics, 
i. 471 

Llandaff, Bishop of, on commission to 
try married bishops, ii. 125 

Llorente on secular and regular priests, 
ii. 294 

Lochon on secrets of the confessional, 
ii. 271, note 

Lollards, the, i. 476 ; declaration of 
Archbishop of Canterbury on, i. 476 ; 
of Kyle, ii. 155 

Lomenie, coadjutor of Archbishop of 
Sens, married, ii. 310 

London, Dr., abbess of Chepstow ac- 
cuses, ii. 97 ; chronicles troubles of 
ejected monks, ii. 113, note 

London, married priests deprived, in 
1554, ii. 124; enumeration of married 



priests in archdeaconry of, ii. 139 ; 
Council of, in 1075, i- 329-30 ; in 1102, 
i. 331 ; in 1 108, i. 336 ; in 1 126, i. 338 ; 
in 1237, i. 350 

Lopez, Father Juan, imprisoned, ii. 

Lords, House of, delays priestly mar- 
riage, ii. 117 

Lorraine, Cardinal, instructions of, at 
Trent, ii. 197 

Los von Rom, movement of, ii. 329 

Loserth on immoral priests in Prague, 
i. 478, note 

Lothair, Emperor, tries to enforce celi- 
bacy, i. 294 

Louis le Debonnaire attempts to reform 
Church, i. 129, 153 ; makes seduction 
of nun capital offence, i. 154 ; prohibits 
practice of letting blood, i. 156 

Louis le Gros, conditions of charter at 
Compi^gne, i, 326 

Louis IX. arbitrates for children of 
Margaret of Flanders, i. 399 

Louis XII. and relics of St. Denis, i. 
256, note 

Louis XV., on disorders among regular 
clergy, ii. 302 ; orders arrest of priests 
frequenting brothels, ii. 303 

Louis Philippe, ii. 338 

Louise of Savoy, Clement VII. addresses 
brief to, ii. 151 

Louvain, University of, urges reform on 
Philip II., ii. 191 

Love letters handed in confessional, 
discussion on, ii. 266-7 

Loyola, Ignatius, Life of, by Ribadeneira, 
ii. 175, note ; scandalised by Spanish 
morals, ii. 175 

Loyson, M. (Pere Hyacinthe), case of, 
ii. 324 

Lucca, sacerdotal marriage in, i. 262 

Lucerne, priest's wife disowned in, ii. 

Luceta, Dr. Pedro, foul case of solicita- 
tion by, ii. 290 

Lucius II. on hereditary priesthood, i. 

Lucius III., on sacraments of sinful 
priests, i. 229, note ; on hereditary 
benefices, i. 397-8 ; on rules for Tem- 
plars, i. 4i>2 ; condemns the Waldenses, 
i. 467 

Lucretia Borgia, i. 428, note 

Ludeua, Doctor Juan de, disputes on 
priestly marriage, ii. 203 

Lugo, Bernal Diaz de, on scandal attach- 
ing to immorality, ii. 255 

Lunden, Archbishop of, on priestly mar- 
riage, i. 302 ; question on digami by, 
i. 434 

Lupus of Troyes on celibacy, i. 82 

Luther, mistake to credit, with Reforma- 
tion, ii. 35; ninety-five propositions of, 
ii. 39 ; progress of, very slow, ii. 40 ; 

changes views of priestly marriage, ii. 
40, 41 ; Leo X. issues bull against, ii. 40; 
burns books of canon law at Witten- 
berg, ii. 41 ; preachus on clerical 
marriage, ii. 46 ; marriage of, ii. 51 ; 
defends digami, ii. 53 ; at enmity with 
Anabaptists, ii. 68 

Lutheran colleges crowded on account 
of question of celibacy, ii. 196 

Lutherans dispute with Calvinists and 
Philippists, ii. 225, note 

Lyons, Poor Men of, i. 468 

Lyons, Council of, in 1274, i. 407, 436 ; 
efforts at, to reunite Greek Church, i. 
407 ; in 1528, ii. 173 

Macaulay, Lord, on Anglican clergy, 
ii. 149 

MacClosky, Cardinal, ii. 341, note 

Macedonia, celibacy enforced in, i. 91 

Macliaus of Brittany, story of, i. 133-4 

MacMahon, Marshal, reactionary govern- 
ment of, ii. 338 

Macon, Council of, in 581, i. 133 ; Claude, 
Bishop of, ii. 173 

Madrid, " soliciting " priest temporarily 
exiled from, ii. 286, note^ 290 

Madrigal, Manuel, voted to torture by 
inquisitors, ii. 285 

Maesse-]?egnes, i. 201, note 

Magdeburg, Council of, in 1403, i. 439, 
note ; letter of Archbishop of, points 
to papal rapacity, ii. 14 

Mahavira, legend of, i. 22, note 

Mahue, cure of S. Sulpice, on priestly 
marriage, ii. 311 ; tried for pamphlet, 
ii. 311 

Maiden Bradley, morals of prior of, ii. 
98, note 

Mainardo, Cardinal, mission of, to Milan, 
i. 257 

Mainerio Boccardo, provisions of will of, 
i. 262 

Mainz, Council of (1049) forbids simony 
and marriage, i. 220-1 ; enforcement 
of celibacy in, i. 274 ; revolt at, 
against Rodolf of Swabia, i. 282 ; Diet 
of, in 1085, i. 285 ; metropolitan synod 
of, in 1549, ii. 190 ; Diether, Archbishop 
of, case of, ii. 34, note ; Archbishop of, 
upon points of discipline, ii. 218 ; 
Council of, in 888, 'i. 157, note ; in 1049, 
i. 220 ; in 1075, i. 275 ; in 1225, i. 418 ; 
in 1527, ii. 47, note 

Majorca, troubles in, with regard to 
canons, i. 382 

Majorian, laws of, respecting nuns in 
458, i. 116 

Malachi, St., reforms of, i. 362; visits 
St. Bernard at Clairvaux, i. 362 

Malatesta, Carlo, of Rimini, on concu- 
bines of priests, i. 421 

Maldonaldo, Fray, accused of solicita- 
tion, ii. 289 



Mallet, Abbe, case of, ii. 359 ; heinous- 
ness of offence of, concealed by ortho- 
dox journal, ii. 359 

Malta, Knights of, i. 451 ; accusations 
against, i. 453 ; suppressed in England, 
ii. 98 ; Knight of, marries, ii. 154 

Malvern, Great, prior of, offers bribe to 
Cromwell, ii. 93, note 

Manasses of Rheims forced to abandon 
violent measures, i. 314 

Mancio of Chalons, indecision of, i. 162 

Manes, soi-disant envoy of Christ, career 
of, i. 33 

Manfredonia, Council of, in 1567, ii. 230 

Manichseism, enthusiastically accepted, 
i. 33 ; condemns marriage, i. 34 ; 
eucharist in, according to Mazdean 
form, i. 35 ; revived by Albigenses, i. 
35 ; early, of St. Augustin, i. 75 ; 
Milan headquarters of, i. 244 ; heresy 
of, extirpated at stake, i. 244 ; revival 
of, in eleventh century, i. 244 ; Milan 
a nest of heresy of, i. 249, note 

Manigold of Veringen, case of, i. 280-1 

Mansfield, married priest of, imprisoned, 
ii. 43 

Mansi on twenty-ninth canon of first 
Council of Aries, i. 43, note 

Manual for Inquisitors, chapter on nuns, 
ii. 305 

Mantua, Council of (1053), broken up, i. 
222 ; Council of, in 1067, i. 237 

Mapes, Walter, satirical verses by, 1. 339, 
343, 353 

Mar Abba forbids priestly marriage, i. 

Marcellin, Abbe, on "droit de marquette," 
i. 441, note 

Marcen, Francisco, Provincial of Castile, 
imprisoned, ii. 261 

Marcian (Emperor) restricts monachism, 
i. 119 

Marcion, heresy of, i. 20 

Marcus, heresy of (Marcosian), i. 20 

Margaret of Flanders, story of, i. 399 

Margaret of Parma and Council of Trent, 
ii. 222, note 

Maria da Gloria, ii. 337 

Maria S. della Scala, canons of, Milan, 
ii. 227 

Mariana, on married clergy in Spain, i. 

Marian Order, the, i. 457 

Marian persecution, in England, ii. 135 ; 

reaction in England, ii. 123 
Marien, Fr^re, prosecuted, 1299 offences, 
ii. 361 

Marillac, Bishop Charles de, on discip- 
line, ii. 238 

Marino, a married priest and miracle- 
worker, i. 209 
Marino of Ostia condemns priestly mar- 
riage, i. 171 
Marisco, Adam de, i. 357 

Marozia, influence of, i. 164-5 

Marquette, droit de, i. 441 

Marriage, lofty teaching of Christ con- 
cerning, i. 10 ; stigmatised as means 
of transmitting original sin, i. 36 ; 
Brahmanical and Buddhist views of, 
i. 34 ; Manichseism condemns, i. 36 ; 
not allowed in orders, i. 28, 79 ; per- 
sisted in by clergy, i. 83 ; custom con- 
cerning, in Greek Church, i. 97 ; 
custom concerning, among Nestorians, 
i. 98 ; St. Jerome's contempt for, i. 38; 
St. Augustin on, i. 38, 75 ; St. Martin 
of Tours on, i. 88 ; not dissolved by 
monastic vows, i. 127 ; not contem- 
plated in Irish Church, i. 184 ; Council 
of Melfi endeavours to check, i. 231-2; 
Councils of Vienne and Tours prohibit, 
i. 232 ; marriage, clerical, openly de- 
fended by chaplains of Godfrey of 
Tuscany, i. 234 ; habitual among 
Piedmontese, i. 238 ; comparative mild 
decretal against, i. 241 ; St. Gregory, 
St. Augustin, and St. Victor on dis- 
solution of, i. 386-7, note ; stigmatised 
with degrading epithet hy Alexander 
III., i. 395 ; gradually given up in 
Latin Church, i. 403 ; homily of 
thirteenth century against, i. 431 ; a 
mortal sin, according to Catharan 
heresy, i. 459-60 ; heresy to teach, as 
preferable to celibacy, ii. 204 ; dis- 
pensations for, in England, ii. 209, 
note ; implies heresy, ii. 219 

Marriage of bishops, prohibited, i. 28 ; 
in fourth century, i. 53 ; in Eastern 
Church, i. 93 ; in Africa, i. 95 ; not 
allowed in Greek Church, i. 97 ; Mar 
Abba forbids, i. 99 ; prohibited at 
Council of Augsburg, i. 171 ; practised 
in Gaul and Gothic Spain, i. 133, 135 ; 
in eighth century, i. 149 ; in tenth 
century, i. 177 ; in eleventh century, i. 
209, 221, 232, 234 ; ends in separation 
from wives in Hungary, i. 298; for 
three generations in Quimper, i. 812 
in Rennes, Vannes, and Nantes, i. 312 
Saxon Bishop of Litchfield, i. 829 
English bishops, i. 341-2 ; Bishops 
Peter, Philip, Spiridon of Cyprus, and 
Hilary of Poitiers, ii. 42 ; gives wives 
title of countesses, i. 312 ; allowed 
under Edward VI., ii. 121 ; sanctioned 
under Elizabeth, ii. 145 ; Archduke 
Leopold of Austria, dispensation for, 
ii. 219 

Marriage of deacons, permitted, i. 28 ; 
forbidden, i. 77, 92, 171, 299, 300, 331 

Marriage of monks, permitted in fourth 
century, i. 53 ; forbidden by Justinian, 
i. 120 ; forbidden by Gregory the 
Great, i. 127 ; St. Bernard on, i. 389 ; 
common in ninth century, i. 158 ; in 
thirteenth century, i. 401 ; forbidden 



by William of Cologne, i. 422, note ; 
by Archbishop of Cologne, ii, 194, 

Marriage of nuns made by Jovian a 
capital crime, i. 109 ; Councils of 
Valence and Rome endeavour to check, 
i. 113 ; renders inadmissible to penance 
during husband's life, i. 115 ; Leo I. 
upon, i. 115-16 ; Pope Symmachus for- 
bids, i. 123 ; Recared I. interposes con- 
cerning, i. 135-6 ; Gregory II. declares 
to be an open practice, i. 142 ; for- 
bidden by Pope Zachary, i. 149 ; homily 
against in thirteenth century, i. 348 ; 
pronounced void in 1630, ii. 164; pro- 
hibited by Archbishop of Cologne, ii. 
194, noU ; under Reign of Terror, ii. 

Marriage of priests, in early Church, i. 
13, 14, 15, 28 ; restricted to single mar- 
riage, i. 28 ; Council of Neocsesarea on, 
i. 24 ; forbidden by Council of Elvira, 
i. 43 ; not forbidden by Council of 
Nicsea, i. 46-7 ; definitely prohibited in 
385, i. 62 ; forbidden by canon law, i. 
77 ; gradually discontinued in Western 
Church, i. 66 ; custom of Eastern 
Church regarding, i. 89 ; the rule in 
Armenian Church, i. 96 ; obligatory 
for parish priest in Greek Church, i. 
98 ; skilfully tacit permission of, by 
Nicholas I., i. 161-2 ; synod of En- 
gelheim declares, incestuous, i. 171 ; 
Council of Augsburg forbids, i. 171 ; 
in Italy, in sixth and eighth centuries, 
i. 138, 143 ; in Merovingian France, i. 
131-2 ; prohibited in eighth century, 
i. 152 ; reappears in ninth century, i. 
162 ; common in tenth century, i. 169, 
171 ; forbidden in tenth century, i. 171 ; 
in British Church, i. 183 ; in Saxon 
England, i. 186 ; in Wales, i. 198 ; uni- 
versal in eleventh century, i. 210 ; in 
Southern Italy, i. 231 ; in Tuscany, i. 
234 ; creates a political party, i. 236 ; 
becomes a heresy, i. 236 ; struggle over, 
in Lombardy, i. 247 ; persecution of, i. 
279 ; cases of, in Treves, i. 279-80 ; 
penalties inflicted on, i. 289 ; in Bohe- 
mia, i. 293 ; in Germany, i. 292 ; in 
Hungary, i. 297 ; in Dalmatia, i. 299; 
in Austria, i. 300 ; in Poland, i. 300 ; 
in Sweden, i. 301 ; in Denmark, i. 303; 
in Friesland, i, 303-4; in France, i. 306 ; 
in Normandy, i. 309-10 ; in Brittany, i, 
311 ; in Flanders, i. 312 ; in England, 
i. 330, 331, 341 ; in Wales, i. 358 ; in 
Ireland, i. 365 ; in Spain, i. 370 ; delay 
in abrogating, i. 373 ; forbidden by 
Alfonso the Wise, i. 378 ; continued in 
Spain and Portugal, i. 383 ; St.Bernard 
on, i. 389 ; Gratian on, i. 390 ; advo- 
cated by Alexander III., i. 402 ; appa- 
rently condemned by Wicklifife, 1. 474; 

allowed by Lollards, i. 476 ; condemned 
by Hussites, i. 479 ; advocated by 
Bishop William Durand, ii. 25 ; advo- 
cated in fifteenth century, ii.28-9; com- 
mencement of, in Reformation, ii. 46; 
demanded by Zwingli, ii. 45 ; accepted 
by Luther, ii. 46 ; favoured by the 
people, ii. 53 ; persecuted by the 
Church, ii. 48 ; recognised under Inte- 
rim, ii. 73 ; dispensation for, by Paul 
III., ii. 74 ; recognised by Transaction 
of Passau, ii. 75; advocated in England, 
in 1530, ii. 103 ; commenced in Eng- 
land, ii. 103-4 ; refused by Henry VIII., 
ii. 103, 107 ; capital offence under Six 
Articles, ii. 112 : permitted under 
Edward VI., ii. 117, 118 ; popular re- 
pugnance for, ii. 119-20 ; suppressed 
under Queen Mary, ii. 124 ; admitted 
by Queen Elizabeth, ii. 137 ; matter of 
Anglican faith, ii. 140 ; uncertainty 
regarding, affects clergy, ii. 149 ; re- 
sented by Catholics under Elizabeth, 
ii. 148 ; a matter of course for Hugue- 
nots, ii. 151 ; dispensations for, sale of, 
ii. 183 ; demanded at Council of Trent, 
ii. 192 ; prevalence of, ii. 195 ; matter 
of, prejudged at Trent, ii. 199 ; papal 
dispensations for, ii. 208 ; pressed for 
by Maximilian II., ii. 211-12 ; in post- 
Tridentine Church, ii. 231, 232, 233 ; 
denounced by Inquisition, ii. 204 ; in 
French Revolution, ii. 311 ; causes loss 
of stipend, ii. 313 ; under the Con- 
cordat, ii. 316; varying policy con- 
cerning, in France, ii. 314 ; accepted 
by " Old Catholics," ii. 328-9 ; in the 
United States, ii. 334 

Marriage of sub-deacons (see Sub-deacon) 

Marriages, second, denounced by Justin 
Martyr, i. 23 ; allowed by St. Paul, i. 
23 ; Pope St. Gelasius on, i. 24 ; for- 
bidden to priesthood, i. 25 ; St. 
Augustine on, i. 76, note; Council of 
Spalatro forbids to ecclesiastics, i. 
170 ; in eleventh century often pom- 
pously celebrated, i. 238 ; forbidden 
to Milanese clergy, i. 247 {see also 

Married priests, ordered to separate from 
wives, i. 75 ; orders concerning, at 
second Council of Tours, i. 134 ; orders 
at third Council of Toledo, i. 135 ; 
deprivations of, i. 153 ; Rome full of, 
under Stephen IX., i. 225; ordered 
by Nicholas II. to separate from wives, 
i. 229-30 ; further orders for, i. 234 ; 
pronounced incapable of holding ofiBce. 
i. 303 ; mixed courts for trial of, i. 
309 ; persecution of, i. 316 ; Charles V. 
on, ii. 67 ; Melanchthon on cruelties to, 
ii, 114; divorces of, ii. 114 

Mart^ne, Don, i. 279 

"Marthas," servants of priests, ii. 343 



Martin, case of, in 1 817-21, ii. 322 
Martin I., advice of, to Amandus, i. 141, 

Martin V., election of, ii. 5 ; favours of, 

to John XXIII., i. 427 ; attempts 

reform, ii. 6-7 
Martin, Dr. T., at trial of Cranmer, i. 

222, note j treatise by, on celibacy, ii. 

126, note 
Martin of Battle Abbey, i. 343 
Martin of Camin, on clerical morals, ii. 

20 ; tries to reform his clergy, ii. 20 
Martin, St., of Tours, on marriage, i. 38 
Martyrdom compared with virginity, i. 

37 ; of English monks, ii. 86 
Marullus on Innocent VIII., i. 428, note 
Mary of Guise, ii. 162 
Mary, Queen, and obsequies of Edward 

VI., ii. 123 ; persecution under, ii. 135 
Mary Queen of Scots, ii. 165, 170 
Mary, St., of Egypt, i. 107 
Mass, disputation on, in Scotland in 

1560, ii. 163 ; said by concubinary 

priests, ii. 244 
Masses for the dead, similar to Mazdean 

rite, i. 34-5 ; maintained by Henry 

VIII., ii. 93 
Masses of married priests to be rejected, 

i. 228, 296, 308, 332 
Massieu of Beauvais, marriage of, ii. 310 
Massipia, name for legalised concubine, 

i. 231, note 
Materialism of Mosaic law, i. 4 
Maternity, dissuasions from, i. 431-2 
Mathison, John, and Anabaptists, ii. 68 
Matilda, Countess, and married priests 

of Lucca, i. 260-1 ; St. Anselmo im- 
plores intervention of, i. 263 
Matthew Paris on Milanese heresies, i. 

249, note 
Matthew of Salzburg, attempted reforms 

of, ii. 177 
Matthias Carvinus on priestly morals, ii. 

Maud of Kamsbury, i. 341-2 
Mauger, Archbishop, character and mar- 
riage of, i. 180 
Mauleon, Mile. Desvieux de, ii. 298, 

Maultrot, answer of, to Gaudin, ii. 301 
Maurice of Saxony, ii. 73 ; fresh treason 

of, ii. 75 
Maurice de Sully, powers granted to, i. 

Maurilio, St., of Rouen, i. 180 
Mauiitanian nuns, case of, i. 114-15, 

Maximilian of Bohemia, suspected of 

Lutheranism, ii. 199 ; favours priestly 

marriage, ii. 210 ; pressing demands 

on Pius v., ii. 212 ; letter from Pius V. 

to, ii. 223 ; less zealous than Ferdinand, 

ii. 225, note 
Maya, virgin mother of Buddha, i. 22 

Mayer, dissertation by, on Catherine von 

Bora, ii. 52 
Mazdeism, wholesomeness of religion of, 

i. 6 
Meat, abstinence from, discountenanced, 

i. 40 
Mechlin, certificates to confessors in, ii. 

Medicine, profession of, incompatible 

with priesthood, i. 269, woie 
Medina, Bartolome de, on abuse of con- 
fessional, ii. 276 
Meinhard of Treves, indiscreet reforma- 
tory zeal of, i. 296 ; obliged to leave 

bishopric, i. 296 
Melanchthon on Luther's marriage, ii. 51, 

note ; prepares statement of Protestant 

belief, ii. 65 ; apology for Confession 

of Augsburg, ii. 65, note ; declared a 

traitor, ii. 71 ; addresses Henry VIII., 

ii. 109, 114 
Melchior of Wurzburg on condition of 

clergy, ii. 190, note 
Melfi, Council of, in 1059, i. 231 ; in 

1089, i. 289 ; in 1284, i. 420 ; in 1597, 

ii. 230 
Melisse, Frere, prosecuted for fifty 

offences, ii. 361 
Melun, Assembly of, in 1579, ii. 235 
Men of intelligence, i. 470 
Menco, Abbot, on questions for decision 

of Church, i. 305 
Mendelsham, married vicar of, ii. 107 
Mendicant Orders (Dominicans, Fran- 
ciscans, Augustinians, Carmelites, 

Minims, Jesuits, and Servites), ii. 294 
Mendicancy forbidden in Reformation, 

ii. 44 
Merit, comparative, of virginity and 

marriage, i. 37, 38, 432 
Merlaw, John, abbot, ii. 23, note 
Merovingians, papacy in hands of, i. 132 ; 

contentions destroy dynasty of, i. 141 
Merriman, Mrs., marries Pere Hyacinthe, 

ii. 324 
Merseberg, people of, demand priestly 

marriage and cup for laity, ii. 72 
Messiah, the, of Mazdeism, i. 22, note 
Methodius converts Bohemia, i. 290, 

Metz, sons of priests ordained in, i. 178 ; 

Council of, in 888, i. 157, note ; siege of, 

ii. 75 
Mexico, first Council in, ii. 246 ; canon 

rules adopted by, ii. 250 ; suppression 

of monasteries in, ii. 338 
Miguel, Albert, on Mass said by sinful, 

unconfessed priests, ii. lib, note 
Milan, I synod of, in 1098, i. 261 ; head of 

northern vicariate of Italy, i. 244 ; 

headquarters of Manichseism, i. 244 ; 

Paterian faction causes riots in, i. 

250-1 ; more riots in, i. 255 ; under an 

interdict, i, 258 ; independent of Rome, 



i. 246 ; submits to Rome, i. 252 ; synods 
of, in 1565 and 1582, ii. 230; reforms 
in, by St. Charles Borromeo, ii. 227 

Military bishops in tenth and eleventh 
centuries, i. 175, note 

Military orders, celibacy of, i. 451 

Military service enforced on monks, i. 
108, note 

Mill, Walter, trial of, ii. 167 

Miller of Trompington, wife of, Chaucer, 
i. 420 

Milo, Arclibishop of Rheims, later of 
Treves, i. 145 

Minden, Dean of, miracle reported con- 
cerning, i. 321 

Mingrat, Antoine, murder by, ii. 358-9 

Minims, Order of, ii. 243 ; Hilario Caone, 
of order of, confesses "solicitation," 
ii. 282 

Minimum age for vovs^s, ii. 302 

Ministers, Calvinist, severe discipline 
for, ii. 151-2 

M i n n e k e, Heinrich,. burned as Mani- 
chaaan, i. 462 

Minucius, Felix, on marriage and celi- 
bacy, i. 19 

Minuto, Cardinal, mission of, to Milan, 
i. 256-7 

Mirabeau on marriage as no bar to any 
profession, ii. 309 

Modena, troubles in, i. 263 

Modest Apology for the Catholics of 
Great Britain, ii. 301, note 

Molanus on terms for re-entering Roman 
communion, ii. 298, note 

Molinism, suspicion of doctrines of, ii. 

Monachism, i. 101-129 ; model of, in 
Buddhism and Brahminism, i. 101-2 ; 
vow of, matter of volition in early 
Church, i. 105 ; Eastern and Western, 
i. 116-17 ; difficulties in West regard- 
ing, i. 121 ; practical character of 
Western, i. 124 ; made irrevocable, i. 
127 ; source of power and wealth to 
Church, i. 129 ; disorders of, under 
Carlovingians, i. 155, 158 ; reforms at- 
tempted in tenth century, i. 175 ; in 
Irish Church, i. 184 ; in Anglo-Saxon 
Church, i. 188, 200, 205 ; condition of, 
in France, i. 318 ; in early Scottish 
Church, i. 366 ; degrading regulations 
of, i. 411-12 ; good and ill effects of 
system of, i. 445-8 ; Wickliffe's attack 
on, i. 473 ; struggle about, in France, 
ii. 338 ; in medigeval times and in 
present day, ii. 339-41 

Monasteries, Bhikshus and Bhikshunis, 
organised, i. 101 ; residence in, 
ordered in 'East, i. 119 ; not neces- 
sary in West, i, 128 ; entrusted to 
episcopal care, i. 151 ; women ex- 
cluded from, ii. 23, note ; treatment of, 
in Reformation, ii. 63-4 ; suppression 

of, under Henry VIII., ii. 83-4 ; condi- 
tion of English, exaggerated, ii. 87-8 ; 
broken up in Scotland, ii. 164 ; sup- 
pressed in France, ii. 335 ; Spain, ii. 
335 ; Italy, ii. 337 ; Paraguay, ii. 338; 
Brazil, ii. 338 ; Mexico, ii. 338 ; New 
Granada, ii. 339 ; Venezuela, ii. 339 ; 
Ecuador, ii. 339 

Monks, persecuted by Iconoclasts, i. 97, 
note ; many infected with Eutychian- 
ism, i. 118 ; insubordination of, i. 118, 
120 ; vagabond, i. 122 ; numerous in 
Coptic Church, i. 100 ; subjected to 
military service, i. 108, note ; wander- 
ing, described by St. Augustin, i. 112 ; 
St. Benedict, i. 122, note; Smaragdus, 
i. 129 ; confined to their monasteries, 
i. 119 ; wives of, must become nuns, i. 
127 ; punishment of, for unchastity, i. 
114, 147 ; custom of letting blood, i. 
156 ; ministers of altar selected from, 
in Saxon England, i. 203 ; married 
priests replaced by, i. 333 ; residence 
of, with nuns, in Spain, i. 373 ; ordered 
to sleep singly, i. 412 ; pensioned 
when monasteries suppressed, ii. 95 ; 
ejected, held to vows of chastity, ii. 
113 ; in Scotland ordered to leave 
patrimony, ii. 163 ; business of con- 
fession largely in hands of, ii. 260 ; S. 
Caterina di Pistoia on immorality of, 
ii. 304 ; marriage of {see Marriage) 

Monluc, Jean de. Bishop of Valence, ii. 
152, note ; description of French clergy 
by, ii. 173 

Montariol, abbey of, and " droit de mar- 
quette," i. 441, note 

Montanists oppose second marriage, i. 
24, 27 

Monte Casino, founded by St. Benedict, 
i. 124 ; not suppressed by Victor 
Emanuel, ii. 337 

Monte Fiascone, Bishop of, on Pro- 
testants, at Council of Trent, ii. 182, 

Monteroquer, Guido de, on priests and 
female penitents, ii. 253, note 

Montes, Gonzalez de, on women and 
priests in Seville, ii. 259, note 

Montesa, Order of, i. 455 

Monumenta Franciscana, i. 439, note 

Morals, clerical, described by Cyprian and 
Tertullian, i. 31 ; reforms of, Council 
of Nicsea on, i. 46 ; how affected by in- 
troduction of celibacy, i. 81 ; as de- 
scribed by Salvianus, i. 85 ; equally 
bad in Oriental and Western Church, 
i. 86 ; described at Council of Elvira, 
i, 108, note ; by St. Jerome, i. 108 ; St. 
Augustin, i. 112; indicated by St. 
Theodore Studita, i. 121 ; described 
by St. Benedict of Nursia, i. 122, note; 
St. Isidor of Seville, i. 128 ; Smarag- 
dus, i. 129 • 



Morals, of bishops in Merovingian France, 
1. 132-3 ; of clergy in Italy, in sixth 
century, i. 136 ; of clergy in France in 
eighth century, i. 143 ; of clergy in 
France in ninth century, i. 156 ; of 
clergy in England in tenth century, i. 
192 , in monasteries in eleventh cen- 
tury, i. 205 ; of married clergy in 
Milan, eleventh century, i. 237-8 ; 
clerical, in Germany in twelfth century, 
i. 295 ; clerical, in France in eleventh 
century, i, 317 ; clerical, corrupt laity, 
i. 320, 343 ; clerical, in England in 
twelfth century, i. 838 ; clerical, in 
England in thirteenth century, i. 347 ; 
clerical, in Ireland in fourteenth cen- 
tury, i. 365 ; clerical, in Scotland in 
thirteenth century, i. 368 ; clerical, in 
Spain in fourteenth century, i. 383 ; 
clerical, in Church of twelfth century, 
i. 396-7, 403 ; clerical, in Church of 
thirteenth century, i. 409-10 ; clerical, 
in Kome, i. 424 ; of monasteries in 
fourteenth century, i. 422, note ; in 
papal court, i. 424-5 ; in mediaeval 
Church, i. 435 ; in Bohemian Church, 
i. 478 ; clerical, in fifteenth century, 
ii. i. 7, 8-9, 15, 20; clerical, in six- 
teenth century, ii. 54, 57 ; clerical, in 
English Church of sixteenth century, 
ii. 81-2 ; in English monasteries, ii. 
87-9 ; clerical, in Brunswick in 1476, 
ii, 18 ; clerical, in Bangor, ii. 145 ; 
clerical, in Scotland, ii. 154-5, 159-60, 
166 ; clerical, in Germany, described 
by Cassander and Wicelius, ii. 210-11; 
clerical, in Eome, in sixteenth century, 
ii. 226 ; clerical, in post-Tridentine 
Church, ii. 229 ; clerical, in Bohemia, 
ii. 235 ; clerical, in Spanish colonies, 
ii. 246, 247-8 ; clerical, in the Low 
Countries, ii. 237 ; clerical, in France, 
ii. 239 ; in the confessional, ii. 253-4 ; 
in America, ii. 341, note, 344 ; clerical, 
in the modern Church, ii. 339-45 ; 
have nothing to do with solicitation, 
according to Church views, ii. 295 

More, Sir Thomas, satirises vices of 
Church, ii. 79 ; accusation against 
Luther by, ii. 80 ; on sheep farming, 
ii. 120, note ; on Utopians, ii. 80, note 

Morone, Cardinal, legate of Holy See, re- 
port by, ii. 71; reports, in 1542, ii. 177 ; 
on scarcity of priests in Germany, ii. 
197, note ; sent to Vienna, ii,i200 ; terms 
made with Ferdinand by, ii. 201 ; re- 
quests urged by Ferdinand to, ii. 209 

Morrison, Sir Kichard, on assumption of 
Church lands, ii. 131 

Mortal sin, Wickliflfe's definition of, i. 

Morton, Archbishop, visitation by, ii. 16 ; 
calls condition of monasteries deplor- 
able, ii. 89 

Mosaic dispensation, materialism of, 
i. 4 

Mothers, residence of, forbidden in 
priests' houses, i. 156, 410 

Mucins the Holy, story of blind obedi- 
ence of, i. 112-13 

Muhlberg, battle of, breaks power of 
Protestants, ii. 73 

Mulier subintroducta, i. 47 

Miiller, Father, on moral status of 
American priests, ii. 341, note 

Muncer, John of Niklaushausen pre- 
cursor of, ii. 24 

Munster, synod of, in 1566, ii. 224 ; im- 
possibility of reform in, ii. 238 ; Rasfelt, 
Bishop of, publishes papal commands, 
ii. 224 

Muratori on the Umiliati, ii. 228-9, note 

Murner, Dr. Thomas, on immoralities of 
priests and nuns, ii. 89 

Mutilation, practice of, i. 29 ; advocated 
by Sextus Philosophus, i. 30 

Mylitta, i. 4 

Mynecena, i. 201, note 

Myrc, John, Instructions for parish 
priests, ii. 17, note 

Mystic rewards for virginity, i. 431-2 

Nalanda, the Sangharama (Buddhist 
monastery) of, i. 103 

Namur, synod of, in 1698, ii. 274 ; in 
1742, ii. 275 

Nanno, Count of Verona, protects married 
priests, i. 173 

Nantes, Council of, in 895 or 660 ; i. 157, 
note ; Edict of, ii. 154 

Naples, children of ecclesiastics in, i. 
416 ; position of priests' concubines 
in, i. 420 ; clerical marriage proposed 
in eighteenth century in, ii. 299-300 ; 
number of clergy in, ii. 306 ; priestly 
marriage in, ii. 333 ; Council of, in 
1576, ii. 230 

Napoleon re-establishes religion, ii. 316 ; 
allows Church to regulate question of 
marriage, ii. 316; takes up case of 
Talleyrand and Madame Grand, ii. 
318 ; decides against priestly marriage, 
ii. 320 

Napoleon, Louis, fall of, ii. 338 

Narbonne, Council of, in 1551, ii. 173, 

National Assembly and Church property, 
ii. 306-7 

Nature, crimes against, i. 155, 412 

Nausea, Frederic (Blancicampianus), at 
Council of Mainz iu 1527, ii. 47, note 

Nazirites, ascetic vow of, i. 5 

Neapolitan Code, the, i. 416 

Neocfesarea, Council of, i. 24 

Neo-Platonism, elevated mysticism of, 
i. 28 

Nestorians as missionaries, i. 99 ; con- 
troversies of, i. 118 



Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
heresy of, i. 98 

Netherlands, reception of Council of 
Trent in the, ii. 222, note ; troubles in, 
caused by clerical corruption, ii. 236-7 

Neustria, reforms in, i. 148 

New Granada, suppression of monasteries 
in, ii. 339 

Nicaea, first General Council held at, 
i. 46 ; canon of, does not refer to 
celibacy, i. 49 ; no interference for 
some time after Council, with married 
priests, i. 52 ; canon of, renewed by 
Greek Church, i. 97 ; enforced by 
Gregory I., i. 138 ; enforcement of, at- 
tempted in 744, i. 148-9 ; enforcement 
in England in twelfth century, i. 336 

Nicaragua, question of secularising 
Church property in, ii. 339 

Nicetas Pectoratus, defence of Greek 
Church by, i. 223 

Nicholas de Clemanges {see Clemanges) 

Nicholas I., orders deposition of immoral 
priests, i. 158 ; rules for trial of priests, 
i. 160 ; skilfully tacit permission of 
priestly marriage, i. 161-2 

Nicholas II., election of, i. 225 ; canon of, 
on mass of non-celibate priests, i. 228 ; 
controlled by Hildebrand, i. 231 ; 
intervenes in Milanese troubles, i. 
260-1 ; canons on celibacy renewed by, 
i. 269 ; enforces celibacy in France, 
i. 306 

Nicholas III. and efforts to reunite Greek 
Church, i. 407 

Nicholas V., regulations of, ii. 13 ; sin- 
cerely desirous to effect good, ii. 15 

Nicholas the Deacon, i. 21 

Nicholas,Fray, de Madrid,denounces him- 
self, ii. 291 

Nicolites, heresy of, permits immorality, 
i 21 ; name given to advocates of 
priestly marriage, i. 236 ; heresy of, to 
be extirpated, if possible, in Milan, i. 
252 ; condemned by enormous Council 
of Piacenza, i. 261 ; condemned by 
Council of Bremen, i. 303 

Nigel of Ely revolts against Stephen, i. 

Niklaushausen, John of, ii. 24 

Nimptschen in Misnia, escape of nuns in, 
ii. 50 

Nismes, residence of priests' relations 
forbidden in, i. 411 

Nix, priest of Caisho, case of, ii, 134, 

Noailles, Cardinal de, on absolution by 
sinful confessor, ii. 274 

Nobla Leyczon, la, i. 467 

Nonna, St., mother of St. Gregory Theo- 
logos, i. 53 

Norbert, St., reforms of, i. 819 

Nordhausen, Council of, in 1105, i. 291 

Norfolk, married priests ejected in, ii. 128 

Norfolk, Duke of, suppresses Pilgrimage 
of Grace, ii. 95; introduces Six Articles, 
ii. Ill 

Normandy, condition of Church in tenth 
century, i. 179 ; enforcement of celi- 
bacy in twelfth century, i. 323-4 

North, Sir Edward, obtains the Charter 
House, ii. 86 

Northmen, effect of incursions of, i. 158 

Northumbrian priests, rules for, i, 194, note 

Norway, rights of illegitimates in, i. 231, 

Nucius Nicander on English monasteries, 
ii. 90, 98, note 

Nullity of marriage in orders, i. 385 ; en- 
forced at Council of Trent, ii. 204 

Nunneries, disorders in, under Carlovin- 
gians, i. 156 ; in Saxon England, i. 190; 
in tenth century, i. 175 ; in twelfth cen- 
tury, i. 318-19 ; 343 ; in thirteenth cen- 
tury, i. 325 ; in fourteenth century, i. 
422, note ; in fifteenth century, ii. 2, 6 ; 
in sixteenth century, ii. 89-90 ; Dr. 
Murner on immorality in, ii. 89 ; abuse 
of confessional in, i. 435 ; proposal to 
place under episcopal control, ii. 89- 
90 ; visited by comedians in sixteenth 
century, ii. 189 ; men ordered not to 
visit, in Utrecht, ii. 230 ; Leopold I. 
tries to reform, in Tuscany, ii. 282; 
priestly "solicitation" in, caseof Sta. 
Clara of J^tiva, ii. 269 ; case of convent 
in Cuyvacan, ii. 289 ; case of convent 
de la Penitencia of Salamanca, ii. 290 ; 
case Of Mercenarian Convent, Madrid, 
guilty mayor of, ii. 293 ; scandalous 
condition of, in Tuscany, ii. 303 

Nuns, shaving of head prohibited for, i. 
114, 7icte ; punishment of, for unchas- 
tity, i. 147 ; seduction of, a capital 
offence, i. 154 ; scandalous lives of, 
under Carlovingians, i. 155-6 ; test for 
virtue of, i. 356 ; residence of, with 
monks, in Spain, i. 373 ; wives of 
monks must become, i. 401 ; ordered 
to sleep singly, i. 412 ; Lollards de- 
nounce, i. 476 ; apostate, claimed by 
Church, ii. 49, note ; emancipation of, 
in Reformation, ii. 50 ; numbers of, in 
England, ii. 116 ; married, divorce of, 
ii. 127 ; corruption of, by confessors, 
ii. 184, 304 ; account of, in manual for 
inquisitors, ii. 305-6 ; not to be visited 
by ecclesiastics without written per- 
mission, ii. 249 

Nuns, marriage of {see Marriage) 

Niirnberg, Diet of (1510), complains of 
Roman rapacity, ii. 34, note; re- 
proached, in 1522, by Adrian VI., ii. 
49 ; in 1523, desires to enforce canons, 
ii. 49 ; complaint laid by Diet of, 
before Pope, ii. 59-60; senate of, de- 
prives Franciscans and Dominicans 
of superintendence, ii. 60, Tiote 



Nurses of priests' children, honourable 

position of, i. 374 
Nursia, asceticism of priest of, i. 139-40 

Oath, of Knights Templars, i. 451 ; pre- 
scribed for French clergy, ii. 308 

Obedience, monachial, nature of, i. 112 

Observances common to Catholicism and 
Buddhism, i. 23 ; and Mazdeism, i. 35 

Observantines, ii. 21 

Odo of Canterbury lays small stress on 
celibacy, i. 191 

Odo of Toul excommunicates immoral 
monks, i. 404 

Ogilby, Marion, ii. 158 

Old Catholics, schism of, ii. 329 

Olmntz, synod of, in 1342, i. 419 ; in 
1413, i. 479, note ; in 1591, ii. 233 

Orange, Council of, in 441, i. 77 ; William 
of, and Council of Trent, ii. 231, note 

Ordeal in ecclesiastical trials, i. 160 

Ordericus Vitalis somewhat scandalised 
by Eobert of Kouen, i. 179 

Order of Widows, apostolic, i. 103 

Orders, military, i. 451 

Orders, religious, abolition of, recom- 
mended, ii. 183 

Orders, holy, reduced by Wickliffe to 
priesthood and diaconate, i. 473 

Ordination, dissolves marriage, i. 385 ; 
declared indelible, i. 386 ; of priests' 
sons allowed by Adalbero of Metz, i. 
178 ; priests' sons ineligible for, i. 215; 
sacrament of, attacked by Luther, ii. 
41 ; superior to that of marriage, i. 386 

Orestes nearly loses his life in tumult, i. 

Origen, views of, on celibacy distinct 
from asceticism, i. 19 ; on self-mutila- 
tion, i. 29 

Origenism, civil strife concerning, i. 71 

Orihuella, synod of, in 1600, ii. 236 

Orleans, Council of, reference at, to 
Bonosiacs, i. 68 ; Manichseism at, i. 

Ormanetto, Niccolo, mission of, to 
Bavaria, ii. 201, note 

Orthodox Brethren, i. 480 

Orsiesus, rule of, i. 110 

Ortlibenses, heresy of, i. 469 

Orzechowski, Stanislas, case of, ii. 208, 
note, 209, notes 

Osber, Council of, in 1062, i. 237 

Osbern, Life of St. Dunstan by, i. 192-3, 

Osiander on perpetual virginity of the 
Virgin, i. 68-9, note 

Osius, Bishop of Cordova, leading mem- 
ber. Council Elvira, i. 43 

Osnabruck, synod of, in 1628, ii. 233 ; in 
1625, ii. 237 

Osnabruck, von Hoya, Bishop of, ii. 224 

Osorius on marriage of military orders, 
i. 455-6 

Ossory, synod of, in 1320, i. 365 ; Bishop 
of, ii. 118 

Oswald, St., reforming zeal of, i. 195 

Oswalde's law, charter of, i. 195 

Otfrid of Watten, story of, i. 313 

Othlonius, i. 220, note 

Otho I. deposes John XII., i. 165 ; edict 
of, concerning sons of ecclesiastics, i. 

Otho IV., league of, with John of Eng- 
land, i. 345, note 

Otho of Constance supports clergy against 
Gregory VII., i. 271 ; angrily accused 
by Gregory, i. 272; restored to com- 
munion at Ulm, i. 272 ; joins im- 
perialist party, i. 272 ; Gebhardt 
elected in place of, i. 272 

Otto, Cardinal, at Council of London, 
1237, i. 350 

Otto of Ostia, mission of, at Constance, 
i. 272 

Ottoboni, constitutions of, long remained 
English Church law, i. 355 

Oviedo on priestly marriage, in Spanish 
colonies, ii. 245 

Oxford, Council of, in 1222, i. 350, note ; 
University of, on Wickliffe, i. 473, 
note ; reforms proposed by, ii. 9 ; see 
of, created, ii. 100 ; Dr. Eichard Smith 
tries to stir tumult in, ii. 119 

Pacheco, Cardinal, ii. 214 ; reads to 

Pius IV. letter from Philip II., ii. 216 
Pacheco, Padre Felipe Garcia, and the 

Spanish Inquisition, ii. 275, 290 
Paderborn, synods of, in 1548 and i549» 

ii. 190 
Pagan priests, restrictions on, i. 42 
Pagi on Council of Nantes, in 660 or 

895, i. 157, note 
Paleario, Aonio, on Council of Trent, ii. 

180, 7iote 
Palencia, Council of, in 11 29, i. 376 ; in 

1388, i. 382 
Palestine, monachism introduced into, 

i. 106, note 
Palladius {see Patrick, St.) 
Pallavicini, on immorality of clergy, ii. 

193, note ; on marriage of clergy, ii. 

194, note 
Panormitanus {see Tudeschi) 
Pantheism of Brethren of the Free 

Spirit, i. 469 

Panzini on celibacy and attendant im- 
morality, ii. 326 ; delivered to Inqui- 
sition, ii. 326 ; released by Italian 
Government, ii. 326 ; republishes essay, 
ii. 326 

Papacy, degradation of, in tenth and 
eleventh centuries, i. 164 ; released 
from secular subjection, i. 225-6 ; 
election of, limited to Roman clergy, i. 
235 ; power of, culminates, under Inno- 
cent III., i. 408 ; legate of, refuses 



obedience to, ii. 10 ; supremacy of, 
abolished in England, ii. 85 ; restored 
in England, ii. 124 ; abolished in Scot- 
land, ii. 169 ; abolished in Galilean 
Church, ii. 316 

Papal court, immorality of, i. 424-5 ; 
rapacity of, ii. 14 ; reluctance in, to 
reassemble Ooancil of Trent, ii. 182 ; 
number of women in, ii. 344 

Papal dispensations {see Dispensations) 

Papal infallibility in Vatican Council, ii. 
328, 349 

Papal Penitentiary, i. 411, ii. 55, 175 ; on 
civil marriage, ii. 331 ; case of poverty 
preventing priests' appearance before, 
ii. 358 

Paphnutius, story of, i. 50 

Paraguay, suppression of monasteries in, 
ii. 338 

P4ramo descredits female testimony, ii. 
284:, note 

Paris, Council of, in 615, i. 128 ; 1074, i. 
307; 1212, i. 326, 411; 1323,!. 437, 
note: 1521, ii. 89; 1528, ii. 172; 
Huguenot synod of, ii. 151 

Parker, Archbishop, marriage of, ii. 117, 
note ; estimates number of deprived 
clergy, ii. 127 ; nominated to see of 
Canterbury, ii. 137 ; somewhat modi- 
fies Queen Elizabeth's dislike to mar- 
ried clergy, ii. 138 ; orders return of 
clergy, ii. 139 ; Queen Elizabeth's in- 
solence to wife of, ii. 141 ; confidences 
of, to Burghley, ii. 144 ; addressed on 
case of Anne Goodacre, ii. 170 

Parlement of Paris on religious organisa- 
tion, ii. 302 

Parliament, English, confirms supremacy 
under Henry VIII., ii. 85 ; enacts the 
Six Articles, ii. Ill ; modifies the Six 
Articles, ii. 115 ; legalises clerical mar- 
riage, ii. 118 ; reactionary measures of, 
under Mary, ii. 124 

Parliament, Scotch, of 1542, ii. 158; 
1560, ii. 161, note 

Parliamentary abbots, in 1539, ii. 98 

Parma, stormy times in, i. 263 

Partidas Las Siete, i. 14 

Partner in guilt, absolution by, ii. 

PaschalII.,endeavours to enforce celibacy, 
i. 292 ; receives repentant ecclesiastics, 
i. 292 ; enforces celibacy in Denmark, 
i. 303 ; Brittany, i. 312 ; Flanders, i. 
315 ; orders reforms in Spain, i. 373 ; 
on ministrations of married priests, i. 
333 ; on children of priests, i. 335 

Passau, enforcement of celibacy in, i. 
273 ; Council of, in 1284, i. 419, note ; 
revolt against bishop, in, ii. 11 ; Trans- 
action of, ii. 75, 182 

Pastoral, earliest French, i. 437-8 

Paterin faction causes bloodshed in 
Milan, i. 250 

Paterins, opprobrious name for Cathari, 
i. 245 ; German papalists called, i. 283 

Patmore, Thomas, condemned by Bishop 
Stokesley, ii. 104 

Patra, the Buddha's begging dish, i. 23 

Patrick, St., classification of comparative 
merit by, i. 37 ; traditional Christian- 
ising of Ireland by, i. 183 

Paul, St., liberalism of, regarding Jewish 
law, i. 11 ; text from, implies marriage 
of apostles, i. 13 ; asceticism of, i. 17 ; 
specifies monogamic condition neces- 
sary for deacons, priests, and bishops, 
i. 26 

Paul III., interferes between Melanchthon 
and John Eck, ii. 72 ; ;Charles V. 
breaks with, ii. 74 ; grants dispensa- 
tions to married priests, ii. 74 ; attempts 
reform, ii. 89 ; excommunicates Henry 
VIII., ii. 94 ; orders reform for French 
clergy, ii. 173 ; failure of reforms of, 
ii. 192 

Paul IV., on English Church lands, ii. 
131 ; savage decrees of, on pretended 
confessors, ii. 256; on "solicitation" 
by confessors of Granada, ii. 257-8 

Paul V. on jurisdiction of Spanish Inqui- 
sition, ii. 261 

Paul of Samosata, the heresiarch, i. 32 

Paul the Thebsean first anchorite, i. 105 

Paula, Francisco de, work against en- 
forced celibacy, ii. 326 

Pauline epistles, commentary on, by 
Lefevre d'Etaples, ii. 150 

Pavia, synod of, in 1022, i. 206 ; schis- 
matic synod of, in 1076, i. 259, 260 

Payne, Peter, i. 477, note 

Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
applies to Eome, i. 355 

Pedro I. of Brazil suppresses convents 
and military orders, ii. 337 

Pedro the Cruel, orders of, concerning 
clerical concubines, i. 382 

Pedro de Luna, papal legate, i. 382 

Pelagius II. relaxes rule of celibacy, 
i. 136 

Pelayo, Alvar, i. 383, 384, 412, ii. 175, 

Penafiel, Council of, in 1302, i. 380 

Penance, term of, for infraction of 
canons, i. 184 

Penitential of Theodore on marriage, 
i. 39 

Penitentials, coarseness and suggestive- 
ness of, ii. 251 

Penitentiary, papal, i. 411 

Penitentiary, taxes of the, ii. 55 

Penitents, prototypes of St. Mary of 
Egypt, i. 107 ; difficult to induce to 
denounce confessors, ii. 270 

Pepin d'Heristel, i. 142 

Pepin le Bref assembles synod at 
Soissons, i. 148 ; carries out work q£ 
Carloman &^d Boniface, i. 151 



P^rigord, Manichaeism at, in 1147, i. 245 

Persecution, Marian, ii. 135 ; of Mani- 
chaeism, i. 34 

Persecution, of monks by Leo the 
Isaurian, i. 97, note ; by Valens, i. 108, 
note ; of married priests, i. 279 ; of 
Catholics in Scotland, ii. 169-70 ; of 
celibacy under the Terror, ii. 311 

Persone's, Tale, the, i. 437 

Perth, monasteries destroyed in, ii. 164 

Peru, corruption of Church in, ii. 247 

Perushim, i. 9 

Peter, St., descriptive words of, regard- 
ing Christ, i. 11 

Peter d'Ailly of Cambrai, i. 436, note ; 
realises need of reform, ii. 4 

Peter of Antioch, i. 118 

Peter Cantor deplores inferiority of 
clerical morals, i. 820, 461 

Peter, Cardinal, urged to suppress 
clerical marriage, i. 239 

Peter, Cardinal of Capua, holds synod of 
Lancisky, i. 301 

Peter Martyr, tumult in Oxford against, 
ii. 119 ; exhumation of wife of, ii. 132 

Peter the Venerable relates miracle, 
i. 321 

Peter de Vinea, i. 346 

Peter Waldo, i. 466 

Peterborough, abbot of, offers bribe to 
Cromwell, ii. 93, note 

Peterborough, creation of see of, ii. 

Petrarch, opinion of papal court, i. 426, 

Petrobusian heresy, i. 463 

Peutwitz, escape of nuns from, ii. 51 

Peyrinnis, Laurent de, regulations of, 
ii. 243 

Pfaffenkind, i. 417 

Philastrius on self-mortification, i. 20, 

Philibert of Sedan on clerical marriage, 
ii. 314 

Philip of Burgundy, Bishop of Utrecht, 
ii. 56 

Philip of Savoy, career of, i. 353-4, note 

Philip II., petitioned by University of 
Louvain, ii. 191 ; opposed to conces- 
sions to heretics, ii. 200 ; opposes 
clerical marriage, ii. 214, 215 ; begged 
by Pope to send influential representa- 
tive to Trent, ii. 200 ; representatives 
of, support Cardinal Commendone, 
ii. 218 ; opposes St, Charles Borromeo, 
ii. 228 ; orders reception of canons of 
Trent, ii. 222 
Philippists dispute with Calvinists and 

Lutherans, ii. 225, Tiote 
Philo - mysticism proves influence of 
Western thought, i. 9 ; Phoebe, deacon 
at Cenchrea, i. 56 
Photinus, heresy regarding the Virgin, 
i. 67 

Piacenza, Bishop of, supports anti-pope 
Cadalus, i. 235 ; great Council of, in 
1095, i. 261 ; Bishop of, deposed and 
murdered, i. 263 

Pibo of Toul asks papal decision on 
priestly man-iage, i. 289 

Picardi, i. 480 

Picards, the, i. 469 

Pichardus, i. 470 

Pictish Church, neophytes of, i. 185 

Pier-Leone, anti-pope, stained with 
foulest crimes, i. 424 

Piero di Carbario, i. 401 

Pierre d'Ailly, i. 470 

Pierre de Bruys burned alive, i. 463 

"Piers Ploughman," quotations from, i. 
354, 438, 439, note, 444 ; ii. 78 

Pietro Igneo, Bishop of St. Albano, i. 

Pietro, schismatic Bishop of Lucca, i. 

Pilgrimage of Grace, the, ii. 94 

Pinytusof Gnosen tries to make celibacy 
compulsory, i. 22 

Pisa, Council of, failure of attempts of, 
ii. 3 

Pistoia, troubles in, i. 263; Sta. Ca- 
terina di, ii. 304 ; Bishop Scipione de 
Ricci of, on the confessional, ii. 304 ; 
Council of, in 1786,11. 304 

Pius II., admits the marriage of clergy of 
primitive Church, i. 14 ; favours cleri- 
cal marriage, ii. 27 ; increases annates 
of Mainz, ii. 34, note 

Pius III., elaborate bull of, ii. 185 

Pius IV., on origin of celibacy, i. 15 ; 
admits story of Paphnutius, i. 51 ; re- 
convokes Council of Trent, ii. 182 ; 
temporises with demand for priestly 
marriage, ii. 194 ; swears prelates to 
support vows of chastity, ii. 198 ; con- 
cedes cup to German laity, ii. 209 ; 
treatment of Orzechowski by, ii. 209, 
note ; pressed by Maximilian II. on 
clerical marriage, ii. 212 ; vacillates, 
ii. 214, 217 

Pius v., admits that clerical immorality 
causes heresy, ii. 58, note ; accession 
of, ii. 217 ; character of, ii. 217 ; re- 
forms by, ii. 223 ; suppresses the 
Umiliati, ii. 229, note ; legislates on 
property for priests' children, ii. 234 ; 
enforces Tridentine canons, ii. 234 ; 
grants power to Archbishop Maxi- 
milian, ii. 239 
Pius VI. on abuse of confessional, ii. 

Pius VII. opposes Talleyrand on priestly 

marriage, ii. 318 
Pius IX., on dissolution of priestly mar- 
riage, i. 390, note ; encyclical letter of, 
Qui pluribus, ii. 325 ; organisation of 
Vatican Council, ii. 328 ; denounces 
civil marriage, ii. 331 



Platonic union between the sexes, i. 31 
Poggio, lesson taught by, ii. 242, note 
Poissy, Colloquy of, on perpetual virginity 
of Virgin, i. 69, note ; result of Colloquy, 
ii. 238-9 
Poitiers, synod of, in rooo, i. 181 ; stormy 
synod of, in 1078, i. 308 ; Huguenot 
synod of, in 1560, ii. 238 
Poland, enforcement of celibacy in, i. 
300 ; member of Diet of, complains of 
papal rapacity, ii. 14, note ; clerical 
celibacy questioned in fifteenth cen- 
tury, ii. 29; sacerdotal marriage asked 
for at Diet of, ii. 192 : sacerdotal 
marriage and communion in both 
kinds asked for in, ii. 192 ; doctrine of 
priestly marriage advances in, ii. 301 
Pole, Cardinal, legatine powers of, ii. 
125, note ; forbids withdrawal of 
priests, ii. 133 ; death of, ii. 135 ; 
assists Cardinal Caraffa, ii. 183 
Polish National Church of America, ii. 

Polity, Civil and Ecclesiastical Institutes 

of, i. 203 
Polygamy of Moslems compared with 

Christian morals, ii. 347 
Pomerania, clerical morals of, in fif- 
teenth century, ii, 19 
Pomeranius present at Luther's wedding, 

ii. 51 
Poor Men of Lyons, the, i. 468 
Pope, John of Pima denounces the, as 

anti-Christ, i. 472 
Pope, Simon, appeal of, ii. 125 
Popes, conflicting claims of three, i. 214 
Popes, rival, i. 235 
Poppo of Brixen made Pope, i. 218 
Popular desire for clerical celibacy, i. 
79, 279 ; invoked by Church, i. 276-7 
Population, influence of celibacy upon, 

1. 449 
Portalis, speaks on clerical marriage, ii. 
316 ; quotation from speech of, ii. 317, 
Porteria y Vela, Fray Antonio de la, 

atrocious case of, ii. 291 
Portugal, added to Spanish Crown, 1 580, 
ii. 261; military orders in, i. 455 ; juris- 
diction in, for priestly " solicitation," 
ii. 261 ; offences in, put under Inquisi- 
tion, ii. 276 ; Benedict IV. addresses 
brief to, ii. 276 
Postal facilities for inquisitors, ii. 283 
Poverty, not required in primitive 
monachism,i. Ill ; enforced in rule of 
St. Tetradius, i. 125 ; of Irish Church, 
i. 363 ; of Scottish Church, ii. 164 ; 
of Waldenses, i. 466-7 ; of Franciscans, 
i. 471 
Poynette, Bishop, controversial writing 
of, ii. 118 ; Apologie for the godly mar- 
riadge of priestes, ii. 126, note 
Praemunire for recognising papal au- 


thority, ii, 95 ; derivation of name, ii. 
95, note 
Pragmatic sanction of 1483, ii. 12 
Prague, enforcement of celibacy in, i. 
293-4 ; University of, condemns Wick- 
liffe, i. 477, note ; Council of, in 1420, 
i. 479, note ; synod of, in 1565, ii. 232, 
Pratimoksha, oldest sculpture of Bud- 
dhism, i. 102 
Pregiudizi del Celibate, ii. 299 
Premonstratensians, i. 318 
Prerogatives, royal, disavowed as head 

of Church, ii. 124 
Priests, children of {see Children) 
Priests, divorce of {see Divorce) 
Priests, immorality of {see Morals) 
Priests, adulterous wives of, to be put 
away, i. 27 ; responsible for parish pro- 
perty, i. 137 ; wives of, in Italy, in 
eighth century, i. 142-3 ; punishment 
of, for unchastity, i. 147 ; disorders 
caused by wives of, i. 167 ; purgation 
of, in Saxon England, i. 202 ; wives of, 
reduced to slavery, i. 221, 289 ; resist 
celibacy, i.238, 249,262-3, 275 ; obliged 
to join in wolf hunts, i. 370 ; power 
and privileges of, i. 442 ; corrupt the 
laity, i. 318, 431, 434, ii. 59-60, 177, 
346 ; not to be consecrated without 
testimonial for character, ii. 191 ; cor- 
ruption of, surpassing that of other 
men, ii. 193 ; scarcity of, in Germany, 
ii. 197, note ; set bad example to con- 
verts in Spanish colonies, ii. 247 ; 
cruelly treated in Reign of Terror, ii. 
Priesthood, hereditary {see Hereditary) 
Priesthood incompatible with profession 

of medicine, i. 269, note 
Priestly caste, danger of creating, i. 166 
Primitive Church, asceticism in, i. 17 ; 

marriage permitted in, i. 14 
Procedure, ecclesiastical, gives practical 

immunity, i. 159 
Procopius, St., marriage of, i. 210 ; the 

Hussite, i. 480 
Prodicus, originator of mystic libertinism 

of Gnostics, i. 20 
Promotion dependent on celibacy, i. 77 
Property, Church, threatened by priestly 
marriage, i. 137; dilapidation of, in 
tenth century, i. 165 ; in sixteenth 
century, ii. 71 ; left under Queen Mary 
in private hands, ii. 130 ; transmitted 
to children of ecclesiastics, ii. 234 
Property, monastic, confiscated in Ger- 
many, ii. 65 ; Scotland, ii. 163 ; France, 
ii. 306-7 ; Italy, ii. 337 
Prosecution of priests, many victims for 

each, ii. 361 
Prostitution encouraged by celibacy, ii. 

Prota, Dr., on civil marriage, ii. 333 




Protestant belief, Confession of Augs- 
burg, ii. 65 

Pujades, on Ferma despoli forgada, i. 
442, note 

Pujalon, Fernandez, of Oiempozuelos, im- 
morality of, ii. 286 

Puricelli, on marriage of Eriberto of 
Milan, i. 245, note; on Ambrosian tradi- 
tion, i. 247-8, note 

Puy, Kaymond du, organises Knights of 
St. John, i. 451 

QUADRIPAETITUS, ii. 332, note 
Quedlinburg, Diet of, in 1085, i. 285 
Quick, Synodican, in Gallia Reformata, 

ii. 151, note 
Quietist monks, i. 8, note 
Quimper, diocese of, hereditary descent 

in, i. 312 
Quinisext in Trullo, i. 94 ; canons of, i. 

Quiroga, Inquisitor-General, threatened 

by Sixtus V.,ii. 261 

Radulphus of Ardens on clerical morals, 

i. 320, note 
Rag-pickers, known as Patari, i. 249, 

Rainbaldo of Fiesole, dissolute life of, i. 

Ranald and Raymond, father and son, 

both priests, i. 167 
Raould of Poitiers, i. 320 
Rapacity of papal court, ii. 14 ; calls for 

reform, ii. 33 ; proved by case of 

Archbishop Di ether, ii. 34, note 
Rasfelt of Munster forced to resign 

bishopric, ii. 224 
Ratherius of Verona, on priests' sons as 

priests, i. 167 ; priests of diocese of, 

all married, i. 169 ; troubles in diocese 

of, i. 172-4 
Ratisbon, Council of, in thirteenth 

century, i. 296 ; Bishop of, in 15 12, 

issues canons, ii. 56 ; Council of, in 

1524, ii. 48 ; Diet of, in 1532, ii. 69 ; 

in 1 541, ii. 72 
Ratramnus of Corvey on Nicene canons, 

i. 48, note 
Rauscher, Cardinal, denounces civil 

marriage, ii. 331 
Ravenna, Council of, in 967, condemns 

priestly marriage, i. 172 ; in 997, i. 

181-2 ; in thirteenth century, i. 296 ; 

in 1568, ii. 230 
Raymond of Galicia, i. 375 
Raymond du Puy founds Knights of St. 

John, i. 451 
Recared I. enforces celibacy, i. 135 
Recherches sur I'Etat Monastique et 

Ecclesiastique, ii. 300, note 
Reconciliation of imperialist clergy, 

1 106, i. 292; of Anglican clergy, ii. 

133; of England to Rome ii. 130 

Reformation in Germany, the, ii. 31-76 ; 
caused by clerical corruption, ii. 57, 
171. 177, 192, 223-4 ; in England, 
ii. 77-149 ; in Scotland, ii. 154-70 

Reforms proposed at Constance, i. 427 ; 
at Basle, i. 427 ; at Trent, ii. 206 

Regency, Council of the, ii. 49 

Reggio, troubles in, i. 263 

Relics, false, sold by monks, i. 112 ; 
ridiculed by Erasmus, ii. 35-6 ; im- 
postures of, in England, ii. 97 

Rely, Jean de, Bishop of Angers, ii. 15 

Renan, Ernest, on morality of clergy, ii. 

Renaud, Archbishop of Rheims, protects 
Flemish priests, i. 314 

Requesens, Luis de, ii. 214 

Residence of female relations, forbidden 
to priests, i. 156, 410 ; canon of 
Nicsea on, i. 46 ; law of Honorius on, 
i. 49 ; prohibition of, enforced, i. 88, 
7iote ; in Greek Church, i. 97 ; Gregory I. 
on, i. 1. 138 ; forbidden in 744, i. 149 ; 
with priests, legislation on, i. 154 ; 
tolerated in Spain, i. 370, 376 ; Arch- 
bishop Grindal on, ii. 145 ; Hermann 
von Wied on, ii. 176-7 ; over forty 
years old, allowed by Augsburg Code, 
ii. 186 

Residence, of sisters and nieces forbidden 
by Council of Bordeaux, ii. 240 ; of 
women regulated in Spanish colonies, 
ii. 246 ; with priests in United States, 
ii. 341, note ; in Vatican, ii. 344 ; dis- 
cussed in modern Councils, ii. 345-6 

Residence of illegitimate children with 
clerical fathers forbidden in Scotland, 
ii. 160 

"Reserved" offences, ii. 295 ; seduction 
never included among, ii. 295, 351 

Resistance of clergy to celibacy, i. 237-8, 
249, 263, 270-1, 275 

Responsibility of the Church, i. 442 

Restitution, form of, for restored priests, 
ii. 128, note 

Restrictions on monachism, by Valens, i. 
108, note ; by Majorian, i. 116 ; in the 
East, i. 118 

Restrictions on clerical marriage by 
Queen Elizabeth, ii. 138 

Results of celibacy, i. 409-11 

Reusch, on the Order of Jesuits, ii. 266, 
note; and the "Old Catholic" move- 
ment, ii. 329 

Revolution, French, question of priestly 
marriage in, ii, 301 ; Church property 
in, ii. 306-7 ; marriage encouraged 
under, ii. 311 

Rheims, Council of, in 874, i. 160; in 
1049, i. 221 ; in 1119, i. 322 ; in 1130 
and 1 131, i. 387 ; in 1583, ii. 240 

Rhine lands, *' Old Catholic " movement 
in, ii. 329 

Rhodes, Knights of, i. 451 



Ribadeneira, disciple and biographer, 
Ignatius Loyola, ii. 175 

Richard Fitz-Neal, son of a bishop, made 
Bishop of London, i. 342 

Richard of Albano, i. 315 

Richard of Dover reports to Thomas 
Cromwell, ii. 96 

Richard of Marseilles, papal legate to 
Spain, i. 372 

Richard the Fearless, i. 179 

Richmond, Thomas, case of, i. 477 note 

Richstich-Landrecht, children of clerks 
in, i. 417, note 

Rig Veda, the, on Tapas, i. 8, note 

Rigobert, St., Archbishop of Rheims, i. 

Rivera on ecclesiastical law in Mexico, 
ii. 250 

Rives, Fray Joseph, tried in Valencia for 
solicitation, ii. 286 ; evades letter of 
papal decrees, ii. 286 

Robber Synod at Ephesus, i. 118 

Robert d'Arbrissel, i. 311, 319 

Robert d'Artois marries a widow, i. 315 

Robert de Curzon, Cardinal, i. 411 

Robert the Frisian, i. 312, 313 

Robert the Good (Naples), i. 421 

Robert the Hierosolymitan of Flanders, 
i. 314 

Robert the Pious, indifferent about celi- 
bacy, i. 207 ; assembles Council of 
Bourges, i. 207 ; sentence of excom- 
munication on, i. 211 ; causes heretics 
to be burned, i. 244 

Robert of Rouen, publicly and openly 
married, i. 179 

Robles, Life of Ximenes by, ii. 22, note 

Rodolf of Bourges on residence of female 
relatives, i. 157, note 

Rodolf of Swabia, revolt against, i. 282 ; 
menacing letter from Pope Gregory, 
i. 277 

Rome, synod of, in 1079, i. 51 ; in 384, 
i. 62, 113 ; Councils of, in 721 and 
732, i. 142 ; Council of, in 745, i. 149 ; 
826, i. 230, note; 1051, i. 221; 1057, 
i. 225 ; 1059, i. 228 ; 1063, i. 237 ; 1066, 
i. 255 ; 1074, i. 269 ; 1725, ii. 342 ; Latin 
American Council held in, ii. 343 ; 
pseudo Council in, under Silvester, 
i. 50, 136 ; avarice of, ii. 14, 33 ; 
brothels kept by prelates in, ii. 57, note ; 
England reconciled to, ii. 129 ; Ger- 
many oppressed by, ii. 33 ; heretics 
forbidden in, i. 70 ; Ireland under 
authority of, i. 361 ; influence of, ex- 
tended to Spain, 1. 371 ; limits of 
jurisdiction of, i. 88 ; demoralising 
effect of, i. 158, 398, 430 ; licentiousness 
of, acknowledged by Alexander IV., i. 
413 ; morals of pagan, i. 18 ; of Christian, 
i. 85, 210, 226 ; pilgrims deterred from 
visiting, i. 165 ; reforms in, by Pius V. ; 
ii. 223 ; supremacy of, asserted over 

Milan, i. 252 ; toleration in, of sacri- 
lege and lust, ii. 59 
Romuald the priest and his wife, pro- 
perty confirmed to, i. 143 
Romuald, St., disciples of, i. 217 
Rosceline addressed by Thibaut of 

Etampes, i. 335 
Rota, priest of, fate of, i. 281 
Rothius on the Nicolites, i. 21, note 
Rouen, Archbishops of, in tenth century, 
i. 179 ; Council of, in 1072, 1. 308 ; in 
1148, i. 466 ; in 1189, i. 397, note ; in 
1581,11. 154 
Rousillon, Edict of, in 1564, ii. 153 
Ruchrath, John, of Oberwesel, ii. 28 
Rules of monachism, early, i. 110 
Rule of St. Augustin, i. 319 ; St. Bene- 
dict, i. 124, 151 ; St. Cassianus, i. 122 ; 
St. Caesarius of Aries, i. 125 ; St. 
Chrodegang, i. 152 ; St. Columba, 1. 
185; St. Orsiesius, i. 110; St. Tetra- 
dius, i. 125 
Rupert of Duits, on priestly marriage, i. 

Russel, Lord, suppresses insurrection in 

Devon, ii. 120 
Russian Church, customs of, i. 97-8 
Rusticus of Narbonne, i. 78 

Saccopori, heresy of, i. 34 
Sacerdotalism, celibacy a requisite of, 1. 

267 ; irrevocable nature of, i. 386 
Sacrament of marriage inferior to that 

of ordination, i. 385-6, 388 
Sacraments of sinful priests, i. 187, 230, 

note, 437, 460, 478 ; ii. 6, 272 
Sacrilege and lust, toleration for, ii. 59 
Sadducees, doctrine of, as to future life, 

i. 8 
Sadoleto on commission for reform, ii. 

"Sseculum Obscurum," i. 164 
Saignet, Guiilaume, writes Lamentatio 

ob Coelibatum Sacerdotum,ii. 25 
St. Agatha, shamelessness of nuns at, i. 

St. Albans, shameless immorality of 

monks of, ii. 16 
St. Andrews, Archbishop of, at baptism 

of James VI., ii. 161, note 
St. Asaphs, Bishop of, sits in judgment on 

married priests, ii. 125 
Sta. Caterina di Pistoia, ii. 304 
St. Cornelius, church of, at Compi^gne, 

i. 326 
St. Denis, Council of, in 995, i. 177 ; ab- 
bey of, disorders in, i. 319 
St. Fara, convent of,i. 318-19 
St. Francisco de Paula of Seville, church 

of, case of " solicitation" in, ii. 282 
St. Gildas de Ruys, abbey of, i. 319 
St. lago of Compostella, church of, 1. 

St. Isidor of Seville, i. 128 



St. John, Knights of, i. 451 ; Order of, 

broken up in England, ii. 98 
St. Marco, preservation of, ii. 337 
St. Michael, Order of, i. 456 
St. Norbert, Order of, i. 319 
St. Omer, synod of, in 1099, i* ^14 
S. Pelayo de Antealtaria, abbot of, 

paragon of brutish sensuality, i. 377 
St. Peter's of Sens, abbey of, i. 175 
St. Eiquier, abbey of, strict rules of, ii. 

23, note 
St. Sabina, Cardinal of, enforces celibacy 

in Sweden, i. 303, note 
St. Stephen, church of, in Aretino, i. 168 
St. Toribio of Peru, ii. 247 
St. Ursmar, married canons of, i. 326 
St. Vitus, monks of, reformed by 

Gregory I., i. 127 
Saints, number of, in Benedictine Order, 

i. 126 
Salamanca, Council of, in 1335, i. 381 
Salerno, Council of, in 1596, ii. 230 
Salvianus, on condition of morals, i. 
85-6 ; admires chastity of barbarians, 
i. 131 
Salzburg, disorders of, in the twelfth 
century, i. 295 ; synod of, in 1537, ii. 
177 ; in 1549, ii. 190 ; Archbishop of, 
on synod at, ii. 194 ; exhorted by 
Pius v., ii. 224 ; instructs clergy on 
morality, ii. 232 
Sampson, Thomas, on position of married 

clergy, ii. 147 
Sanadon of Oleron on clerical marriage, 

ii. 314 
Sdnchez on solicitation, ii. 273 
Sanders, on Cranmer's time-serving, ii. 
114, note ; on delay in authorising 
priestly marriage, ii. 137, note ; on 
wives of Elizabethan clergy, ii. 145 
Sandys, Bishop, on delay in authorising 

priestly marriage, ii. 137 
Sangharama, Buddhist, i. 103 
Sangreal, likeness to Patra of Buddhism, 

i. 23 
Sankhya, philosophy of, i. 6 ; Buddha 
reduces philosophy of, to a religion, i. 
Sannazaro on Innocent III. and Alex- 
ander VI., i. 428-9, note 
Sannyasis, class of, instituted by Brah- 

minism, i. 7 
San Severino, Council of, ii. 230 
Santa Clara of Jativa, nuns of, and con- 
fessors, ii. 269, 285 
Santaf^, Council of, in 1556, ii. 246 
Santiago, Order of, i. 453 
Saoshyans, the Zend Messiah, i. 22, 

Sarabaitaa, vagabond monks, i. 122 
Saragossa, Council of, in 381, i. 107 
Sarah, abbess, fortitude of, i. 220, note 
Sardinia, civil marriage enacted in, ii. 

Sarpi, Fra Paolo, on Council of Trent, ii. 
201, note, 204, note; on Council of 
Trent and priestly marriage, ii. 235 
Sarria, Fray Vicente, brutal superfluous 

questions of, in confessional, ii. 269 
Satan, place of, in a characteristic legend, 
i. 434 ; in legend related by St. 
Thomas of Cantinpre, i. 436 
Sausa, de, on confession and solicitation, 

ii. 262 
Sauvestre, M., estimates number of 
French ecclesiastics, ii. 313, note ; 
gives details of clerical prosecutions 
(schools), ii. 361 
Savonarola, on ecclesiastics of his day, 
ii. 15, note ; on morals in nunneries, ii. 
22; on priests as wolves in sheep's cloth- 
ing, ii. 253 ; convent of (San Marco), 
preserved under Victor Emanuel, ii. 
Savoy, harsh measures against clergy in, 

ii. 311 
Sbinco of Prague, reforms by, i. 478 
Scandal more dreaded than sin, ii. 243, 

250, 252, 259, 274, 351 
Scandals of agapetse, i. 43 
Scandinavia, morals of bishops in, ii. 2 
Scania, demand for priestly marriage in, 

i. 301 
Scaren, English Bishop of, plunders see, 

i. 338 
Schening, Council of, in 1248, i. 302 
Schieler, " Theory and Practice of the 

Confessional," ii. 277, note, 355, note 
Schism, the Great, i. 426 
Schmalkalden League of, ii. 67 ; negotia- 
tions with Henry VIII., ii. 109, 113 
Schmidt, Johann, Bishop of Vienna, ii. 

70, note 
Schulte, von, and the "Old Catholic" 

movement, ii. 329 
Schweinf urth, negotiations at, ii. 69 
Scipione de' Kicci on confessional, ii. 304 
Scotland, Church of, founded by St. 
Columba, i. 185 ; claim of see of York 
on, i. 185 ; celibacy in early Church 
of, i. 185 ; position of concubines in, 
i. 231, note ; enforcement of celibacy 
in, i. 367 ; constitutions of Ottoboni 
disregarded in, i. 368 ; Keformation 
in, ii. 155 ; fast progress of Reforma- 
tion in, ii. 159 ; abrogation of celibacy 
in, ii. 161-2 
Secrecy of inquiries into priestly morals, 

ii. 351 
Seduction of nuns made a capital of- 
fence, i. 154; of penitents by confessors, 
ii. 252 
Segarelli, Gherardo, forms heretical sect, 

i. 471 ; dreadful death of, i. 472 
Segenf rid of Le Mans, evil example of, i. 

Selle, Hendrik, vengeance of heretics, 
against, i. 470 



Sendomir, agreement of, i. 481 

Sens, Archbishop of, at Council of Trent, 

ii. 204 
Separation, Law of, ii. 330 
Seraphic Order, the, i. 438 
Seraphim of Gran on marriage, i. 297-8 
Sergius III., unconcealed dissoluteness 

of, i. 164 
Serfs, ordination of, i. 178 
Serrao, Bishop of Potenza, on priestly 

marriage, ii. 300 
Servants, priests' wives considered as, ii. 

Servitude of sons of priests, i. 178 ; of 

wives of priests, i. 221, 289 
Severus repeals Majorian's laws, i. 116, 

Seville, Council of, in 1512, ii. 17 ; Arch- 
bishop of, in 1546, ii. 176 ; crowds of 

women accuse priests at, ii. 259, note 
Sextus, Philosophus, advocates practice 

of mutilation, i. 30 
Shakespeare, plain speaking of, i. 432 
Shaving, clergy demur as to regulations 

for, ii. 231 
Shaxton, Bishop, opposed to Six Articles, 

ii. 112, note 
Sheep farming. Sir Thomas More on, ii. 

120, note 
Shrewsbury, hereditary benefices in, i. 330 
Sicily, monachism reformed in, by 

Gregory I., i. 127 ; celibacy in, i. 138 
Siedeler, Jacob, married priest, fate of, 

ii. 43 
Siegfrid, Archbishop of Mainz, a trimmer 

regarding celibacy, i. 271 ; troubles 

of, in matter of celibacy, i. 274-6 
Siena, Council of, in 1423, ii. 10 
Siete Partidas (Las), code known as, i. 

14 ; celibacy enjoined in, i. 378 
Sigismund, Emperor, advocates clerical 

marriage, ii. 26 
Silesia, heresy of John of Pirna in, i. 

472 ; clerical marriage asked for in 

1831, ii. 325 
Siliceo of Toledo, first reference to con- 
fessional box, ii. 255 
Silvester L, supposed Roman Council 

held by, i. 50, 136 
Silvester II. on celibacy, i. 181 
Silvester III. elected Pope by faction of 

rebels, i. 214 
Simancas, Bishop, on married priests, ii. 

Simoneta, Cardinal, ii. 215 
Simoniacal priests, sacraments of, i. 229, 

Simony, in eleventh century, i. 215 ; 

condemned under heavy penalties at 

Mainz, i. 220-1 ; abandoned at Milan, 

i. 252 ; Council of Milan (1098) severe 

on, i. 261-2 ; Gregory VII. inhibits, i, 

271 ; Lanfranc represses, i. 329-30 ; 

St. Thomas ^ Becket attacks, i. 345 

Simplicius, St., of Autun, story of, related 
by St. Gregory of Tours, i. 80 

Sin, its influence on priest officiating in 
sacraments, i. 228 ; mortal, defined by 
Wickcliffe, i. 473-4 

Siriciuis, supporting celibacy, does not 
refer to Nicene^canon, i. 49 ; addresses 
epistle to Himerius, i. 63 ; urges 
celibacy, i, 64-5 ; denounces Bonosus, 
i. 67 ; condemns Jovinian, i. 69 ; 
makes priestly celibacy compulsory in 
Gaul and Spain, i. 72 ; orders im- 
prisonment of unchaste monks and 
nuns, i. 114 

Sister, residence of, with priest for- 
bidden, i. 156 

Sithieu Abbey, ii. 23, note 

Sitten, synod of, in 1500, ii. 20 

Six Articles, the [see Articles) 

Sixtus III., treatise of, on chastity, i. 
39 ; trial of, for seduction of nun, 
i. 86 

Sixtus IV., vices of, i. 428 

Sixtus V. and cases of guilty Jesuits, 
ii. 261 

Slave, children of, by ecclesiastic 
emancipated, ii. 246 

Slavery, Christian, by Moors, i. 442, 

Slavery, for wives of priests, i. 221, 289 ; 
for sons of priests, i. 178, ii. 246-7 ; for 
vagabonds, under Edward VI., ii. 102 

Slaves, female, union of, with priests, 
ii. 246 

Slavonic Church, connection with Greek, 
i. 290, note ; adherence of, to priestly 
marriage, i. 300 

Sleiden on organised concubinage, i. 
440, note 

Sleswick, clerical morals in fifteenth 
century, ii. 20 

Smaragdus on monastic impostors, i. 

Smith, Dr. Richard, on priestly mar- 
riage, ii. 119 

Smith, Sir Thomas, on celibacy, ii. 148, 

Smithfield, images burned at, ii. 108 

Socrates, relates story of Paphnutius, 
i. 50 ; on observance of celibacy, i. 91 

Soissons, synod of, in 744, i 148 ; Mani- 
chgeism at, in 11 14, i. 244 

Solicitation, by priests, ii. 251-96 ; 
cases of, to be tried by Inquisition, 
ii. 257-8 ; evasion of rules against, 
ii. 262, 263 ; Gregory XV. defines, ii. 
264 ; diflacult to induce disclosure of, 
ii. 270, 281 ; in Spain, woman excom- 
municated on refusal to disclose, 
ii. 271 ; where woman is tempter, ii. 
277 ; by priests, wide range of punish- 
ments for, ii. 280, 281 ; means dis- 
ability for saying Mass, ii. 281 ; self- 
denunciation for, ii. 282 ; punishment 



for, disproportionate, ii. 287 ; sentence 
for, read with closed doors, ii. 287 ; 
punishment for, varies for regulars 
and seculars, ii. 287-8 ; guilty Jesuits 
quietly sent away, ii. 261 ; Labata, 
Marcen, and Lopez imprisoned for, 
ii. 261 ; case of Fray Vicente Gronzdlez, 
ii. 269 ; case of Maestro Diego de 
Agumanes,ii. 269 ; suspicion of heresy 
implied in, ii. 280 ; Dr. Augustin 
Velda, rector La Sallana, accused of, 
ii. 282, note ; Dr. Joseph Soriano of 
Vinaroz accused of, ii. 287 ; Fray 
Thomas Maldonado, light sentence 
for, ii. 289 ; Fray Miguel Martin de 
Eugenic, severer sentence for, ii. 289 ; 
Padre Antonio Escobar, S.J., repri- 
manded for, ii. 290 ; Padre Vilarde, S.J., 
implicated in, ii. 290 ; Bernardo de 
Amor guilty of, ii. 290 ; Felipe Garcia 
Pacheco leniently treated for, ii. 290 ; 
Dr. Pedro Luceta, foul case of, ii. 290 ; 
Geronimo Gonzalez of Kequeijo, case 
of, ii. 291 ; Fray Antonio de la 
Porteria y Vela, case of, ii. 291 ; 
Fray Nicholas de Madrid denounces 
himself for, ii. 291 ; Fernando de 
Vald6s, case of, ii. 292 ; Fray Manuel 
Pablo Herraiz, case of, ii. 293 ; Padre 
Fray Francisco Gomez Somoerto, case 
of, ii. 293 ; in modern times, ii. 350 ; 
case of, in 1898, ii. 353-4 
Somerset, Protector, and the Protestants, 

ii. 116 
Sons of priests [see Children) 
Sorbonne, the, condemns Jean d'Huillier, 
i. 477, note ; condemns Jean Laillier, 
ii. 29 ; condescends to no argument 
with Melanchthon, ii. 71 ; condemns 
commentaries by Lef^vre d'Etaples, 
ii. 150 ; pronounces on solicitation in 
confessional, ii. 270-1 
Soriano, Dr. Joseph, accused of solicita- 
tion and suborning, ii. 287 
Sormitz, escape of nuns from, ii, 51 
Southampton, Earl of, ii. 116 
Sozomen relates story of Paphnutius, i. 

Spain, Inquisition in {see Inquisition) ; 
celibacy, enforced in, by Siricius, i. 72 ; 
disregarded in, i. 64 ; continual efforts 
for celibacy in, i. 83 ; morals of, in fifth 
century, i. 84 ; monasticism in seventh 
century, i. 128 ; celibacy in Arian 
Churchpf, i. 135 ; reforms in, attempted 
by Catholicism, i. 135 ; concubines, 
position in, i. 231, note ; enforcement 
of celibacy in, i. 369 ; priestly mar- 
riage universal in, i. 370 ; delay in 
abrogating priestly marriage in, i. 373 ; 
immorality of clergy in, i. 377 ; military 
orders in, i. 453 ; demoralisation in 
fifteenth century, ii. 17 ; Ximenes and 
Franciscans of, ii. 21 ; morals of, in 

sixteenth century, ii. 175, 176 ; concu- 
binage of ecclesiastics in, 236 
Spain, colonial Church of, ii. 245 ; abuse 
of confessional in, ii, 257 ; solicitation 
systematically practised in, ii. 294 ; 
civil marriage agitated in, ii. 331 ; 
denounced by clergy in, ii. 331 
Spalatin and priestly marriages, ii. 46, 47, 
note ; letter from Luther to, upon nuns, 
ii. 53 
Spaldwick, vicar of, scandal caused by, ii. 

134, note 
Spanish colonies (see Colonies) 
Spelman believes in orders of married 

and unmarried monks, i. 201 
Spifame, Bishop of Nevers, married, ii. 

152, note 
Spiridon, Bishop of Cyprus, married, ii. 

Spiti, number of lamas in, i. 103 
Straddha, i. 7 

Standards of morality, i. 324, 431 
Stapleton, admiring biographer of More, 

ii. 80, note 
Stephen IX., Pope, installed, i. 225; 
forces Damiani to become Bishop of 
Ostia ; i. 225 ; suffering Milanese clergy 
apply to, i. 250 
Stephen of England, turbulent reign of, 

i. 342 ; siege of Devizes, i. 341 
Sterckx, Archbishop, Mechlin, admon- 
ished by Helsen, ii. 346 
Stoer, Stephan, pastor of Liestal, on 

marriage, ii. 46, note 
Stokesley, Bishop of London, condemns 
Thomas Patmore, ii. 104 ; on sup- 
pression of monasteries, ii. 92 
Strappado in Inquisition, ii. 284 
Strassburg, popular protection of married 
priests in, ii. 48 ; synods of, in 1548 and 
1549, ii. 190 
Stromata, third book, by Clement of 

Alexandria, i. 20, note 
Strype, account of Henry VIII. and Car- 
thufians, ii. 85-6 ; on career of Dr. 
London, ii. 97, note ; on Henry VIII. 
and priestly marriage, ii. 104, note ; 
Cranmer's second marriage, ii. 114, 
note ; Dr. Kichard Smith, ii. 119, note ; 
clergy, ii. 122 ; dispensations for mar- 
riage, ii. 209, note ; exhumation, Peter 
Martyr's wife, ii. 132, note ; married 
clergy of London, ii. 139 ; married 
clergy and Queen Elizabeth, ii. 141, 
note ; Sir John Bourne and Dr. Sandys, 
ii. 148, note 
Sturmius, Balthazar, marriage of, ii. 

Sub-deacons, allowed to marry, i. 28 ; 
forbidden to marry, in 530, i. 92 ; to 
separate from wives, i. 138 ; marriage 
of, forbidden, in 952, i. 171 ; removed 
when married from benefices, i. 289, 
note ; celibacy of, in Dalmatia, i. 299 ; 



marriage of, in Hungary, i. 299; canons 
suspended for, in Austria, i. 300 ; celi- 
bacy of, in Denmark, i, 303 ; rules for, 
in England, i. 332 ; exceptions for. in 
favour of immorality, i. 395 

Sub-deacon Bossaert of Flanders, hard 
case of, i. 398-9 

Suchuen, abuse of confessional in, ii. 

Suczinsky, Dean, marries Baroness Gazc- 
waska and joins Old Catholics, ii. 329 

Suffolk, Duke of , suppresses insurrection, 
ii. 94 

Suger of St, Denis imprisons Eon de 
I'Etoile, i. 466 

Suidger of Bamberg, afterwards Clement 
III., i. 214 

Sulpicius Severus, St., owner of slave, 
Vigilantius, i. 70 ; inclined to favour 
reforms of Vigilantius, i. 72 

Sulpitius of Bourges, i. 132, note 

" Sum of Scripture, The," ii. 103, note 

Suppression, of monasteries, in Germany, 
ii. 53, 63-4, 335 ; in England, ii. 88-4, 
99 ; means adopted for, ii. 97 ; of 
monasteries not carried out in Austria, 
ii. 335 ; of monasteries in France, ii. 
335 ; in Spain, ii. 336 ; in Italy, ii. 
337 ; in Paraguay, Brazil, and Mexico, 
ii. 338 ; in New Granada, Venezuela, 
and Eucador, ii. 339 

Susani, Marquardo de, work of, uphold- 
ing celibacy, ii. 217, note 

Suzor of Tours, pastoral on priestly mar- 
riage, ii. 314 

Swabia, enforcement of celibacy in, i. 

Sweden, enforcement of celibacy in, i. 
302 ; Englishmen, as bishops in, i. 338 ; 
case of English bishop in, i. 338 

Swithun, St., openly married, dispensa- 
tion from Leo III., i. 190 

Switzerland, recognised system of 
priestly concubinage, i. 440 ; move- 
ment in, by Zwingli, ii. 45 ; immorality 
of priests in sixteenth century, ii. 
57 ; case of priest's wife disowned in, 
ii. 325 ; Old Catholic movement in, ii. 

Syllabus of 1864 on dissolution of mar- 
riage, i. 390, 7iote 

Symmachus, Pope, prohibits marriage 
of nuns, i. 123 ; on confessors and 
penitents, ii, 252 

Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, case of, 
i. 90 

Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, Quick, 
ii. 151 

Szamland, Bishop of, ii. 63 

Taas, nominal reconciliation of Hussites 

of, i. 477, 7iote 
Taborites, i. 479 ; no chance for, in 

England, ii. 78 

Tacitus on morals of Germans, i. 131 
Taillard resists priestly marriage in 

Prussian Poland, i. 16 
Talasius of Angers on celibacy, i. 82 
Talesperianus of Lucca, charter of, i, 143 
Tallemant des Reaux, ii. 242 
Talleyrand secularises Church property, 

ii. 307 ; marries, ii. 317 
Talmadge, " Letters from Florence," ii. 

324, 7iote 
Talon, Omer, on marriage of apostates, 

ii. 154, 7iote 
Tapas, virtue of, i. 7 
Tarragona, Council of, in 1336, i. 381 
Tatianus, heresy of, i. 20 
Taxes of the penitentiary, i. 411, ii. 55, 

Tedaldo, Archbishop of Milan, i. 259 ; 

leader of disaffected bishops, i. 259 
Templars, military Order of, i. 451 ; 

accusations against, i. 453 
Temporalities of Church endangered by 

marriage, i. 61, ii. 28 
Tenure of chastity, benefices held by, i. 

Terbinthus, i. 34, note 
Terouane, marriage of priests in, i. 326 
Terror, position of priest under Reign of, 

ii. 308 ; persecution of celibacy under 

Reign of, ii. 311 ; number of priestly 

marriages under Reign of, ii. 313 
Tertullian, opposed to second marriages, 

i. 24, 25 ; on perpetual virginity of 

Virgin, i. 67, note ; on merits of widows 

and virgins, i. 104, note 
Test, marriage, of civil supremacy, ii. 

Tetradius, St., rule of, i. 125 
Tetzel, Luther on, ii. 40 
Teutonic Knights, Order of, i. 457 ; 

Baron of Heydeck, of, ii. 62 ; tribes, 

virtue of, i. 86 
Theodore ^ Niem, on John XXIII., i. 427, 

note ; on Scandinavian bishops, ii. 2 
Theodore of Canterbury, Penitential of, 

on marriage, i. 39, note 
Theodore of Verdun opposes policy of 

Gregory VII., i. 277-8 
Theodore Studita, St., on monastic 

morals, i. 121 
Theodoric Vrie on Teutonic clergy, 

ii. 3 
Theodosius the Great, edict of, against 

Manichseans, i. 34 ; orders monks to 

remain in desert, i. 119 ; repeals order, 

i. 119 ; prohibits shaving of nuns, i. 

114, note 
Theodotus of Corvey, success of, i. 269, 

Theodulf of Orleans on incest, i. 156 
Theodwin and Albert (Cardinals) at Av- 

ranches, i. 394, nx)te 
Theophilus of Alexandria, rigour of, i. 

434, note 



Theophylact on unius uxoris vir, i. 27, 

Therapeutae, i. 10, note 

Thessalonica, celibacy enforced in, i. 91 

Thibaut of Etampes on children of 
priests, i. 335 

Thirty Years* War, the, ii. 237' 

Thomas Aquinas, St. {see Aquinas) 

Thomas k Becket, on simony, i. 345 ; 
Henry II. absolved at Avranches for 
murder of, i. 894 

Thomas of Cantinpr6, legend related by, 
i. 436 

Thomas of Walden on Wickliffe, i. 474 

Tibet, number of monks in, i. 103 

Tibullus on purity required for sacri- 
fice, i. 42, note 

Tiers-Etat supreme in National Assem- 
bly, ii. 307 

Tithes seized by laity, i. 310 

Toledo, first Council of, i. 115 ; in 
398, ii. 252 ; forbids familiarity 
between virgins and confessors, ii. 
252; Council of, in 400, i. 76 ; in 531, 
i. 84, note ; in 589, i. 84, note ; in 597 
and 633, i. 84, note ; in 653, i. 84, note ; 
in 675, i. 84, note ; Archbishop Car- 
ranza of, on immorality, ii. 255 ; Arch- 
bishop Siliceo of, first reference to box 
used in confessional, ii. 255 ; tribunal 
of deprives Bernardo de Amor, ii. 290 

Toribio, St., of Peru, ii. 247 ; on corrup- 
tion of clergy, ii. 247, 249 

Torn6 of Bourges publicly married, ii. 

Tortosa, Council of, in 1429, i. 384 

Toulouse, Manichasism at, in 1018, i. 245 ; 
Council of, in 1056, i. 306 

Tournon, Cardinal Archbishop, ii. 173 

Tours, Council of, in 460, i. 83, note ; in 
567, i. 134 ; in 925, i. 167 ; in 1060, 
i. 232, 306 ; in 1096, i. 317, note ; in 
1 163, i. 394 ; in 1583, ii. 240 

Trani, married Bishop of, deposed, i. 
232 ; nearly all priests in, with families, 
ii. 15 

Treason, English abbots attainted of, 
ii. 97 

Treglia, Andrea, case of, settles question 
of priestly marriage for Naples, ii. 333 

Treguier, residence of priests' relatives 
forbidden in, i. 410 

Trent, Council of, ii. 171-220 ; expecta- 
tions regarding, ii. 72 ; authorises 
dispensations for married priests, ii. 
74 ; abuses laid before, by Sebastian 
of Portugal, ii. 175 ; Lutheran heresy 
regarded as due to priestly immor- 
ality, ii. 178 ; sessions of, often inter- 
rupted, ii, 182 ; proposals on priestly 
marriage, ii. 199 ; three electors unite 
in appeals to, ii. 201 ; diplomacy pre- 
vents serious debate on celibacy, ii. 
202 ; discussion at, on power of Pope 

to dispense, ii. 203 ; canons on matri- 
mony, ii. 204, 207 ; failure of reforms 
of, ii. 211 ; canons not received in 
France, ii. 222, note ; enforcement of 
canons of, in Utrecht, ii. 230 ; on 
confessor conscious of mortal sin, 
ii. 245 ; on age for ordination, ii. 304 ; 
on gift of chastity, ii. 255, 340 
Trent, Council, Congregation of the, ii. 

Treves, persecution of married clergy in, 
i. 279 ; morals of clergy in twelfth 
century, i. 296 ; Archbishop of, and 
immoral priests, ii. 187 ; effort for 
clerical marriage in, ii. 325 ; synod of, 
in 1548, ii. 187, note; in 1549, ii. 188, 
Trialogus, Wickliffe, i. 475 
Tribur, Assembly of, in 1076, i, 283 
Tridentine canons, ii. 153, 232 
Trimarchi on a reserved bull, ii. 296 
Trinidad and Merced, Orders of, i. 383 
Trithemius, Abbot, describes Benedictine 

monastery, ii. 89 
Tropea, sister of Pier-Leone, i. 424 
Trosley, Council of, in 909, i. 160, note 
Troyes, synod of, in 1107, i. 292; 11 28, 

i. 451 
Trugillo, Crist<5bal, guilty priest, quietly 

sent away, ii. 261 
Tsadukim (Sadducees) opposed to theory 

of future life, i. 8 
Tudeschi, Nicholas (Panormitanus), advo- 
cates priestly marriage, ii. 26 
Turin, Council of, i. 77 
Turner, John, penance of, for marriage, ii. 

Tyndale, " The Obedience of a Cristen 
Man," ii. 103, note 

Ulloa, Don Antonio de, ii. 249 

Ulric, St., of Augsburg addresses Pope 
on celibacy, i. 171 ; first subject of 
papal canonisation, i. 172, note 

Ulric, Duke of Bohemia, makes St. Pro- 
copius abbot of Zagow, i. 210 

Ulric, abbot of Tegernsee, testifies to 
polygamy by priests, i. 211 

Ultramontanism, ii. 234, 329 ; trium- 
phant over Gallicanism and Jansenism, 
ii. 363 

Umbilicarii, i. 8, note 

Umiliati, struggle with St. Charles Bor- 
romeo, ii. 228 ; Order of, broken up, ii. 

Unchastity, punishment of, for monks 
and nuns, i. 147; forgiveness for, in 
false decretals, i. 154-5 ; punished as 
homicide, i. 196 

United States, " Old Catholic "movement 
in, ii. 330 ; no legal impediment in, 
to priestly marriage, ii. 334 ; report of 
Italian committee of American Epis- 
copal Church, ii. 348, note 



University fellows, celibacy of, ii. 143 
Urban II., on sacraments of sinful priests, 
i. 229, note •, creates Conrad king of 
Lombardy, i. 260 ; reconciles Milanese 
clergy, i. 261, note ; holds Council of 
Piacenza, i. 261 ; publishes decree 
against married priests, i. 289; reduces 
wives of priests to slavery, i, 289 ; 
appealed to by Flemish priests, i. 314; 
and the Crusades, i. 316 ; decretal of, 
in 1090, i. 385 
Urban III. enforces celibacy in Dalmatia, 

i. 299 
Urban VIII,, on abuse of confessional, 
ii, 256 ; issues encyclical on abuse of 
confessional, ii. 270 
Urbino, Council of, in 1569, ii. 230 
Urgel, Council of, in 1286, on priestly 
immorality,!. 380; in 1364, threatens ex- 
communication to disobedient priests, 
i. 381 
Urraca, Queen, i. 375 
Useria, supposed wife of Eriberto of 

Milan, i. 245, note 
Utopia, Sir Thomas More, ii. 80, note 
Utraquists (Calixtins) of Bohepiia, i. 480 
Utrecht, condition of nunneries in, 
fourteenth century, i. 422, note ; recep- 
tion of Council of Trent in, ii. 230 ; 
Assembly of, in 1076, i. 277-8 ; synod 
of, in 1568, ii. 230 

VArfABOND monks, i. 112, 121-2, 128 
Vagabondage, Act to punish, ii. 94 
Valdana, Fray Juan de, case of, ii. 254 
Valdelamar, Alonso de, case of, ii. 254 
Valdes, Inquisitor-General, Archbishop 

of Seville, ii. 176 ; receives bull of 

Paul IV. on solicitation, ii. 258 
Valdes, Fernando de, many cases of 

solicitation, ii. 292 
Valencia, Council of, in 1255, i. 379 ; in 

1565, orders use of confessional box 

in confessions, ii. 255 
Valens, persecution by, i. 108, note 
Valentinian (Emperor; punishes immoral 

ecclesiastics, i. 60 
Valentinus originates mystic libertinism 

of Gnostics, i. 20 
Valesians, sect of, i. 29 
Vallis Dei, rigid asceticism of a monk of, 

i. 448 
Vallombrosa, monks of, i. 213 
Vanaprasthas, class of, invented by 

Brahminism, i. 7 
Varahran I. persecutes Manicheeism, i. 

Vargas, reports apprehensions to Philip 

II., ii. 200, 202,note ; Philip's rigorous 

policy executed by means of, ii. 214 
Vatican, number of women in, ii. 344 ; 

resolved to rule or to ruin, ii. 329 ; 

Council in 1870, ii. 328 ; dogma of 

papal infallibility at Council of, ii. 328 


Vedas, doctrine of the, respecting Tapas, 
i. 7 

Veil, taking of the, a marriage with 
Christ, i. 114 

Velda, Dr. Augustin, of La Sallana, 
accused of solicitation, ii. 282, note 

Venality of officials, i. 337, 346, 357, 384, 
397, 406, 411, 421, 429, ii. 12, 19, 61 

Venantius of Syracuse, i. 127, note 

Venezuela, suppression of monasteries 
in, ii. 339 

Venice, relaxation of canons in, i. 241 ; 
number of priests in, ii. 306 

Ventimiglia, nuncio, negotiates with 
Maximilian II., ii. 212 

Vercelli, troubles of married priests in, 
i. 174 

Verdun, reform of monks in, i, 318 ; 
Bishop of, at Council of Trent, ii. 204 

Veringen, case of Count and Countess 
of, i. 280-1 

Verneuil, synod of, in 755, i. 151 

Vernon, Council of, in 845, i. 158 

Verona, reforming Bishop of, ii. 254 

Verses, satirical, on clergy, i. 351-2 

Vertfeuil, extent of heresy in, i. 464 

Vestal virgins, i. 43 

Victor II., attempts to reform, i. 224 ; 
enforces celibacy in France, i. 306 

Victor III. on Italian Church, i. 210 

Vienna, Council of, in 1267, i. 300 

Vienne, Council of, in 1060, i. 232 ; in 
13 12, i. 470 ; Charles de Marillac of, 
on ecclesiastical discipline, ii. 238 

Vigilantius, slave of St. Sulpicius Severus, 
i. 70 ; sent to St. Paulinus and St. 
Jerome, i. 71 ; leaves St. Jerome and 
denounces celibacy, i. 71 ; spread of 
doctrines of, i. 72 ; abandoned by St. 
Sulpicius and St. Exuperius, i. 73 

Vihara, Buddhist monastery, i. 101 

Villiers, Abbe, defends celibacy, ii. 299 

Villiers de Tlsle, Adam, i. 457 

Virginity, extravagantly praised by 
orthodox fathers, i. 36 ; compared with 
marriage, i. 37, 38 ; laudation of, by 
St. John Chrysostom, i. 90 ; exhorta- 
tions on, i. 105, note-; Bede and Aid- 
helm uphold, i. 187 ; praised by 
Damiani, i. 240 ; homily of thirteenth 
century on, i. 431 ; extolled by Laur- 
entius Gallus, i. 434, note ; Luther 
writes on, ii. 40 ; Dr. Sandys of Wor- 
cester on, ii. 148 ; Panzini praises, 
though opposes enforced celibacy, ii. 

Virgins, priests to marry no women but, 
i. 27 ; some reformers regard as only 
wives for priests, ii. 53 

Visconti, nuncio, correspondence on 
Trent Council, ii. 203 

Visitation, of monasteries by Archbishop 
Morton, ii. 16 ; of religious houses in 
Tuscany, ii. 303 




Vitalis of Mortain preaches reform, i. 

Vitry, Jacques de, case of, ii. 14-15 

Vitus, St., monks of, thought themselves 
free to marry, i. 127 

Vladislas II., Diet held by, ii. 19 ; on 
clerical immorality, ii. 19 

Vows of chastity, when introduced, were 
voluntary, i. 30 ; barely tolerated in 
early Church, i. 40 ; at first temporary 
in character, i. 1, 105; gradually re- 
garded as permanent, i. 115 ; treated 
by Gregory the Great as irrevocable, 
i. 127 ; ordered for sub-deacons, i. 
138 ; infanticide one result of, i. 156 ; 
more potent than sacrament of mar- 
riage, i. 386, 396 ; of military orders, 
i. 451 ; Luther on, "De Votis Monasti- 
cus," ii, 44; minimum age for taking, ii. 
302 ; declared void in France in 1790, 
ii. 307 : release from impossible under 
civil marriage law, ii. 334 

Vrie, Theodoric, denounces Teutonic 
clergy, ii. 3 

Wahu, Dr., tabulated list by, of clerical 

prosecutions, ii. 360 ; on prosecution 

of teachers, in monastic schools, ii. 

Wake, Archbishop, correspondence of, 

with Dupin, ii, 298, note 
Waldemar I. of Denmark, i. 301 
Waldemar II. on concubines, i. 231, 

Walden, marriage of abbot of, ii. 105 
Waldenses, i. 460 
Waldeck, Count of, treatment of, by 

Church, ii. 64 
Wales, celibacy in early Church of, i. 188; 

state of Church in ninth century, i. 

198-9 ; priestly marriage in thirteenth 

century, i. 347 ; persistence of priestly 

marriage in, i. 369 
Walter of Orleans on residence of female 

relations with priests, i. 157, note 
Warham, Archbishop, visitation of, ii. 

Warsaw, synod of, ii. 209, note 
Wartburg, Luther's enforced seclusion 

in, ii. 42 
Watten, priory of, i. 313 
Wedlock {see Marriage) 
Weiss Berg, battle of, in 1620, i. 481 
Wenceslas (King) of Bohemia, reforms 

by, i. 479 
Wendt, the Rev., heavy sentence for im- 
morality, ii. 360, note 
Wergild for son of a bishop, i. 186 ; for 

priest in Saxon England, i. 201, note ; 
for priest in Northern Germany, i. 
West, first General Council of the, in 
1 123, i. 385 

Western monachism, i. 121, 124 
Westminster, Council of, in 11 27, i. 340: 

in 1 1 38, i. 341 
Westmoreland, Earl of, insurrection of, 

in 1569, ii. 148 
Weston, Dr., tells a married priest Queen 
Mary is not to be " censed " by him, ii. 
Wetzer und Welte, ii. 336, note 
Wexford, immoral priests of, i. 364-5 
Whitby, synod of, in 664, i. 1 85, note 
Wiburn, Percival, on wives of clergy, ii. 

Wicelius (George Witzel) embraces Lu- 

theranism, ii. 210 
Wickliffe, on sacraments of sinful priests, 
i. 230, note, 460 ; reforming zeal of, i. 
473 ; views on celibacy a disputed 
point, i. 474 
Widows, priests forbidden to marry, i. 27; 
order of, in primitive Church, i. 103 ; 
compared with virgins, i. 37 ; vows of 
chastity taken for shameful reasons by, 
i. 142-3 
Wied, Hermann von, attempts at reform 
by, ii. 176-7 ; embraces Lutheranism, 
ii. 177, note 
Wilfreda, St., i. 193 
Wilhelm, Archduke of Austria, i, 458 
William of Bavaria on Church corrup- 
tions, ii., 190 
William of Canterbury, letter from St. 

Anselm, i. 332 
William of Cantilupe enforces celibacy, 

i. 351 
William of Cologne forbids marriage of 

monks, i. 422, note 
William of Hilderness, i. 470 
William of Malmesbury on the Anglo- 
Saxon Church, i. 205, note 
William of Newburgh on Eon de I'Etoile, 

i. A6Q,note 
William of Orange on Council of Trent, 

ii. 231, note 
William of Paderborn fails to reform, i. 

William of St. Sabina, legate to Spain, i. 

William of Strassburg excommunicates 

married priests, ii. 48 
William the Conqueror, enforces celibacy 
in Normandy, i. 308 ; permits marriage 
in Brittany, i. 311 ; neglects reform in 
England, i. 328 
William the Lion, on concubines, i. 
231, note ; persecutes the clergy, i. 
Willibrod, St., asceticism and'holy life of, 

i. 142 
Winchester, reform of monastery at, i. 
195 ; Council of, ini 1070, i. 329 ; in 
1076, i. 330 
Windsor, synod of, in 1070, i. 329 



Wine of eucharist, in early Church, i. 35 ; 
abstinence from, not recommended, i. 

"Wine and women," Father Miiller on, 
ii. Si\,note 

Wishart, George, tried for heresy, ii. 

Wisigoths, laws of, on Church property, 
i. 137 

Wisigoths of Spain, immorality of 
Church of, i. 135 

Witgar of Mendlesham, i. 343 

Witnesses, ordeal for, i. 159-60 ; married 
priests not admitted as, i. 359 

Wittenberg, Luther nails his ninety-five 
propositions to church door, ii. 39 ; 
burns books of canon law at, ii. 
41 ; monastery doors thrown open 
at, ii. 44 

Witzel, George, twice changes religion, 
ii. 210 

Wives of clerics, adulterous, to be put