mater perdat ecclesia: super quæ sidera inimicus superbus ponat thronum
suum; quot petras excavet et habitet coluber in foraminibus earum.
Videas plerasque viduas antequam nuptas, infelicem conscientiam mutata
tantum veste protegere. Quas nisi tumor uteri, et infantum prodiderit
vagitus, sanctas et castas se esse gloriantur, et erecta cervice et
ludentibus pedibus incedunt. Aliæ vero sterilitatem præbibunt, et
necdum sati hominis homicidium faciunt. Nonnullæ cum se senserint
concepisse de scelere, abortii venena meditantur, et frequenter etiam
ipsæ commortuæ, trium criminum reæ, ad inferos producuntur, homicidæ
suæ, Christi adulteræ, necdum nati filii parricidæ—Hieron. Epist. XXII.
ad Eustoch. c. 5.
[200] Concil. Carthag. I. c. 3.—Concil. Cæsaraugust. I. c. 8.
[201] Lib. IX. Cod. Theod. Tit. XXV. l. 2.
[202] Concil. Valent. I. ann. 374 can. ii.
[203] Postea vero in abruptum conscientiæ desperatione producti, de
illicitis complexibus libere filios procreaverint, quod et publicæ
leges et ecclesiastica jura condemnant.—Siricii Epist. I. c. 6.
[204] Regul. S. Pachom. c. 26, 79, 95.—The Rule which passes under
the name of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, I believe is universally
acknowledged to be spurious and therefore requires no special reference.
[205] Ibid. c. 29. This is in particularly striking contrast with
mediæval monachism, which, as we shall see hereafter, considered the
sacred precincts polluted by the foot of woman.
[206] Cassian. de Cænob. Instit. Lib. IV. c. 3, 4, 6, 6, 13.—Cassianus
declares chastity to be the virtue by which men are rendered most like
angels.
[207] De Monach. Decret. can. x. (Harduin. Concil. I. 498.)
[208] Nusquam missos, nusquam fixos, nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes.
Alii membra martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant; alii fimbrias
et phylacteria sua magnificant ... et omnes petunt, omnes exigunt,
aut sumptus lucrosæ egestatis, aut simulatæ pretium sanctitatis
etc.—Augustin. de Opere Monachor. cap. 28.
[209] Cassian. Lib. V. c. 27, 28. The extravagant lengths to which this
implicit subjection was habitually carried are further illustrated by
Cassianus in Lib. IV. c. 10.
The same spirit is shown in the story told of St. Francis of Assisi,
who took with him into the garden two novices to assist him in planting
cabbages. He commenced by setting out the vegetables with their heads
in the earth and their roots in the air. One of the novices ventured
to remonstrate—“Father, that is not the way to make cabbages grow”—“My
son,” interrupted the Saint, “you are not fitted for our order,”—and he
dismissed the incautious youth on the spot.
[210] Synod. Roman, ann. 384 c. 1, 2.
[211] Siricii Epist. 1, c. 6.—A rather curious episode in monastic
discipline is a law promulgated in 390 by Theodosius the Great
prohibiting nuns from shaving their heads under severe penalties.
“Feminæ quæ crinem suum contra divinas humanasque leges instinctu
persuasæ professionis absciderint ab ecclesiæ foribus arceantur,”
and any bishop permitting them to enter a church is threatened with
deposition—Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 27.
[212] De Bono Viduit. c. 10, 11.—It will be seen hereafter that in
the twelfth century the church adopted as a rule of discipline the
practices condemned by St. Augustin, and that in the sixteenth century
the council of Trent elevated it into a point of faith.
[213] Innocent. Epist. ad Victricium. c. 12, 13.—The difficulty of the
questions which arose in establishing the monastic system is shown in
an epistle of Leo I. to the Mauritanian Bishops concerning some virgins
professed who had suffered violence from the Barbarians. He decides
that they had committed no sin, and could be admitted to communion if
they persevered in a life of chastity and religious observance, but
that they could not continue to be numbered with the holy maidens,
while yet they were not to be degraded to the order of widows; and
he further requires that they shall exhibit their sense of shame and
humiliation. The problem evidently was one which transcended the
acuteness even of Leo to solve—Leonis I. Epist. Episcop. per Cæsarien.
Mauritan. cap. ii. V. (Harduin. I. 1775-6).
[214] Concil. Toletan. I. c. 16.
[215] Leo. Epist. ad Rusticum c. 12, 13, 14. So the second council of
Arles, in 441 (can. 52), excommunicates the nun who marries until due
penance shall have been performed, but does not indicate separation.
[216] Novell. Majorian. Tit. VI. This law continued in force for but
five years, being abrogated in 463 by Severus.—Novell. Severi. Tit. I.
[217] For the ascetic extravagances which accompanied the development
of monachism the reader is referred to the vigorous summary by Mr.
Lecky in his History of European Morals.
[218] Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VII. c. 13, 14, 15.—Even before this,
in the province of Africa, the political utility of such enthusiastic
disciples had been recognized and acted on. At the council of Carthage,
in 411, where the Donatists were condemned, the Imperial Commissioner,
in pronouncing sentence, warned the Donatist bishops that they must
restrain the turbulent monks within their dioceses—“Ii autem qui in
præsidiis suis circumcellionum turbas se habere cognoscunt, sciant nisi
eorum insolentiam omnimodis comprimere et refrenare gestierint, maxime
ea loca fisco mox occupanda.”—Concil. Carthag. ana. 411 Cognit. III.
cap. ult. (Harduin. I. 1190.)
[219] Concil. Chalced. c. 4, 7, 16. The most important of these, the
fourth canon, was laid before the council by the Emperor in person.
[220] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. iii. 1.
[221] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. iii. 2.
[222] Const. 29 Cod. I. 3.
[223] Const. 53 § 1 Cod. I. 3.
[224] Novell. V. c. 4, 6.
[225] Novell. V. c. 8.
[226] Novell. CXXIII. c. 42.
[227] S. Theod. Studit. Testament. v. (Max. Bib. Pat. IX. I. 276).
[228] St. Benedict of Nursia, the real founder of Latin monachism,
who quitted the world in 494, thus describes the wandering monks of
his time: “Tertium vero monachorum teterrimum genus est Sarabaitarum
... qui bini aut terni, aut certe singuli sine pastore, non Dominicis
sed suis inclusi ovilibus, pro lege eis est desideriorum voluptas;
cum quidquid putaverint vel elegerint, hoc dicunt sanctum, et quod
noluerint putant non licere. Quartum vero genus est monachorum quod
nominatur gyrovagum, qui tota vita sua per diversas provincias ternis
aut quaternis diebus per diversorum cellas hospitantur, semper vagi
et nunquam stabiles, et propriis voluptatibus et gulæ illecebris
servientes, et per omnia deteriores Sarabaitis: de quorum omnium
miserrima conversatione melius est silere quam loqui.”—Regul. S.
Benedicti c. 1.
[229] Cassiani de Cœnob. Instit. Lib. II. c. 8; Lib. V. c. 1, 15.
[230] Gelasii PP. I. Epist. IX. cap. xx., xxi.
[231] Symmachi PP. Epist. vi.
[232] Greg. Mag. Vit. S. Benedicti c. 2.—Juan Cirita, a Spanish
saint of the twelfth century, was exposed to the same temptation as
St. Benedict, the devil visiting him in the shape of a lovely woman
who sought refuge from her pursuers in his cell. During a sleepless
night, feeling his resolution giving way, he roused his fire and with a
glowing brand burned his arm to the bone, whereupon the devil vanished,
loading him with reproaches (Henriquez Vit. Joannis Cirita cap. ii.).
Legends of this nature are not uncommon, nor are there wanting those
of another class in which the immediate and visible agency of the Evil
Spirit is not called into play. Thus the holy Godric, a Welsh saint
of the twelfth century, endeavored to subdue his rebellious flesh in
the manner which St. Benedict found so effectual, but without success.
He then buried a cask in the earthen floor of his cell, filled it
with water and fitted it with a cover, and in this receptacle he shut
himself up whenever he felt the titillations of desire. In this manner,
varied by occasionally passing the night up to his chin in a river of
which he had broken the ice, he finally succeeded in mastering his
fiery nature.—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. c. x.
[233] Regul. S. Benedicti c. 28, 29, 58.
[234] Tetrad. Regul. c. 1.
[235] Capit. Car. Mag. I. ann. 811 cap. xi. He also asks whether there
were any monks in Gaul before the rule of St. Benedict was brought
there, and is naturally not a little puzzled when told that St. Martin
of Tours was a monk long anterior to the time of Benedict.—Capit. II.
ann. 811 cap. xii. (Baluz. I. 331-2, Ed. Venet.).
[236]
Quinquaginta quinque millia quingenta quinque
Omnes canonizati a te sunt translati.
Est monachus sanctus. Caput vero Benedictus.—
(Birck de Monast. Campidonens. c. 25.)
Bishop Trithemius is more moderate, his estimate amounting to only
15,559. (Miræi Orig. Benedict.)
[237] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. I. Epist. 42. Six years later he had to
repeat his commands in stronger terms. (Cf. Lib. VII. Epist. 35. Lib.
II. Epist. 28. Lib. IV. Epist. 27. Lib. X. Epist. 8.) Yet when the
offender was a man of rank and power, as in the case of Venantius,
Patrician of Syracuse, Gregory could lay aside the tone of lofty
command and condescend to tender entreaty and earnest exhortation (Lib.
I. Epist. 34), without even a threat of excommunication, and remain
for years on the friendliest terms with him (Lib. XI. Epistt. 30, 35,
36), showing that the rule was as yet by no means firmly established.
In another case, however, nothing can be more indignant and peremptory
than his commands (Lib. VIII. Epistt. 8, 9).
[238] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. IV. Epist. 42.
[239] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. X. Epistt. 22, 23.—He states “ut etiam
monachis ibidem degentibus mulieribus se jungere sine metu sit licitum”
which he characterizes as “res ... omnino detestabilis et nefanda.”
[240] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. XI. Epist. 50.
[241] Concil. Parisiens. V. ann. 615 c. xiii.—In the decree of Clotair
II., confirming the acts of this council, we find—“Puellas et viduas
religiosas, aut sanctimoniales, quæ se Deo voverunt, tam quæ in
propriis domibus resident, quam quæ in monasteriis positæ sunt, nullus
nec per præceptum nostrum competat, nec trahere nec sibi in conjugio
sociare penitus præsumat etc.”—Edict. Chlot. II. ann. 615 c. xviii.
(Baluze).
[242] S. Fructuosi Bracarens. Regul. Commun. cap. 1.
[243] De Ecclesiast. Offic. Lib. II. cap. xvi. § 7.
[244] Solutos atque oberrantes, sola turpis vita complectitur et
vaga, ... quique dum, nullum metuentes, explendæ voluptatis suæ
licentiam consectantur, quasi animalia bruta, libertate ac desiderio
suo feruntur, habentes signum religionis, non religionis officium,
hippocentauris similes, neque equi neque homines, ... quorum quidem
sordida atque infami numerositate satis superque nostra pars occidua
pollet.—Ibid. Lib. II. c. iii.
[245] Ludov. Pii de Reform. Eccles. cap. 100. (Goldast. Const. Imp.
III. 199.)
[246] Smaragd. Comment. in Regul. Benedict. c. 1.
[247] De Mor. German. c. 18, 19. It is a little singular that Salvianus
names the Alamanni as the only exception to the character for chastity
which he bestows on the Barbarians in general.
[248] From such chance allusions as are made by Gregory of Tours,
this would almost seem to be the general rule, and not the exception.
Thus he mentions that Apollinaris obtained the see of Rhodez at the
solicitation of his wife and sister (Hist. Franc. Lib. III. c. 2), and
shortly afterwards the same episcopate is filled by the appointment of
“Innocentius Gabalitanorum comes” (Ibid. Lib. VI. c. 38). Sulpitius,
when nominated to that of Bourges, “ad clericatum deductus, episcopatum
... suscepit” (Ibid. Lib. VI. c. 39). Badegisilus, Clotair’s mayor of
the palace, received the bishopric of Le Mans “qui tonsuratus, gradus
quos clerici sortiuntur ascensus,” was duly installed (Ibid. Lib.
VI. c. 9). Indeed, in his catalogue of the Bishops of Tours, Gregory
specifies of Euphronius, the eighteenth bishop, that he was “ab ineunte
ætate clericus,” showing how unusual it was to be regularly bred to the
church.
[249] Hincmari Vit. S. Remigii c. 42, 43.
[250] Greg. Turon. de Glor. Confess. c. 78.
[251] Concil. Matiscon. I. c. 3.
[252] Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. IV. c. 4. At this period the
church of Britanny was rather British than Frankish. See Haddan &
Stubbs, II. 72 sqq.
[253] Concil. Turon. II. c. 19, 20.—A remark of Gregory of Tours (Hist.
Franc. Lib. VIII. cap 19) has been assumed to indicate that priests
could legitimately have commerce with their wives. By comparing it with
the canons cited above, however, it evidently can at the most have
reference to the lower orders of the clergy.
[254] Concil. Toletan. III. c. 5.
[255] L. Wisigoth. Lib. III. Tit. iv. l. 18. This law is preserved in
the Fuero Juzgo, or mediæval Romance version of the code (Lib. III.
Tit. iv. ley 18).
[256] L. Wisigoth. Lib. III. Tit. v. l. 2.
[257] Concil. Toletan VIII. ann. 653 can iv. v. vi.—These measures were
as fruitless as the preceding. Cf. Concil. Toletan. IX. ann. 655 can. x.
[258] Rex Witiza se effrenate præcipitans per omne genus flagitii,
legem nequissimam tulit; ut more sara(ce)norum cuilibet laico et
clerico liceret, quotquot posset alere, uxores et concubinas impune
domi suæ retinere.—Liutprandi Chron. No. 174 ann. 706.
[259] Liutprandi Chron. No. 181 ann. 709; No. 188 ann. 711. Without
entering into the question of the correctness with which this chronicle
has been attributed to Liutprand of Cremona, I may say that it has
every appearance of being an authentic remnant of antiquity (Cf.
Antonii Biblioth. Hispan. I. 585).
[260] Concil. Roman, sub Silvest. can. xix. (Migne’s Patrol. VIII. 840).
[261] Pelagii PP. II. Epist. xiv.
[262] Superstes uxor aut filii, per quos ecclesiastica solet
periclitari substantia.—Pelagii PP. I. Cethego Patricio.
[263] L. Wisigoth. Lib. v. Tit. i. l. 2.
[264] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. XIII. Epist. 6.—This rule had come to be very
generally neglected. The importance attached to it, however, by strict
disciplinarians is well illustrated in the firmness displayed by John,
Patriarch of Alexandria, a contemporary of Gregory, whose bountiful
charity had earned for him the title of Eleemosynarius. In a time of
extreme famine, a wealthy aspirant offered him 200,000 bushels of
corn and 100 pounds of gold for the grade of deacon. He had unluckily
been twice married, and John refused the dazzling bribe, although the
episcopal treasury had been exhausted in relieving the necessities of
the suffering people (Thomassin, Discip. de l’Église, Pt. II. Liv. 3,
c. 15.)
[265] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. XIII. Epistt. 35, 36.
[266] Ibid. Lib. IV. Epist. 26; Lib. V. Epist. 3; Lib. VIII. Epist.
24.—Similar attempts had previously been made by sundry provincial
councils. In the case of Andrew, Bishop of Tarentum, who was accused of
maintaining relations with a former concubine, Gregory recognizing the
impossibility of obtaining proof, leaves it to his own conscience. If
he has had any commerce with her since his ordination, he is commanded
at once to resign his position as the only mode of insuring his
salvation (Ibid. Lib. III. Epistt. 45, 46).
[267] Ibid. Lib. I. Epist. 44; Lib. IV. Epistt. 5, 36.
[268] Ibid. Lib. XI. Epist. 69.
[269] Ibid. Lib. IX. Epist. 106.
[270] Udalric. Bamberg. Cod. Lib. II. Epist. 10.
[271] Gregor. PP. I. Lib. I. Epist. 52; Lib. IX. Epist. 60.
[272] Gregor. PP. I. Dial. Lib. IV. cap. xi.
[273] In 649 we find Amandus, Bishop of Maestricht, resigning his
office on account of the impossibility of enforcing the canons among
his priests and deacons. Martin I. endeavored to dissuade him from his
purpose, and urged his proceeding with the utmost rigor against all
transgressors (Hartzheim Concil. German. I. 28).
[274] Concil. Roman. ann. 721.
[275] Chron. Gradensis Supplement.
[276] Capitul. Arechis Benevent. cap. XII. (Canciani I. 262).
[277] Muratori Antiq. Med. Ævi Dissert. LXXIV.
[278] Gregor. PP. II. Epist. 14 cap. 12.
[279] Modo autem maxima ex parte episcopales sedes traditæ sunt laicis
cupidis ad possidendum, vel adulteratis clericis, scortatoribus et
publicanis sæculariter ad perfruendum.... Si invenero inter illos
diaconos quos nominant, qui a pueritia sua semper in stupris, semper
in adulteriis et in omnibus semper spurcitiis vitam ducentes, sub tali
testimonio venerunt ad diaconatum, et modo in diaconatu concubinas
quatuor vel quinque vel plures noctu in lecto habentes, evangelium
tamen legere et diaconos se nominare non erubescunt, nec metuunt: et
sic in talibus incestis ad ordinem presbyteratus venientes, in iisdem
peccatis perdurantes, et peccata peccatis adjicientes, presbyteratus
officio fungentes, dicunt se pro populo posse intercedere, et sacras
oblationes offerre. Novissime, quod pejus est, sub talibus testimoniis
per gradus singulos ascendentes, ordinantur et nominantur episcopi.
Si usquam tales invenero inter illos, rogo ut habeam præceptum et
conscriptum auctoritatis vestræ, quid de talibus diffiniatis, ut per
responsum Apostolicum convincantur et arguantur peccatores.—Bonifacii
Epist. 132.
[280] Milo quidam, tonsura clericus, moribus, habitu, et actu
irreligiosus laicus, episcopia Remorum ac Trevirorum usurpans insimul,
per multos annos pessumdederit.—Hincmar. Epist. xxx. c. 20.—Sola
tonsura clerico, qui secum processerat ad bellum.—Flodoard. Hist.
Remens. Lib. II. c. 12.—Nihilque in eo de clericali honore vel vita
nisi sola tonsura enituit.—Hist. Trevirens. (D’Achery Spicileg. II.
212).
[281] Hist. Trevirens. (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 212).
[282] Bonifacii Epist. 142.
[283] Hist. Trevirens. loc. cit.
[284] Bonifacii loc. cit.
[285] Othlon. Vit. S. Bonifac. Lib. I. c. 44.
[286] Bonifacii Epist. 85.
[287] Flodoard. Hist. Remens. Lib. II. cap. 12.—Capit. Caroli Calvi
Tit. XXVII. cap. 7 (Baluze).
[288] Et tam laicorum injusta concubinarum copula partim exhortante
sancto viro separata est, quam etiam clericorum nefanda cum uxoribus
conjunctio sejuncta ac separata.—Willibald. Vit. S. Bonifac. c. 9.
[289] Capit. Caroloman. ann. 742 c. 1, 3, 6.
[290] Bonifacii Epist. 137.
[291] Ibid. Epist. 132, 142.
[292] Capit. Caroloman. ann. 743 c. 1.
[293] Zachar. PP. Epist. 8, c. 11, 18.
[294] Pippini Capit. ann. 744 c. 4, 8, 9.
[295] Bonifac. Epistt. 135, 139 (Zachar. PP. Epist. 9).
[296] Othlon. Vit. S. Bonif. Lib. II. c. 11.
[297] Bonifacii Epist. 135.—S. Ludgeri Vit. S. Bonifacii.
[298] Bonifacii Epist. 140.
[299] Capit. Pippini ann. 755.
[300] Regul. S. Chrodegangi cap. 29, 56, 68, 70.
[301] Cod. Carolini Epist. lxiv. (Patrolog. T. 98 p. 319). Yet even in
772 we find that a council in Bavaria found it necessary to prohibit
the marriage of nuns.—Concil. Dingolving. can. 2 (Hartzheim Concil.
German. I. 129).
[302] Capit. Car. Mag. II. ann. 811 cap. iv. (Baluz. I. 329—Ed. Venet.).
[303] Ghaerbaldi Judicia Sacerdotalia de Criminibus c. 13 (Martene
Ampl. Coll. VII. 31).
[304] Ludov. Pii. Capit. Ingelenheim. c. 5.
[305] Capit. Aquisgran. ann. 817. Cf. Miræi Cod. Donat. Piar. c.
13.—This Capitulary regulating monastic life was generally adopted as
a supplement to the rule of Benedict (Leo. Ostiens. Chron. Cassinens.
Lib. I. c. 16).
[306] See ante, p. 123. Cf. Pseudo-Hormisdæ Epist. Encyc. (Migne’s
Patrol. T. LXIII. p. 527).
[307] Quid enim est gravius carnale delictum admittere _sine quo in
multis pauci inveniuntur_, an Dei filium timendo negare? in quo uno
ipsum beatum Petrum apostolorum principem, ad cujus nunc corpus indigni
sedemus, lapsum esse cognoscimus, sed post negationem pœnitentia
secuta, et post pœnitentiam misericordia data.—Pseudo-Gregor. Epist. ad
Secundinum.
Isidor Mercator also includes two canons from the sixth century forgery
of the Roman Council said to have been held under Silvester I. (see p.
122). Of these, one prohibits bishops from celebrating the marriage
of nuns under seventy years of age; the other forbids priests from
marrying, under a penalty of ten year’s suspension, with a threat of
perpetual deprivation for contumacy. (Constit. Pseudo-Silvestri cap. x.
xix.) The adoption of these in the False Decretals would seem at least
to be superfluous.
[308] Capit. Carol. Mag. I. ann. 802 c. 17.
[309] Concil. Aquisgran. ann. 836, de vit. et doc. infer. ordin. can.
xii., xiv.—De monasteriis puellarum quæ in quibusdam locis lupanaria
potius videntur esse quam monasteria.
[310] Capitul. add. IV. cap. clx. (Baluze, I. 1227).
[311] Bonifacii Epist. 19.
[312] Capit. Aquisgran. ann. 817, c. xi.—Chavard, Célibat des Prêtres,
Genève, 1874, p. 35.
[313] Quia, instigante diabolo, etiam in illis scelus frequenter
perpetratum invenitur, aut etiam in pedissequis earum. Nec igitur
matrem, neque amitam, neque sororem permittimus ultra habitare in domo
una cum sacerdote.—Theodulf. Aurelian. Capit. Secund. (Baluz. et Mansi
II. 99.)
He had previously (Epist. c. 12) promulgated the prohibition, assigning
for it the more decent reason, in imitation of St. Augustin, of the
danger arising from female attendants. In this he was imitated, about
850, by Rodolf of Bourges (Capit. Rodulf. Bituricens. c. 16), and about
871 by Walter of Orleans (Capit. Walteri Aurelian. c. 3).
In 889, however, Riculfus of Soissons declares the lamentable truth
without reserve: “Nos vero etiam a matribus, amitis, sororibus vel
propinquis cavendum dicimus, ne forte illud eveniat quod in sancta
scriptura legitur de Thamar sorore Absalon ... de Loth etiam ...
Quod si aliquis vestrum matrem, sororem vel amitam ad convescendum
vocaverit, expleto convivio ad domos suas vel ad hospitia a domo
presbyteri remota, cum luce diei eas faciat remeare; periculosum quippe
est ut vobiscum habitent.”—Riculfi Suess. Const. c. 14.
[314] Thus the council of Mainz in 888—“Quod multum dolendum est,
sæpe audivimus per illam concessionem plurima scelera esse commissa,
ita ut quidam sacerdotum, cum propriis sororibus concumbentes,
filios ex eis generassent, et idcirco constituit hæc sancta synodus,
ut nullus presbyter ullam feminam secum in domo propria permittat
quatenus occasio malæ suspicionis vel facti iniqui penitus auferatur”
(Concil. Mogunt. ann. 888 c. 10). In the same year the third canon
of the council of Metz repeats the prohibition; while in 895 the
council of Nantes declares—“Sed neque illas quas canones concedunt;
quia instigante diabolo, etiam in illis scelus frequenter perpetratum
reperitur, aut etiam in pedissequis illarum, scilicet matrem, amitam,
sororem.”—Concil. Namnetens. ann. 895 c. 3.
It is true that some authorities, including the great name of Pagi,
attribute to this council of Nantes the date of 660, but this is
unimportant as regards the canon in question, for its necessity during
the period under consideration is shown by its insertion in the
Capitularies of Benedict the Levite (Lib. VII. c. 376), and in the
collection of Regino of Pruhm (Lib. I. c. 104).
[315] Capit. Carol. Calvi Tit. III. cap. 4, 5.
[316] Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 151.
[317] Hincmari Epist. XXXII. c. 20.
[318] Hincmari Capit. Presbyteris data. cap. XXI.-XXV.
Hincmar repeats his instructions, with some amplifications, in another
document, in which he declares them to be the received traditional
rules—“a majoribus nostris accepimus” (De Presbyt. criminos. c.
XI.-XVIII.). That they were generally practised is shown in their
almost literal repetition by the council of Trosley in 909—with the
exception that in some cases fourteen or twenty-one witnesses were
required for conviction (Concil. Troslei. c. ix.).
[319] Martene Ampl. Collect. I. 151.
[320] Capit. Synod. Remens. ann. 874 c. 3.
[321] Nicholai I. Respons. ad Consult. Bulgar. c. 70.
[322] Efficitur ad hæc uxorius, liberos procreans, et ad
suæ damnationis cumulum nil sibi clericale præter tonsuram
præferens.—Folcuin. de Gest. Abbat. Laubiens. c. 12.
[323] Mantion. Episc. Catalaun. Epist. ad Fulc. Remens. (Migne’s
Patrol. T. 131, p. 23.)
[324] Liutprand. Antapod. Lib. III. c. 43.
[325] Liutprand. Hist. Otton. c. 4, 10.—Chron. Benedict. S. Andreæ
Monach. c. 35.
[326] Concil. Turon. ann. 925. (Martene Thesaur. IV. 73.)
[327] Ratherii de nuptu cujusdam illicito c. 4.