promised “obedientiam, castitatem, vivere sine proprio, et succurrere
terræ sanctæ pro posse suo.” It was, moreover, enjoined upon them not
to enter a house in which a woman lay in child-bed, not to be present
at the celebration of weddings or the purification of women, nor to
receive any service from a woman, even water for washing the hands.—See
the proceedings against them in 1309, in Wilkins, II. 331 et seq.
[897] Rymer, Fœdera, I. 55.
[898] Wilkins II. 331-2.—Raynouard, Condamnation des Templiers, p. 83.
[899] Alexandri III. Epist. Append. III. No. 20 (Harduin. VI. P. II. p.
1557).
[900] Raynald. Annal. ann. 1210 No. 6, 7; ann. 1223 No. 54; ann. 1496
No. 33.
[901] Concil Vallis-oletan. ann. 1322 can vi. (Aguirre V. 243).
[902] Concil. Dertusan. ann. 1429 can. iii. (Harduin. VIII. 1076).
[903] Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1441 No. 20.—The Order of Calatrava was
under the strictest of the rules, the Cistercian. (Giustiniani, Ordini
Militari s. v.)
[904] Reg. Ord. Mil. Avisii a B. Joanne Cirita edita (Migne’s
Patrologia, T. 188, p. 1669).
[905] Alexander’s Bull declares that “Milites dictarum militiarum
pro majori parte, continentiæ et castitatis voto, qui in eorum
professione emittunt, contempto, concubinas etiam plures, et in eorum
ac præceptoriarum et prioratum dictarum militarum propriis domibus
et locis, non sine magno religionis opprobrio, publice tenere et
eis cohabitare, et etiam adulteria cum aliis mulieribus conjugatis
committere non verentur: ex quo ab eorundem regnorum incolis et
habitatoribus maximo odio habentur, dissensiones et inimicitiæ
oriuntur, diversa scandala quotidie concitantur etc.”—Raynaldi Annal.
ann. 1496 No. 33.
[906] Osorii de Reb. Emmanuelis R. Lusitan. Lib. I. (Edit. Colon. 1574,
p. 12_a_.)
[907] Patrologia, T. 188, p. 1674.
[908] Statut. Ord. S. Johan. Hierosol. Tit. XVIII. § 50.
[909] Ibid. Tit. XVIII. § 51.
[910] See the supplication of Rodolph of Hapsburg to the Pope for
assistance to the order.—Cod. Epist. Rodolphi I. No. xcix. (Lipsiæ,
1806).
[911] Anon. Cartus. de Relig. Orig. cap. XXVIII. (Martene Ampliss.
Coll. VII. 62).
[912] Communis opinio Catharorum est quod matrimonium carnale fuit
semper mortale peccatum, et quod non punietur quis gravius in futuro
propter adulterium vel incestum quam propter legitimum conjugium, nec
etiam inter eos propter hoc aliquis gravius puniretur.—Summa F. Renieri
(Martene Thesaur. V. 1761).
This Regnier describes himself as a heresiarch previous to his
conversion, and his summary of the creed of his former associates may
be regarded as correct in the main, though perhaps somewhat heightened
in repulsiveness. For further details see _ante_, p. 208.
[913] Bernardi Serm. lxvi. in Cantica §§ 9, 11.
[914] Bernardi Serm. lxv. in Cantica, §§ 4, 5.—“Cum femina semper esse
et non cognoscere feminam, nonne plus est quam mortuum suscitare?
Quod minus est non potes; et quod majus est vis credam tibi? Quotidie
latus tuum ad latus juvenculæ est in mensa; lectus tuus ad lectum
ejus in camera, oculi tui ad illius oculos in colloquio, manus tuæ ad
manus ipsius in opere: et continens vis putari? Esto ut sis; sed ego
suspicione non careo.”
The morality of the age had evidently not impressed the Saint with the
conviction of human power to resist temptation.
[915] Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii.
[916] Bishop Gerard, of Cambrai, confesses this in his refutation of
the Artesian Manichiæans in 1025—“De quibus nos responsuros quodam
discretionis gubernaculo nostri sermonis carinam subire oportet, ne
quasi inter duos scopulos naufragium incurrentes, occasionem demus in
alterutrum, scilicet aut omnes indiscrete a conjugiis exterrendo, aut
omnes indiscrete ad connubia commonendo.”—Concil. Atrebatens. ann. 1025
cap. x. (Hartzheim III. 89).
When St. Bernard, in his fiery denunciation of the Manichæan errors,
exclaimed, “non advertant qualiter omni immunditiæ laxat habenas qui
nuptias damnat” (In Cantica Serm. lxvi. § 3), he did not pause to
reflect how severe a sentence he was passing on the saints of the
fifth century who, as we have seen, would only admit marriage to be a
pardonable offence.
[917] Disputat. inter Cathol. et Paterin. c. ii. (Martene Thesaur. V.
1712-13).
It is somewhat singular that Manichæism should have been attributed
to a sect of heretics in Bosnia who styled themselves Christians, and
who were brought back to the fold in 1203 by a legate of Innocent III.
It would appear that, so far from entertaining Manichæan doctrines,
neglect of ecclesiastical celibacy was actually one of their erroneous
practices, for in their pledge of reformation they promise that
separation of man and wife shall thenceforth be enforced “neque de
cætero recipiemus aliquem vel aliquam conjugatum, nisi mutuo consensu,
continentia promissa, ambo pariter convertantur.”—Batthyani, II. 293.
[918] S. Petri Venerab. contra Petrobrusianos.—S. Bernardi Epist.
241.—Ejusd. Vit. Prim. Lib. VI. Part iii. c. 10.—Guill. de
Podio-Laurent. c. i.—Alberic. Trium-Font. Chron. ann. 1148.
[919] Hugon. Rothomag. contra Hæret. Lib. III. cap. vi. This is by no
means an unusual specimen of the inconsequential character of mediæval
polemics. Archbishop Hugh was a man of mark among his contemporaries,
both as a theologian and as a statesman. It was he who, in 1139, at the
council of Winchester, saved King Stephen from excommunication by the
English bishops. (Willelmi Malmesb. Hist. Novell. Lib. II. § 26.) For a
somewhat similar specimen of fanciful theology, the reader may consult
the exposition of the esoteric meaning of the plagues of Egypt by St.
Martin of Leon, a writer of the twelfth century.—S. Martin. Legionens.
Serm. xv.
[920] Epist. ad Lucium PP. Epist. 4. (Migne’s Patrologia, T. CLXXIX. p.
957.)—Cf. Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 177.
[921] Guillielm. de Newburgh, Lib. I. cap. 19.—Ottonis Frising. de
Gest. Frid. I. Lib. I. cap. liv., lv.—Sigeberti Chron. Continuat.
Gemblac. ann. 1146.—Ejusdem Continuat. Præmonstrat. ann. 1148.—Roberti
de Monte Chron. ann. 1148.—The detailed account given by William of
Newburgh he professes to have gathered from some of Éon’s followers
performing penitential pilgrimages after the death of the heresiarch.
[922] Conrad. Urspergens. ann. 1212.—“Hoc quoque probrosum in eis
videbatur, quod viri et mulieres simul ambulabant in via, et plerumque
simul manebant in una domo, ut de eis diceretur, quod quandoque simul
in lectulis accubabant.” The follies of the early Christians were
doubtless imitated by the new sectaries. As early as 1197 we find them
denounced as heretics, under the various names of Waldenses, Poor Men
of Lyons, and Sabatati, and condemned to the stake by the council of
Girona, in Aragon.—Aguirre V. 103.
[923] La Nobla Leyczon, 408-13.—There has been considerable discussion
as to the date of this work. It appears to me to bear the mark of more
than one period, or, at least, of successive recensions. Internal
evidence shows the beginning to have been written about the year 1100,
while the later portion, commencing about l. 345, seems to have been
composed subsequently to the persecutions of the early part of the 13th
century.
[924] Bernardi Fontis Calidi Lib. contra Waldenses.—Alani de Insulis
contra Hæret. Lib. II.
[925] La Nobla Leyczon, 242-3.
[926] Ibid., 88.
[927] Camerarii Hist. de Fratrum Orthodox. Ecclesiis pp. 104-7, 116-7.
[928] Pluquet, Dictionnaire des Hérésies, art. Vaudois.
[929] The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of another. The
views of St. Francis, when promulgated in the fifth century by the
Timotheists, were stigmatized as heretical.—V. Harduin. Concil. I. 525.
[930] Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1261 can. xlviii. (Hartzheim III. 612, 615).
The decline of the order from the asceticism of its founder afforded a
fair mark for satire—
Seyn that they folwen
Fully Fraunceyses rewle,
That in cotinge of his cope
Is more cloth y-folden
Than was in Fraunceis froc
When he hem first made.
And yet under that cope
A cote hathe he furred
With foyns or with fichewes
Other fyn bevere,
And that is cutted to the kne,
And queyntly y-botened,
Lest any spiritual man
Aspie that gyle.
Fraunceys bad his brethern
Bar-fot to wenden;
Now han they buckled shone,
For blenyng of her heles,
And hosen in hard weder
Y-hamled by the ancle,
And spicerie sprad in her purs
To parten where hem luste.
Creed of Piers Ploughman l. 579-600.
[931] Thus, a council held at Cologne in 1306, in denouncing the
mendicancy of the Begghards, quotes Gen. III. 18: “In sudore
vultus tui vesceris pane tuo,” and proceeds: “Quod ad fortes et
sui compotes moraliter intelligitur esse dictum: et tales in ocio
victum vendicantes, eleemosynas rapiunt, quæ infirmis et debilibus
fuerant pauperibus ministrandæ.” And in objecting to their views
of celibacy, “Ajunt etiam: Nisi mulier virginitatem in matrimonio
deperditam doleat et dolendo deploret, salvari non potest: quasi
matrimonium sit peccatum, cum tamen ipsum ante peccatum in loco sancto
a sanctorum sanctissimo fuerit institutum: quæ virginitas in fœtum
sobolis compensatur, per quam humana natura stabilitate perdurat,”
which contrasts strangely with the teachings quoted above from “Hali
Meidenhad.” Great stress, moreover, is laid upon the indissolubility
of the marriage vow and the wickedness of separating husband and
wife:—“Quomodo spiritu Dei agantur qui contra spiritum Dei agunt,
prohibentis virum ab uxore, et e converso sine causa dimitti?”—Concil.
Coloniens. ann. 1306 cap. i., ii. (Hartzheim IV. 100-101). The good
fathers of the council were discreetly blind to the antagonism of their
teachings to the received doctrines and practices of the church.
[932] A collection of documents illustrating the history of this
singular and powerful sect will be found in Baluze and Mansi III. 206
et seq.
How persistent and profound was the conviction which created the heresy
is shown by its prolonged existence. Even as late as 1421 Martin V.
found it necessary to issue a Bull denouncing it (Raynaldi Annal. ann.
1421 No. 4); and in Germany the council of Wurzburg in 1446 revived the
old denunciations against the Begghards and Beguines (Hartzheim V. 336).
[933] Their customary salutation and password was an invocation of
the fallen angel—“Salutet te injuriam passus.”—“May the wronged one
preserve thee!”—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1315.
[934] Trithem. loc. cit.—Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1318 No. 44.—Hartzheim
Concil. German. IV. 630.
[935] Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 55-56.
[936] Inter omnia monstra quæ unquam intraverunt ecclesiam, monstrum
horum fratrum est seductivius, infundabilius, et a veritate ac a
charitate distantius.—Univ. Oxon. Litt. de Error. Wicklif. Art. 103
(Wilkins III. 344).
[937] Trialogi Lib. IV. cap. 15.
[938] A Wickliffite tract (“De Officio Pastorali,” published by Prof.
Lechler, Leipzig, 1863) takes strong ground on this point. Speaking
of unchaste priests, it says (P. I. cap. viii. pp. 16-17), “Talis sic
notorie sustentans curatum dat imprudenter elemosinam contra Christum
... periculosum peccatum est crimini consentire; sed sic faciunt qui
taliter curato in temporalibus subministrant.” And again (P. I. cap.
xvii.), “Subditi enim non debent audire missam talium sacerdotum,
et per consequens non debent dare sibi oblaciones vel decimas, ne
videantur consencientes crimini sic notorio in curatis.”
[939] Si Deus est, domini temporales possunt legitime ac meritorie
auferre bona fortunæ ab ecclesia delinquente.—Conclus. Magist. Johan.
Wycliff. Art. vi. (Wilkins III. 123).
Licet regibus auferre temporalia a viris ecclesiasticis ipsis
abutentibus habitualiter. Ibid. Art. xvii.
So in the proceedings conducted by Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury,
against Wickliffe in 1382, among the articles presented as extracted
from his writings were—
Art. 4. Quod si episcopus vel sacerdos existat in peccato mortali, non
ordinat, consecrat nec baptizat.
Art. 16. Quod nullus est dominus civilis, nullus est episcopus, nullus
est prælatus dum est in peccato mortali (Wilkins III. 157).
Even “verbum otiosum” and “ira quantumlibet levis” were denounced by
him as mortal sins according to the University of Oxford.—Litt. de
Error. Art. 210, 211 (Wilkins III. 347).
[940] Arnold’s Select English Works of John Wyclif, Vol. II. p. v.—Vol.
I. p. 364.
[941] “God ordeyned prestis in the olde lawe to have wyves, and nevere
forbede it in the newe lawe, neither bi Crist ne bi his apostlis, but
rathere aprovede it. But now, bi ypocrisie of fendis and fals men,
manye binden hem to presthod and chastite, and forsaken wifis bi Goddis
lawe, and schenden maydenes and wifis and fallen foulest of alle.”—Of
Weddid Men and Wifis, cap. i. (Arnold’s Wyclif, III. 190; also in
Vaughan’s Tracts of John de Wyckliffe p. 58).—See also The Seven Deadly
Sins, cap. xxx. (Arnold, Vol. III. p. 163).
In the tract “De Officio Pastorale,” alluded to above, there is a
similar passage—“conjugium secundum legem Christi eis licitum odiunt
ut venenum, et seculare dominium eis a Christo prohibitum nimis avide
amplexantur” (P. II. cap. xi. pp. 50-51).
It is to be borne in mind that at this period no one assumed that
clerical celibacy had been ordained of Christ or the Apostles.
[942] Trialogi Lib. III. c. 22, 23; Lib. IV. 16 (Ed. Lechler, Oxford
1869).—Cf. Apology for Lollard Doctrines, p. 38 (Ed. Camden Soc.).
[943] Wilkins III. 229,—Trialogi Lib. IV. c. 20.
[944] Conclusiones Lollardorum (Wilkins III. 221-3).
[945] Wilkins III. 248.
[946] In 1426, ten years after the execution of Lord Cobham, a
Franciscan named Thomas Richmond was brought before the council of
York for publicly preaching the high Wickliffite doctrine “Sacerdos in
peccato mortali lapsus, non est sacerdos. Item quod ecclesia nolente
vel non puniente fornicarios, licitum est sæcularibus eosdem pœna
carceris castigare, et ad hoc astringuntur vinculo charitatis” (Wilkins
III. 488). This practical application of the Hildebrandine principle
did not suit the church of the fifteenth century. It was pronounced
heretical, and Friar Thomas was forced to recant.
Equally offensive to the memory of Gregory was the decision of the
Sorbonne in 1486, condemning as heretical the propositions of the
puritan Bishop of Meaux—“3. Un prêtre fornicateur ne doit pas dire
Dominus vobiscum ni reciter l’office en aucun lieu sacré. Ce qui est
faux et suspect d’heresie.”—“4. Les sacremens administrez ou l’office
dit par un tel prêtre ne valent pas mieux que les cris des chiens.
Proposition fausse et erronée dans la premiere partie, héretique
scandaleuse et offensant les oreilles pieuses dans la seconde.”—Fleury,
Hist. Eccles. Liv. CXVI. No. 39.
[947] When, after the fearful disaster of Taas, the council of Bâle,
in 1432, commenced the conferences which resulted in the nominal
reconciliation of the Hussites, the fathers of the council were much
scandalized at hearing the Bohemian deputies reverently quote Wickliffe
as the Evangelical Doctor. In fact, Peter Payne, his disciple, who
did so much to promulgate his doctrines in Bohemia, was one of the
disputants (Hartzheim V. 762-4). Even as early as 1403 the errors of
Wickliffe were formally condemned by the University of Prague, on
presentation by the Ordinary of the diocese, showing that they were
already spreading and attracting attention (Höfler, Concil. Pragensia,
p. 43.—Prag, 1862).
[948] Artic. Damnat. Joannis Husz, No. viii. x. xi. xii. xiii. xxii.
xxx. (Concil. Constantiens. Sess. xv.)—On his examination Huss declared
that these articles were exaggerated. See the proceedings in Von der
Hardt, T. IV. pp. 309-11. But on the next day he defended a proposition
which was virtually identical (Ibid. p. 321).
[949] Poggii Florent. Descript. Hieron. Prag. (Von der Hardt, T. III.
p. 69).
[950] Statut. Synod. ann. 1405; 1406 No. 1; 1407 No. 3 (Höfler Concil.
Pragens. pp. 50, 54, 69).
[951] Pluquet, Diet. des Hérésies, s. v. Huss.—Synod. Olomucens. ann.
1413 can. 1. “asserentes etiam ... quod bona clericorum male viventium
possunt rapere et eos spoliare sine pœna excommunicationis ... Ex eadem
radice et hæretica pravitate dicunt alii, quod sacerdos in mortali
existens peccato non possit conficere corpus Christi” (Hartzheim V. 39,
40).
[952] Conciliab. Pragens. ann. 1420 can. xii., xiii.—At this time the
Hussites had full sway in Bohemia; the council was held by Conrad,
Archbishop of Prague, who had adopted their faith, and its canons were
intended for the internal regulation of their own church (Hartzheim
V. 198). In the long conferences, extending from 1431 to 1438, which
resulted in their reunion with the Catholic church, there is no
allusion to the subject of celibacy. The four points on which they
insisted were, 1st, the communion in both elements; 2d, the reformation
of morals by abrogating ecclesiastical immunity; 3d, free preaching of
the Scripture; and 4th, the secularization of church property (Ibid.
760-73). How little, in fact, they differed in doctrinal points from
Rome is seen in the confession of faith agreed upon at Prague in 1432
(Johan, de Ragus. de Reduct. Bohem. _ap._ Monument. Concil. General.
Sæc. xv. pp. 182 sq.).
This did not, however, save them from the customary accusations
of immorality. Thus, a contemporary describes the indulgence of
indiscriminate intercourse as one of the rules of the sect (Joann.
Fistenportii Chron. ann. 1419.—Hahn. Collect. Monument. T. I. p. 403),
and, in 1431, Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz, in convoking a council to
take action against them, says of the sect “exterminavit clerum et
omnem cœlibatum commercio nephando stupravit.”—Gudeni Cod. Diplom. IV.
185.
[953] Epist. Procopii Art. VIII. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 25).
[954] Petit. Cæsaris No. 12 (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. V.
348).
[955] Conciliab. Pragens. ann. 1420 can. viii.
[956] Camerarii Hist. Narrat. de Fratrum Orthodox. Ecclesiis in
Bohemia, etc. pp. 100, 109-10, 114, 121, 128.
[957] Consensus in Fide inter Ecclesias Evangelicas, etc. Haidelbergæ,
1605.
[958] The spirit of the sectaries of Schmidt is shown by one of their
doctrines—“Propter sacerdotum nequitiam, licentiavit Deus et abjecit
sacerdotium evangelicum,” and by their argument for abolishing masses
for the dead “nihil prosint defunctis, sed sint solatia vivorum et
repleant marsupia clericorum.”—Gobelin. Person. Cosmodrom. Ætat. VI.
cap. xciii.—Cf. Theod. Vrie, Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib. III. Dist.
viii.
[959] See the proceedings in Baluze and Mansi, I. 288-93. As usual,
the Men of Intelligence were accused of indulging in promiscuous
intercourse.
[960] Even soon after Savonarola’s martyrdom, Julius II. refused to
listen to those who desired a condemnation of his memory. Leo X.
honored him by celebrating the Epiphany of 1515 in his convent of San
Marco. Julius III. declared that he would deem heretical any one who
should attack him. Paul IV. assembled a congregation for the purpose
of examining and deciding upon his works, and after six months’ labor
they reported that his writings were unexceptionable, though a portion
which reflected too vigorously on the papal court were declared to be
unfitted for general perusal.—Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, Paris 1856,
pp. 296-7.
[961] See Baluze et Mansi I. 584-5 for the letters to the Emperor of
Germany and King and Queen of Spain. Perrens (op. cit. p. 375) also
gives the one addressed to the King of France, while those to the Kings
of England and Hungary have apparently been lost.
[962] Taceo de fornicationibus et adulteriis, a quibus qui alieni
sunt probro cæteris ac ludibrio esse solent, spadonesque aut sodomitæ
appellantur; denique laici usque adeo persuasum habent nullos cœlibes
esse, ut in plerisque parochiis non aliter velint presbyterum tolerare
nisi concubinam habeat, quo vel sic suis sit consultum uxoribus, quæ
nec sic quidem usquequaque sunt extra periculum.—Nic. de Clemangis de
Præsul. Simoniac. (Bayle, Dict. Hist. s. v. Hall).
[963] Nic. de Clamengiis Disput. super Mater. Concil. General.
[964] Nic. de Clamengiis de Ruina Ecclesiæ cap. xxii., xxxvi.—Conf.
Theobaldi Conquest. (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XIX. p. 909).
[965] P. de Alliaco Canones Reformat, cap. iv. (Von der Hardt T. I. P.
VI. p. 425).
[966] Gersoni Declarat, defect, viror. ecclesiast. lxv., lxvi.
[967] Dicimus quod de duobus malis minus est incontinentes tolerare
sacerdotes quam nullos habere.—Gersoni Dial. Sophiæ et Naturæ Act. IV.
[968] Ejusd. Sermo de Vita Clericorum.
[969] Theod. a Niem Nemoris Unionis Tract. V. cap. XXXV.
[970] Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib. II., III. (Von der Hardt
T. I.).
[971] Nic. de Clamengiis, Disput. sup. Mat. Conc. General. This work
was written in 1416, after the council had been in session for nearly
two years.
[972] Theobaldi Conquestio (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XIX. p. 904).
[973] Item, fistulatores, tubicenæ, joculatores, 516; item, meretrices,
virgines publicæ, 718.—Laur. Byzynii Diar. Bell. Hussit. A Catholic
contemporary, however, reduces the number of courtezans to 450 and
that of jugglers and minstrels to 320 (Joann. Fistenportii Chron. ann.
1415.—Hahn. Collect. Monument. I. 401).
[974] Bernhardi Baptisati Sermo (Von der Hardt T. I. P. XVIII. pp.
884-5).
[975] Concil. Constant. Sess. XLIII. can. de Vita et Honestate
Clericorum.
[976] De Ecclesiæ Reformat. Protocoll. cap. xxxiii. (Von der Hardt T.
I. P. x. pp. 635-6).
[977] Reformatorii Constant. Decretal. Lib. I. Tit. v. (Ibid. p. 679).
[978] Ibid. Lib. III. Tit. x. cap. 20 (p. 722).
[979] For instance, as regards the religious houses—“In nonnullis
quoque monasteriis ... norma disciplinæ respuitur, cultus divinus
negligitur, personæ quoque hujusmodi, vitæ ac morum honestate
prostrata, lubricitati, incontinentiæ, et aliis variis carnalis
concupiscentiæ voluptatibus et viciis non sine gravi divinæ majestatis
offensa tabescentes, vitam ducunt dissolutam.”—Martin V. ad Brandam §
iii. (Ludewig Reliq. Msctorum. XI. 409).
[980] Usque adeo nonnullorum clericorum corruptela excrevit, ut morum
atque honestatis vestigia apud eos pauca admodum remanserint.—Constit.
Brandae § 1 (Op. cit. XI. 385). This condition of affairs was not
the result of any abandonment of the attempt to enforce the canons.
Local synods were meeting every year, and scarcely one of them failed
to call attention to the subject, devising fresh penalties to effect
the impossible. The result is shown in the lament of the council of
Cologne in 1423—“Quia tamen, succrescente malitia temporis moderni,
labes hujusmodi criminis in ecclesia Dei in tantum inolevit, quod
scandala plurima in populo sunt exorta, et verisimiliter exoriri
poterunt in futurum, et ex fide dignorum relatione percepimus quod
quidam ecclesiarum prælati et alii, etiam capitula ... tales in suis
iniquitatibus sustinuerunt et sustinent.” So far, however, were the
decrees of the council from being effective, that the Archbishop was
obliged to modify them and to declare that they should only be enforced
against those ecclesiastics who were notoriously guilty, and who kept
their concubines publicly.—Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1423 can. i. viii.
(Hartzheim V. 217, 220).
[981] Ambrosii Camaldulensis Lib. V. Epist. xii. (Martene Ampliss.
Collect. III. 119-21). This was not the only case of abbots whose
scandalous lives were treated with equal forbearance. See Epistt.
xiii., xiv.
[982] Harduini Andegav. Epist. Statut. Præf. (Martene Thesaur. IV.
523-4).
[983] Alan. Charter. Lib. de Exilio (Johan. Mariæ Lib. de Schismat. et
Concil.).
[984] Nic. de Clamengiis de Lapsu et Reparat. Justitiæ (Ed. 1519 pp.
13-14).
[985] Wilkins III. 364-5.
[986] Æneæ Sylvii Comment. de Gest. Conc. Basil. ad calcem (Opp. Basil.
1551 pp. 66-70).—Cf. Sigismundi Imp. Avisam. ann. 1433 (Goldast. III.
427 sqq.).
[987] Concil. Basiliens. Sess. xx. (Jan. 22, 1435).
[988] Pragm. Sanct. ann. 1438 cap. 31 (Goldast. I. 403).
[989] Quoniam nostri temporis clerici sunt, heu, affectu crudeles,
affatu mendaces, gestu incompositi, victu luxuriosi, actu impii, et sub
vacuo sanctitatis nomine sancti nominis derogant disciplinæ (Hartzheim
V. 266). The council contented itself with repeating the canons of Bâle.
[990] Lib. III. Tit. i. c. 3, in Septimo.