prohibitionem tenere præsumentes, inhabiles censeantur ad beneficia
obtinenda, et in dicta curia officia hujusmodi exercenda, nec illorum
capaces efficiantur, nisi inhabilitatem suam antea per dictæ sedis
literas obtinuerint aboleri.—Ubi sup.
[992] Comp. Doeringii Chron. passim. Döringk was minister or head
of the powerful Franciscan order in Saxony, and therefore may be
considered an unexceptionable witness.
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 Rome 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,” etc.—Krasinski,
Reformation in Poland I. 96.
The councils of Constance and Bâle had produced, for a time, a spirit
of great independence. John of Frankfort does not hesitate to declare
that the papal authority is not binding when in opposition to the law
of God—“Unde patet quod nec papalis vel et imperialis constitutio
legi Dei obvians possit dici recta; nec 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 heresy, 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 inquisitor, he
convicted and burned, July 4th, 1429, at Lüders, 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 died away, to again revive, in the next century,
in a more determined form.
[993] Ludewig Reliq. Msctorum. XI. 415.—Under Boniface IX., at
the commencement 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.
[994] Concil. Constantiens. Sess. XI.
[995] Steph. Infessuræ Diar. Roman, ann. 1484 (Eccard. Corp. Hist. III.
1939-40).
[996] “Si vous saviez tout ce que je sais! des choses dégoûtantes! des
choses horribles! vous en frémiriez! Quand je pense à tout cela, à la
vie que mènent les prêtres, je ne puis retenir mes larmes.” And again,
“Ma peggio ancora. Quello 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?”—Jérome Savonarole d’après les
Documents Originaux, par F. T. Perrens, pp. 71-2. Paris, 1856.
[997] _Ap._ Chavard, Le Célibat, des Prêtres, p. 400.
[998] Masselin, Journal des États de Tours, pp. 197-99.
What were the teachings and the influence on the people of such a
priesthood may be guessed from a remark in one of the sermons of Oliver
Maillard, a celebrated Franciscan preacher of the period. “Sunt ne ibi
mulieres et sacerdotes qui dicunt quod mulieres comedentes venenum
ad expellendum materiam de matrice sua, ne fœtus veniat ad partum,
antequam anima rationalis introducatur, non peccant mortaliter?”—Ap. H.
Estienne, Apol. pour Herodote Liv. I. chap. vi.
[999] 1 Henr. VII. 4.
[1000] Wilkins III. 630-33.
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.
[1001] Froude’s History of England, Ch. III.
[1002]
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, 1868).
[1003] Concil. Arandens. ann. 1473 c. ix. (Aguirre V. 345-6).
[1004] Concil. Hispalens. ann. 1512 can. xxvi., xxvii. (Aguirre V.
371-2).
[1005] Statut. Eccles. in Braunschweig. cap. 75 (Mayer, Thes. Jur.
Eccles. I. 124).
[1006] Synod. Strigonens. ann. 1382, 1450, 1480 (Batthyani III. 275,
481, 557).
[1007] Galeoti Martii de dictis et factis Matthiæ Regis cap. xi.
(Schwandtneri Rer. Hungar. Script.).
[1008] Synod. Reg. ann. 1498 c. 16 (Batthyani I. 551).
[1009] Wiæ Hist. Episc. Camin. c. 41.—These irregularities were not of
recent introduction. 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).
[1010] Wiæ Hist. Episc. Camin. c. 42.—Synod. Sedinens. c. 5.
In West Prussia, in 1497, the synod of Ermeland expresses itself
as scandalized 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).
[1011] Boissen Chron. Slesvicens. ann. 1494.
[1012] Robles, Vida del Card. Ximenes de Cisneros, cap. xii.,
xiii.—Robles was chaplain to Ximenes, and presumably derived his
information from the cardinal himself.
[1013] Rursus in certis monasteriis dicti ordinis, ipsæ 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.... Præterea omnes et singulos
monachos et moniales regulam S. Benedicti hujusmodi expresse vel
tacite professos, qui habitum monasticum sine dispensatione legitima
reliquerunt aut matrimonia contraxerunt, ad monasteria, _si illa
exiverunt_, redire et habitum monasticum ac velum nigrum reassumere
dicta auctoritate compellatis.—App. ad Chron. Cassinens. Ed. Dubreul,
pp. 902-3.
The words italicized would seem to indicate that monks and nuns
occasionally married without even quitting their monasteries.
[1014] Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, p. 84.
[1015] Statut. Ord. Cisterc. ann. 1516 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 1636-7).
[1016] Thus, in 1193, the general chapter of the order promulgated
the rule—“Si contigerit mulieres abbatiam ordinis 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 favor 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.
III. 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 Northmen 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 PP. VII. Epist. vi.). In that of Sithieu, from the time of
its foundation early in the seventh century, it was preserved without
infraction for more than three centuries. Even the license 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 license 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 Frederic Barbarossa, in 1135, spent his Easter
there, he was not permitted to enter the town, because his wife was
with him. In 1398 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 favor 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 immediately 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. Gratianopolit. (Patrolog. T. 166, p.
1571).
[1017] Anon. Carthus. de Relig. Orig. cap. XL. (Martene Ampliss. Coll.
VI. 93).
[1018] Johan. de Trittenheim Lib. Lugubris de Statu et Ruina Monast.
Ordinis cap. iii.
[1019] Annuntia populo fideli meo, et dic quod Filius meus avaritiam,
superbiam et luxuriam clericorum et sacerdotum amplius sustinere nec
possit nec velit. Unde nisi se quantocius emendaverint, totus mundus
propter eorum scelera periclitabitur.—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann.
1476.
[1020] Quum pene in omnibus conciliis et a plerisque Romanis
pontificibus super cohibenda et punienda clericorum incontinentia,
et eorum honestate servanda multa hactenus emanaverint constituta;
et nullatenus ipsorum reformari quiverit correctio morum: ...
videretur pensandum an expediret et posset provideri quod in ecclesia
Occidentali, quantum ad votum continentiæ, servaretur consuetudo
ecclesiæ Orientalis, quantum ad promovendos, potissime quum tempore
Apostolorum consuetudo ecclesiæ Orientalis servaretur.—Durand. de Modo
General. Concil. P. II. rubr. 46 (Calixtus, p. 537).
[1021] Card. Zabarellæ Capit. Agend. in Concil. Constant. cap. xii.
(Von der Hardt T. I. P. ix. p. 525).
[1022] Zaccaria, Nuova Giustificaz. pp. 121-2.—Milman, Latin Christ.
Book XIII. chap. 12.
[1023] 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, cam tollat; sic corum voluntati relinqueretur, ita ut sacerdos
qui abstinere noluisset, posset uxorem ducere, cum quotidie illicito
coitu maculentur.”
[1024] Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias, majori restituendas
videri.—Platina in Vit. Pii II.
[1025] Æneæ Sylvii de Concil. Basil. Lib. II.
[1026] De Continentia Sacerdotum, Nürnb. 1510, Prop. 6, 7.
[1027] Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1479.
[1028] Serrarii Hist. Rer. Mogunt. Lib. I. c. 34.
[1029] Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CXVI. No. 30-38.
[1030] Krasniski, Reformation in Poland, I. 110.
[1031] Gravamina German. Nationis, No. VII.—Remed. 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.
[1032] Avisamenta ad Cæsar. Majest. (Ibid. p. 680).
[1033] 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 by a little sharp practice between the Apostolic Chamber and the
Roman bankers he became entangled, and on his persistent refusal
he was prosecuted for the amount, 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 Nürnberg,
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.—_ap._ Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident.
II. 203.
The general popular opinion of the Roman court is manifested in the
Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum, when speaking of the quarrel between
Reuchlin and the theologians, which had been carried before the papal
tribunal—“Si Papa est pro theologi, tunc non timeo; etiam audivi ab uno
notabili viro, qui est officialis curiæ, qui dixit. Quid nobis hic cum
literis? Si Reuchlin habet pecuniam, mittat huc: quia in curia oportet
habere pecunias, alias nihil potest expedire.”
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 1545
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.”—Le Plat, Monument. Concil.
Trident. VII. 224.
[1034] The Epist. Obseur. Viror. probably reflects the general
sentiment of the conservatives of the time in denouncing Erasmus and
the learned wits as heretics. “Quia juvenes volunt se æquiparare
senibus, et discipuli magistris, et juristæ theologis, et est magna
confusio, et surgunt multi hæretici et pseudochristiani, Iohann.
Reuchlin, Erasmus Roterodamus: Bilibaldus nescio quis, et Ulricus
Huttenus, Hermannus Buschius, Jacobus Wimphelingus, qui scripsit contra
Augustinenses, et Sebastianus Brandt, qui scripsit contra prædicatores,
etc.”
So, at a later date, after Luther had arisen, the “Conciliabulum
Theologistarum” classes them together “Habeo etiam ego unum spiritum
familiarem; illum ego volo mittere ad Lutherum et Erasmum de nocte in
lectum, ut eos tribulet et vexet.”
[1035] Erasmi Colloq. Confabulatio Pia.
[1036] Ibid. See also the Encomium Moriæ.—“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 mathematica citra ullum errorem
dimentientes?”
[1037] Confabulatio Pia (Colloquia).
[1038] Speaking of the Virgin’s milk and the countless relics of the
cross everywhere exposed to the adoration of the pious, he exclaims,
“O matrem filio simillimam! ille nobis tantum sanguinis reliquit in
terris; hæc tantum lactis quantum vix credibile est esse posse uni
mulieri uniparæ, etiamsi nihil bibisset infans.... Idem caussantur
de cruce Domini, quæ privatum ac publice tot locis ostenditur, ut
si fragmenta conferantur in unum, navis onerariæ justum onus videri
possint; et tamen totam crucem suam bajulavit Dominus”—to which
he makes a pious interlocutor reply, “Novum fortasse dici possit;
mirum nequaquam, quum Dominus, qui hæc auget pro suo arbitrio, sit
omnipotens.”—Colloq. Peregrinat. Religionis.
[1039] Supplement. Epist. M. Lutheri, No. II. (Halæ, 1703).
[1040] 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 lepida puella 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 nec Adam suaviter victurus fuerit in
Paradiso nisi deus illi adjunxisset Evam.—PAM. Non deerit Eva cui sit
opulentum sacerdotium,” etc.—Erasmi Colloq. de Captandis Sacerdotiis.
It is, however, perhaps, in the “Encomium Moriæ” that he gives fullest
rein to his bitter satire. His own sad experience of conventual life
gave him special opportunity of declaiming against the monks “qui se
vulgo religiosos ac monachos appellant, 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 contemptuous valediction, “Verum ego istos histriones,
tam 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 stigmatized as
endeavoring to thrust upon others the care of the flock and industrious
only in shearing the sheep.
The “Encomium Moriæ” 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 honor of being
included in the first Index Expurgatorius (App. Concil. Trident).
Cardinal Caraffa, 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. (Le Plat, Monument.
Concil. Trident. II. 602).
[1041] The “Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum” was certainly published before
1516, probably in 1515 (Ebert, Bibliog. Dict. s. v.).—It is equally
severe upon the monks—“Tunc ille dixit: ego distinguo de monachis, quia
accipiuntur tribus modis. Primo, pro sanctis et utilibus, sed illi
sunt in cœlo. Secundo, pro nec utilibus nec inutilibus, 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
sæcularium. Et ita libenter habent pecunias et pulchras mulieres,”
etc. And again, “Ubi enim diabolus pervenire vel aliquid officere
non potest, ibi semper mittit unam malam antiquam vetulam vel unum
monachum.”
[1042] De Vanitate Scientiarum cap. lxi., lxii., lxiv.
[1043] Orat. in Comit. Augustan. (Freher. et Struv. II. 702.)
[1044] Bartholini Comment. de Comit. Augustens. ann. 1518 (Senckenberg.
Selecta Juris T. IV. pp. 669-70).
[1045] Rymer, Fœdera XIII. 586-7.
[1046] Even in this, Luther was by no means the first. Erasmus had
exposed the wickedness of the system with fully as much fervor in the
“Encomium Moriæ.”—“Hic mihi puta negotiator aliquis, aut miles, aut
judex, abjecto ex tot rapinis unico nummulo, universam vitæ Lernam
semel expurgatam putat, totque perjuria, tot libidines, tot ebrietates,
tot rixas, tot cædes, 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 “Epistolæ Obscurorum
Vivorum” the falseness of its promises was unflinchingly asserted.
[1047] Ranke, Reformation in Germany, B. II. chap. 3.
[1048] Lutheri Opp. T. I. fol. 335_a_ (Jenæ, 1564).
[1049] Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. 1692, I. 614.
[1050] De Captiv. Babylon. Eccles. (Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, 1581, II. fol.
283_a_).
[1051] Artic. et Errores Libb. Jur. Canon. No. 18 (Lutheri Opp. Jenæ,
1581, II. fol. 318_a_).
[1052] Ibid. fol. 319_b_.
[1053] Ibid. fol. 362_a_, 374_a_.
[1054] Krasinski, op. cit. I. 112-3.
[1055] Lutheri Opp. Jenæ, 1581, T. II. fol. 438, 440.
[1056] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1521.
[1057] Lutheri Epistt. Jenæ, 1545, T. II. fol. 38, 39.
[1058] Synod. Vuitemberg. (Lutheri Opp. II. 470).
[1059] Lutheri Opp. II. 477 sqq.—In this edition the tract is dated
1522 in the index and 1521 in the text. Henke and Ranke, however, agree
in assigning it to a period subsequent to his return from Wartburg.
[1060] 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 example with respect to it.
[1061] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1522.
[1062] Supplement. Epistt. M. Lutheri No. 31 (Halæ, 1703).
[1063] 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 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.)
[1064] Spalatin, ubi sup.—How these innovations were regarded in Rome
is manifested in a minatory epistle addressed, in 1522, by Adrian
II. to the Elector Frederic of Saxony. “Et cum ipse sit apostata ac
professionis suæ desertor, ut plurimos sui faciat similes, sancta
illa 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 copulat meretricibus etc.” (Hartzheim VI. 192.)
[1065] 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).
[1066] Reformat. Cleri German. ann. 1524 c. 26 (Goldast. Constit. Imp.
III. 491).
[1067] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1524.
[1068] Respons. S. R. I. Ordinum Norim b. 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 apostates, 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.)
[1069] Spalatin. ann. 1523.
[1070] Edict. Norimb. Convent, ann. 1523 c. 10, 18, 19 (Goldast. II.
151).—This illustrates well the vacillating conduct of the Council of
Regency during this period.