once to Wittenberg, and Luther writes to Spalatin asking him to collect
funds for their support until they can be permanently provided for.
[1072] Spalatin. ubi sup.
[1073] Spalatin. ann. 1524.
[1074] 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 fortassi aliquid
occulti et quiddam divinius subest, de quo nos curiose quærere non
decet.”—The whole letter is singularly apologetic in its tone.
[1075] 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 conjunx;” 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 generally approved by his friends is
apparent from his asking Michael Stiefel to pray that 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 proclaimed the most extreme views in favor of matrimony. As
early as 1522 he 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 comprehendaris,
quæ 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 (Opp. 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. Reperiuntur
enim interdum adeo pertinaces uxores, qui etiam si decies in libidinem
prolabentur mariti pro sua duritia non curarent. Hic 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 coram aliis ejus etiam pertinaciam detegat, ut publice et ante
conspectum ecclesiæ, 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 impossible.
That the Catholics should make themselves merry over the marriage of
the apostate 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
cum jubilo.
Septa claustri dissipamus,
Sacra vasa compilamus
Sumptus unde suppetat
cum jubilo.
Mayeri Dissert. p. 22, 23.
[1076] Mayeri de Cath. Luth. conjug. Dissert. 4to. Hamburgi, 1702.
Cranach, as we have seen, was one of the three witnesses present at the
marriage.
[1077] Lutheri Opp. (Jenæ, 1564, T. I. fol. 496-500).
[1078] Supplement Epistt. M. Lutheri No. 212 (Halæ, 1703).
[1079] 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.”
[1080] Wideman. Chron. Curiæ ann. 1505.
[1081] Neque superiorum tolerantia, seu prava consuetudo, quæ potius
corruptela dicenda est, a multitudine peccantium, aliave quælibet
excusatio eis aliquo modo suffragetur.—Concil. Lateran. V. ann. 1514
Sess. IX.
[1082] Quia vero in quibusdam regionibus nonnulli jurisdictionem
ecclesiasticam habentes, pecuniarios quæstus a concubinariis percipere
non erubescunt, patientes eos in tali fœditate 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.
[1083] Taxæ Sacræ Pœnitentiariæ, Friedrich’s Ed. p. 38; Gibbings’s, p.
3; Saint-André’s, p. 8.
[1084] Gerardi Noviomagi Philippus Burgundus (Mathæi Analect. I. 230).
[1085] Statut. Synod. Joan. Episc. Ratispon. ann. 1512 (Hartzheim VI.
86).
[1086] Art. 18e “Item. Mais, Nous nous plaignions d’aucuns chanoines
qui nous gâtent nôtre bordeau de la ville, car il y en a qui le
tiennent en leurs maisons, privément, 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. (Genève, 1727). According 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. lxiv.
[1087] See, for instance, Novelle, P. III. Nov. lvi.
[1088] Reformat. Cleri German. (Hartzheim VI. 198).—“Hanc perditissimam
hæresin ... non parvam habuisse occasionem, partim a perditis moribus
et vita clericorum etc.”
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 stubbornness of the heretics. Thus the
Bishop of Constance, in the canons of his Synod of 1567—“Estote etiam
memores, damnatam et detestandam cleri vitam huic malo in quo, proh
dolor! versamur, majori ex parte ansam præbuisse.... Omnes sapientes
peritique viri unanimi sententia hoc asserunt, hocque efflagitant
penitus, ut prius clerus ecclesiarumque ministri ac doctores a vitæ
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 “Quæ sane morum turpitudo, vehementer et tantopere imperiti populi
animos offendit 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 nobiscum ipsi cogitamus quæ res materiam præbuerit
tot tantisque pestiferis hæresibus ... tanti mali causam præcipue
fuisse judicamus corruptos prælatorum mores, qui ... eandemque vivendi
licentiam iis, quibus præerant permittentes et exemplo eos suo
corrumpentes, maximum apud laicos odium contemptionem et invidiam non
immerito contraxerunt.” (Hartzheim. VII. 586).
Alfonso de Castro in 1556 declares that the priesthood was one of
the efficient causes of the spread of heresy. 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, ignorance, and
turpitude exposed them to contempt.—Alph. de Castro de Just. Punit.
Hæres. Lib. III. c. 5.
[1089] Reformat. Cleri German, cap. xv.—So when, in 1521, Conrad,
Bishop of Wurzburg, 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 referimus vitam et honestatem clericalem adeo apud
quamplures nostrarum civitatis et dioceseos clericos esse obumbratam
ut vix inter clericos et laycos discrimen habeatur: 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.)
[1090] Grillandi Tract. de Sortilegiis Quæst. xvii. No. 1.
[1091] Gravamin. Ordin. Imperii cap. xxi., lvii., lxx. (Goldast. I.
464).
When such complaints were made by the highest authority in the empire,
it is not difficult to understand the reasons which led the senate of
Nürnberg—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; nor do we need
Spalatin’s malicious suggestion—“cura et visitatione, pene dixeram
corruptione.”—Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1524.
[1092] Adriani PP. VI. Instructio data Fr. Cheregato, Nov. 25, 1522 (Le
Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 146).
[1093] Adriani PP. VI. Breve ad Frid. Saxon. (Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol.
542_b_.—Le Plat, II. 134).
[1094] 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 be a comedy, seeing that it resulted
in a marriage—he continued to raise his voice in favor of abolishing
the rule of celibacy. Thus he writes, in October, 1525, “Vehementer
laudo cœlibatum, sed ut nunc habet sacerdotum ac monachorum vita,
præsertim apud Germanos, præstaret indulgeri remedium matrimonii”
(Lib. XVIII. Epist. 9). And again, in 1526, “Ego nec sacerdotibus
permitto conjugium, nec monachis relaxo vota, ni id fiat ex auctoritate
Pontificum, ad ædificationem ecclesiæ non ad destructionem.... In
primis optandum esset sacerdotes et monachos castitatem ac cœlestem
vitam amplecti. Nunc rebus adeo contaminatis, fortasse levius malum
erat eligendum” (Lib. XVIII. Epist. 4).
Yet, in his “Liber de Amabili Ecclesiæ 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.
[1095] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1525.
[1096] Ibid. ann. 1526.
[1097] Henke Append. ad Calixt. p. 595.—Serrarii Rerum 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.
[1098] Spalatin. Annal. ann. 1526.
[1099] Thammii Chron. Coldicens.
[1100] Chron. Waldeccense (Hahnii Collect. Monument. I. 851).
[1101] Confess. Augustanæ 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. Jenæ, T. IV. p. 252-3).
[1102] Deliberat. de Concordia etc. c. iii., v. (Goldast. I. 509).
[1103] See Letter of Bergenroth to Romilly, from Simancas, June 14th,
1863 (Cartwright’s Memoir of Bergenroth, London, 1870, p. 124).
[1104] Sentent. Caroli V. § 5 (Ibid. I. 510).—Rescript. Caroli V. § 5
(Ibid. III. 512). Henke, Append. ad Calixt. pp. 595-6.
[1105] Kerssenbroch Bell. Anabaptist. cap. 15, 31.
[1106] 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 reëstablished. The mesne profits, he admits, cannot
be collected, but some composition for them should be made.—Le Plat,
Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 649.
[1107] 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.
[1108] Artic. Melanch. ad Regem Franciæ, No. X., XI. (Le Plat, op. cit.
II. 785-7).
[1109] Lib. ad Rationem Concord. ineundam Art. XXII. § 13 (Goldast. II.
199).
[1110] 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).
[1111] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. III. 152-3.
[1112] Et quanquam cum Apostolo sentiendum eum qui cœlebs est curare
quæ sunt Domini etc. (I. Cor. vii.) eoque magis optandum multos
inveniri clericos qui cum cœlibes 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
authorized 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.
[1113] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 19-25.
[1114] Pallavicini, 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 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.
[1115] Le Plat, T. IV. p. 27.
[1116] Recess. ann. 1551 c. 10 (Goldast. II. 341).
[1117] Transac. Pataviens. Artic. de Relig. (Ibid. I. 573).
[1118] Ibid. I. 574.
[1119] Vision of Piers Ploughman, Wright’s ed., pp. 300, 303.
[1120] Ibid. p. 325.—According to David Buchanan, Langlande was also
author of a tract “Pro conjugio sacerdotum.” (Ibid. Introduction, p. x.)
[1121] 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 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.
(Seebohm’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 which they themselves abhorred.
[1122] 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 præsul, utrumque cave.”
T. Mori Opp. p. 249. Francofurti, 1689.
And he addresses a parish priest:—
“Quid faciant fugiantve tui, quo cernere possint,
Vita potest claro pro speculo esse tua.
Tantum opus admonitu est, ut te intueantur, et ut tu
Quæ facis, hæc fugiant: quæ fugis, hæc faciant.”
Ibid. p. 247.
See also his epigrams “In Posthumum Episcopum,” “In Episcopum
illiteratum,” “De Nautis ejicientibus Monachum,” etc.
[1123] Responsio ad Lutherum, _passim_: “Pater, frater, potator
Lutherus,” seems to be a favorite 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
with—“furiosum fraterculum et latrinarium nebulonem cum suis furiis
et furoribus, cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque
relinquere.”
Luther was himself a master in theological abuse, but More’s admiring
biographer, Stapleton, boasts that the German was appalled at the
superior vigor of the Englishman, and for the first time in his life
he declined further controversy—“magis mutus factus est quam piscis.”
(Stapletoni Vit. T. Mori cap. iv.) As More, however, published 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”.
[1124] 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 institutos esse nos....
Vitam ergo jucundam, inquiunt, id est voluptatem, tanquam operationum
omnium finem, ipsa nobis natura præscribit: ex cujus præscripto vivere,
virtutem definiunt” (Utopiæ 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 labor, 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).
[1125] 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 corruption.
[1126] Ibid. Lib. I. cap. iv.
[1127] Froude’s England, Ch. x.
[1128] Wilkins III. 669, 678.
[1129] Card. Eboracens. Epist. v. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. III. 1289).
[1130] Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, T. I. App. p. 19.
[1131] Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Bk. II. ch. v.
[1132] Rymer’s Fœdera, XIV. 15.
[1133] 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 purpose on account of opposition and dread of
scandals.—Hist. Reform. Vol. I. p. 20 (Ed. 1679).
[1134] Rymer, XIV. 24.—Confirmed by the king, January 7, 1525 (Ibid. p.
32).
[1135] Ibid. pp. 156-6, 172-5.
[1136] 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.
[1137] Rymer, XIV. pp. 270-1.
[1138] Rymer, XIV. 272-3.
[1139] Ibid. 273-5.
[1140] Ibid. 291-3.
[1141] 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 July 23rd, 1530 (Ibid. p. 92).
[1142] Pecock’s Records of the Reformation No. 276 (Vol. II. p. 259).
[1143] Wilkins III. 755-62.
[1144] 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 consequence of their oaths to the pope, and
he desired that some remedy should be found for this state of things
(Ibid. p. 519).
[1145] Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 195.
[1146] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 40 (Camden Soc.).—Strype, op.
cit. p. 197.
[1147] Strype, op. cit. pp. 277-8.
[1148] Burnet I. 182.
[1149] Wilkins III. 787.
[1150] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 175.
[1151] Hist. Reform. I. 190-1.
[1152] Le Plat V. 244-5.
[1153] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 112.
[1154] Eccles. Memorials, I. 256-7.
[1155] Suppression of Monasteries, Nos. xvii., xxi., xxiv., xlii.,
xlv., xlvii., xcviii., &c.
[1156] Ibid. No. cxx.
[1157] Travels of Nicander Nucius, pp. 68-71 (Camden Soc.).
[1158] Strype, Eccles. Memor. I. 249.
[1159] 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. Reform.
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. Memorials1. 165) includes it in a list of books prohibited by
Cuthbert, Bishop of London, in 1526. 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.
Ҥ 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.
Ҥ 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?
Ҥ 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, _Gen._ 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 bedemen.”
[1160] Articles devised by the Kinges Highnes Majestie, ann. 1536
(Formularies of Faith, Oxford, 1856 p. xxxi.).