exhumed from the stables of Dr. Marshall, the previous dean of Christ’s
Church, and reburied in the church, the precaution being taken of
mingling them with the bones of St. Frideswide, so as to prevent any
future profanation in case of another revolution of religion. The
affair excited considerable attention at the time, and produced the
following epigram:
Femineum sexum Romani semper amarunt:
Projiciunt corpus cur muliebre foras?
Hoc si tu quæras, facilis responsio danda est:
Corpora non curant mortua, viva petunt.
[1255] “That none of those priests that were, under the pretence of
lawfull matrimony, married, and now reconciled, do privilie resorte
to their pretensed wives, or suffer the same to resorte unto them.
And that those priests do in no wise henceforth withdrawe themselves
from the mynisterie and office of priesthodde under the paine of the
lawes”—Pole’s Injunctions in Diocese of Gloucester (Wilkins IV. 146).
[1256] Wilkins IV. 157. Thus in the visitation of the diocese of
Lincoln, the vicar of Spaldwick was presented for scandalizing his
flock by carrying in his arms his child by a wife from whom he had been
separated. At the same time a priest of Caisho named Nix was subjected
to penance for consorting with his former wife, but was permitted to
resume his functions—Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 293.
[1257] Strype’s Eccles. Memor. III. 111-12.
[1258] Wilkins IV. 169.
[1259] 1 Eliz. c. 1, 2, 4 (Parl. Hist. I. 646-76).
[1260] Burnet, II. 386-95.
[1261] Parker’s Correspondence, p. 66.—Sanders does not fail to make
the most of this refusal to legalize priestly marriage by act of
Parliament, and of the hesitation which rendered the final decision
a mere toleration and not an approval. “Clerus enim in Anglia novus,
partim ex apostatis nostris, partim ex hominibus mere laicis factus,
ut est valde spiritualis, primo quoque tempore de nuptiis cogitabat;
multumque sategit, ut conjugia Episcoporum Canonicorum et cæterorum
ministorum legibus approbarentur; sed obtineri non potuit, quia vel
turpe videbatur ministerio, vel reipublicæ perniciosum. Edovardus
quidem sextus omnes canonicas et humanas prohibitiones circa clericorum
aut etiam religiosorum connubia lege comitiali seu parlamentaria
sustulerat; eam legem mox abrogavit Maria, nunc restituendam ac
renovandam clamitant isti, sed non exaudiuntur: omnes tamen per totum
fere regnum quia de dono [castitatis] (ut loquuntur) non sunt certi,
non secundum leges, sed secundum indulgentiam; vel (ut illi dicunt)
secundum scripturas, sed ad libidinem suam compositas, ineunt prima,
secunda, vel etiam tertia conjugia, contra canones et morem non solum
Latinorum sed etiam Græcorum; et prole ita abundant, ut ad illam
sustentandam opibusque augendam, et populus supra modum gravetur, et
ipsi misere beneficia sua expilent.”—De Schismate Anglicano, Lib. III.
(Ingoldstatii, 1586, p. 299).
[1262] Strype’s Annals, I. 81.
[1263] Royal Injunctions of 1559, Art. XXIX. “Although there be no
prohibition by the word of God, nor any example of the primitive
church, but that the priests and ministers of the church may lawfully,
for the avoiding of fornication, have an honest and sober wife, and
that for the same purpose the same was by act of Parliament in the time
of our dear brother King Edward the Sixth made lawful, whereupon a
great number of the clergy of this realm were married and so continue;
yet, because there hath grown offence and some slander to the church,
by lack of discreet and sober behavior in many ministers of the church,
both in chusing of their wives and undiscreet living with them, the
remedy whereof is necessary to be sought; it is thought therefore very
necessary that no manner of priest or deacon shall hereafter take to
his wife any manner of woman without the advice and allowance first
had upon good examination by the bishop of the same diocese and two
justices of the peace of the same shire dwelling next to the place
where the same woman hath made her most abode before her marriage;
nor without the goodwill of the parents of the said woman if she have
any living, or two of the next of her kinsfolks, or for lack of the
knowledge of such, of her master or mistress where she serveth. And
before she shall be contracted in any place, he shall make a good and
certain proof thereof to the minister or to the congregation assembled
for that purpose, which shall be upon some holy-day where divers may
be present. And if any shall do otherwise, that then they shall not
be permitted to minister either the word or the sacraments of the
church, nor shall be capable of any ecclesiastical benefice. And for
the marriages of any bishops, the same shall be allowed and approved by
the metropolitan of the province and also by such commissioners as the
Queen’s Majesty thereunto shall appoint. And if any master or dean or
any head of any college shall purpose to marry, the same shall not be
allowed but by such to whom the visitation of the same doth properly
belong, who shall in any wise provide that the same turn not to the
hindrance of their house”—(Wilkins IV. 186).
See also a letter of Theodore Beza, Zurich Letters, p. 247 (Parker Soc.
Publications).
[1264] Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I. 309.
[1265] Strype’s Parker, Book II. chap. v.—In 1569 the returns for the
Archdeaconry of Canterbury show 135 married clergymen to 34 licensed
preachers, and there is no mention of any unmarried men (Ib. III.
xxiv.).
[1266] In the English version, as given by Burnet (Vol. II. Append.
217), there are 42 articles, of which this is the 31st. In the Latin
edition (Wilkins IV. 236), there are but 39 articles, this being the
32d, which is the arrangement according to the standard of the Anglican
church.
[1267] Wilkins IV. 189-91.—This commission was the commencement of the
Court of High Commission, which played so lamentable a part in the
troubles of the succeeding reigns. The result of its visitation in 1559
shows how little real conviction existed among the clergy who had been
exposed to the capricious persecutions of alternating rulers. Out of
9400 beneficiaries in England under Mary, but 14 bishops, 6 abbots,
12 deans, 12 archdeacons, 15 heads of colleges, 50 prebendaries, and
80 rectors of parishes had abandoned their preferment on account of
Protestantism (Burnet Vol. II. Append. 217), and of these it is fair
to assume that the higher dignitaries at least had not been allowed to
retain their positions.
[1268] Wilkins IV. 253.—Strype’s Parker, App. liii.
[1269] In 1576 she declared to Grindal, then Archbishop of Canterbury,
“that it was good for the church to have few preachers, and that
three or four might suffice for a county; and that the reading of
the Homilies to the people was enough.”—Strype’s Life of Grindal, p.
221.—See also Strype’s Parker, Book II. chap. xx.
[1270] Strickland, Life of Queen Elizabeth, Chap. IV.
[1271] Strype’s Annals, I. 364-5.
[1272] Parker’s Correspondence, pp. 146-8.
[1273] Ibid. p. 152.
[1274] Parker’s Correspondence, pp. 156-8.
[1275] Wilkins IV. 269.
[1276] Parker’s Correspondence, p. 259.
[1277] Qui autem istis darent filias suas, ne protestantes quidem
fere inveniebantur, nedum Catholici: primum quia existimant id esse
per se infame, ut sint vel dicantur uxores presbyterorum. Secundo,
quia juxta leges regni non sunt adhuc vera sed adulterina conjugia,
ac proinde proles illegitima. Tertio quia non accrescit his uxoribus
aut liberis suis ex maritorum loco aut honore in Republica ulla
dignitas aut existimatio, quod est contra naturam veri matrimonii.
Non enim Archiepiscopus, Episcopus, aliusve hodie prælatus in Anglia
si sit conjugatus, tribuit quicquam ex eo honoris vel præeminentia
uxori suæ, non magis quam si esset ejus tantum concubina. Hinc sit
ut nec eas Elizabetha in aulam, nec principum uxores in consortium
ullo modo admittant, ne Archiepiscoporum quidem vocatas conjuges;
sed debent eas mariti domi continere, pro vasis tantem libidinis aut
necessitatis suæ. Quæ istis ergo conditionibus, vel summis prælatis
conjungerentur, cum honestiores paucæ aut nullæ reperiebantur, quas
poterant habere accipere fuit necesse. Sed et aliis modis utcumque
istorum hominum cupiditati per magistratum civilem impositum est
frænum. Nam et Collegiorum alumni qui in Anglicanis universitatibus
admodum multi erant, otioque ac saturitate panis abundabant, ac
admodum provecti ætate erant, cupiebant et ipsi habere uxores; sed
videbatur inconveniens, et id privilegii Collegiorum tantum Rectoribus
concessum est, cum hac tamen exceptione, ut conjuges seorsim plerunque
extra Collegia constituant, rariusque eas intromittant.—De Schismate
Anglicano Lib. III. (Ingoldstat. 1586, p. 300).
See also Florimund. Raemund. Histor. Memoral. Lib. VI. cap. xii.
Of course much allowance must be made for the statements of so keen
a partisan as Sanders, and one who had suffered so much from those
whom he satirized, yet he was a man of too much shrewdness to make
statements which his contemporaries could recognize as entirely
destitute of foundation.
Even to this day the position of the wives of the Anglican prelates is
made a subject of ridicule by Catholic polemics. A recent Italian tract
entitled “Il Celibato del sacerdozio Cattolico” remarks “Osservate
piuttosto le mogli de’ vescovi e degli arcivescovi Anglicani, tenute
esse in conto di concubine non hanno posto alcuno nella civile
società.”—Panzini, Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 472.
[1278] Zurich Letters, Second Series, p. 359 (Parker Society, 1845).
Wiburn was deprived for non-conformity in 1564, so that this must have
been written subsequently (Strype’s Life of Grindal, p. 98).
[1279] Zurich Letters, First Series, pp. 164, 179.
[1280] “That, concerning Virginity and the Single Life, he handled the
case so finely that to his thinking, if he should have believed him, he
could not find three good Virgins since Christ’s time. And that so he
left the Matter with an Exhortation to all to Mary, Mary. Further, That
he said in that Sermon that single-living Men, that is to say unmaried,
and especially unmaried priests, lived naught. And that there in that
City were lately presented five or six unmaried priests that kept five
or six whores apiece; though there were not above four unmaried priests
in the City in all.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 349.
[1281] “Where he alledgeth that he never called Priests Wives _Whores_,
it is untrue. For three Women going through his Park, wherein is a path
for footmen, he supposing they had been Priests Wives called unto them,
_Ye shall not come through my Park and no such Priests Whores_.”—Ibid.
p. 358.
[1282] See a tract published against the rebels, attributed by Strype
to Sir Thomas Smith, which ridicules the advocates of celibacy with a
vigor reminding us of the Beggars’ Petition.—“This is a quarrel wholly
like the old Rebels Complaint of Enclosing of Commons. Many of your
_Disordered and evil disposed_ Wives are much agrieved that Priests,
which were wont to be Common be now made Several. _Hinc illæ lachrymæ._
There is Grief indeed, and Truth it is, and so shall you find it. Few
Women storm against the marriage of priests, calling it unlawful and
incensing Men against it, but such as have been Priests Harlots or fain
would be. Content your Wives yourselves and let Priests have their
own.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 558.
[1283] A causidico, medicastro, ipsaque artificum farragine, ecclesiæ
rector aut vicarius contemnitur et fit ludibrio. Gentis et familiæ
nitor sacris ordinibus pollutus censetur: fœminisque natalitio
insignibus unicum inculcatur sæpius præceptum, ne modestiæ naufragium
faciant, aut (quod idem auribus tam delicatulis sonat) ne clerico se
nuptas dari patiantur.—T. Wood, Angliæ Notitia (Macaulay’s Hist. Engl.
Chap. III.).
Lord Macaulay attributes the degraded position of the clergy to their
indigence and want of influence. These causes doubtless had their
effect, but the peculiar repugnance towards clerical marriage ascribed
to all respectable women had a deeper origin than simply the beggarly
stipends attached to the majority of English livings.
[1284] Rahlenbeck, L’Église de Liége, p. 49. The stern and self-centred
soul which won for Idelette the hand of Calvin was unshaken to the
last, as may be seen by his curious account of her death-bed, in a
letter to Farel (Calvini Epistolæ, p. 111. Genevæ, 1617). His grief
was doubtless sincere, but his friends were able to compliment him on
his not allowing domestic affliction to interfere with his customary
routine of labor (Ibid. p. 116).
[1285] I have not access to the original, but quote the following from
Quick’s “Synodicon in Gallia Reformata,” London, 1692—“Art. XXIV.....
We do also reject those means which men presumed they had, whereby they
might be redeemed before God; for they derogate from the satisfaction
of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ. Finally, We hold Purgatory to
be none other than a cheat, which came out of the same shop: from which
also proceeded monastical vows, pilgrimages, prohibition of marriage
and the use of meats, a ceremonious observation of days, auricular
confession, indulgences, and all other such matters, by which Grace and
Salvation may be supposed to be deserved. Which things we reject, not
only for the false opinion of merit which was affixed to them, but also
because they are the inventions of men, and are a yoke laid by their
sole authority upon conscience” (Quick I. xi.).—See also the Confession
written by Calvin in 1562, to be laid before the Emperor Ferdinand
(Calvini Epist. pp. 564-66).
[1286] Discip. Chap. XIII. can. xxviii. (Quick, I. liii.).
[1287] Ibid. Chap. I. can. xlvii.
[1288] Chap. IV. Art. xii., Chap. XVI. Art. xiv. (Quick, I. 32, 38).
[1289] Prelates of high position were not wanting to the list of
married men. Carracioli, Bishop of Troyes, and Spifame, Bishop of
Nevers, were of the number. Jean de Monluc, Bishop of Valence (brother
of the celebrated Marshal Blaise de Monluc, whose cruelties to the
Huguenots were so notorious), married without openly apostatizing,
and died in the Catholic faith. Cardinal Odet de Châtillon, Bishop of
Beauvais, and brother of the Admiral, became a declared Calvinist,
married Mdlle. de Hauteville, and called himself Comte de Beauvais.
He seems to have retained his benefices, and was still called by the
Catholics M. le Cardinal, “Car il nous estoit fort à cœur,” says
Brantôme (Discours 48), “de luy changer le nom qui luy avoit esté si
bien seant.”
[1290] Édit de Roussillon, Art. 7 (Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises,
XV. 172). This edict was cited in the proceedings of the case of
Dumonteil, about the year 1830, of which more hereafter.
[1291] Édit de 1576, Art. 9.—Édit de Poitiers, Art. Secrets, No. 8
(Isambert, T. XV. pp. 283, 331).
[1292] Concil. Rotomag. ann. 1581 cap. de Monasteriis § 32 (Harduin. X.
1253).
[1293] Édit de Nantes, Art. Secrets, No. 39 (Isambert, T. XVI. p. 206).
[1294] Grégoire, Hist, du Mariage des Prêtres en France, pp. 58-9.
[1295] A decision rendered on the argument of the distinguished avocat
général Omer Talon expressly states “que la prohibition du mariage des
personnes constituées dans les ordres etant une loi de l’État aussi
bien que de l’Église, un prêtre malgré sa profession de Calvinisme,
était demeuré sujet aux lois de l’État, et dès lors n’avait pas pu
valablement contracter mariage.”—Bouhier de l’Écluse, de l’État des
Prêtres en France, Paris, 1842, p. 12.
[1296] Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, p. 3 (Ed. 1609).
[1297] Knox, pp. 15-16.—Calderwood’s Historie of the Kirk of Scotland,
I. 83-5 (Wodrow Soc.).
[1298] Knox, pp. 16-17.
[1299] Buchanan. Rer. Scot. Hist. Lib. xv.—Robertson, Hist of Scot. B.
II.—Knox, 71-2.—Calderwood I. 222.
[1300] Buchanan. Lib. xv.
[1301] Wilkins IV. 207.
[1302] Concil. Edinburgens. ann. 1549 can. 1, 2 (Wilkins IV. 48).
[1303] Wilkins IV. 207-10.—Knox, p. 129. It should be borne in mind in
estimating these penalties that they are expressed in pounds Scots,
which were about one-twelfth of the pound sterling. These canons, it
appears, were not adopted without opposition. According to Knox, “But
herefrom appealed the Bishop of Murray and other prelates, saying
That they would abide the canon law. And so they might well enough
do, so long as they remained Interpretors, Dispensators, Makers and
Disannullers of the law ” (Op. cit. 119). It was doubtless on some
such considerations that the Archbishop of St. Andrews relied when
he consented to waive his exemption in this matter. His personal
reputation may be estimated from the remark of Queen Mary when, in
December, 1566, he performed the rite of baptism on James VI. She
forbade him to use the popular ceremony of employing his saliva, giving
a reason which was in the highest degree derogatory to his moral
character (Sir J. Y. Simpson, in Proceedings of Epidemiological Society
of London, Nov. 5th, 1860).
[1304] Robertson, Hist. Scot. Bk. II.
[1305] Thus the Parliament of 1560, which effected a settlement of the
Reformed Religion, was urged to its duty by a Supplication presented
in the name of “The Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, and other true
Subjects of this Realm, professing the Lord Jesus within the same,”
which, among its arguments against Catholicism, does not hesitate
to assert—“Secondarily, seeing that the sacraments of Jesus Christ
are most shamefully abused and profaned by that Romane Harlot and
her sworne vassals, and also because that the true Discipline of
the Ancient Church is utterly now among that Sect extinguished: For
who within the Realme are more corrupt in life and manners than are
they that are called the Clergie, living in whoredom and adultery,
deflouring Virgins, corrupting Matrons, and doing all abomination
without fear of punishment. We humbly, therefore, desire your Honors to
finde remedy against the one and the other”—Knox, p. 255.
[1306] This doctrine bore its full share in the history of the Scottish
reformation. Two years after the execution of the protomartyr, Patrick
Hamilton, in 1528, his sister Catharine was arraigned on account of
her belief in justification through Christ. Learned divines urged upon
her with prolix earnestness of disputation the necessity of works,
until her patience gave way, and she rudely exclaimed, “Work here and
work there, what kind of working is all this? No work can save me but
the work of Christ my Saviour.” By the connivance of the king she was
enabled to escape to England.—Calderwood’s Historie, I. 109.
[1307] Knox, p. 283.
[1308] Knox, p. 119.—Calderwood, I. 423.
[1309] Thus the assembly of the church in 1562 drew up a remonstrance
to the queen, in which they requested that “in every Parish some of the
Tythes may be assigned to the sustentation and maintenance of the poor
within the same: And likewise that some publike relief may be provided
for the poor within Burroughs”—Knox, p. 339.
[1310] Ibid. p. 278. The Book was signed at Edinburgh, Jan. 27, 1561,
but only after the adoption of a proviso—“Provided that the Bishops,
Abbots, Priors and other Prelates and Beneficed men, which else have
adjoyned themselves to us, brooke the revenues of their Benefices
during their lifetimes.”—Worldly wisdom certainly was not lost sight of
in the ardor of a new and purer religion.
[1311] Knox, 136.
[1312] Calderwood’s Historie, I. 123-4.
[1313] Knox, p. 65.—Knox’s characteristic comment on this is—“When he
had said these words, they were all dumb, thinking it better to have
ten concubines than one wife.”
[1314] Calderwood I. 231 sqq.
[1315] Knox, p. 130.—Calderwood I. 337 sqq.—Burnet vol. II. The
implacable character of Scottish persecution is aptly illustrated by
a proclamation issued by Cardinal Beatoun in 1540 for the purpose of
spiting Sir Ralph Sadler, the English envoy at Edinburgh. It was during
Lent, and the proclamation declared “that whosoever should buy an egg
or eat an egg within those dioceses should forfeit no less than his
body to be burnt as a heretic, and all his goods confiscate to the
king”—Froude, Hist. Engl. IV. 54.
It was a life and death struggle, in which quarter could neither be
asked nor given.
[1316] Knox, p. 263.
[1317] Ibid. p. 304.
[1318] Strype’s Parker, Book II. ch. xviii.
[1319] The orator of the council of Cologne in 1527 sharply reminded
the assembled prelates that they must set the example of obeying their
own statutes, and that they could not expect the people to reverence
the true church so long as it notoriously bade defiance to the laws
of God and man. “Quasi præscribatur lex cujus sancitor voluerit esse
exlex. Parendum enim est legi quam quisque sancit.... Audis præterea
non licere plurimas habere uxores, quæ animum tuum alliciant; non
decere domi alere tot scorta tot Veneres, quæ te continue exedunt,
tuamque substantiam disperdunt.... His et aliis datur scandalum populo;
præbetur offendiculum vulgo, cui hac tempestate vilet et contemptui est
ordo quilibet sacer. Vilis plebs te sacerdotem nunc cachinnis atque
ludibriis incessit et odit, qui calumniandi ansam ultro præbueris.
Dicit namque: tot hic, aut ille, scorta domi suæ ex patrimonio
Crucifixi nutrit, quo non sordida scorta, sed pauperes Christi forent
sustentandi”—Concil. Colon. ann. 1527 (Hartzheim VI. 210-213).
So at the council of Augsburg, in 1548, the orator dwelt upon the
advantage which the heretics derived from the sins of the clergy—“Non
estis nescii, quemadmodum nos hæretici apud populum perpetuo
traducant: nos scortatores, nos ambitiosos, nos avaros, nos ignavos,
et rudes esse, nos otio semper, luxui et ventri servire, identidem
vociferantur.... Superbe itaque illi: sed utinam non nimium sæpe vere:
nam si vera potius hoc loco, quam plausibilia, dicenda sint; negare
certe non possumus, quin maximam ad nos accusandos occasionem sæpe
dederimus”—Concil. Augustan. ann. 1548 (Hartzheim VI. 388).
[1320] Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1521 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1018).
[1321] Quisquis igitur contra sacrorum conciliorum et patrum decreta,
sacerdotes, diaconos aut subdiaconos lege cœlibatus non teneri
docuerit aut liberas illis concesserit nuptias, inter hæreticos, omni
tergiversatione rejecta numeretur.—Concil. Paris. ann. 1528, Decret. 8.
This, I think, is the first authoritative promulgation of Damiani’s
doctrine, which, as we shall hereafter see, was adopted and extended by
the council of Trent.
[1322] Ibid. can. 3, 27.
[1323] Pierre de la Place, Estat de Rel. et Rep. Liv. III.
[1324] Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1551 can. 22 (Harduin. X. 468).
[1325] Consilium de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident.
II. 598).
[1326] Bull, ad Canonum (Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. 1692, I. 682).
Alexander III., in prohibiting the sons of priests from enjoying their
fathers’ benefices, had permitted it if a third party intervened, and a
dispensation for the irregularity were obtained. The letter of this law
was frequently observed, but its spirit eluded by nominally passing the
preferment through the hands of a man of straw, and it was this abuse
which Clement desired to eradicate.
[1327] Consilium de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident.
II. 599).
[1328] Wilkins IV. 209.
[1329] Le Plat, V. 88. The opinion which was held of the venality
of the Roman Court in such matters is forcibly expressed in the
instructions given to Lanssac, the French ambassador at Trent. He is
ordered to press the abolition of the Papal power of dispensation
“attendu que nul n’en est refusé s’il a argent.”—Ibid. p. 153.
[1330] Ejus sanctitati lex non sit præscribenda.—Ibid. p. 385.
[1331] Tax. Sac. Pœnitent. Ed. Gibbings, p. 13.—This was only one
carlino (the tenth part of a ducat, equal to about fourpence), more
than the charge for the bastard of a layman.
[1332] In 1526 or 1527, the authorities of Seville endeavored to
regulate this by forbidding certain articles of dress to concubines,
whether of ecclesiastics or laymen.—Wahu, Le Pope et la Société
Moderne, Paris, 1879 p. 395.
[1333] Ribadeneira Vit. Ignat. Loyol. Lib. II. cap. v.