good authority. His description would show that permanent unions were
formed, respected by the people but not recognized by the church, in
the same manner as those alluded to by Bishop Pelayo, two centuries
earlier.
[1334] Diaz de Luco, Practica Criminalis Canonica cap. lxxiii.
(Venetiis, 1543).
[1335] Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1536, P. II. c. 28. Six years later, in
1542, Bishop Hermann embraced Lutheranism, married, and in 1546 was
driven from his see and retired to his county of Wied, where he died
some years afterwards, at the ripe age of 80 years.
[1336] Concil. Salisburg. XLI. (Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. pp.
296-322).
[1337] Acta Concil. Trident. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 1063-9).
[1338] Sarpi, Istor. del Concilio Trident. Lib. VI. (Ed. Helmstad. II.
140).—Cf. Le Plat, V. 337-8.
[1339] Le Plat, V. 235.
[1340] Charles was careful to put on record his ceaseless endeavors
with Clement and Paul to obtain the convocation of a council and the
numberless promises made to him, for the evasion of which reasons were
always found.—Commentaires de Charles-Quint, pp. 96-7 (Paris, 1862).
[1341] Select. Harl. Miscell., London, 1793, p. 137.
[1342] The temper with which the Protestants now viewed the council
is well expressed in a letter from Aonio Paleario written in 1542 or
1545, from Rome to Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin, urging them
by no means to sanction the assembly with their presence—(Published by
Illgen, 4to. Leipzig, 1833).
[1343] There is something very amusingly suggestive in the
guarded manner in which Charles alludes to the translation of the
Council—“O ditto Papa Paulo por respeitos, que o moveram (os quaes
Deus permitta que forsem bons) tratton de avocar e transferir a
Bolonha”—(Commentaires, p. 98).
[1344] That the complaints of the Protestants were well founded, is
evident from the secret instructions given, Feb. 20th, 1552, by Julius
III. to the Bishop of Monte Fiascone, when sending him as legate to
Charles V. He was to explain to the emperor that the Council would
not discuss the propositions of the heretics “nimirum quod judex non
respondet parti, ne ex judice se partem constituat;” and he is further
to explain that “petentes commune concilium hæretici et schismatici
repellendi sunt a onciliis universalibus ... nullo modo commmunicandum
esse concilium cum hæreticis et schismaticis, qui sunt extra ecclesiam
... sed bene possunt admitti, ut possint interesse pro convincendis
etiam pluries eorum erroribus.”—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. T.
IV. p. 534-5.
[1345] The feeling entertained by Pius towards the council is shown by
his remark, in Dec. 1561, to M. de Lisle, the French ambassador, that
it had been called simply for the benefit of France—“dautant que ledit
concile, qui est de peu de besoin pour le reste de la chrestienté,
superflu aux Catholiques et non desiré des papes” (Le Plat, Monument.
Concil. Trident. IV. 742).
[1346] The characteristic correspondence is in Le Plat, IV. 678-87.
[1347] Charles declares that at the commencement of his pontificate
Paul was earnestly desirous of reforming the abuses of the church,
but that his zeal rapidly diminished and he followed the example of
Clement in contenting himself with empty promises.—“Com tudo despois
com o tempo aquellas mostras e ardor primeiro se foi esfriando, e
seguindo os passos e exemplo do Papa Clemente, com boas palavras
prolongon e entretene sempre a convoçáō e ajuntamento do concilio”
(Commentaires, p. 97).
[1348] Per serrar la bocca agl’ heretici i quali non facevano altro in
voce et in scritto che dir male della corte di Roma.—Carraciolo, Vita
di Paolo IV. MS. Br. Mus. (Young, Life and Times of Aonio Paleario, I.
261).
[1349] Concilium de Emendanda Ecclesia (Le Plat, Monument. Concil.
Trident. II. 601, 602).
[1350] It has been customarily stated by Catholic writers that this
proceeding of Paul IV. was directed not against his own work, but
against the heretically commentated editions, but this, I believe, has
been refuted by Schelhorn. See Gibbings’s “Taxes of the Penitentiary,”
p. xlix.
[1351] Published by Clausen, Copenhagen, 1829.
[1352] Lib. ad Ration. Concord. ineundam Art. XXII. § 13 (Goldast. II.
199).
[1353] Formul. Reformat, cap. XVII. § 4 (Goldast. II. 335).
[1354] Ibid. cap. III. § 1, cap. V. § § 7, 9.
[1355] Synod. Augustan. ann. 1548 c. 10.
[1356] Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1548.
[1357] Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1548 cap. ii.
[1358] Synod. Trevirens. II. ann. 1549 cap. xi., xix.
[1359] Mandat. de abjic. Concub. (Hartzheim VI. 353).
[1360] Ibid. p. 358. A Diocesan Synod was also held at Liége, Nov. 15,
which gave offending clerks fifteen days to part with their concubines
(Ibid. VI. 395).
[1361] Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1549 cap. Quibus possint.—Cap. de
Monach. conjugat.—Cap. de Concub. Monach.—Cap. Comœdias.
[1362] Hartzheim VI. 767, 781.
[1363] Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. pp. 328, 337 (Concil. Salisburg.
XLIV. can. vii.).
[1364] Gropp, Collect. Script. Wirceburg. I. 311.—Hartzheim VI.
359, 417. In the epistle convoking his council, Bishop Melchior of
Wurzburg alluded passionately to the evils everywhere existing:
“Videtis percussum pastorem; videtis oves dispersas; videtis impudentem
peccandi licentiam; videtis adversus pietatem audaciam tum loquendi tum
disputandi impiissimam, et indies scelerata gliscere schismata” (Ibid.
X. 753).
[1365] Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1549 c. 82, 102.
[1366] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1550 (Hartzheim VI. 654).
[1367] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 611.
[1368] Consult. Imp. Ferdinand. (Le Plat, V. 235). It would be
impossible to conceive a darker picture of clerical life than is given
in this document. “Ejici autem nunc clerum, conculcari pedibus, pro
nihilo haberi et tanquam publicum offendiculum devoveri diris aut
paulo plus, tam verum est quam minime falsum, cleri mores insulsos
esse, vanos esse, turpes esse, æque ecclesiæ perniciosos ac Deo
execrabiles”—Ibid. p. 237.
[1369] Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 190, 285.
[1370] Hosii Dialogus de ea, num Calicem Laicis et Uxores Sacerdotibus
permitti etc. Dilingæ, 1558.
[1371] Pallavicini, Storia del Concil. di Trento, Lib. XIV. c. 13.
Twelve years before, his uncle, the Bishop of Liége, in promulgating
the Augsburg formula of reformation, had made a similar
assertion—“Preterquam quod hoc infœlici sæculo, quo omnis caro corrupit
viam suam, præsertimque ordo clericorum et ecclesiasticorum, nimium
degenerant, plus quam unquam est necessaria”—Concil. Leodiens. ann.
1548 (Hartzheim VI. 392). The increased emphasis of Ferdinand is a
measure of the success which had attended the reformatory movements of
Charles V. during the interval.
In such a condition of ecclesiastical morality it is no wonder that
even in orthodox Vienna the most popular theme on which preachers could
expatiate was the corruption of the church.—See the Emperor Ferdinand’s
secret instructions to his envoy in Rome, March 6th, 1560, in Le Plat,
Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 622.
[1372] Pallavicini, loc. cit. That the Catholic church of Germany had
become widely infected with this Lutheran heresy is also shown by the
fact that in 1548 the Archbishop of Cologne had found it necessary
to prohibit throughout his province all marriages of priests, monks,
and nuns, and had pronounced illegitimate the offspring of such
unions.—Hartzheim VI. 357.
[1373] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. IV. 644.
[1374] Pallavicini, Lib. XV. c. 5.—The duke, though no bigot, was a
good Catholic.
[1375] Pallavicini, Lib. XVII. c. 4. At the request of Duke Albert, the
question was also mooted at the provincial synod of Salzburg, held in
1562 for the purpose of sending delegates to Trent.—Hartzheim VII. 230.
[1376] Articuli de Reform. Eccles. No. 14, 15, 18.—Goldast. II. 376.
[1377] Consultat. Imp. Ferdinandi (Le Plat, V. 249, 252).
[1378] Considerat. Cæsar. Majest. sup. Matrim. Sacerd. Nos. 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 (Goldast. II. 382-3—Le Plat, VI. 315).
[1379] Le Plat, V. 154, 208, 211.
[1380] Le Plat, V. 562-3.
[1381] Capi dati da’ Francesi cap. 1—(Baluz. et Mansi IV. 374) Comp.
Zaccaria pp. 133-4.
[1382] Votum castitatis sacris ordinibus conjunctum, atque vota quæ
in probatis religionibus emittuntur, et alia quæcunque rite suscepta,
fideliter sunt observanda.—Le Plat, IV. 649.
[1383] Ibid. IV. 756, 760, 761, 765.—The 182 articles which, according
to Archbishop Bartholomew, required reform in the internal discipline
of the church form as damaging a commentary upon its condition as any
of the attacks of the Protestants.
[1384] Art. v.—Lettere del Arcivesc. Calini (Baluz. et Mansi IV.
295).—Le Plat, V. 674.
[1385] Lettere di Calini (Ibid. 326).
[1386] See the apologetic letter of the nuncio to the emperor,
Jan. 19th, 1562 (Le Plat, op. cit. V. 320). Ferdinand remonstrated
earnestly, but did not venture to rebel against their decision (Ibid.
351-60).
[1387] Ibid. p. 388.
[1388] Lettere del Nunzio Visconti (Baluz. et Mansi III. 453).
[1389] Disputat. Joann, de Ludegna (Harduin. X. 359). The learned
doctor presents his argument in the form of a colloquy between himself
and Calvin, and its spirit may be gathered from the first speech of
Calvin, in which he is made to declare that he is endeavoring to find
arguments with which to defend himself and his apostate strumpets.
[1390] Sarpi, Lib. VII. (Opere, II. 280, Helmstat, 1761).
[1391] Sarpi (loc. cit.).
[1392] Pallavicini, Lib. XVII. c. 4.
[1393] Sarpi, Lib. VIII. p. 315.
[1394] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Sacrament. Matrimon.
Can. IX. Si quis dixerit clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutos,
vel regulares castitatem solemniter professos, posse matrimonium
contrahere, contractumque validum esse, non obstante lege ecclesiastica
vel voto; et oppositum nihil aliud esse quam damnare matrimonium;
posseque omnes contrahere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis,
etiamsi eam voverint, habere donum; anathema sit; quum Deus id recte
petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus tentari.
Can. X. Si quis dixerit statum conjugalem anteponendum esse statui
virginitatis vel cœlibatus, et non esse melius ac beatius manere in
virginitate aut cœlibatu, quam jungi matrimonio, anathema sit.
[1395] The feelings which the Council excited among the Protestants
are expressed with more vigor than elegance by Alexander Nowell, at
that time Dean of St. Paul’s—“No Sir, your Prelats sat not there
about conning of Articles of Religion, or to Dispute with Hereticks
to vanquish them. A few louzy Friars, whom no Man would fear but in
his Pottage or Egg-py, did serve that Turn well enough. And your great
Prelates devised the while by that long Consultation, how by Sword and
Fire they might most cruelly murder all true Christians, whom they call
Hereticks; and now do labour to put in Execution such their bloody
Devices.”—Strype’s Annals, I. 377.
[1396] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXV. Decret. de Reformat. cap. 14,15.
[1397] Ma noi facciamo quello che ci si permette di fare, non quello
che vorremmo.—Examinatore, Firenze, 1868, p. 15.
[1398] Lett. No. LXIX. (Ed. Amsterd. II. 299). This and the concluding
letters are not in Mansi’s edition.
[1399] Pallavicini, Lib. XXII. c. 10.
[1400] Goldast. II. 380.—Le Plat, VI. 310, 312.
It is observable from this that many priests left the church and
married without formally embracing the Lutheran faith, and a return
of these was anticipated from a relaxation of the canons. Others,
as may be gathered from various references above, married and still
performed their regular duties. Of these, some no doubt acted in
virtue of dispensations granted by the nuncios of Paul III., after
the promulgation of the Interim, but many did so in utter contempt of
discipline. An illustrative example of the latter class may be found in
the well-known Stanislas Orzechowski, whose marriage, notwithstanding
his prominent position, shows the laxity of opinion which prevailed
on the subject. As priest and canon of Przemysl in Poland, his
marriage naturally gave great offence to his colleagues, which was
not diminished by a dissertation which he wrote in favor of priestly
marriage. This, he subsequently claimed, had been prepared for the
purpose of laying before the council of Trent, and its publication
had arisen from the indiscretion of a friend to whom he had entrusted
it. Somewhat contaminated with the new ideas by his education at
Wittenberg, he sturdily refused to give up either his wife or his
position. His consequent excommunication he disregarded, though
according to his own account he gave up on marrying his benefices and
the ministry (Lettera a Guilio III. trad. di B. Leoni, Milano, anno.
VI.), and notwithstanding this he had a very narrow escape from the
death-penalty, and his condemnation excited a commotion throughout
Poland that was very favorable to the spread of the reformed opinions
(Orichovii Annales, pp. 71-84, 108, Ed. 1854). At length the feeling
against the pretensions of the church became so strong that the Diet of
1552 removed all the civil and temporal penalties of excommunication,
so that he triumphed for the time. When in 1556, the legate Lippomani
held a synod at Lovictz, he called to account those who had connived
at so great an irregularity. They denied granting the dispensation,
saying that they had only suspended the censures until the pleasure
of the pope should be known; but at the same time many prelates used
all their influence with Lippomani to obtain one. Lippomani declared
that he had no power to grant it, nor would he do so if he could,
seeing that Orzechowski defended himself on heretical grounds (Concil.
Lovitiens.—Labbei et Coleti Supp. T. V. p. 702). In 1561 Orzechowski,
in his address to the synod of Warsaw, admitted that he had sinned,
but claimed that he had been punished sufficiently—“Si quis igitur a
me quærat; Num uxorem sacerdos duxerim? Duxisse me fatebor. Peccasti
igitur? Peccavi. Pœnas ergo peccati debes? Debui et persolvi” (Doctrina
de Sacerd. Cœlibatu, Varsaviæ, 1801). He therefore complained of the
persecutions to which he was exposed on account of his wife, and he
petitioned both the pope and the council of Trent for a dispensation.
While the Tridentine fathers refused it, some authors assert that
it was granted by Pius IV. to him as an exceptional case “tibi soli
Orichovio,” but careful investigation has failed to discover the Bull,
and, according to Zaccaria the pope merely sent secret orders to his
legate Commendone not to allow Orzechowski to be molested, but at the
same time to give no publicity to an act of tolerance in contravention
of the canons of the council of Trent (Grégoire, Hist du Mariage des
Prêtres en France, pp. 51-55).
In his answer to Fricius, Orzechowski assumes that he was absolved
from his excommunication by the Legate—“Præterea a sententia
excommunicationis, qua eram a Joanne Episcopo Premisliensi, ob hanc
eandem uxorem, ex ecclesia pulsus, a Legato Romani Petri absolutus cum
sim, nihil feci contra ilium” (_ap._ Doctrin. de Sacerd. Cœlibat. p.
24). He also alleges the extraordinary excuse that he abandoned the
priesthood before his marriage.
The history of Orzechowski, with probably a less fortunate result, is
no doubt that of innumerable others, whose obscurity has prevented
their sufferings from being known beyond their own narrow circle.
Strype (Annals, I. 485-6) asserts that after the accession of Queen
Elizabeth the Catholic emissaries in England had a general dispensation
to marry, in order to assist their concealment and to further the
design of creating schism in the Anglican church. He gives as his
authority one Malachi Malone, a converted Irish friar.
[1401] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VI. 331.
[1402] This was not his first attempt of this kind. In 1540 he had
called upon John Cochlæus to examine the Confession of Augsburg and
report as to what points were reconcilable with Catholicism and what
were not. Cochlæus responded in an elaborate dissertation, wherein he
took strong ground against abandoning celibacy, but admitted that he
was utterly unable to suggest any remedy for the evils resulting from
it,—especially the “scandalosus presbyterorum in seculo concubinatus,
præsertim apud plebanos in pagis, qui communiter cum ancillis rem
domesticam gubernare necessitate quadam coguntur.”—Le Plat, II. 667.
[1403] G. Cassandri Consult, XXIII., XXV. (Le Plat, VI. 761-2, 783-4).
[1404] Wicelii Via Regia, De Conjug. Sacerd.
Both these tracts were printed with other controversial matter, by
Hermann Conring, 4to. Helmstadt, 1569.
[1405] Goldast. II. 381.
[1406] Le Plat, VI. 335.
[1407] De Thou, Lib. xxxvii.
[1408] In 1560 Ferdinand addressed to Pius IV. an earnest request
that a special dispensation might be granted to Maximilian, then
king of Bohemia, authorizing him to receive the communion in both
elements. In this he stated that his son’s scruples of conscience
on the subject were so strong that he had abstained for three years
from taking the sacrament. In the secret instructions to the Imperial
ambassador accompanying this request, the latter is furnished with
elaborate reasons to prove that the suspicions entertained at Rome
of Maximilian’s orthodoxy were unfounded.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil.
Trident. IV. 619-23.
[1409] Le Plat, VI. 336.
[1410] Struvii Corp. Hist. German. II. 1097.
[1411] Bernardi Sermo. 66, in Cantica, cap. i.
[1412] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. V. 340.
[1413] The council of Trent has never been received in France. For a
résumé of the efforts made to obtain its adoption and their uniform
lack of success, see Chavart, Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 507-12.
[1414] In August, 1564, Philip II. had ordered its publication in
the Low Countries, but Margaret of Parma had hesitated to obey in
consequence of the intense opposition excited by its interference
with local liberties and franchises, as it completed and crowned
the centralizing policy which rendered the papacy supreme over
all local churches. It was not until Dec. 18, 1565, that it was
finally promulgated, under imperative commands from Philip. It is
characteristic of Philip’s habitual double-dealing, however, that
while his public orders commanded the reception of the Council without
exception, he secretly reserved the rights of himself and his subjects
(Le Plat, Concil. Trident. VII. Præf. p. vi.).
[1415] By a Bull dated July 18, 1564, Pius IV. fixed May 1, 1564, as
the time when the Tridentine canons became the law of the church. His
letter to the Archbishop of Bremen with an official copy and directions
as to its promulgation, is dated Oct. 3d of the same year (Hartzheim
VII. 25).
It would seem to be a work of supererogation for a learned Italian
lawyer to write an elaborate treatise, dedicated to Pius IV., against
the abolition of celibacy, yet Marquardo dei Susani thought it
worth while to do this in his “Tractatus de Cœlibatu Sacerdotum non
abrogando,” 4to. Venice, 1565.
[1416] Bull. Cum primum § 12 (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 180).
[1417] “Plerosque ... abjecto Dei timore et sine ulla hominum
verecundia, concubinas palam habere, easque perinde, ac si legitimæ
eorum uxores essent, in ecclesiis et aliis locis publicis conspici,
vulgo iisdem, quibus illi vocantur, officiorum et dignitatum nominibus
appellatas; eoque hæreses tantopere crevisse, ac multiplicatas fuisse;
quod ecclesiastici tam turpiter et nequiter vivendo, omnem plane
existimationem amiserint, et in summam non apud hæreticos modo, sed
etiam Catholicos contemptionem venerint.... Nisi enim tam nefandum
concubinatus vitium extirpetur, nullam spem reliquam esse videmus
reprimi posse hæreses. Sed timemus (quod Deus avertat) ne brevi tempore
istæ, quæ supersunt, Catholicorum reliquias amittantur, et omnis
prorsus Catholicæ religionis cultus apud vos extinguatur.”—Breve Pii V.
ad Archiep. Salzburg. (Hartzheim VII. 231).
[1418] Bull. Horrendum (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 267).
[1419] Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. p. 556.
[1420] De Thou, Hist. Univers. Lib. XXXVIII. ann. 1566.
[1421] Bull. Quæ ordini.—How difficult was the task thus undertaken is
admitted in the Bull itself—“Quia vero difficile nimis esset, præsentes
quocumque illis opus erit proferre” (Ibid. II. 323-4).
[1422] Bull. Ad Romanum. (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 325).
[1423] Synod. August. ann. 1610 P. III. c. iii. § 1 (Hartzheim IX. 59).
[1424] In hac etiam urbe meretrices ut matronæ incedunt per urbem,
seu mula vehuntur, quas affectantur de media die nobiles familiares
cardinalium clericique. Nulla in urbe vidimus hanc corruptionem,
præterquam in hac omnium exemplari, habitant etiam insignes ædes:
corrigendus etiam hic turpis abusus.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil.
Trident. II. 604.
[1425] De Thou, Lib. XXXIX.
[1426] Bull. Postquam verus (Mag. Bull. Roman. II. 567)—“Certum nequeat
suæ testimonium continentiæ exhibere.”
[1427] Fleury, Liv. CLXXI. chap. 104 et seq.
[1428] Muratori, Annal. ann. 1569.—Henrion, Hist. des Ordres Religieux
I. 196.—Fleury, Liv. CLXXI. chap. 26.—De Thou, Lib. L.—The calm
Muratori stigmatizes the Umiliati as “troppo scorretto e corrotto
ordine,” and Henrion, who cannot certainly be regarded as a prejudiced
authority, declares that “les excès des Humiliés surpassoient ceux
des laïques les plus débauchés.” Pius V., in his Bull suppressing the
order, is equally emphatic, and vouches for the truth of the miracle
by which the life of St. Charles was preserved.—Bull. Quemadmodum
sollicitus (Mag. Bull. Rom. II. 326).
[1429] Vû que par toute l’Italie on le vit reconnoitre pour l’usage
et observations de toutes les ordonnances, on n’en voit une seule
entretenue de celles qui concerne la reformation de la vie et mœurs des
ecclésiastiques.... Et ce peut dire pour ce regard que l’église n’est
en autre lieu de la Chrétienté si déréglée et difforme qu’ès pays où le
pape a commandement et puissance absolu.—Le Plat, VII. 259.
[1430] Concil. Mediolanens. ann. 1565 P. II. Const. xiv. (Harduin. X.
661)—Concil. Mediolanens. ann. 1582 Const. xiv. (Ibid. p. 1117).
[1431] Concil. Sipontin. ann. 1567 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric.—Concil.
Ravennat. ann. 1568 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. v.—Concil. Urbinat.
ann. 1569 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. vi.—Concil. Florent. ann. 1573
Rubr. XXXVII. c. 3, 4.—Concil. Neapol. ann. 1576 cap. XXII.—Concil.
Consentin. ann. 1579 Sess. IV.—Concil. Salernit. ann. 1596 cap.
XVIII.—Concil. S. Severin. ann. 1597 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric.—Concil.
Amalfitan. ann. 1597 De Vit. et Honest. Cleric. c. v.—(Labbei et Coleti
Supplement. T. V. pp. 827-1331).
[1432] The documents are in Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident.
VII. 199-201. For the condition of morals in the church of Holland,
see Synod. Harlem. ann. 1564; Synod. Ultraject. ann. 1564; Concil.
Ultraject. ann. 1565 (Hartzheim VII. 5, 22, 137). It was to the
publication of the council of Trent that William of Orange attributed
the inevitable revolution which followed (Stradæ de Bell. Belgic. Lib.
iv.).
[1433] Synod. Salisburg. ann. 1569 Const. XXVII. cap. xviii., xix.,
xx., xxi., xxii. (Hartzheim VII. 306-8).
[1434] Concil. Salisburg. XLVII. (Dalham, Conc. Salisb. p. 583).
[1435] Visitat. Salisburg. ann. 1616 Tit. I. cap. vi. (Hartzheim IX.
266).
[1436] Decret. Reformat. Pragens. (Hartzheim VII. 53).
[1437] Statut. Rural. Julii Wirceburg. P. III. c. iv. (Gropp Script.
Rer. Wirceburg. I. 471-4). It is somewhat remarkable that Bishop Julius
attributes the prohibition of marriage to the Council of Nicæa. After
describing the custom of the Greek church, he proceeds, “Permissio vero
et consuetudo illa duravit usque ad Nicænum concilium, in quo generali
decreto abrogata est, statutumque ne aliquis habens uxorem consecretur
sacerdos”—a falsification which is equally singular, whether it
proceeded from ignorance or fraud, and an admission that celibacy was
not of apostolic origin which was rare in a Catholic prelate of that
period.
[1438] Synod. Gnesnens. c. xxxiii. (Hartzheim VII. 891).