[1440] Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1591 c. xiii. (Hartzheim VIII. 352).
[1441] Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1628 (Hartzheim IX. 431).—As usual,
a distinction is drawn between those who thus formed permanent,
though illicit connections, and others who indulged in promiscuous
license—“alii vaga dissoluti lascivia, tanquam equi emissarii, ad
incontinentissimum quodque scortum aut adulteram adhinniunt trahuntque
ingentes liberorum spuriorum greges. Hæc in propatulo sunt; quæ vero in
occulto fiunt ab ipsis, turpe est et dicere.”
[1442] Llorente, Histoire Critique de l’Inquisition d’Espagne, Chap.
XXVIII. Art. iii. No. 7.
[1443] Statut. Diœces. Pragens. ann. 1565 (Hartzheim VII. 26).
[1444] Synod. Salisburg. ann. 1569 (Hartzheim VII. 407).
[1445] Le Plat, VII. 238.
[1446] Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap. xxxviii. (Aguirre, VI. 457).
[1447] Henr. Cuyckii Speculum Concubinariorum Sacerdotum, Monachorum ac
Clericorum; Coloniæ, 1599.
[1448] Synod. Constant. ann. 1609 (Hartzheim VIII. 838). Another
orator, Dr. Mayer, S. J., though more cautious in his deductions, was
equally outspoken in his denunciations of the wickedness of the clergy
(Ibid. p. 831).
[1449] Synod. Antverp. ann. 1610 (Hartzheim VIII. 979).
[1450] Damhouder. Rerum Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. No. 25 (Antverp.
1601).
[1451] Synod. Boscodunens. II. ann. 1612 (Hartzheim IX. 200).
[1452] Synod. Osnabrug. ann. 1625 cap. v., x. Hartzheim IX. 350.—Synod.
Osnabrug. ann. 1628 (Ibid. p. 428).
[1453] Synod. Monasteriens. ann. 1652 (Hartzheim IX. 786-7).
[1454] Synod. Colon. ann. 1662 P. III. Tit. I. cap. 1 § iii. (Hartzheim
IX. 1006).
[1455] Mag. Bull. Roman. Ed. Luxemb. 1742, T. VI. App. p. 2.
[1456] Pierre de la Place, Estat. de Relig. etc. Liv. III.
[1457] Quick, Synod. Gall. Reform. I. 18.
[1458] Fleury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. CLVII. Nos. 37-42.
[1459] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 401.
[1460] Concil. Remens. ann. 1564, Stat. XVII. (Harduin. X. 477).
[1461] Concil. Camerac. ann. 1565, Rubr. VIII. c. 3.—At this council,
which was held in June, 1565, the council of Trent was formally
adopted. As forming part of _Flandre Française_, Cambray may properly
be considered as French, though Francis I., by the treaty of Madrid
in 1526, had been compelled to surrender his sovereignty, and till a
hundred years later it continued under Spanish dominion.
[1462] Concil. Camerac. ann. 1567 c. iii. (Hartzheim VII. 216).
[1463] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1631 Tit. XVIII. c. xiv. (Ibid. IX. 562).
[1464] Claudii Episc. Ebroicens. Statut. cap. III. § 1 (Migne’s Patrol.
Tom. 147 pp. 244-5.)
[1465] Concil. Remens. ann. 1583 cap. xviii. § 5 (Harduin. X. 1293).
[1466] Concil. Turon. ann. 1583 cap. xv. (Ibid. p. 1481).
[1467] Concil. Avenionens. ann. 1594 can. xxxii. (Ibid. p. 1854).
[1468] Concil. Burdigalens. ann. 1624 cap. xiii. § 2. (Harduin. XI. 96).
[1469] Synod. Tornacens. ann. 1574 Tit. xii. c. 5, 6, 7 (Hartzheim VII.
780).—Synod. Audomarens. ann. 1583 Tit. xvi. c. 2 (Ibid. VII. 947).
Concil. Burdigalens. ann. 1583 can. xxi. (Harduin. X. 1360).—Concil.
Bituricens. ann. 1584 Tit. xlii. can. 1-4 (Ibid. X. 1503-4).—Concil.
Aquens. ann. 1585 cap. de Vit. et Honestate Cleric. (Ibid. X.
1547).—Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1609 cap. xli. (Ibid. XI. 96).
[1470] Du Fail, whose high official position in the Parlement of
Rennes precludes the supposition of any tendency to Calvinism, devotes
one of his discourses (Contes et Discours d’Eutrapel No. xx.) to the
evils entailed by celibacy on the church and on society, quoting the
exclamation of Cardinal Contarini to Velly the French ambassador, “O
quæ mala attulit in ecclesia cœlibatus ille!” It is true that such
stories as “Frater Fecisti” are not historical documents, yet they
have their value as indicating the drift of public feeling and the
convictions forced upon the minds of the people by the irregularities
of the clerical profession. The same lesson is taught by Boccaccio,
Piers Ploughman, Chaucer, Poggio, the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles, and
all the other records of the interior life of the 14th, 15th, and 16th
centuries.
[1471] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VII. 136.—Collect. Synod.
Mechlin. Tom. I. pp. 39, 57.—Synod. Mechlin. ann. 1570 Tit. xiv. (Ibid.
I. 118).—Synod. Lovaniens. ann. 1574 (Ibid. I. 191).—Synod. Provin.
Mechlin. ann. 1607 Tit. XVIII. c. viii. (Ibid. I. 395).—Synod. Diœces.
Mechlin. ann. 1607 Tit. XVII. c. vi. (Ibid. II. 237).—Congregat.
Archipresbyt. ann. 1613 (Ibid. II. 271).—Tertia Congregat. Episc. ann.
1624 (Ibid. I. 466).—Ibid. I. 514.
Synod. Augustan. ann. 1567 P. III. c. ii. (Hartzheim VII. 182).—Synod.
Constant. ann. 1567 P. II. Tit. i. c. 9 (Ibid. VII. 541).—Synod.
Ruremond. ann. 1570 (Ibid. VII. 653).—Synod. Boscodunens. ann. 1571
Tit. xiv. c. ii. (Ibid. VII. 723).—Synod. Warmiens. ann. 1577 c. i.
(Ibid. VII. 871).—Synod. Mettens. ann. 1604 c. xlviii., liii., lxii.
(Ibid. X. 768-70).—Synod. Brixiens. ann. 1603 De discip. cler. c.
xviii. (Ibid. VIII. 576).—Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1604 Tit. VIII. c.
vi. (Ibid. VIII. 623).—Synod. Constant. ann. 1609 P. II. Tit. xvii. c.
7 (Ibid. VIII. 906).—Synod. Mettens. ann. 1610 Tit. XI. c. xi. (Ibid.
VIII. 962).—Synod. Antverp. ann. 1610 Tit. XVII. c. vi. (Ibid. VIII.
1003).—Statut. Visitat. Salisburgens. ann. 1616 Tit. I. c. vi. (Ibid.
IX. 266).—Synod. Iprens. ann. 1629 c. xx. (Ibid. IX. 496).—Synod.
Namurcens. ann. 1639 Tit. XIX. c. ix., x. (Ibid. IX. 592-3).—Synod.
Audomar. ann. 1640 Tit. XIV. c. vii. (Ibid. X. 802).—Synod. Colon. ann.
1651 P. II. c. ii. § 1 (Ibid. IX. 742).—Synod. Hildesheim. ann. 1652
(Ibid. IX. 805-6).—Synod. Colon. ann. 1662 P. III. Tit. ii. c. 1, 2, 3
(Ibid. IX. 1008-11).—Statut. Synod. Trevirens. ann. 1678 c. xi., xii.,
xiii., xiv. (Ibid. X. 60).—Statut. Synod. Argentinens. ann. 1687 De
clericis addit. I. (Ibid. X. 180).—Synod. Brugens. ann. 1693 Tit. v.
§ 2 (Ibid. X. 202).—Cod. Canon. Mettens. ann. 1699 Tit. x. c. xviii.
(Ibid. X. 245).—Synod. Bisuntin. ann. 1707 Tit. II. c. xxv. (Ibid. X.
291).—Synod. Culmens. et Pomesan. ann. 1745 c. ix. (Ibid. X. 517).
Concil. Toletan. ann. 1565 Act. II. cap. xxii.; Act. III. cap. xix.,
xxv. (Aguirre V. 396, 405-6).—Concil. Valentin. ann. 1565 Tit. II. cap.
xviii., xix. (Ib. 425).—Concil. Toletan. ann. 1582 Act. III. Decret.
xxxv. (Ib. VI. 12).—Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 1591 Lib. I. Tit. viii.;
Lib. III. Tit. ii. (Ib. 256, 271-3).—Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap
xxxiii. (Ib. 456).
[1472] Ratio est quia tunc non dimittit habitum ut periculose vagetur,
sed ut commodius fornicetur, vel liberius furetur.—Apud C. Chabot,
Encyclopédie Monastique p. 24 (Paris, 1827).
[1473] Spatharius, Aurea Methodus corrigendi regulares, 1625, p.
57—“atque mea sententia, in totalem ordinis ruinam et destructionem
singularum religionum” (Apud Chabot, op. cit. p. 95).
[1474] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. lvii.—The first and second
Mexican Councils are not contained in Aguirre’s collection, but were
printed, together with the third, by Archbishop Lorenzana, in two folio
volumes, Mexico, 1769. The Third Council has also been reprinted in
Mexico, in 1858, as a manual of existing local ecclesiastical law.
[1475] Constituciones Sinodales de Santafé, 1556 cap. IV. (Groot, Hist.
Eccles. y Civil del Nuevo Reino de Granada, T. I. Append, ii. p. 497).
[1476] Synod Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xi., lxvii. (Aguirre,
VI. 193, 198).
[1477] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. li.—Concil. Mexican. III.
ann. 1585 Lib. V. Tit. x. § 8.
[1478] Aguirre, VI. 51, 55.—The canons of the council directed against
concubinage &c. are Act. III. c. 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 (Ibid. pp. 40-41).
[1479] Synod. Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xxxvi.—Synod. VIII.
ann. 1594 cap. xxxvi.—Concil. Provin. Limens. III. ann. 1601 Act. II.
Decret. iv. (Aguirre, VI. 197-8, 436, 479).
[1480] Mendieta, Historia Eccles. Indiana, Lib. IV. cap. xlvi. (Mexico,
1870).
[1481] Memorias de los Vireyes del Perú, Lima, 1859, T. III. pp. 63-70.
[1482] Synod. Diœc. Limens. III. ann. 1585 cap. xli.—V. ann. 1588 cap.
ix. (Aguirre VI. 198, 216).
[1483] Concil. Mexican. I. ann. 1555 cap. lxxxi.
[1484] Concil. Mexican. III. ann. 1585 Lib. V. Tit. x. § 7.
[1485] Notes 57 and 229, pp. 452, 549.
[1486] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Reform. Matrim. c. viii.—It
requires some artful special pleading on the part of Rivera and of the
authorities on whom he relies to reconcile this Mexican laxity with the
instructions of the council of Trent.
[1487] For the brutal details of the questions which the confessor was
required to ask of his penitents, female as well as male, see Burchardi
Decretorum Lib. XIX. c. v. I dare not give even a specimen.
[1488] Concil. I. Toletan. ann. 398 can. vi. For the custom of the
early church in the matter of the confession of sins, see Socrates, H.
E. V. xix., and Sozomen, H. E. VII. xvi.—In the ninth century it was
still an open question whether sacerdotal confession was necessary, v.
Concil. Cabillon. II. ann. 813 c. xxxiii. (Cf. c. xxv. xxxii.). It was
finally settled and auricular confession made obligatory by the Council
of Lateran in 1215 (Concil. Lateranens. IV. ann. 1215 c. xxi.).
[1489] Gratian. Caus. xxx. q. i. can. 8—I accept this decretal as
genuine on Jaffé’s authority, though its authenticity seems to me more
than doubtful.
[1490] Gratian. Caus. xxx. q. i. can. 9, 10.
[1491] See ante, passim, especially p. 350.
[1492] Calixti II. Serm. I. de S. Jacob. (Migne’s Patrolog. T. 163 p.
1390).—The genuineness of these sermons has been doubted, but they are
unquestionably, if not by Calixtus, by a writer nearly contemporary.
[1493] Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, p. 71. See also Cornelius Agrippa,
De Vanitate Scientiar. c. lxiv.
[1494] Limborch Hist. Inquisitionis p. 34.
[1495] Bernard. Diaz de Luco Pract. Crimin. Canon. cap. LXXV., LXXVI.
(Ed. 1543, pp. 72-3).
[1496] Llorente, Hist. de l’Inquisition d’Espagne, Ch. XXVIII. Art. i.
No. 4.
[1497] Bull. Cum sicut nuper (Mag. Bull. Rom. II. 4. Ed. 1742).
[1498] Reg. Gonsalvii Montan. Inquisit. Hispan. Exemplis Illustrata,
pp. 184 sqq. (Ed. Heidelbergæ, 1567).
[1499] Llorente, loc. cit. Nos. 6-8.
[1500] Bull. Universi Dominici Gregis. (Mag. Bull. Rom. III. 484).
In Spain, by the Carta Acordada of Aug. 3d, 1629, the Bull of Gregory
XV. was to be referred to in the Edict of Denunciation; and by the
Carta of Sept. 12th, 1634, a clause was to be added to the Edict to
the effect that notwithstanding the Bull, the offence was reserved
exclusively to the Inquisition.—Breve Resumen de las Cartas Acordadas
antiquas y modernas, dispuesto por Abecedario, s. v. Solicitante (MS.
Bib. Reg. Hafniens. No. 218_b_, p. 264). That the Court of Rome kept
faith in the matter of solicitation would seem to be proved by a case
occurring in 1695 when Dr. Augustin Velda, rector of La Sallana in
Valencia was accused before the Inquisition, and fled to Rome, where
he presented himself to the Sacred Congregation and was ordered to
return. This he did, but with what result is not noted (Ibid. p. 339).
[This exceedingly interesting MS. is a manual for use in one of the
tribunals of the Spanish Inquisition, compiled about the year 1670,
with notes bringing it down to the middle of the 18th century. I take
this occasion of expressing my obligations to the gentlemen in charge
of the Royal Library of Copenhagen, of the Bodleian Library of Oxford,
and of the Royal Library of Munich, for their courtesy in communicating
to me a number of MSS.]
[1501] Referred to in a Decree of 1745 (Bullar. Benedicti XIV. T. I. p.
291).
[1502] Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience, Paris, 1741, T. I. p.
862.—Amort, Diet. Selectt. Casuum Conscientiæ, Aug. Vind. 1733, T. I.
pp. 704-5. From the latter we learn that a few years previously the
Franciscans of Bavaria had agreed to receive the Bull in so far as to
prohibit any of their confessors from absolving a penitent who had been
solicited by those of their own order, unless she would permit him to
denounce the culprit to the Superior—an example which the writer wishes
were followed elsewhere, as it would be very useful in repressing many
scandals which afflicted the German church.
[1503] Rodriguez, Nueva Somma de ’Casi de Coscienza, P. I. cap. LIII.
No. 10.
[1504] Rod. à Cunha pro SS. D. N. PP. Pauli V. Statuto nuper emisso in
Confessarios Feminas solicitantes Quæst. XXII. No. 3; XXIII. No. 4, 5,
6, 8, 11, 12, 14 (4to. Benavente 1611).
[1505] Ant. de Sousa Opusc. circa Constit. Pauli PP. V. in Confessarios
allicientes etc. 4to. Ulyssip. 1623, Tract. I. cap. xviii.
[1506] Ibid. Tract. II. cap. xviii. No. 9-12.
[1507] MS. Bib. Reg. Hafniens. No. 218_b_, p. 264.
[1508] Ibid. pp. 264-5.
[1509] Llorente, Chap. XXVIII. Art. i. Nos. 20, 23.
[1510] Ibid. Art. ii.
[1511] Ibid. Ch. XL. Art. ii. Nos. 2-14.
[1512] Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 602.—Caraffa and his
coadjutors, indeed, went so far as to suggest the entire suppression of
the conventual orders (Ibid. 601).
[1513] A printed copy of this Bull occurs in some voluminous pleadings
between the church of Cordova and the Inquisition, in 1643.—MS. Bibl.
Bodl. Arch. S. 130.
[1514] De Potter, Vie de Scipion de’Ricci, T. I. pp. 87 sqq. 258 sqq.
[1515] Michelet, La Sorcière, Ch. IX.
[1516] Llorente, Chap. XXVIII. Art. i. No. 14.
[1517] The dangerous suggestiveness of the questions asked in the
confessional was recognized, and confessors were sometimes warned to be
careful.—Synod. Diœces. Mechlin. II. ann. 1609 Tit. v. cap. i.
[1518] See, for instance, Concil. Toletan. ann. 1582, Decret. XXVIII.,
XXIX. (Aguirre, VI. 11).—Synod. Oriolan. ann. 1600 cap. xix. (Ib.
p. 450).—Synod. Beneventan. ann. 1693 Tit. LIV. c. iii. (Collect.
Lacens. I. 94).—Synod. Neapol. ann. 1699 Tit. XI. c. i. No. 11 (Ib. p.
232). Also a curious list of twenty abuses of the confessional in a
letter from the Bishop of Antwerp to the Archbishop of Mechlin in 1624
(Synodicon Mechliniense, T. I. p. 474).
[1519] Instructions for a Parish Priest, p. 27 (Early Eng. Text Soc.
1868).
[1520] As specimens of this, I may refer to Cardinal Cozza’s “Dubia
Selecta emergentia circa Sollicitationem in Confessione Sacramentali
juxta Apostolicas Constitutiones” Lovanii, 1750—and the similar works
by à Cunha and de Sousa, quoted above.
[1521] Cozza, op. cit. Dub. XVII. No. 112.
[1522] Mag. Bull. Roman. Tom. VI. App. p. 1.
[1523] Occasional references to this practice may be found in earlier
times. See, for instance, Concil. Monasteriens. ann. 1279 c. xv.
(Hartzheim III. 649)—Suppression of Monasteries, No. XVII. (Camden
Soc.).—Synod. Tornacens. ann. 1520 c. vii. (Hartzheim VI. 156).
[1524] V. Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience, I. 836.
[1525] Conc. Trident. Sess. XIV. De Pœnitent. c. vi.
[1526] Del Bene de Offic. S. Inquisit. P. II. Dub. CCXXXVII. § ix. No.
6.
[1527] Cozza, op. cit. Dub. XXXIII.
[1528] Mag. Bull. Roman. Tom. VI. App. p. 1.
[1529] Synod. Camerac. ann. 1661 c. xi. (Hartzheim IX. 888).—Synodicon
Mechliniense II. 319.
[1530] Ibid. I. 559.
[1531] Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1698 c. xxviii. (Hartzheim X. 219).
[1532] Synod. Bisuntin. ann. 1707 Tit. XIV. c. xiv. (Ibid. 323).
[1533] Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience Paris, 1741, T. I. p.
837.—From the German edition of Amort (Dict. selectt. Casuum
Conscientiæ, Aug. Vind. 1733) we learn that the state of the canon law
on this subject was the same in Germany as in France.
[1534] Bull. Sacrament. Pœnitent. § 4 (Bullar. Benedicti XIV. T. I.
p. 23).—In 1742 he extended the provisions of this constitution over
the Greek churches subject to Rome.—Bull. Etsi pastoralis § IX. No. v.
(Concil. Collect. Lacens. II. 518).
[1535] Benedict. XIV. Const. CXX. § 3 (Bullar. I. 219).
[1536] Ibid. p. 291.
[1537] Llorente, Chap. XVIII. Art. i. No. 13.
[1538] Synod. Namurcens. ann. 1742 c. iv. (Hartzheim X. 487).
[1539] Instruct. Pastoral. ann. 1768 c. xcvii. (Ibid. 638).
[1540] Instruct. S. Inquisit. Roman. ann. 1867 (Collect. Lacens. III.
554).—Litt. Past. Episc. Caradrens. XXVII. 2, 3 (Ibid. VI. 646-7).
[1541] Ap. Helsen, Abus du Célibat des Prêtres, p. 87.
[1542] See, for instance, the manner in which Escobar (Theolog. Moralis
Tract. I. Ex. viii. cap. 3 No. 80) and Avila (De Censuris Eccles. P.
VII. Disp. IV. Dub. vii. in fin.) explain away the Bull of Pius V.
contra clericos sodomitas.
[1543] Factum pour Marie Catherine Cadière, La Haye, 1731, pp. 142-44.
[1544] Michelet, La Sorcière, Chap. X., XI., XII.—After reading the
pleadings on both sides (published at the Hague in 1731), I can
entertain no doubt as to the guilt of Girard. The case at the time
attracted general attention throughout Europe.
[1545] When Grandier was arrested and tried for sorcery, his papers
were seized, and among them was found an essay against sacerdotal
celibacy. Under torture, he confessed that he had written it for
the purpose of satisfying the conscience of a woman with whom he
had maintained marital relations for seven years (Hist. des Diables
de Loudun, pp. 85, 191). The manuscript was burnt, with its unlucky
author, but a copy was preserved, which has recently been printed
(Petite Bibliothèque des Curieux, Paris, 1866). In it, Grandier shows
himself singularly bold for a man of his time and station. The law
of nature, or moral law, he holds to be the direct exposition of the
Divine will. By it revealed law must necessarily be interpreted,
and to its standard ecclesiastical law must be made to conform. He
evidently was made to be burned as a heretic, if he had escaped as a
sorcerer. The promise of chastity exacted at ordination he regards as
extorted, and therefore as not binding on those unable to keep it;
while he does not hesitate to assume that the rule itself was adopted
and enforced on purely temporal grounds—“de crainte qu’en remuant une
pierre on n’esbranlat la puissance papale; car hors cette considération
d’Estat, l’Eglise romaine pense assez que le célibat n’est pas
d’institution divine ni nécessaire au salut, puisqu’elle en dispense
les particuliers, ce qu’elle ne pourrait faire si le célibat avoit esté
ordonné d’en haut” (pp. 34-5).
[1546] Notwithstanding his Sorbonic degree, Du Pin is said to have been
secretly married, and to have left a widow, who even ventured to claim
the inheritance of his estate. He was engaged in a correspondence with
William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, with a view to arrange a basis
of reconciliation of the Anglican Church with Rome, and, according to
Lafitau, Bishop of Sisteron, in that correspondence he assented to the
propriety of sacerdotal marriage.
[1547] I cannot pretend to decide the controversy as to the alleged
marriage between Bossuet and Mdlle. Desvieux de Mauléon, nor to
determine whether it is true that she and her daughters claimed his
fortune after his death. Much has been written on both sides, and I
have not the materials at hand to justify a positive opinion, though
the extracts from La Baumelle’s “Mémoires de Madame de Maintenon”
given by the Abbé Chavard (Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 474 sqq.) would
seem to show that there were good grounds for asserting the marriage.
I believe, however, that there is no doubt of Bossuet engaging with
Leibnitz and Molanus in a negotiation as to the terms on which the
Lutherans could reënter the Roman communion, and that he promised,
in the name of the pope, that Lutheran ministers admitted to the
priesthood or episcopate should retain their wives. It is asserted
that the proposed arrangement was nearly agreed to on both sides, when
the pretensions of the House of Hanover to the English crown caused
Leibnitz to withdraw from the undertaking.
[1548] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 314-5.—Davanzati, Bishop of
Canosa, was also in favor of abrogating the rule of celibacy.
[1549] This view of the competence of the temporal power to regulate
the question seems to have been widely received at this period. An
anonymous work published in 1769 under the title of “Recherches sur
l’État Monastique et Ecclésiastique,” written by a good Catholic,
asserts (p. 204), “Si le cas de donner des citoyens à la pàtrie
devenoit urgent, le législateur, en autorisant le mariage des prêtres,
n’entreprendroit rien sur le sacrement de l’Ordre.”
[1550] Zaccaria, in the introduction to his “Nuova Giustificazione”
(p. ix.), denies that the papal court entertained any idea of making
the concession; but, in considering the question as to the power or
duty of the pope to alter the law of celibacy (Diss. IV. cap. 6),
his remarks show clearly that the subject was discussed in a tone to
afford the partisans of marriage reasonable grounds for hope. Among the
threatening proceedings of the emperor was the suppression of no less
than 184 monasteries (Lecky, Hist. of Rationalism, chap. vi.).
[1551] Vetus et Constans in Ecclesia Catholica de Sacerdotum Cœlibatu
Doctrina. Varsaviæ, 1801.
[1552] “A Modest Apology for the Catholics of Great Britain,” published
anonymously in 1800—a work singularly moderate and candid in its tone.
Dr. Geddes had been suspended from his functions in consequence of
a translation of the Bible which he had published. See Allibone’s
Dictionary, I. 657.
[1553] Dupin, Manuel du Droit Pub. Ecclés. Français. 4_e_ Ed. Paris,
1845, p. 274.—Édit de Mars 1768, concernant les Ordres Religieux
(Isambert, XXIII. 476).
[1554] See Lasteyrie’s Hist. of Auricular Confession, translated by
Cocks, London, 1848, Book II. chap. iv., vi.
[1555] Bouvet, De la Confession et du Célibat des Prêtres, Paris, 1845,
p. 504.
[1556] Archives of Florence—Segreterio di Stato nella Reggenza, Filza
194 No. 6.
[1557] De Potter, Mémoires de Scipion de’ Ricci, I. 284 sqq.
[1558] Atti e Decreti del Concilio di Pistoja dell’ anno 1786, Pistoja,
4to. pp. 237, 239.
[1559] Acta Congr. Archiep. et Episc. Hetruriæ Sess. XVIII. (Bambergæ
1790, T. I. p. 453).—Bull. Auctorem fidei ann. 1794 § § 80-84.
[1560] Chiesi (Rivista Cristiana, Dic. 1876 p. 470).—Concil. Trident.
Sess. XXV. De Reg. et Mon. cap. xv.
[1561] Panzini, Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 333.
[1562] Vie de Scipion de’ Ricci I. 289: II. 373 sqq.
[1563] Prattica del Modo da procedersi nelle cause del S. Offitio cap.
xxv. (MS. Bibl. Reg. Monacens. Cod. Ital. 598).
[1564] Esaminatore, Firenze, Ap. 15th, 1867, p. 100. In Spain, an
official return made in 1764 estimated the number of ecclesiastics,
regular and secular, at 281,160 souls (Castillo y Mayone, Historia de
los Frailes, III. 144).
[1565] “D’être fidèle à la nation, à la loi, au roi, et del veiler
exactement sur le troupeau confié à leurs soins.” It was not only
the objections of the king and of the pope that rendered this oath
unpalatable, but also the fact that it gave adhesion to the law for the
secularization of ecclesiastical property and of the monastic orders.
It was ordered in the _Constitution civile du Clergé_, Tit. II. Art.
21, 38, adopted July 12 and promulgated Aug. 24, 1790.
[1566] I have before me one of the pamphlets issued about this time (Le
Mariage des Prêtres, Paris, Laclaye, 1790, 8vo. pp. 102), addressed
to the Assembly. It is a tolerably calm and well-reasoned argument,
basing its demand upon the usages of the primitive church, the precepts
of Scripture, the rights of nature, and public utility. The author
asserts himself to be a priest well advanced in life, and he assumes
that the corruption of society disseminated by the licentiousness of
ecclesiastics is generally recognized and understood.
[1567] This speech is printed in full from a MS. in the public library
of Geneva, by the Abbé Chavard (Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 483-500).
[1568] La loi ne reconnait ni vœux religieux, ni aucun autre engagement
qui serait contraire aux droits naturels ou à la constitution.
[1569] Desmaze, Pénalités Anciennes, p. 222, Paris, 1866.