847 Concil. Fritzlar. ann. 1246 can. xi. (Hartzheim III. 574).
848 Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1260 c. 1.
849 Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1261 can. xxvii. xxxix. (Hartzheim III. 604, 607). The latter canon is very prolix and earnest, and inveighs strongly against the “cullagium,” or payment exacted by archdeacons and deans for permitting irregularities. The authorities apparently grew gradually tired of attempting the impossible. In 1284 the council of Passau, in a series of long and elaborate canons, contented itself with a vague threat of prosecuting priests who publicly kept concubines, and with prohibiting them from ostentatiously celebrating the marriage of their children.—Concil. Patav. ann. 1284 can. ix. xxxi. (Ibid. pp. 675, 679).
850 Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1342 cap. viii. (Hartzheim IV. 338).
851 Synod. Wratislav. ann. 1416 § 1 (Hartzheim V. 153).
852 Concil. Melfitan. ann. 1284 c. v. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 285-6).
853 Giannone, Apologia cap. XIV.—Ancarono gave his name to one of the most celebrated colleges of law in Bologna.—Bruni Vita Gabrielis Palæoti c. 4 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VI. 1390).
854 Gobelinæ Personæ Cosmodrom. Ætat. VI. c. 92, 93.—How utterly monastic discipline was neglected in Germany is shown by the fact that a century earlier, in 1307, a council of Cologne found it necessary to denounce the frequency with which nuns were seduced, left their convents, lived in open and public profligacy, and then returned unblushingly to their establishments, where they seem to have been received as a matter of course.—Concil. Colon. ann. 1307 c. xvii. (Hartzheim IV. 113). That this had little effect is proved by a repetition of the threats of punishment, three years later (Concil. Colon. ann. 1310 c. ix.; Hartzheim IV. 122). In 1347, John van Arckel, Bishop of Utrecht, was obliged to prohibit men from having access to the nunneries of his diocese, in order to put an end to the scandals which were apparently frequent (Hartzheim IV. 350). In 1350, the Emperor Charles IV. felt called upon to address an earnest remonstrance to the Archbishop of Mainz concerning the unclerical habits of his canons and clergy who spent the revenues of the church in jousts and tourneys, and who, in dress, arms, and mode of life, were not to be distinguished from laymen (Ibid. IV. 358). How little was effected by these efforts is manifest when, in 1360, William, Archbishop of Cologne, was obliged to refute the assertions of those monks and nuns who alleged in their defence that custom allowed them to leave their convents and contract marriage (Ibid. IV. 493).
855 Henke, Append. ad Calixt. pp. 585-6.
856 Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1128.—Platina sub Honor. II.
857 Arnulphi Lexoviens. de Schismate cap. iii. (D’Achery I. 156).
858 Anacleti Antipapæ Epist. X. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 702).
859 Matt. Paris ann. 1251.
860 Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1253.—The same author preserves a legend that when Innocent IV. heard of the death of Grosseteste, he ordered a letter to be prepared commanding Henry III. to dig up and cast out the remains of the bishop. The following night, however, Grosseteste appeared in his episcopal robes and with his crozier inflicted a severe castigation on the vengeful pope, who thereupon abandoned his unchristian purpose.—Ibid. ann. 1254.
861 Portions of Petrarch’s descriptions are unfit for transcription; the following, however, will give a sufficient idea of his experience. “Veritas ibi dementia est, abstinentia vero rusticitas, pudicitia probrum ingens. Denique peccandi licentia magnanimitas et libertas eximia, et quo pollutior eo clarior vita, quo plus scelerum eo plus gloriæ, bonum nomen cœno vilius, atque ultima mercium fama est.... Taceo utriusque pestis artifices, et concursantes pontificum thalamis proxonætas.... Quis, oro, enim non irascatur et rideat, illos senes pueros coma candida, togis amplissimis, adeoque lascivientibus animis ut nihil illuo falsius videatur quam quod ait Maro ‘Frigidus in Venerem senior.’ Tam calidi tamque præcipites in Venerem senes sunt, tanta eos ætatis et status et virium capit oblivio, sic in libidines inardescunt, sic in omne ruunt dedecus, quasi omnis eorum gloria non in cruce Christi sit, sed in commessationibus et ebrietatibus, et quæ has sequuntur in cubilibus, impudicitiis: ... atque hoc unum senectutis ultimæ lucrum putant, ea facere quæ juvenes non auderent.... Mitto stupra, raptus, incestus, adulteria qui jam pontificalis lasciviæ ludi sunt,” etc. (Lib. sine Titulo Epist. xvi.).
In his VII. Eclogue Petrarch describes the cardinals individually. Their portraits, though metaphorically drawn, correspond with the general character of the above extracts. See also the Lib. sine Titulo Epistt. vii. viii. ix.
862 Nic. de Clamengiis de Ruina Ecclesiæ cap. xvii.—Cf. Theod. a Niem Nemor. Union. Tract. VI. cap. xxxvi. xxxvii.
863 Quod dominus Johannes papa cum uxore fratris sui et cum sanctis monialibus incestum, cum virginibus stuprum, et cum conjugatis adulterium et alia incontinentiæ crimina, propter quæ ira Dei descendit in filios diffidentiæ commisit.... Item quod dictus dominus Johannes papa fuit et sit homo peccator, notorie criminosus de homicidio, veneficio, et aliis gravibus criminibus quibus irretitus dicitur graviter diffamatus, dissipator bonorum ecclesiæ et dilapidator eorundem, notorius simoniacus, pertinax hæreticus et ecclesiam Christi notorie scandalizans. Item quod dictus Johannes Papa XXIII. sæpe et sæpius coram diversis prælatis et aliis honestis et probis viris pertinaciter, diabolo suadente, dixit, asseruit, dogmatizavit et adstruxit, vitam æternam non esse, neque aliam post hanc, etc.—Concil. Constantiens. Sess. XI.
Even supposing some of these special charges to have been manufactured for the purpose of effecting the desirable political object of getting rid of the objectionable pontiff, yet the profound conviction of his vileness, evinced by the proffering of such accusations, is almost equally damaging.
864 Theod. a Niem de Vit. Joann. XXIII.
Steph. Infessuræ Diar. Rom. ann. 1484 (Eccard. Corp. Hist. II. 1941).
868 Sannazaro, as was meet in a Neapolitan, hated Alexander cordially, and was never weary of assailing his wickedness. The relations between him and his daughter Lucretia were a favorite topic—
The well-known epigram of Pontanus tersely describes another of his vices—
869 In comparing the labors of the pope with those of St. Paul, St. Bernard exclaims, “Numquid ad eum de toto orbe confluebant ambitiosi, avari, simoniaci, sacrilegi, concubinarii, incestuosi, et quæque istiusmodi monstra hominum, ut ipsius apostolica auctoritate vel obtinerent ecclesiasticos honores, vel retinerent?”—De Consideratione Lib. I. c. iv.
870 According to St. Bonaventura, this scandalous doctrine was frequently taught.—Libell. Apologet. Quæst. I.
871 Dial Mirac. Dist. XII. c. xix.
872 Hali Meidenhad. (Early English Text Society, 1866.) The author at times trenches closely on Manichæism. It is true that he revives, with some variation, the ancient computation of the relative merits of the various conditions of life—“For wedlock has its fruit thirtyfold in heaven, widowhood sixtyfold; maidenhood with a hundredfold overpasses both” (p. 22); but while he thus faintly disavows an intention to revile marriage, he again and again alludes to it as wicked and impure per se. “Well were it for them, were they on the day of their bridal borne to be buried.... If thou askest why God created such a thing to be, I answer thee: God created it never such; but Adam and Eve turned it to be such by their sin, and marred our nature” (p. 8).
Virginity he asserts to be the highest attribute of humanity, and in heaven virgins are the equals of angels and the superiors of saints.—“Maidenhood is a grace granted thee from heaven.... ’Tis a virtue above all virtues, and to Christ the most acceptable of all” (p. 10). “To sing that sweet song and that heavenly music which no saints may sing, but maidens only in heaven.... But the maiden’s song is altogether unlike these, being common to them with angels. Music beyond all music in heaven. In their circle is God himself; and his dear mother, the precious maiden, is hidden in that blessed company of gleaming maidens, nor may any but they dance and sing” (pp. 18-20).
As for matrimony and maternity, nothing can redeem them in the eyes of the ascetic.—“All other sins are nothing but sins, but this is a sin and besides denaturalizes thee and dishonoreth thy body. It soileth thy soul and maketh it guilty before God, and, moreover, defileth thy flesh.... Now what joy hath the mother? She hath from the misshapen child sad care and shame, both, and for the thriving one fear, till she lose it for good, though it would never have been in being for the love of God, nor for the hope of heaven, nor for the dread of hell” (p. 34).—But I dare not follow him in his more nauseous flights of imagination.
This is by no means a solitary example. The same pious obscenity is to be found, for instance, in some of Abelard’s theological speculations addressed to Heloise and her nuns, as in his solution of her 42nd problem.
873 Ayenbite of Inwyt, p. 328 (Early English Text Soc. 1866). This is a translation made in 1340 of “Le Somme des Vices et des Vertues,” written in 1279 for Philippe-le-Hardi, by Laurentius Gallus. The author is not a whit behind his brother ascetics in extolling the praises of virginity.—“Vor maydenhod is a tresor of zuo grat worth thet hit ne may by be nonen y-zet a pris ... vor maidenhod aboue alle othre states berth thet gretteste frut” (Ibid. p. 233-4). The legend would seem to be suggested by a somewhat similar story narrated by Gregory the Great (Dialog. Lib. III. cap. 7).
874 Theophili Alexandrin. Commonitor. can. v. (Harduin. I. 1198).
875 Innocent. III. Regest. Lib. XVI. Epist. 118.
The curiously artificial standard of morals thus created may be estimated from the case of the archdeacon of Lisieux, who refused to accept an election to the see of that place on account of his inability to maintain the purity requisite for the episcopal office. Vanquished at length by the importunity of his friends, he was consecrated, and resolutely undertook to abandon his evil habits. The unaccustomed privation brought on a fearful disease, but though assured that his life would prove a sacrifice if he persisted in his resolution, he resisted all entreaties, and refused to purchase existence by sullying his position. He thus fell a martyr to a tenderness of conscience which had not prevented him from indulgence while filling the responsible position of archdeacon.—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. cap. xi.
876 Graviore autem sunt animadversione plectendi, qui proprias filias spirituales, quas baptizaverint vel semel ad confessionem admiserint, violaverint.—Constit. Synod. Gilb. Episc. Circestrens. ann. 1289 (Wilkins, II. 169). Cf. Synod. Cenomanens. ann. 1248 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 1375). Concil. Remens. ann. 1408 cap. 21 (Ibid. VII. 418). Concil. Salisburg. XXX. can. de Confess. (Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. p. 155.)
Abelard (Sermo XXIX.) in a passage which, though addressed to the virgins of the Paraclete, is hardly quotable, asserts the frequent corruption of nuns by their spiritual directors. See also St. Bonaventura, Tractatus quare Fr. Minores prædicent, (Romæ 1773, p. 431) and Gerson, who retorts the charge on the friars, in his Tract. de Reform. Eccles. in Concil. Constant. cap. x. (Von der Hardt, T. I. P. v. p. 93). Cf. Marsilii Patav. Defens. Pacis P. II. cap. xvii.—Synod. Andegavens. ann. 1262 cap. x.; ann. 1291 cap. 1; ann. 1312 cap. 1 (D’Achery I. 727, 735, 742). Similar allusions are unfortunately too frequent, and, as we shall see hereafter, are to be found until a recent period.
877 In 1398, Cardinal Peter d’Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, speaks of the manner in which his clergy lived with their concubines as man and wife, and brought up their children without concealment in their houses—“tenentes secum in suis domibus suas concubinas, et mulieres publice suspectas, in scandalum plurimorum cohabitant simul copulati, eisdem domo, mensa, et lecto, residendo, acsi essent vir et uxor matrimonialiter conjuncti: proles super terram gradientes ex hujusmodi suis concubinis susceptas una cum eisdem in suis domibus publice secum habendo et tenendo”—(Hartzheim VI. 709).
878 Prout testatur nimia de plerisque regionibus clamans Christiani populi corruptela, quæ cum deberet ex sacerdotalis antidoti curari medelis, invalescit proh dolor! ex malorum contagione quod procedit a clero.—Chron. Augustens. ann. 1260.
879 According to Thomas of Cantinpré, this occurrence took place at Paris, in a synod held in 1248, and Satan explained his candor by saying that he was compelled to it by God.—(Hartzheim IX. 663.)
880 Inter alia dixit quod prælati faciebant ruere totum mundum.... Unde monuit eos quod ipsi se corrigerent ... alioquin dixit se dure acturum cum ipsis super reformatione morum.—Harduin. VII. 692.
881 Clerici et presbyteri ... maxime per fetidum peccatum luxuriæ seipsos et alios pertrahunt ad infernum.—Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1323 can. iii. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 1289).
882 Petri de Herentals Vit. Gregor. XI. ann. 1375 (ap. Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages, London, 1845, p. 153).
883 “Swiche preestes be the sones of Hely ... hem thinketh that they be free and have no juge, no more than hath a free boll, that taketh which cow that him liketh in the toun. So faren they by women; for right as on free boll is ynough for all a toun, right so is a wicked preest corruption ynough for all a parish, or for all a countree.”
884 Li Gieus de Robin et de Marion (Michel, Théatre Français au Moyen Age, p. 129).
885 Wright’s Edition, p. 491, l. 1359.
886 Monumenta Franciscana, pp. 602-4.
This testimony concerning the Franciscans is not confined to heretics and laymen. Early in the fifteenth century, a council of Magdeburg took occasion to reprove them for the dissolute and unclerical mode of life of which they offered a conspicuous example. It appears that they dignified with the name of “Marthas” the female companions who, in primitive ages, were known as “agapetæ,” and who had latterly acquired among the secular clergy the title of “focariæ”—“et in domibus suis frequenter soli cum mulieribus quas ipsorum Martas (ut eorum verbis utamur) habitare non verentur.”—Concil. Magdeburg, ann. 1403 Rubr. de Pœnis. (Hartzheim V. 717.)
On the other hand, in the “Creed of Piers Ploughman,” a Franciscan attacks the Carmelites—
887 This was written in answer to an attack on celibacy by Guillaume Saignet, entitled “Lamentatio ob cœlibatu sacerdotum, sive Dialogus Nicænæ Constitutionis et Naturæ ea di re conquerentis.”—Zaccaria, Storia Polemica del Celibato Sacro, Præf. p. xiv.
888 Vel inexperti forte erant hi doctores quam generale et quam radicatum sit hoc malum, et quod deteriora flagitia circa uxores aut filias parochianorum et abominationes horrendæ in aliis provenerint apud multas patrias, rebus stantibus ut stant, si quærentur per tales censuras arceri. Scandalum certe magnum est apud parochianos curati ad concubinam ingressus, sed longe deterius si erga parochianas suas non servaverit castitatem.—De Vita Spirit. Animæ Lect. IV. Corol. xiv. prop. 3.
889 De Statu. Relig. Lib. I. (Giannone Apolog. cap. 14).
890 There is a tradition that the Abbey of Montariol lost its sovereignty over the inhabitants of the village of that name in consequence of a revolt caused by the monks exacting this feudal right in all its odious cynicism, in place of receiving a payment in commutation as was frequently done. A lively controversy has arisen over the exactness of this tradition, and the Abbé Marcellin, in his edition of Le Bret’s Histoire de Montauban seems to me to have successfully proved its falsity. He admits, however, that in his researches on the subject he has found one case in which an ecclesiastic undertook to enforce his rights to the letter; and the President Boyer, writing in the sixteenth century (Decisiones, No. 17 Decis. 297) asserts that he had seen the proceedings of a lawsuit in which “Rector seu curatus parochialis prætendebat ex consuetudine primam habere sponsæ cognitionem” (Eschbach, Introduction a l’Étude du Droit, § 174). In some remote portions of France the tribute was still exacted “en nature” by temporal seigneurs as late as the sixteenth century, as appears from documents printed by MM. Mazure et Hatoulet (Fors de Béarn, p. 172). Velly (Hist. de France, Paris, 1770, T. III. p. 325) quotes from Laurière a document of 1507 which, in recounting the privileges of the barony of Saint-Martin states that the Comte d’Eu has the “droit de prélibation” there, and Boutaric (Droits Seigneuriaux, Toulouse, 1775, p. 650) remarks that he has met nobles who pretended to possess the right, but that it had been abolished by the courts. In 1854 M. Bouthors, in his “Coutumes locales du bailliage d’Amiens,” chanced to allude to a custom by which the episcopal officers until 1607 exacted a tribute from newly married couples for permission to pass together the first three nights after the wedding—a custom growing out of the old droit de marquette. This aroused the ire of the faithful, and M. Louis Veuillot wrote a treatise in which he emphatically denied that such a right had ever existed, and a lively controversy arose on the subject. M. Lagréze (Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p. 390) has examined the matter thoroughly and the proof which he accumulates of the existence of the right is indisputable, though he denies that it was ever claimed by ecclesiastics.
891 See the Taxæ Sacræ Pœnitentiariæ, a tariff of prices for absolution in the Roman curia for all infractions of human and divine law, of which more hereafter.
Heretically inclined reformers did not hesitate to accuse the clergy of thus speculating in the power of the keys and the sins of the people—
892 The curious confusion of vice with religion, fostered by mediæval sacerdotalism, is well illustrated by the complaint which Erasmus puts in the mouth of the Virgin—“Et nonnumquam ea petunt a virgine quæ verecundus juvenis vix auderet petere a lena, quæque ne pudet literis committere” (Erasmi Colloq. Peregrinatio Religionis). The existence of such inconsistencies is one of the unfathomable mysteries of human intelligence.
893 Anon. Cartusiens. de Religionum Orig. cap. 17-19 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VI. 40-46).
894 See Lecky’s History of Rationalism.
895 Videlicet castitatem, obedientiam ... atque vivere sine proprio.—Statut. Ord. S. Johan. Hierosol. Tit. I. § 1 (Lünig Cod. Ital. Diplom. T. II. p. 1743).
896 Thus Cap. LV.: “Hoc enim injustum consideramus ut cum fratribus Deo castitatem promittentibus fratres hujusmodi in una eademque domo maneant.” Cap. LVI. and LXXII., by the latter of which even the kiss of a mother was denied them, render evident the extreme asceticism which was proposed by the founders of the order (Harduin. T. VI. P. II. pp. 1142, 1146).
At a subsequent period we learn that the Templar’s oath of initiation promised “obedientiam, castitatem, vivere sine proprio, et succurrere terræ sanctæ pro posse suo.” It was, moreover, enjoined upon them not to enter a house in which a woman lay in child-bed, not to be present at the celebration of weddings or the purification of women, nor to receive any service from a woman, even water for washing the hands.—See the proceedings against them in 1309, in Wilkins, II. 331 et seq.
897 Rymer, Fœdera, I. 55.
898 Wilkins II. 331-2.—Raynouard, Condamnation des Templiers, p. 83.
899 Alexandri III. Epist. Append. III. No. 20 (Harduin. VI. P. II. p. 1557).
900 Raynald. Annal. ann. 1210 No. 6, 7; ann. 1223 No. 54; ann. 1496 No. 33.
901 Concil Vallis-oletan. ann. 1322 can vi. (Aguirre V. 243).
902 Concil. Dertusan. ann. 1429 can. iii. (Harduin. VIII. 1076).
903 Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1441 No. 20.—The Order of Calatrava was under the strictest of the rules, the Cistercian. (Giustiniani, Ordini Militari s. v.)
904 Reg. Ord. Mil. Avisii a B. Joanne Cirita edita (Migne’s Patrologia, T. 188, p. 1669).
905 Alexander’s Bull declares that “Milites dictarum militiarum pro majori parte, continentiæ et castitatis voto, qui in eorum professione emittunt, contempto, concubinas etiam plures, et in eorum ac præceptoriarum et prioratum dictarum militarum propriis domibus et locis, non sine magno religionis opprobrio, publice tenere et eis cohabitare, et etiam adulteria cum aliis mulieribus conjugatis committere non verentur: ex quo ab eorundem regnorum incolis et habitatoribus maximo odio habentur, dissensiones et inimicitiæ oriuntur, diversa scandala quotidie concitantur etc.”—Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1496 No. 33.
906 Osorii de Reb. Emmanuelis R. Lusitan. Lib. I. (Edit. Colon. 1574, p. 12a.)
907 Patrologia, T. 188, p. 1674.
908 Statut. Ord. S. Johan. Hierosol. Tit. XVIII. § 50.
909 Ibid. Tit. XVIII. § 51.
910 See the supplication of Rodolph of Hapsburg to the Pope for assistance to the order.—Cod. Epist. Rodolphi I. No. xcix. (Lipsiæ, 1806).
911 Anon. Cartus. de Relig. Orig. cap. XXVIII. (Martene Ampliss. Coll. VII. 62).
912 Communis opinio Catharorum est quod matrimonium carnale fuit semper mortale peccatum, et quod non punietur quis gravius in futuro propter adulterium vel incestum quam propter legitimum conjugium, nec etiam inter eos propter hoc aliquis gravius puniretur.—Summa F. Renieri (Martene Thesaur. V. 1761).
This Regnier describes himself as a heresiarch previous to his conversion, and his summary of the creed of his former associates may be regarded as correct in the main, though perhaps somewhat heightened in repulsiveness. For further details see ante, p. 208.
913 Bernardi Serm. lxvi. in Cantica §§ 9, 11.
914 Bernardi Serm. lxv. in Cantica, §§ 4, 5.—“Cum femina semper esse et non cognoscere feminam, nonne plus est quam mortuum suscitare? Quod minus est non potes; et quod majus est vis credam tibi? Quotidie latus tuum ad latus juvenculæ est in mensa; lectus tuus ad lectum ejus in camera, oculi tui ad illius oculos in colloquio, manus tuæ ad manus ipsius in opere: et continens vis putari? Esto ut sis; sed ego suspicione non careo.”
The morality of the age had evidently not impressed the Saint with the conviction of human power to resist temptation.
915 Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii.
916 Bishop Gerard, of Cambrai, confesses this in his refutation of the Artesian Manichiæans in 1025—“De quibus nos responsuros quodam discretionis gubernaculo nostri sermonis carinam subire oportet, ne quasi inter duos scopulos naufragium incurrentes, occasionem demus in alterutrum, scilicet aut omnes indiscrete a conjugiis exterrendo, aut omnes indiscrete ad connubia commonendo.”—Concil. Atrebatens. ann. 1025 cap. x. (Hartzheim III. 89).
When St. Bernard, in his fiery denunciation of the Manichæan errors, exclaimed, “non advertant qualiter omni immunditiæ laxat habenas qui nuptias damnat” (In Cantica Serm. lxvi. § 3), he did not pause to reflect how severe a sentence he was passing on the saints of the fifth century who, as we have seen, would only admit marriage to be a pardonable offence.
917 Disputat. inter Cathol. et Paterin. c. ii. (Martene Thesaur. V. 1712-13).
It is somewhat singular that Manichæism should have been attributed to a sect of heretics in Bosnia who styled themselves Christians, and who were brought back to the fold in 1203 by a legate of Innocent III. It would appear that, so far from entertaining Manichæan doctrines, neglect of ecclesiastical celibacy was actually one of their erroneous practices, for in their pledge of reformation they promise that separation of man and wife shall thenceforth be enforced “neque de cætero recipiemus aliquem vel aliquam conjugatum, nisi mutuo consensu, continentia promissa, ambo pariter convertantur.”—Batthyani, II. 293.
918 S. Petri Venerab. contra Petrobrusianos.—S. Bernardi Epist. 241.—Ejusd. Vit. Prim. Lib. VI. Part iii. c. 10.—Guill. de Podio-Laurent. c. i.—Alberic. Trium-Font. Chron. ann. 1148.
919 Hugon. Rothomag. contra Hæret. Lib. III. cap. vi. This is by no means an unusual specimen of the inconsequential character of mediæval polemics. Archbishop Hugh was a man of mark among his contemporaries, both as a theologian and as a statesman. It was he who, in 1139, at the council of Winchester, saved King Stephen from excommunication by the English bishops. (Willelmi Malmesb. Hist. Novell. Lib. II. § 26.) For a somewhat similar specimen of fanciful theology, the reader may consult the exposition of the esoteric meaning of the plagues of Egypt by St. Martin of Leon, a writer of the twelfth century.—S. Martin. Legionens. Serm. xv.
920 Epist. ad Lucium PP. Epist. 4. (Migne’s Patrologia, T. CLXXIX. p. 957.)—Cf. Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 177.
921 Guillielm. de Newburgh, Lib. I. cap. 19.—Ottonis Frising. de Gest. Frid. I. Lib. I. cap. liv., lv.—Sigeberti Chron. Continuat. Gemblac. ann. 1146.—Ejusdem Continuat. Præmonstrat. ann. 1148.—Roberti de Monte Chron. ann. 1148.—The detailed account given by William of Newburgh he professes to have gathered from some of Éon’s followers performing penitential pilgrimages after the death of the heresiarch.
922 Conrad. Urspergens. ann. 1212.—“Hoc quoque probrosum in eis videbatur, quod viri et mulieres simul ambulabant in via, et plerumque simul manebant in una domo, ut de eis diceretur, quod quandoque simul in lectulis accubabant.” The follies of the early Christians were doubtless imitated by the new sectaries. As early as 1197 we find them denounced as heretics, under the various names of Waldenses, Poor Men of Lyons, and Sabatati, and condemned to the stake by the council of Girona, in Aragon.—Aguirre V. 103.
923 La Nobla Leyczon, 408-13.—There has been considerable discussion as to the date of this work. It appears to me to bear the mark of more than one period, or, at least, of successive recensions. Internal evidence shows the beginning to have been written about the year 1100, while the later portion, commencing about l. 345, seems to have been composed subsequently to the persecutions of the early part of the 13th century.
924 Bernardi Fontis Calidi Lib. contra Waldenses.—Alani de Insulis contra Hæret. Lib. II.
925 La Nobla Leyczon, 242-3.
926 Ibid., 88.
927 Camerarii Hist. de Fratrum Orthodox. Ecclesiis pp. 104-7, 116-7.
928 Pluquet, Dictionnaire des Hérésies, art. Vaudois.
929 The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of another. The views of St. Francis, when promulgated in the fifth century by the Timotheists, were stigmatized as heretical.—V. Harduin. Concil. I. 525.
930 Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1261 can. xlviii. (Hartzheim III. 612, 615).
The decline of the order from the asceticism of its founder afforded a fair mark for satire—