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. 218b, 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. 218b, 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. 4e 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).