that in such places as could not obtain a sufficiency of pastors, the bishops should be empowered to ordain married laymen of approved piety, learning, and fitness.

These appeals were successful as far as communion in both elements was concerned, for, on April 16, Pius granted that concession under certain conditions. The subject of priestly marriage, however, he still postponed, and on June 17 we find Ferdinand writing to Cardinal Morone, to express his thanks for what he had obtained, and to urge the other subject on the consideration of the papal court. He had instructed his ambassador, he said, to press it earnestly, and he besought the Cardinal to aid in so pious and advantageous a work.1

Nor was this the only means which Ferdinand, then verging rapidly to the grave, adopted to attain the object

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. Poenas 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 brief, 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 illum" (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.

1 Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VI. 331.

VOL. II.

of his unwearied pursuit. Georg Witzel had thrown aside the monastic gown in 1531, to embrace the errors of Lutheranism, but had returned to the old religion. His learning and piety earned for him a deserved reputation, and elevated him to the position of imperial councillor, where his talents were devoted to the endless task of bringing about a reconciliation between the Churches. George Cassander, equally eminent, had never incurred the imputation of apostacy, but had laboured with tireless industry to convert his erring brethren from heresy to the true faith. Men like these might perhaps be heard when the voice of princes and prelates, actuated by motives of personal advantage, met a deaf ear; and Ferdinand applied to them for disquisitions on the subject. Before their labours were concluded the monarch was dead (July 25, 1564), but his son Maximilian II. inherited his father's ideas, and gladly made use of the opinions which the learned Catholic doctors had no hesitation in expressing.

Both took strong ground against celibacy. Cassander, while defending the Church for originally introducing the rule, deplored the terrible and abominable scandals which its untimely enforcement caused throughout the Church, and he urged that the reasons which had led to its introduction not only existed no longer, but had even become arguments for its abrogation, since now the choice lay only between married priests and concubinarians. He declared it to be the source of numerous evils, chief among which was promiscuous and unbridled licentiousness, and he added that the already scanty ranks of the priesthood were de

1 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.

prived of the accessions which were so necessary, since men of a religious turn of mind were prevented from taking orders by the universal wickedness which prevailed under the excuse of celibacy, while pious parents kept their sons from entering the Church for fear of debauching their morals. On the other hand, those who sought a life of ease and licence were attracted to the holy calling which they disgraced. He was even willing to permit marriage in orders, arguing that it was only a question of canon law, in which faith and doctrine were not involved. As regards the monastic orders, while fully appreciating the principles upon which the system was founded, he warmly deplored the corruption engendered by wealth and luxury. Though the convents contained many pious and holy men, still for the most part religion was forgotten in the observance of ceremonies that had lost their significance, and nothing could be more licentious and profane than the life led in many of the monasteries.1 Witzel was equally severe in his denunciations of the clerical licentiousness attributable to the rule of celibacy, and concluded his tract by attacking the supineness, blindness, and perversity of the prelates who suffered such foulness to exist everywhere among the priesthood, in contempt of Christ and to the burdening of their consciences.2

It was already evident that both the great objects for which the Council of Trent had ostensibly been assembled were failures; that it would effect as little for the purification of the Church as for the reconciliation of the heretics. Perhaps Maximilian felt that under these circumstances no one could deny the necessity of such changes as would at least afford a chance of the reformation that could no longer be expected of the Tridentine canons; perhaps he

1 G. Cassandri Consult. XXIII., XXV. (Le Plat, VI. 761-2, 783-4.)

2 Wicelii Via Regia, De Conjug. Sacerd.

Both these tracts were printed, with other controversial matter, by Hermann Conring, 4to. Helmstadt, 1569.

felt strengthened by the support of his ecclesiastical counsellors and controversialists; perhaps, with the zealous hopefulness of youth, he felt a confidence of which age and many disappointments had deprived his father; or perhaps he was encouraged by the concession to his subjects and to those of Albert of Bavaria of the communion in both elements, not knowing that in two short years it would be withdrawn. Certain it is that in a negotiation with the Bishop of Ventimiglia, papal nuncio at his court, he lost no time in renewing, with increased energy, the effort to obtain the recognition of married priests. After the departure of the nuncio, he addressed, in November 1564, a most pressing demand to Pius IV., in which he declared that the matter brooked no further postponement; that throughout Germany, and especially in his dominions, there was the greatest need of proper ministers and pastors; that there was no other measure which would retain them in the Catholic Church, from which, day by day, they were withdrawing, principally from this cause. He assured the Holy Father that the danger was constantly increasing, and that he feared a further delay would render even this remedy powerless to prevent the total destruction of the old religion. If only this were granted to the clergy, even as the cup had been communicated to the laity, he hoped for an immediate improvement. The bishops could then exercise their authority over those who at present were beyond their control, as unrecognised by the Church; and so thoroughly was this lawless condition of affairs understood that a refuge was sought in his provinces by those disreputable pastors who were banished from the Lutheran states on account of their disorderly lives.1 His brother, the Archduke Charles, was equally urgent, in a letter which he addressed, a few days later, to the Pope, repeating the same arguments, and assuring him that the

1 Goldast. II. 381.

only hope for the true religion in his dominions was to find some means of admitting the services of a married clergy.1

Ferdinand and Maximilian were actuated in these persevering efforts not merely by the desire of gratifying the wishes of their people, or of remedying the depravity of the ecclesiastical body. It had been a favourite project with the father, warmly adopted by the son, to heal the differences between the two religions, and to restore to the Church its ancient and prosperous unity. In their opinion, and in that of many eminent men, the main obstacle to this was the question of celibacy. It was evidently hopeless to expect this sacrifice of the Lutheran pastors, while numerous members of the Catholic Church regarded the change as essential to the purification of their own establishment. The only mode of effecting so desirable a reconciliation was therefore to persuade the Pope to exercise the power of dispensation which the Council of Trent had admitted to be inherent in his high office. It thus was left for Pius IV. to extricate himself from the tangle of promises with which he had evaded the pressure from beyond the Alps. His position, in fact, was perplexing, for the council had thrown on him the responsibility, by admitting his power of dispensation, while at the same time, with little regard for consistency, it had cast the denial of sacerdotal marriage in the form of a dogma enforced with the dread anathema. In spite of this, no one on either side of the question seems to have doubted his power to dispense with the dogma, and this power thus became the storm-centre of a struggle in which the unfortunate Pius reaped to the full the results of his doubledealing policy.

The protagonist of conservatism was Philip II., the most powerful monarch of the time and the head of the

1 Le Plat, VI. 335.