Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
They teach that a man suspecting his Wife is an Adulteress, may with a good intent, offer her the occasion to commit Adultery, without sin. (*)Also that a servant is excused (when declining it would be a great inconvenience) if he accompany his Master when he goes a whoring: because here's a just occasion, and the action is of it self honest. And a Maid too if she go along with a Whore to the house of her lover, to act filthiness with him, or opens the door for him on such occasion. And so is a servant likewise to be excused, when he is sent to bring a Whore to his Masters lodging, or carries presents, or an Epistle, or a Message, or writes Letters, when the contents are to have a Whore come to him, at such a time; or any such (with them) indifferent thing; unless there be an express desire of the filthy act.(*)
(*)Jo. Sanc. disp. 35. n. 12.
(*)Bonacin. Tom. 1. p. 323. ibi. M. Navar. P. Navarre. Zerola. Rebinus. & 7.Bonacin. Tom. 1. p. 323. ibi. M. Navar. P. Navar. Zerola. Rebinus. & 7.
Such encouragement they give to use the preparatives, and play with the incentives, and dally with the Temptations to lust and actual ⟨p. 345⟩uncleanness; for the act it self, how little they make of self-popution we have seen before, they conclude that single pollution (though a sin against nature) is of it self, (o)no sin at all, and so they may (p)desire it before-hand, or (q)
delight in it when it is past, for an honest end, and use the incentives, if it be but for gluttony. Moreover Whoredom it self has excessive favour and encouragement, from this holy Church. This is too plain by their Authors, and their practice, to be denied; and too heinous to be excused by any, but those, who have a mind to have mortal sins, to pass for small, or no faults. It seems it is no sin to build Stews for the entertainment of common Whores, and the best accommodation of them for their Trade of uncleanness. Pope Sixtus did it, as Cornelius Agrippa
and to take so much a head of the Strumpets weekly, for their practice: the Popes Holiness hath done it long at Rome, and does it to this day; and the Whores daily commit lewdness, not only for themselves, but for the Pope their Benefactor's advantage, who is to share in their gain; they drive this Trade for him. And the number of his Farmers was so great long since, that they brought him in yearly an intrado of above Twenty thousand Ducats, a great sum then, and probably very much improved since. Such an abominable
⟨p. 346⟩
Tribute nature, even corrupted, blushes at: but that Holiness at Rome, thinks it no shame, to maintain his honour and state, as Christ's Vicar, by the hire of Whores. Evagrius extolling Anastasius the Emperor for abolishing such a detestable practice, brands it,
as a wretched Tribute, abominable to God, and shameful to the most barbarous people; as that which was a Reproach to nature it self, and the civil Government; as that which did, as it were, by a law Authorize this wickedness. Nor do the Popish Writers deny, that it is as bad, as he represents it; and yet since the Pope hath made it a custom, they have the confidence to justify it.
Such incouragement they give to use the preparatives, and play with the incentives, and dally with the Temptations to lust and actual ⟨p. 345⟩uncleanness; for the act it self, how little they make of self-popution we have seen before, they conclude that single pollution (though a sin against nature) is of it self, (o)no sin at all, and so they may (p)desire it before-hand, or (q)delight in it when it is past, for an honest end, and use the incentives, if it be but for gluttony. Moreover Whoredom it self has excessive favour and incouragement, from this holy Church. This is too plain by their Authors, and their practice, to be denyed; and too hainous to be excused by any, but those, who have a mind to have mortal sins, to pass for small, or no faults. It seems it is no sin to build Stews for the entertainment of common Whores, and the best accommodation of them for their Trade of uncleanness. Pope Sixtus did it, as Cornelius Agrippa (q)tells us, and they were so multiplied long since, that as one of their Doctors observes, (r)under Christ's Vicars, and Peter's Successors, urbs est jam tota lupanar, Now the whole City is one Whore-house. 'Tis no sin to farm out Whoredom (s)and to take so much a head of the Strumpets weekly, for their practice: the Popes Holiness hath done it long at Rome, and does it to this day; and the Whores daily commit lewdness, not only for themselves, but for the Pope their Benefactor's advantage, who is to share in their gain; they drive this Trade for him. And the number of his Farmers was so great long since, that they brought him in yearly an intrado of above Twenty thousand Duckets, a great sum then, and probably very much improved since. Such an abominable ⟨p. 346⟩Tribute nature, even corrupted, blushes at: but that Holiness at Rome, thinks it no shame, to maintain his honour and state, as Christ's Vicar, by the hire of Whores. Evagrius extolling Anastasius the Emperour for abolishing such a detestable practice, brands it, (t)as a wretched Tribute, abominable to God, and shameful to the most barbarous people; as that which was a Reproach to nature it self, and the civil Government; as that which did, as it were, by a law Authorize this wickedness. Nor do the Popish Writers deny, that it is as bad, as he represents it; and yet since the Pope hath made it a custome, they have the confidence to justifie it.
(o)Non est in se peccatum secundum omnes. Navar. c. 16. n. 7.
(p)Cajetanus. Sylvester. & alij ibid.
(q)Aquinas. Paludanu• & Communis. ibid. Si autem placeat ut est exoneratio naturae non creditur peccatum—appetere pollutionem in somnis sine omni delectatione propter alleviationem naturae, non est peccatum; sed dare operam, utendo calida, vel alio modo, esset mortali peccatum, si propter hoc facit, Secus si faceret propter gulositatem, dubitando nihilominus de ea, quia sic esset veniale peccatum. Angel. sum. v. pollut. n. 2.
(q)Recentioribus temporibus Sixtus Pontifex maximus nobile admodum lupanar Romae extrux•t. de vanit. scient. cap. 64.
(r)Nunc vero sub Christi vicarijs & Petri successoribus, ut alius quidam cecinit—Urbs est jam tota Lupanar. Espencaeus de continent. l. 3. c. 4.
(s)Romana scorta in singulas hebdomadas julium Pontifici pendunt. Agrippa. ibid.
(t)[Greek or Hebrew], &c. l. 3. cap. 39. p. 567. Hist. Eccles.〈non-Latin alphabet〉, &c. l. 3. cap. 39. p. 567. Hist. Eccles.
Here one of their prime Penitentiaries, (u)the gain says he, or Tribute for Whoredom, is by the common Law, a deadly crime, and Nicephorus says it is a filthy gain, detestable, absurd, hateful, and which the most savage Barbarians may be ashamed of, what then? is he or the great Bishop ashamed of it? you may know how, by what he adds immediately, (*)yet says he, because of the custom, which passes for a Law, the Pope consenting to it in the Lands of the Church, non est peccatum, it is no sin, it ought to be paid. So that the Pope's will, and interest, passing into custom can make that to be no sin; which Nature, Law, History, and their own Consciences condemn, as a most horrid crime, and that well becomes his Holiness, which the worst Barbarians would detest. No wonder then, if they conclude it lawful, for any to let their houses to Harlots, though they know they take them for the practice of Whoredom; the Trade is so good, they can pay higher Rents than others. No wonder their Casuists and Divines determine so many things in favour of Whores; what ⟨p. 347⟩they receive for their detestable practice, is not to be accounted (y)a Reward only, but a lawful Debt; thus their Divines conclude, while their Conscience extorts this from them, dolendum tamen est, debitum esse ob scelus putatum. And so they may demand it, and recover it, and have Patrons and Officers for their assistance; that Whoredom may be practised by rules of Justice, and they may (z)force the payment, though there was no price agreed on, (a)nor is the Whore bound to make restitution, though she take more than her due, (*)nor is it necessary she should give any of it to the poor. And they are as punctual in resolving prostitutes and their customers, about the price of this (*)staple Commodity; as about the lawfullest negotiations in the World. Who may sell themselves to serve the lusts of others, at what Rate, what Liberty they have to take a price, answerable to the just value, how the value may be computed, and how they may improve it, &c. (b)Though filthiness in a Woman be a fault; yet it is no fault, filthily to set it to sale. A (c)man may satisfy the lust of a female, at a price: and he is so far from being obliged to (*)restitution, that it is ⟨p. 348⟩more than equal it should be paid him;
Here one of their prime Penitentiaries, (u)the gain says he, or Tribute for Whoredome, is by the common Law, a deadly crime, and Nicephorus says it is a filthy gain, detestable, absurd, hateful, and which the most savage Barbarians may be ashamed of, what then? is he or the great Bishop ashamed of it? you may know how, by what he adds immediatly, (*)yet says he, because of the custome, which passes for a Law, the Pope consenting to it in the Lands of the Church, non est peccatum, it is no sin, it ought to be paid. So that the Pope's will, and interest, passing into custome can make that to be no sin; which Nature, Law, History, and their own Consciences condemn, as a most horrid crime, and that well becomes his Holiness, which the worst Barbarians would detest. No wonder then, if they conclude it lawful, for any to let their houses to Harlots, though they know they take them for the practice of Whoredom; the Trade is so good, they can pay higher Rents than others. No wonder their Casuists and Divines determine so many things in favour of Whores; what ⟨p. 347⟩they receive for their detestable practice, is not to be accounted (y)a Reward only, but a lawful Debt; thus their Divines conclude, while their Conscience extorts this from them, dolendum tamen est, debitum esse ob scelus putatum. And so they may demand it, and recover it, and have Patrons and Officers for their assistance; that Whoredom may be practised by rules of Justice, and they may (z)force the payment, though there was no price agreed on, (a)nor is the Whore bound to make restitution, though she take more than her due, (*)nor is it necessary she should give any of it to the poor. And they are as punctual in resolving prostitutes and their customers, about the price of this (*)staple Commodity; as about the lawfullest negotiations in the World. Who may sell themselves to serve the lusts of others, at what Rate, what Liberty they have to take a price, answerable to the just value, how the value may be computed, and how they may improve it, &c.
(u)Lucrum vel tribu•um ex meretricum opera quaerere, inspecto jure communi peccatum mortale est, & a Nicephoro. l. 16. c. 40. Hist. Eccl. dicitur vertigal impurum, detestabile, absurdum Deoque invisum, seris quibusque barbaris indignum & execrandum piaculum.
(*)(x) Ratione tamen consuetudinis, quae pro lege habetur & consentiente rege in terris suis, & Papa in terris ecclesiae, non est peccatum, ideo est solvendum. Graff. l. 2. c. 123. n. 5.
(y)Meretricem promissam, ob turpem usum corporis, mercedem tanquam debitam posse petere, negat Navarre. aiunt probabilius Lopez. Soto. Cajetan. Covarruvias.—nam pretium illud debitum est jure naturae: dolendum tamen est, debitum esse ob scelus putatum. Victorel. in Toll. l. 5. c. 19. vid. Soto. de just. & jur. l. 4. q. 7. art. 1. p. 128.Meretricem promissam, ob turpem usum corporis, mercedem tanquam debitam posse petere, negat Navar. aiunt probabilius Lopez. Soto. Cajetan. Covarruvias.—nam pretium illud debitum est jure naturae: dolendum tamen est, debitum esse ob scelus putatum. Victorel. in Tol. l. 5. c. 19. vid. Soto. de just. & jur. l. 4. q. 7. art. 1. p. 128.
(z)Qui illis statum pretium non solveret, cogeretur in foro judicially idem. ibid. Graft. ibid. n. 3. n. 8. potest illud meretrix petere in judicio. Illis solis lege decreta sunt pretia. Soto. ibid.Qui illis statum pretium non solveret, cogeretur in foro judiciali idem. ibid. Graff. ibid. n. 3. n. 8. potest illud meretrix petere in judicio. Illis solis lege decreta sunt pretia. Soto. ibid.
(a)Graft. ibid. n. 2. Navarre. c. 17. n. 34.Graff. ibid. n. 2. Navar. c. 17. n. 34.
(*)Graft. ibid. n. 2.Graff. ibid. n. 2.
(*)Ratio Cajetani, viz. quod usus meretricis est materia vendibilis & non rei Sacrae: quam Sotus & recentiores magni facere videntur. in Navarre. c. 17. n. 35.Ratio Cajetani, viz. quod usus meretricis est materia vendibilis & non rei Sacrae: quam Sotus & recentiores magni facere videntur. in Navar. c. 17. n. 35.
(b)Licet turpiter faciat quod sit meretrix non tamen turpiter accipit. Aquinas. in Nav. ibid. Soto. ibid. Graft. ibid.
he parts with more for it, (there is not only Justice, but Equity, and Conscience for him, in the case) and there is invincible proof for it, since Alexander himself took hire upon this account, and the Amazons were wont of old, to hire men to do this work.
Any Whores what-ever may retain the price of their filthiness (*)only a Whore is bound in Conscience to restore what is given her by their Religious persons(*). This it seems is the peculiar privilege of their Votaries, that Harlots must serve their turn gratis: and they have so much encouragement more than others to practise Whoredom, since in Conscience it must cost them nothing. But if a Secular person give a Religious man money, or any thing else for the Religious mans Whore, that is not to be restored(*). It would be too hard to part with his Whore for nothing. Yet one incumbrance there is, but very gently laid on them. If the Religious man have goods in his power to dispose of, he may (it is not said he must) satisfy a Wench when he has deflowered her, &c. for this is a pious use(*).
Any VVhores what-ever may retain the price of their filthiness (*)only a VVhore is bound in Conscience to restore what is given her by their Religious persons(*). This it seems is the peculiar priviledg of their Votaries, that Harlots must serve their turn gratis: and they have so much incouragement more than others to practise VVhoredom, since in Conscience it must cost them nothing. But if a Saecular person give a Religious man mony, or any thing else for the Religious mans VVhore, that is not to be restored(*). It would be too hard to part with his VVhore for nothing. Yet one incumbrance there is, but very gently laid on them. If the Religious man have goods in his power to dispose of, he may (it is not said he must) satisfie a VVench when he has defloured her, &c. for this is a pious use(*).
(*)Adrian. Sylvest. Covarruv. Soto. Medina. Corduba. Navarre. Antoninus in Vasquez. Opusc. Moral. p. 124. dub. 2.Adrian. Sylvest. Covarruv. Soto. Medina. Corduba. Navar. Antoninus in Vasquez. Opusc. Moral. p. 124. dub. 2.
A (d)Woman that commits lewdness secretly, may take the price of Fornication, more justly than a common Harlot (though she does it justly enough) because in her it is more valuable, the price may rise, being an honester Whore. If a married Woman fall into (e)Adultery ⟨p. 349⟩once and again, she may take her price without charge of restitution (it is more lawful gain than to have any such burden annexed) and the Adulterer is bound upon his Soul, to lay it down; for though Adultery be illegal, yet to buy and sell it, is no sin; if the price be not excessive, and much above the just value of the thing, the quality of the persons considered. And it must not be forgotten, (f)that the Adulteress is not to be accountable to her Husband, for what she gains by this Traffic; or a Maid to her Parents, when she prostitutes her self for hire in her Fathers house: but may convert it to their own use, as that which they earn by hand-labour; unless they grow very wealthy by the Trade. And if these (g)Women do but take moderate sums for this filthy Traffic, of those who are not at their own disposing, they are not bound to restitution: because it is presumed that those who have the charge of those Minors, do allow such expenses. This was necessary to be added, that Harlots might not be discouraged, from admitting Boys under age, among their Customers. Lastly, a (h)Nun playing the Whore, may both do it for hire, and with a good Conscience keep it when she hath done. It had been hard measure for their Votaries, if some provision had not been made for them, that their Trade might be gainfuln, •hen their own Authors tell us, it is so common. There was no reason to be partial, and make much difference betwixt them, and other prostitutes, when their (i)Clemangis could see no difference, betwixt their Nunneries, and the common Stews. But to proceed with the latter, while they are giving rules ⟨p. 350⟩for Conscience, they tell us (k)the Law countenances Fornication so very much, that it compels public Whores to commit lewdness with any one whomsoever, giving her her hire. And so indulgent is the Church to Whoredom, that Harlots who live there many years. (even as long as they can get Custom), do incur no (l)Ecclesiastical censure. So that at Rome, made so purely Christian by its Popes, Whoredom is as lawful, as when it was most Heathenish, and is objected as the shame of it, by St.
A (d)VVoman that commits lewdness secretly, may take the price of Fornication, more justly than a common Harlot (though she does it justly enough) because in her it is more valuable, the price may rise, being an honester Whore. If a married VVoman fall into (e)Adultery ⟨p. 349⟩once and again, she may take her price without charge of restitution (it is more lawful gain than to have any such burden annexed) and the Adulterer is bound upon his Soul, to lay it down; for though Adultery be illegal, yet to buy and sell it, is no sin; if the price be not excessive, and much above the just value of the thing, the quality of the persons considered. And it must not be forgotten, (f)that the Adulteress is not to be accountable to her Husband, for what she gains by this Traffick; or a Maid to her Parents, when she prostitutes her self for hire in her Fathers house: but may convert it to their own use, as that which they earn by hand-labour; unless they grow very wealthy by the Trade. And if these (g)VVomen do but take moderate sums for this filthy Traffick, of those who are not at their own disposing, they are not bound to restitution: because it is presumed that those who have the charge of those Minors, do allow such expences. This was necessary to be added, that Harlots might not be discouraged, from admitting Boyes under age, among their Customers. Lastly, a (h)Nun playing the Whore, may both do it for hire, and with a good Conscience keep it when she hath done. It had been hard measure for their Votaries, if some provision had not been made for them, that their Trade might be gainfuln, •hen their own Authors tell us, it is so common. There was no reason to be partial, and make much difference betwixt them, and other prostitutes, when their (i)Clemangis could see no difference, betwixt their Nunneries, and the common Stews. But to proceed with the latter, while they are giving rules ⟨p. 350⟩for Conscience, they tell us (k)
(d)Porro antem crediderim has multo justius posse recipere pretium: quippe quae ob majorem honestatem pluris sunt aestimandae. Idem. ibid. Graft. ibid. n. 6.Porro antem crediderim has multo justius posse recipere pretium: quippe quae ob majorem honestatem pluris sunt aestimandae. Idem. ibid. Graff. ibid. n. 6.
(e)Quod si de alijs scisciteris quae sunt puillae aut maritatae quae semel aut bis collabuntur—& illis quoque liceret pretium recipere: tenebiturque in foro conscientiae, qui illis promisit solvere, nisi excessus justae aestimationis pro ratione personarum immodicus esset. Et ratio est eadem S. Thomae. Nam licet flagitia illa sint lege vetita, datio tamen non est probihita. Et ideo juri naturali standum est: quo utique jure concessio illa corporum aestimabilis est pecunia. Soto. ibid. potest nupta quae semel aut his collapsa est pretium recipere absque •exu restitutionis, & adulter tenetur judicio animae illi solver, &c. Graft. ibid. n. 8. & Covarruvias ibi.Quod si de alijs scisciteris quae sunt puillae aut maritatae quae semel aut bis collabuntur—& illis quoque liceret pretium recipere: tenebiturque in foro conscientiae, qui illis promisit solvere, nisi excessus justae aestimationis pro ratione personarum immodicus esset. Et ratio est eadem S. Thomae. Nam licet flagitia illa sint lege vetita, datio tamen non est probihita. Et ideo juri naturali standum est: quo utique jure concessio illa corporum aestimabilis est pecunia. Soto. ibid. potest nupta quae semel aut his collapsa est pretium recipere absque •exu restitutionis, & adulter tenetur judicio animae illi solvere, &c. Graff. ibid. n. 8. & Covarruvias ibi.
(f)Soto. ibid. idem esse judicium atque de alijs, quae operis manuum suarum acquisierint, &c. & Graft. ibid. n. 9.Soto. ibid. idem esse judicium atque de alijs, quae operis manuum suarum acquisierint, &c. & Graff. ibid. n. 9.
(g)Si res est modica pro qualitate personae, etiamsi a silio-familias recipiat, retinere potest. Nam praesumitur pater scire, ratasque subinde habere ejusmodi expensas. Soto. ibid. Graft. ibid n. 10.Si res est modica pro qualitate personae, etiamsi a silio-familias recipiat, retinere potest. Nam praesumitur pater scire, ratasque subinde habere ejusmodi expensas. Soto. ibid. Graff. ibid n. 10.
(h)Quinimo ut inquit Covarruvias, Nec monialis pecuniam recipiens ob mercedem sui coitus tenetur illam restituere in foro animae. Idem. ibid. n. 10.
Augustine, (m)that there the use of Whoredom was a lawful practice. Hereby the People under Popery are so well edified, that they cannot easily know whether Fornication committed with common prostitutes be a sin, as one of their (n)Doctors tells us; for many of the common people (says he) who know not how to distinguish betwixt sin permitted, or not forbidden as to the punishment, and not as to the sinfulness; because that simple Fornication, is not punished, and Whores have the privilege of impunity: they make account it is no sin to deal with them (at the Popes rate) and this is very common in Cities, otherwise well instructed in the Faith and Religion (of Rome) as those who hear Confessions well know(*). It seems Confessors have something to do, to persuade the People, that, that is a sin, which the Pope publicly allows: and they mig•d have more to do, if the People ⟨p. 351⟩did not suspect, that the Pope is a man like themselves, and for all his infallibility, may in matter of Whoredom err, as they usually do.
Augustine, (m)that there the use of Whoredom was a lawful practice. Hereby the People under Popery are so well edified, that they cannot easily know whether Fornication committed with common prostitutes be a sin, as one of their (n)Doctors tells us; for many of the common people (says he) who know not how to distinguish betwixt sin permitted, or not forbidden as to the punishment, and not as to the sinfulness; because that simple Fornication, is not punished, and Whores have the priviledge of impunity: they make account it is no sin to deal with them (at the Popes rate) and this is very common in Cities, otherwise well instructed in the Faith and Religion (of Rome) as those who hear Confessions well know(*). It seems Confessors have something to do, to perswade the People, that, that is a sin, which the Pope publickly allows: and they mig•d have more to do, if the People ⟨p. 351⟩did not suspect, that the Pope is a man like themselves, and for all his infallibility, may in matter of VVhoredom err, as they usually do.
(m)Tu tu sancte pater Augustine. Quid vero terrenae civitati velut exprobas, quod scortorum usum licitum fecerit, ut quem nulla ejus lex vindicet, cum eadem turpitudo in nostra, hoc est Dei civitate, neque minus permittatur, neque magis puniatur. Fspencaeus de contin. l. 3. c. 4. Ratio vero quam praedictus Segobiensis, (Soto) secutus aliquot alios sentit, viz. quod lex permittit, & facit justam operam meretricis, non tamen alias praedictorum operas, &c. Navarre. c. 17. n. 35.Tu tu sancte pater Augustine. Quid vero terrenae civitati velut exprobas, quod scortorum usum licitum fecerit, ut quem nulla ejus lex vindicet, cum eadem turpitudo in nostra, hoc est Dei civitate, neque minus permittatur, neque magis puniatur. Fspencaeus de contin. l. 3. c. 4. Ratio vero quam praedictus Segobiensis, (Soto) secutus aliquot alios sentit, viz. quod lex permittit, & facit justam operam meretricis, non tamen alias praedictorum operas, &c. Navar. c. 17. n. 35.
(n)Fill. tr. 30. c. 2. n. 51. p. 203.
(*)It is not the common people only that have this good opinion of it. Nec hodie Aristippei quidam desint, qui simplex hoc stuprum pro crimine non habeant. Espenc. de contin. lib. 3. cap. 4. Utinam non essent in orbe atque nomine Christiano, qui libellis publice editis, quasi quibusdam fornicandi Isagogis, mulieres, & quidem omnes, nihil aliud in vita communi esse putarent, quam rem explendae libidini natam, Idem. ibid.
But if any man be not disposed to take this liberty so freely offered, of haunting the common Stews; he has encouragement by the Law of their Church to have a Concubine at home, and that without any great hazard, it will not cost him so much, as the loss of the Communion, for the Canon Law provides. (o)That he who has not a Wife, but instead of a Wife a Concubine, shall not be kept from the Communion: So that he be satisfied with one Woman, either a Wife or a Concubine. Now since they tell us sometimes, that none who are in mortal sin, may partake of the Communion; it should seem, that with them, to live in Fornication, is either no sin, or none that is mortal.
But if any man be not disposed to take this liberty so freely offered, of haunting the common Stews; he has incouragement by the Law of their Church to have a Concubine at home, and that without any great hazard, it will not cost him so much, as the loss of the Communion, for the Canon Law provides. (o)That he who has not a Wife, but instead of a Wife a Concubine, shall not be kept from the Communion: So that he be satisfied with one Woman, either a Wife or a Concubine. Now since they tell us sometimes, that none who are in mortal sin, may partake of the Communion; it should seem, that with them, to live in Fornication, is either no sin, or none that is mortal.
(o)Decret dist. 34. c. 4. Is qui non habet uxorem; & pro uxore concubinam habet, a communione non repellatur. Rabanus. l. paenit. c. 10. alleges a Spanish Canon for this. And Gratian. dist. 34. and Espencaeus de contin. l. 2. c. 7. Jacobus Curio. l. 2. Chron. says of Gregory 7. Quasi caelibatum perpetuum concubinatus temperamento mitigarit, sacerdotem unius concubinae societate contentum ab officio non repellendum statuens. Vid. ibid.Decret dist. 34. c. 4. Is qui non habet uxorem; & pro uxore concubinam habet, a communione non repellatur. Rabanus. l. paenit. c. 10. alledges a Spanish Canon for this. And Gratian. dist. 34. and Espencaeus de contin. l. 2. c. 7. Jacobus Curio. l. 2. Chron. says of Gregory 7. Quasi caelibatum perpetuum concubinatus temperamento mitigarit, sacerdotem unius concubinae societate contentum ab officio non repellendum statuens. Vid. ibid.
Their Doctrine is as indulgent to those who will not put away their Concubines, as such persons need desire. Absolution is not to be denied him, who having lent his Concubine whom he keeps in his house 100 Crowns, has no hope to recover it, if he put her away. Or on the contrary, if the Woman be not like to recover the like sum owing her, if she leave the house of the Whoremaster. For, as was said before, none are bound to avoid the next occasion of sin, to their great loss. (*)Nor is he bound to put away his Concubine, if she be very useful for the gaining of temporal goods by way of Traffic.—It is enough that he intends not to sin hereafter. Yea if the Concubine be very serviceable for the delight of the Whore-master, so that his life would scarce be pleasant without her, and other Cates would be very distasteful to him, and another Woman, so much for his purpose, would hardly be found: the Whore-master will not be obliged to put her away(*). Neither is absolution to be denied, if he ⟨p. 352⟩might lose his Reputation by quitting his Whore: Yea or if the Concubine would be disgraced thereby; It is enough if he firmly promise, not to sin more with her, since it is in his power not to sin, although there be present danger of it, while she stays in his house.(*)
Their Doctrine is as indulgent to those who will not put away their Concubines, as such persons need desire. Absolution is not to be denied him, who having lent his Concubine whom he keeps in his house 100 Crowns, has no hope to recover it, if he put her away. Or on the contrary, if the Woman be not like to recover the like sum owing her, if she leave the house of the Whoremaster. For, as was said before, none are bound to avoid the next occasion of sin, to their great loss. (*)Nor is he bound to put away his Concubine, if she be very useful for the gaining of temporal goods by way of Traffick.—It is enough that he intends not to sin hereafter. Yea if the Concubine be very serviceable for the delight of the Whore-master, so that his life would scarce be pleasant without her, and other Cates would be very distastful to him, and another Woman, so much for his purpose, would hardly be found: the Whore-master will not be obliged to put her away(*). Neither is absolution to be denied, if he ⟨p. 352⟩might lose his Reputation by quitting his Whore: Yea or if the Concubine would be disgraced thereby; It is enough if he firmly promise, not to sin more with her, since it is in his power not to sin, although there be present danger of it, while she stays in his house.(*)
But what if he sin with her still, after such promises to the contrary? That will not hinder, if he repent still, and he may truly repent (in their way) and be absolved when there is no appearance of amendment. So he determines in a like case, after others (*)Accordingly Bonacina determines, a Confessor may absolve one, who keeps a Whore, and will not put her away; if he cannot do it without much disgrace or scandal, or other great inconvenience(*). And him also, who sins but seldom with his Whore, 3 or 4 times in a year (or thereabouts), and hopes he may not relapse further(*). And so may a youth be absolved who keeps a Whore in his Fathers house, with whom he sins customarily, though he put her not away, so that he have a firm purpose to desist. (*)But what if after such a purpose he relapse still? he may be absolved still (as we heard before) even innumerably innumerable times, because so oft we are to forgive our Brother(*).
But what if he sin with her still, after such promises to the contrary? That will not hinder, if he repent still, and he may truly repent (in their way) and be absolved when there is no appearance of amendment. So he determines in a like case, after others (*)Accordingly Bonacina determines, a Confessor may absolve one, who keeps a VVhore, and will not put her away; if he cannot do it without much disgrace or scandal, or other great inconvenience(*). And him also, who sins but seldom with his Whore, 3 or 4 times in a year (or thereabouts), and hopes he may not relapse further(*). And so may a youth be absolved who keeps a VVhore in his Fathers house, with whom he sins customarily, though he put her not away, so that he have a firm purpose to desist. (*)But what if after such a purpose he relapse still? he may be absolved still (as we heard before) even innumerably innumerable times, because so oft we are to forgive our Brother(*).
(*)Absolvendum fore toties quoties vere paenituerit, non solum quando aliqua emendatio notatur ut tenent. Suar. Graft. Navarre. Coriolan. Lopez.—quod possit absolvi paenitens, etiamsi nullus appareat profectus, tenet. Vivaldus. ibid. n. 16.Absolvendum fore toties quoties vere paenituerit, non solum quando aliqua emendatio notatur ut tenent. Suar. Graff. Navar. Coriolan. Lopez.—quod possit absolvi paenitens, etiamsi nullus appareat profectus, tenet. Vivaldus. ibid. n. 16.
Or if a Concubine at home will not satisfy an unclean person, but he commit Fornication with others, yet if he make but himself drunk before: that Fornication will be no sin; or but an inconsiderable fault, if he be but half drunk.
Or if a Concubine at home will not satisfie an unclean person, but he commit Fornication with others, yet if he make but himself drunk before: that Fornication will be no sin; or but an inconsiderable fault, if he be but half drunk.
Nor will Adultery be a sin in that or many other cases; Christ teaches, that he who puts away his Wife, saving for the cause of Fornication, causeth her to commit Adultery, Matth. 5. 32. Yet they teach that where the marriage is both firm and consummated by conjugal ⟨p. 353⟩enjoyment; yet the parties may be separated as to cohabitation, and as much divorced as they can be for Adultery (by their Doctrine): (p)either for outward danger, or when one tempts the other to mortal sin, or for that which they call Heresy, or if either of them will enter into a Monastery. And if there had not been carnal knowledge after the marriage, though it be firm and valid; yet if either of them will make the Monastic profession: the other is at liberty to marry another, and live together as Man and Wife, the parties whom they first married still living. So that if a wife will turn Nun, she may put away her Husband (doing (q)it, eo ignorante vel invito) and he may marry another Wife.
Nor will Adultery be a sin in that or many other cases; Christ teaches, that he who puts away his Wife, saving for the cause of Fornication, causeth her to commit Adultery, Matth. 5. 32. Yet they teach that where the marriage is both firm and consummated by conjugal ⟨p. 353⟩injoyment; yet the parties may be separated as to cohabitation, and as much divorced as they can be for Adultery (by their Doctrine): (p)either for outward danger, or when one tempts the other to mortal sin, or for that which they call Heresie, or if either of them will enter into a Monastery. And if there had not been carnal knowledge after the marriage, though it be firm and valid; yet if either of them will make the Monastick profession: the other is at liberty to marry another, and live together as Man and Wife, the parties whom they first marryed still living. So that if a wife will turn Nun, she may put away her Husband (doing (q)it, eo ignorante vel invito) and he may marry another Wife.
(p)Vid. Sylvest. Sum. v. divort. n. 10. & n. 2. Quantum ad vinculum, matrimonium ratum salvi potest per mortem civilem i. e. professionem tacitam vel expressam religionis approbatae: ita quod remanens in saeculo potest libere cum alia contrahere. ibid. (vid. Maldonat. Sum. quaest. 14. art. 13.)Vid. Sylvest. Sum. v. divort. n. 10. & n. 2. Quantum ad vinculum, matrimonium ratum salvi potest per mortem civilem i. e. professionem tacitam vel expressam religionis approbatae: ita quod remanens in saeculo potest libere cum alia contrahere. ibid. (vid. Maldonat. Summ. quaest. 14. art. 13.)
The Council of Trent confirms this to purpose, when it curses those who hold that lawful Matrimony not consummated, is not dissolved by a solemn Religious vow. (*)It is acknowledged by (1)Boniface 8. and (2)Gregory 13. that this of Matrimony is a bond made firm and indissoluble by God himself; and the other of a vow, but a Church Constitution: yet (as was observed long since), the Trent Prelates will not only have a humane bond to dissolve a Divine; but will have those accursed, who will not believe, that an institution of man, born many hundred years since the Apostles, should prevail against a Divine institution, made at the Creation of the World(*). Thus in behalf of their pretended chastity, they have opened a broad way for real Adultery, and who could expect more reasonable decrees in such a case.
The Council of Trent confirms this to purpose, when it curses those who hold that lawful Matrimony not consummated, is not dissolved by a solemn Religious vow. (*)It is acknowledged by (1)Boniface 8. and (2)Gregory 13. that this of Matrimony is a bond made firm and indissoluble by God himself; and the other of a vow, but a Church Constitution: yet (as was observed long since), the Trent Prelats will not only have a humane bond to dissolve a Divine; but will have those accursed, who will not believe, that an institution of man, born many hundred years since the Apostles, should prevail against a Divine institution, made at the Creation of the World(*). Thus in behalf of their pretended chastity, they have opened a broad way for real Adultery, and who could expect more reasonable decrees in such a case.
This for their Laity, then for their Clergy and Monastics, their Doctrine is, (r)that Adultery is not so much a sin as marriage; no nor ⟨p. 354⟩Incest or Sodomy, or Bestiality, so that they may better venture upon any of these abominations, than upon that state which the Lord hath authorized and honoured. And he is more capable of orders amongst them, (s)who hath kept two Whores; than one who hath been twice Married, or but once Married a Widow. An incestuous person (says (t)Erasmus) is admitted to be a Bishop, a Murderer, a Robber, a Sodomite, a Sacrilegious wretch, a Parricide is admitted, and who not? Solus digamus, one that has been twice Married is only excluded from this honour, though he alone be blameless. The Apostle commends Marriage to prevent the heats of Lust, which he calls burning; but burning Lust is with them innocent. (u)To burn (says Valentia) does not signify to burn with the flames of Lust, for this in it self is not evil. The Apostle determines it better to Marry than to burn: but Bellarmin says (x)it is worse to Marry, how-ever our Adversaries gain-say (where he puts the Apostle with us, amongst his Adversaries) especially for her who is under solemn Vow; and a little after he tells (y)us, she that Marries after a simple Vow, in a manner sins more than she that commits Fornication: his reason is, because the one makes her self uncapable of keeping her Vow, which she does not, who plays the Whore. Where we see what their Vow of Chastity is (the argument wherein they triumph, to prove the holiness of their Church); its a Chastity which consists well enough with Whoredom, and is only violated by Marriage. Accordingly the Clergy have liberty to haunt the public Stews. It is in reference to ⟨p. 355⟩those who are (a)Unmarried, (to wit, the Clergy) that the Stews are held to be so very necessary; that no consideration could move the Pope or his Council, to think any thing more fit to be done against the common Whores; but only some diminution of their Pride and Luxury, as one of their Doctors intimates. And as if that would not serve, they have been heretofore allowed (b)to keep Whores at home, paying a yearly Rent for that liberty: Yea, those Priests that would not keep whores (that they might not want temptation to it) were forced to pay the Rent, because they might have bad the liberty if they pleased.
This for their Laiety, then for their Clergy and Monasticks, their Doctrine is, (r)that Adultery is not so much a sin as marriage; no nor ⟨p. 354⟩Incest or Sodomy, or Bestiality, so that they may better venture upon any of these abominations, than upon that state which the Lord hath authorized and honoured. And he is more capable of orders amongst them, (s)who hath kept two Whores; than one who hath been twice Marryed, or but once Marryed a Widdow. An incestuous person (saies (t)Erasmus) is admitted to be a Bishop, a Murderer, a Robber, a Sodomite, a Sacrilegious wretch, a Parricide is admitted, and who not? Solus digamus, one that has been twice Marryed is only excluded from this honour, though he alone be blameless. The Apostle commends Marriage to prevent the heats of Lust, which he calls burning; but burning Lust is with them innocent. (u)To burn (says Ʋalentia) does not signifie to burn with the flames of Lust, for this in it self is not evil. The Apostle determines it better to Marry than to burn: but Bellarmin says (x)it is worse to Marry, how-ever our Adversaries gain-say (where he puts the Apostle with us, amongst his Adversaries) especially for her who is under solemn Vow; and a little after he tells (y)us, she that Marrys after a simple Vow, in a manner sins more than she that commits Fornication: his reason is, because the one makes her self uncapable of keeping her Vow, which she does not, who plays the Whore. Where we see what their Vow of Chastity is (the argument wherein they triumph, to prove the holiness of their Church); its a Chastity which consists well enough with Whoredom, and is only violated by Marriage. Accordingly the Clergy have liberty to haunt the publick Stews. It is in reference to ⟨p. 355⟩those who are (a)Unmarryed, (to wit, the Clergy) that the Stews are held to be so very necessary; that no consideration could move the Pope or his Council, to think any thing more fit to be done against the common Whores; but only some diminution of their Pride and Luxury, as one of their Doctors intimates. And as if that would not serve, they have been heretofore allowed
(r)Marriage of them who have vowed chastity, is the worst sort of incontinency. Rhem. Annot. in Cor. 7. 9.
(s)Aquinas, Comment. in Tit. 1.Aq•inas, Comment. in Tit. 1.
(t)Annot in 1 Tim. 13. admittitur incestus, admittitur homicida, admittitur pirata, admittitur Sodomita, Sacrilegus, parricida; denique quis non? solus digamus excluditur, qui solus nihil admisit.
(u)Uri non idem significat quod flamma libidinis uri; hoc enim per se malum non est, imo materia potius victoriae. l. de. Coelibat. Cap. 6.
(x)Non utrumque est malum, & nubere & uri; imo pejus est nubere, quicquid reclament Adversarij, presertim ei, quae habet votum solenne, De Monach. l. 2. c. 36. p. 1213.
(y)Quae autem nubit post votum simplex, illa verum matrimonium contrahit, tamen aliquo modo magis peccat, quam quae fornicatur, quia reddit se impotentem ad servandum votum, quod non facit quae fornicatur, ibid. p. 1214.
(a)Mirum certe tales tantosque viros consuluisse, minuendum modo scortorum fastum & luxum, non-etiam ea semel ei jcienda, an vero propter tam multos ibi caelibes necessario retinenda? O rem horrendam! Espencaeus de contin. l. 3. c. 4. p. 734.
(b)Turpissimum est quod (Officiales) permittant (Clericos) cum concubinis, moretricibus, & pellicibus habitare, liberosque procreare sinunt, accepto ab ijs certo quotannis censu: atque adeo alibi a continemibus. Nam habeat (inquiunt) si velit. Et quoties enim quisque talis, cum tales tam multi sint, hodie aliter punitur? Idem in Tit. c. 1. p. 479. Corn. Agrippa de Vanit. Scient. c. 64.
For a Monk or Friar to lay aside his habit is a crime, by which he incurs Excommunication, and yet if he lay aside his habit, that he may commit Fornication the more expeditely, without the incumbrance which his Monkish weeds would give him in the act, they declare him upon that account freed from censure. (c)Excommunication is not incurred, says Navarre) for every leaving of his habit, which is temerarious, or deadly, because he incurs it not by laying it aside, that he may the more readily indulge himself in Fornication. Sylvester had made such a decision before him, so understanding Paludanus, that he is under Excommunication, (d)who puts off his habit to disguise himself in reference to others, that he may not be known; but not be, that lays it by, with a respect to himself, (viz.) for the pleasure (of Fornication). So that the censured ⟨p. 356⟩dismissing of habit, is, as he distinguishes, 3that which is fraudulent, so as to put on another, but not that which is for an hours pleasure, while he is quite stripped. Panormitan concludes that an Oath is never (g)to be given to him, of whom there is vehement suspicion, that he will not observe it, and he that gives it in that case, sins mortally. Hence Pope Alexander would not have Priests bound by Oath to forsake their Concubines; because, it seems, there was strong presumption, they would venture on perjury rather than leave their Whoredom. (h)Hence Erasmus had so much cause to complain, that among so vast multitudes, who were unmarried, and under the Vow of Chastity; so exceeding few did live Chastely, so innumerable many did wallow in Uncleanness. And Cassander (i)(another moderate Papist) says, that a man could not find scarce one in a hundred of them, that abstained from Women.
For a Monk or Fryar to lay aside his habit is a crime, by which he incurrs Excommunication, and yet if he lay aside his habit, that he may commit Fornication the more expeditely, without the incumbrance which his Monkish weeds would give him in the act, they declare him upon that account freed from censure. (c)Excommunication is not incurr'd, says Navar) for every leaving of his habit, which is temerarious, or deadly, because he incurs it not by laying it aside, that he may the more readily indulge himself in Fornication. Sylvester had made such a decision before him, so understanding Paludanus, that he is under Excommunication, (d)who puts off his habit to disguise himself in reference to others, that he may not be known; but not be, that lays it by, with a respect to himself, (viz.) for the pleasure (of Fornication). So that the censured ⟨p. 356⟩dismissing of habit, is, as he distinguishes, 3that which is fraudulent, so as to put on another, but not that which is for an hours pleasure, while he is quite stript. Panormitan concludes that an Oath is never (g)to be given to him, of whom there is vehement suspition, that he will not observe it, and he that gives it in that case, sins mortally. Hence Pope Alexander would not have Priests bound by Oath to forsake their Concubines; because, it seems, there was strong presumption, they would venture on perjury rather than leave their Whoredome. (h)Hence Erasmus had so much cause to complain, that among so vast multitudes, who were unmarried, and under the Vow of Chastity; so exceeding few did live Chastly, so innumerable many did wallow in Ʋncleanness. And Cassander (i)(another moderate Papist) says, that a man could not find scarce one in a hundred of them, that abstain'd from Women.
(c)Non incurritur etiam ob quamlibet dimissionem temereriam mortiferam, quia non incurritur, ob dimissionem ut expeditius fornicationi indulgeat, Navarre. c. 17. n. 131.Non incurritur etiam ob quamlibet dimissionem temereriam mortiferam, quia non incurritur, ob dimissionem ut expeditius fornicationi indulgeat, Navar. c. 17. n. 131.
(d)Si quis habitum dimittat ut fornicetur secundum Pet. de Pal. sine dubio est Excommunicatus, quod ego verum crederem quando habitum dimittit relative ad alios, puta ne cognoscatur: secus relative ad se, puta propter voluptatem. Sum. v. Excom. 9. n. 53. Non affici excommunicatione qui se vestibus spoliat—ui liberius & voluptuosius peccet Bonacina Tom. 3. de Excom. disp. 2. q. 8. punct. 6. n. 3. Sayrus & alij quos magno numero refert Sanctarell. ibid.
3(e) Unde dico illam dimissionem debere intelligi, quando babitus demittitur dolose cum assumptione alterius ad utendum eo, secus ubi dimitteretur ad horam voluptuose, nullo alio sumpto. ibid.
(g)In c. Clericus. de coha. Cler. & muli. Concludit quod nunquam est deferendum juramentum illi, contrá quem est vehemens suspicio de transgressione, & deferens peccat mortaliter & facit optimo textus dicti, c. Cleric. Ubi non vult clericos cogi jurare dimittere concubinas, Angel. Sum. v. juram. n. 11. Navarre. c. 12. n. 20. ne in fornicationem reversus perjurij quoque reatum incurreret, Espenc. de Cont. l. 2. c. 7.In c. Clericus. de coha. Cler. & muli. Concludit quod nunquam est deferendum juramentum illi, contrá quem est vehemens suspicio de transgressione, & deferens peccat mortaliter & facit optimo textus dicti, c. Cleric. Ubi non vult clericos cogi jurare dimittere concubinas, Angel. Sum. v. juram. n. 11. Navar. c. 12. n. 20. ne in fornicationem reversus perjurij quoque reatum incurreret, Espenc. de Cont. l. 2. c. 7.
(h)Cum ubique tam ingens sit sacerdotum turba, quorum quotus quisque castam agit vitam? de conscrib. Epist. Si quis prependat horum temporum statum, quotam hominum portionem monachorum gregis occupent, quotam sacerdatum & clericorum collegia: deinde perpendat quam pauci in•anto numero viri servent c•stimoniam, tum in quae libidinum genera quam innumeri divergant, quanto cum probro complures palam incesti sint, & impudici, &c. Annot. in 1 Tim. 3.
Before these, the Gloss on the Canon Maximianus, dist. 81. tells us, (k)it is the common opinion that no Priest should be deposed for simple Fornication, because there are but few Priests free from it. If all Fornicators had been deprived, their Church would have been made desolate, and left in a manner Priestless. This was a great reason then, and is, it ⟨p. 357⟩seems, of the same force still; for at this day, a Priest is not to be deprived for simple Incontinency. The Congregation of Cardinals (much concerned for the propagation of the holy Church) declared it to be Law (l)that the penalty of deprivation proceeds not for simple incontinency, as Garzias observes; only they must not keep Whores in the capacity of Concubines. It may be that came too near Marriage, to have so much favour as vagrant Whoredom. Yet if a Priest keep a Whore at Board and Bed, and use her constantly, as if she were his Wife, he is not therefore irregular: Indeed if he Marry her, or an honester Woman, all the world cannot excuse him; for though such Whoredom never disables a Priest, yet chaste Marriage utterly spoils him. Yea, if he keep in that capacity more Whores than one (I know not how many more, for they are not limited to numbers) yet still he is not irregular (as innocent Bigamy would make any one, though he were an Apostle) but the Bishop may dispense with him. So Pope Innocent 3. determined, and it is now as good Law as their Church has any; and the more remarkable, because the Doctors Gloss on it, would have it noted as admirable, (m)that Whoredom has, with them, more privilege than Chastity. Where we may suppose the Gloss speaks the sense of such as are Strangers to Rome; for that Uncleanness should be preferred before Chastity, is in that Church nothing wonderful nor strange at all, but ordinary and obvious. That Pope (whom they magnify as the singular glory of their Law), decrees (n)that the Bishop may dispense with Priests who keep many Concubines, to exercise their Office, as he doth also with those who are noted for simple Fornication. And how the Bishops were wont to dispense with them, is known, their own Writers declaring, it the custom, as before, to let out those Women to them at a yearly rent; and that they were so hard—Lords, that if a ⟨p. 358⟩Priest had no mind to the Bishops Tenement, and did not take it, yet he must pay for it no less than the forwardest Farmer.
Before these, the Gloss on the Canon Maximianus, dist. 81. tells us, (k)it is the common opinion that no Priest should be deposed for simple Fornication, because there are but few Priests free from it. If all Fornicators had been deprived, their Church would have been made desolate, and left in a manner Priestless. This was a great reason then, and is, it ⟨p. 357⟩seems, of the same force still; for at this day, a Priest is not to be deprived for simple Incontinency. The Congregation of Cardinals (much concerned for the propagation of the holy Church) declared it to be Law (l)that the paenalty of deprivation proceeds not for simple incontinency, as Garzias observes; only they must not keep Whores in the capacity of Concubines. It may be that came too near Marriage, to have so much favour as vagrant Whoredom. Yet if a Priest keep a Whore at Bord and Bed, and use her constantly, as if she were his Wife, he is not therefore irregular: Indeed if he Marry her, or an honester Woman, all the world cannot excuse him; for though such Whoredom never disables a Priest, yet chast Marriage utterly spoils him. Yea, if he keep in that capacity more Whores than one (I know not how many more, for they are not limitted to numbers) yet still he is not irregular (as innocent Bigamy would make any one, though he were an Apostle) but the Bishop may dispense with him. So Pope Innocent 3. determined, and it is now as good Law as their Church has any; and the more remarkable, because the Doctors Gloss on it, would have it noted as admirable, (m)that Whoredom has, with them, more priviledge than Chastity. Where we may suppose the Gloss speaks the sense of such as are Strangers to Rome; for that Uncleanness should be preferred before Chastity, is in that Church nothing wonderful nor strange at all, but ordinary and obvious. That Pope (whom they magnifie as the singular glory of their Law), decrees (n)that the Bishop may dispense with Priests who keep many Concubines, to exercise their Office, as he doth also with those who are noted for simple Fornication. And how the Bishops were wont to dispense with them, is known, their own Writers declaring, it the custom, as before, to let out those Women to them at a yearly rent; and that they were so hard—Lords, that if a ⟨p. 358⟩Priest had no mind to the Bishops Tenement, and did not take it, yet he must pay for it no less than the forwardest Farmer.
(k)Communiter dicitur quod pro simplici fornicatione quis deponi non debet, cum pauci sine illo vi•io inveniantur. dist. 81.
(l)Quae tamen paena privationis beneficij non procedit in simplici incontinentia, absque qualitate concubinatus, ut constat ex declarat. adducta a Garcia. Jo Sauc. disp. 50. n. 10.
(m)Si presbytery plures concubinas habentes—poteris cum els tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis, quod ad executionem sacerdotalis officij, dispenfare, Extra. de Bigam. tit. 22. c. quia circa.Si presbyteri plures concubinas habentes—poteris cum els tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis, quod ad executionem sacerdotalis officij, dispenfare, Extra. de Bigam. tit. 22. c. quia circa.
(n)Notandum mirabile quod plus hic habet luxuria quam castitas.
Licet turpiter faciat quod sit meretrix non tamen turpiter accipit. Aquinas. in Nav. ibid. Soto. ibid. Graff. ibid.
(c)Imo utraque ratione posset etiam masculus a faemina pretium recipere: quin vero aequius, quia plus praebet: sicuti Alexander in jure naturae potuit a duce illa Amazone quae illum gratia recipiendae prolis invisit, quod & prece & pretio, ut fertur, impetravit. Nam illi faeminarum generi in more erat, pretio accersere viros qui ad illas ingrederentur. Soto. ibid. Graft. ibid. n. 7.Imo utraque ratione posset etiam masculus a faemina pretium recipere: quin vero aequius, quia plus praebet: sicuti Alexander in jure naturae potuit a duce illa Amazone quae illum gratia recipiendae prolis invisit, quod & prece & pretio, ut fertur, impetravit. Nam illi faeminarum generi in more erat, pretio accersere viros qui ad illas ingrederentur. Soto. ibid. Graff. ibid. n. 7.
(*)(a) Qui a faemina propter opus libidinosum accipit pretium non tenetur illud restituere, quin vero aequius est ut illud accipiat, cumplus praebeat sicut Alexander, &c. Item si causa salutis quispiam emissione illa egerit, posset amplexum illum pretio coemere. Soto ibid.
the Law countenances Fornication so very much, that it compells publick Whores to commit lewdness with any one whomsoever, giving her her hire. And so indulgent is the Church to VVhoredom, that Harlots who live there many years. (even as long as they can get Custom), do incur no
Ecclesiastical censure. So that at Rome, made so purely Christian by its Popes, VVhoredom is as lawful, as when it was most Heathenish, and is objected as the shame of it, by St.
(i)Nihil distinguit inter sui temporis virginum monasteria, & meretricum lupanaria. Espenc. de contin. l. 2. c. 12.
(k)Et in tantum lex tolerat hujusmodi fornicationes, ut et jam cogat publicas meretrices ad fornicandum qum quocunque juxta tamen mercedem. Graff. l. 2. c. 74. n. 4.Et in tantum lex tolerat hujusmodi fornicationes, ut et iam cogat publicas meretrices ad fornicandum qum quocunque juxta tamen mercedem. Graff. l. 2. c. 74. n. 4.
(l)Though one continue a Whore for Twenty years, yet doth she not incur the censures of the Church. Vid. Vivaldus candelabr. aur. tit. de confess. n. 60.Though one continue a Whore for Twenty years, yet doth she not incurr the censures of the Church. Vid. Vivaldus candelabr. aur. tit. de confess. n. 60.
to keep Whores at home, paying a yearly Rent for that liberty: Yea, those Priests that would not keep whores (that they might not want temptation to it) were forced to pay the Rent, because they might have bad the liberty if they pleased.
In concilio Neocaesar, magis punitur sacerdos qui fornicatur quam qui publice contrahit—jam eo res rediit ut vix centesimum invenias, qui ab omni commercio faeminarum abstineat, Consult. art. 23.
