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.
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.
Sodomy abounds most in Italy (for it was requisite that Rome should be, as it is in the Prophetic style, Sodom; and not incongruous, that the vilest wickedness should thrive best under his Holiness wing), yet as if they would have it as common every where, and more there than it is, their decisions are exceeding favourable to it, and treat it very indulgently. Married persons may practice Sodomy together, the beginnings of it, all of it, bating the last complement of the act, without mortal guilt(o). Unmarried persons, their Clergy, may act it without restraint to the uttermost, and be neither suspended nor irregular. There (p)is no danger of it, if they do it but 2 or 3 times now and then, yea, they are safe, unless they make a custom of it. The strictest decree that we find any Pope ever made against Sodomy, is that of Pius 5. which yet was formed in such terms, on purpose that it should not reach any Ecclesiastics, but such only as made a trade of it by continual practice. This Navarre had from the mouth of Gregory 13.(q)
Sodomy abounds most in Italy (for it was requisite that Rome should be, as it is in the Prophetick style, Sodom; and not incongruous, that the vilest wickedness should thrive best under his Holiness wing), yet as if they would have it as common every where, and more there than it is, their decisions are exceeding favourable to it, and treat it very indulgently. Marryed persons may practice Sodomy together, the beginnings of it, all of it, bating the last complement of the act, without mortal guilt(o). Unmarryed persons, their Clergy, may act it without restraint to the uttermost, and be neither suspended nor irregular. There (p)is no danger of it, if they do it but 2 or 3 times now and then, yea, they are safe, unless they make a custom of it. The strictest decree that we find any Pope ever made against Sodomy, is that of Pius 5. which yet was formed in such terms, on purpose that it should not reach any Ecclesiasticks, but such only as made a trade of it by continual practice. This Navar had from the mouth of Gregory 13.(q)
(o)Zerola Graffius. & alij apud Dianam. 2. p. tr. 3. res. 37. Angelus, v. debitum. n. 25. vid. Navarre. c. 27. n. 250.Zerola Graffius. & alij apud Dianam. 2. p. tr. 3. res. 37. Angelus, v. debitum. n. 25. vid. Navar. c. 27. n. 250.
(p)Bonacina de Matrim. q. 4. punct. 11. n. 2. ibi. Navar. Quaranta. Riccius. Mattha. Duardus Garzias, & alij.
(q)Cap. 27. n. 249. vid. Bonacin. ibid. n. 3. ibi. Navar. Rodriquez Lazarius.
And if they do make a trade of it, yet still they are secure, if it be not notorious and public: and it (r)will not be counted notorious, though it may be proved; though it be commonly reported, though it be confessed; nor public, unless it be manifest to all. Thus if any Ecclesiastic will practise Sodomy, provided he do it not continually; or if he will make a daily trade of it, yet so he do not keep an open Warehouse; the Pope has taken special care (even in the severest order, that his Zeal against this wickedness could ever be brought to make) that the Sodomite shall have his liberty without any fear of losing Office or Benefice in holy Church.
And if they do make a trade of it, yet still they are secure, if it be not notorious and publick: and it (r)will not be counted notorious, though it may be proved; though it be commonly reported, though it be confessed; nor publick, unless it be manifest to all. Thus if any Ecclesiastick will practise Sodomy, provided he do it not continually; or if he will make a daily trade of it, yet so he do not keep an open Warehouse; the Pope has taken special care (even in the severest order, that his Zeal against this wickedness could ever be brought to make) that the Sodomite shall have his liberty without any fear of losing Office or Benefice in holy Church.
(r)Navarre. ibid. n. 248. publicum definitur esse, quod patet omnibus, Bartol. ibid. n. 255.Navar. ibid. n. 248. publicum definitur esse, quod patet omnibus, Bartol. ibid. n. 255.
Further they declare that mental Heresy(s), is a greater crime than ⟨p. 359⟩Sodomy. As suppose a man should believe that the public worship of God ought to be in a known tongue (such a Heresy as they cannot acquit the Apostle Paul of) the secret belief of this, though never manifested by expression or practice, is in their account, worse than Sodomy. What Conscience are they like to make of this, while such is their judgment? Moreover, some of them (t)say, that the stealing of 30. Rials (about 15. shillings) is a greater sin than Sodomy. Yet Theft is wont to be counted one of the lest crimes, and this is none of the greatest Theft. Of what value the thing stolen, must be to make Theft a mortal sin, is, they say, to be determined by the judgment of a prudent man. (u)Those who have the reputation of great prudence amongst them, declare, that to steal 100. Crowns, in some case is no mortal crime. If they should any of them determine that the stealing of 29. Rials, or there abouts, is but venial; there will but be about six pence difference betwixt Sodomy and a Venial fault. Its true, they do not commonly deliver this conceit in the terms expressed; but it is clearly inferred from the doctrine of Aquinas (and Scotus too) generally embraced; for he concludes that (x)Justice is a more excellent Virtue than Chastity; and that the sin is more heinous, which is opposite to the nobler Virtue(y): upon which ground, not only Sodomy, but Copulation with a Brute or a Devil will be a less sin than petty Theft. In short, if their Divines (whether followers of Thomas or Scotus, betwixt whom they are all in a manner parted) will be true to these principles, since they cannot deny but there is injustice in stealing one Rial; they must hold that Sodomy is no more a sin, nor more Conscience to be made of it, than of stealing six-pence, when their doctrine of Theft has left no Conscience of that. Thus far they have advanced to secure Sodomy against the Laws of God, and by those of the Church: as for any secular Laws, they may laugh at them, for Sodomy has Ecclesiastical immunity. (z)By the special care of Pope Gregory, Sodomites ⟨p. 360⟩were not mentioned amongst those who are excluded from that privilege. The civil Law (I suppose, before the Unmarried Clergy were Law-givers) Ordains that Sodomites should be burnt, but the Church has provided that no fire may touch them, if they can escape that from Heaven.
Further they declare that mental Heresie(s), is a greater crime than ⟨p. 359⟩Sodomy. As suppose a man should believe that the publick worship of God ought to be in a known tongue (such a Heresie as they cannot acquit the Apostle Paul of) the secret belief of this, though never manifested by expression or practice, is in their account, worse than Sodomy. What Conscience are they like to make of this, while such is their judgment? Moreover, some of them (t)say, that the stealing of 30. Rials (about 15. shillings) is a greater sin than Sodomy. Yet Theft is wont to be counted one of the lest crimes, and this is none of the greatest Theft. Of what value the thing stoln, must be to make Theft a mortal sin, is, they say, to be determined by the judgment of a prudent man. (u)Those who have the reputation of great prudence amongst them, declare, that to steal 100. Crowns, in some case is no mortal crime. If they should any of them determine that the stealing of 29. Rials, or there abouts, is but venial; there will but be about six pence difference betwixt Sodomy and a Venial fault. Its true, they do not commonly deliver this conceit in the terms expressed; but it is clearly inferred from the doctrine of Aquinas (and Scotus too) generally imbraced; for he concludes that (x)Justice is a more excellent Virtue than Chastity; and that the sin is more hainous, which is opposite to the nobler Virtue(y): upon which ground, not only Sodomy, but Copulation with a Brute or a Devil will be a less sin than petty Theft. In short, if their Divines (whether followers of Thomas or Scotus, betwixt whom they are all in a manner parted) will be true to these principles, since they cannot deny but there is injustice in stealing one Rial; they must hold that Sodomy is no more a sin, nor more Conscience to be made of it, than of stealing six-pence, when their doctrine of Theft has left no Conscience of that. Thus far they have advanced to secure Sodomy against the Laws of God, and by those of the Church: as for any secular Laws, they may laugh at them, for Sodomy has Ecclesiastical immunity. (z)By the special care of Pope Gregory, Sodomites ⟨p. 360⟩
(s)Navarre. Manual. c. 27. n. 249.Navar. Manual. c. 27. n. 249.
(u)Aragon & alij in Pet. Navarre. vid. Bonacin. de Restit. d. 2. q. 3. p. 2. n. 7.Aragon & alij in Pet. Navar. vid. Bonacin. de Restit. d. 2. q. 3. p. 2. n. 7.
(x)Justitia major virtus quam Castitas 1, 2. q. 66. art. 4.
(z)Bonacin. in 1. precept. d. q. 7. p. 5. n. 14. colligitur reos Sodomi•i•i criminis immunitatis privilegio non privari, quia in bulla Gregorij non exprimuntur.Bonacin. in 1. praecept. d. q. 7. p. 5. n. 14. colligitur reos Sodomi•i•i criminis immunitatis privilegio non privari, quia in bulla Gregorij non exprimuntur.
Besides other Sacred places, the Palaces of Cardinals and Bishops, all Monasteries, yea, the House of every Parish Priest and Ecclesiastic, are all Sanctuaries for Sodomites. They could not well proceed further in favour of this crime, since the eyes of the world was open about them. It is not now so seasonable for the Popes Legate (as he did before) to praise Sodomy in Print, as a pious act. These rules and examples considered, who can think that they count Uncleanness of any sort, a sin much to be avoided? Or who can wonder, if Rome became hereby, in a literal sense, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations? Or yet think strange, that they should be most taken with Papal holiness, who are most addicted to Whoredom and Uncleanness?
Besides other Sacred places, the Palaces of Cardinals and Bishops, all Monasteries, yea, the House of every Parish Priest and Ecclesiastick, are all Sanctuaries for Sodomites. They could not well proceed further in favour of this crime, since the eyes of the world was open about them. It is not now so seasonable for the Popes Legate (as he did before) to praise Sodomy in Print, as a pious act. These rules and examples considered, who can think that they count Uncleanness of any sort, a sin much to be avoyded? Or who can wonder, if Rome became hereby, in a literal sense, the Mother of Harlots and Ahominations? Or yet think strange, that they should be most taken with Papal holiness, who are most addicted to Whoredome and Uncleanness?
Sect. 9. Further, it's no sin for the Romanists to take from those whom they count Heretics (from Protestants particularly) all that they have: This will not be Theft or Robbery, but an act justified by the Laws of their Church, which oblige them to do it; for this is one of those many punishments, which that Law will have inflicted on us; (k)the goods of Heretics are by sentence of Law immediately confiscated. There is no question of this amongst them; only as to the execution, there is some doubt, whether Heretics are bound in Conscience, as soon as they are such, to give up their possession themselves, and deliver all they have to Roman Catholics; or whether they may not without mortal guilt, keep possession, till the Papists see it fit to put them out, and seize on all they have. Their famous (l)Panormitan concludes that the Heretics are bound, under the pain of deadly sin, to do ⟨p. 361⟩this execution upon themselves, not expecting any other Sentence, or Executioner. And there is a pretty Army of Doctors (longa Doctorum phalanx) do maintain this with him: but Soto and some others determine, that they need not be so hasty to give up all they have of their own accord, but may stay for a declaratory sentence, and seizure upon it; but then a (m)general sentence will serve, without particular process or examination who are personally guilty, and a (n)sentence by some Ecclesiastical person may suffice.
Sect. 9. Further, it's no sin for the Romanists to take from those whom they count Hereticks (from Protestants particularly) all that they have: This will not be Theft or Robbery, but an act justified by the Laws of their Church, which oblige them to do it; for this is one of those many punishments, which that Law will have inflicted on us; (k)the goods of Hereticks are by sentence of Law immediatly consiscated. There is no question of this amongst them; only as to the execution, there is some doubt, whether Hereticks are bound in Conscience, as soon as they are such, to give up their possession themselves, and deliver all they have to Roman Catholicks; or whether they may not without mortal guilt, keep possession, till the Papists see it fit to put them out, and seize on all they have. Their famous (l)Panormitan concludes that the Hereticks are bound, under the pain of deadly sin, to do ⟨p. 361⟩this execution upon themselves, not expecting any other Sentence, or Executioner. And there is a pretty Army of Doctors (longa Doctorum phalanx) do maintain this with him: but Soto and some others determine, that they need not be so hasty to give up all they have of their own accord, but may stay for a declaratory sentence, and seisure upon it; but then a (m)general sentence will serve, without particular process or examination who are personally guilty, and a (n)sentence by some Ecclesiastical person may suffice.
(k)Concil. Later. sub Innoc. 3. bona ipsorum ipso facto applicantur fisco, Angel. Sum. v. haeret. n. 5. sunt ipso jure, vel ipso facto confiscata Sylvest. v. haeret. c. 1. n. 12.
(l)Cujus regula est, quod ille cujus bona sunt ipso facto confiscata, non potest illa cum bona conscientia retinere, quia statim sunt acquisita fisco, in Soto de Just. & jure l. 3. q. 6. art. 6. p. 21.
But all of them agree in this, that Heretics lose all title and property in what-ever they possess, and that for them and their heirs; and this before any declaratory (o)sentence, even from the first day of their pretended heretical pravity, as the (p)Directory for the Inquisitors determines.
But all of them agree in this, that Hereticks lose all title and property in what-ever they possess, and that for them and their heirs; and this before any declaratory (o)sentence, even from the first day of their pretended heretical pravity, as the (p)Directory for the Inquisitors determins.
(o)Idem. ibid. v. paena. n. 3. Graft. l. 2. c. 11. n. 10, sine.Idem. ibid. v. paena. n. 3. Graff. l. 2. c. 11. n. 10, sine.
(p)Ut etiam tenet Director. l. 3. tit. 9. qui etiam dicit, quod dicta bona damnatorum propter haeresim, vel bujusmodi ad fiscum pertin•nt a Die commissi criminis, Sylvest. ibid. n. 13. Condemnatio illa vetro agitur usque ad articulum quo haereticus omni ignorantia nudatus, haeresim studio ass•ruit. Assertio est Jo. Aud. Sed nulla opus est authorum citatione: nam lex est expressa.—Et universalis usus & practica St. Senatus inquisitionis sic habet nempe secundum normam directori. l. 3. tit. 9. Soto. ibid. p. 23. vid. Sylv. ibid. n. 14. Graft. l. 2. c. 21. n. 17.Ut etiam tenet Director. l. 3. tit. 9. qui etiam dicit, quod dicta bona damnatorum propter haeresim, vel bujusmodi ad fiscum pertin•nt a Die commissi criminis, Sylvest. ibid. n. 13. Condemnatio illa vetro agitur usque ad articulum quo haereticus omni ignorantia nudatus, haeresim studio ass•ruit. Assertio est Jo. Aud. Sed nulla opus est authorum citatione: nam lex est expressa.—Et universalis usus & practica St. Senatus inquisitionis sic habet nempe secundum normam directori. l. 3. tit. 9. Soto. ibid. p. 23. vid. Sylv. ibid. n. 14. Graff. l. 2. c. 21. n. 17.
To lose all title to their Estates, may seem a small matter, considering that they lose all power and jurisdiction, all right to Honour and Fame, (they and theirs being infamous) to Liberty also, and Life it self: But because loss of Property is great in consequence, let us stay a little on it. All that these pretended Heretics have, being confiscated, they are liable to a Seizure presently; and though their convenience will not serve them to seize on all, a long time after; yet in the interim, the poor Heretics are responsible; for all the (q)mean profits (it may be in our case, for a hundred, or two hundred years past); and all this while, they have no power to alienate or dispose of their Goods or ⟨p. 362⟩Estates, by Gift; Sale, Will, or otherwise; yea, not of any of it, by way of Charity, for they are not their own to dispose of. Hence all Wills, Sales, Contracts, for this purpose, (it may be for some ages together) are (r)null and void. And if the Heretic will venture to alienate any thing he has, he that buys it, does it at his peril(s); for though it pass from hand to hand many years, yet it may be taken away from the Purchaser, with whom it is found, (t)without restoring the price that was paid for it: and he that sells it, is a Cheat, and (u)sins mortally, if he gives not the Purchaser notice of the hazard, and tell him, that when he sells his Estate, or Goods, he has no right to sell them. If the pretended Heretic dye, and leave what he has to his (x)Children, it is no better than if he left them another mans Goods which he had no title to. Yea, though the Children be (y)Catholics, they lose their portion. But who are those that may take from ⟨p. 363⟩Protestants (or others whom they count Heretics) what they possess? why, any that will: Authority is given to all who-ever to Rob, spoil, or bereave us. So Sylvester, and others, quoting the Rabbis of the Pontifical Law for it. It is their determination, that in point of Law and Conscience, (z)all that will, have Authority to spoil us of what we have. What he adds, is matter of caution for more plausible proceedings in the spoil and robbery. It seems safe that this be not done but by special edict of the Prince, or of the Church; this is convenient, least otherwise one might seem to do it, rather out of Covetousness or Revenge, than out of Justice and Obedience.
To lose all title to their Estates, may seem a small matter, considering that they lose all power and jurisdiction, all right to Honour and Fame, (they and theirs being infamous) to Liberty also, and Life it self: But because loss of Property is great in consequence, let us stay a little on it. All that these pretended Hereticks have, being consiscated, they are liable to a Seisure presently; and though their convenience will not serve them to seise on all, a long time after; yet in the interim, the poor Hereticks are responsible; for all the (q)mean profits (it may be in our case, for a hundred, or two hundred years past); and all this while, they have no power to alienate or dispose of their Goods or ⟨p. 362⟩Estates, by Gift; Sale, Will, or otherwise; yea, not of any of it, by way of Charity, for they are not their own to dispose of. Hence all Wills, Sales, Contracts, for this purpose, (it may be for some ages together) are (r)null and voyd. And if the Heretick will venture to alienate any thing he has, he that buyes it, does it at his peril(s); for though it pass from hand to hand many years, yet it may be taken away from the Purchaser, with whom it is found, (t)without restoring the price that was paid for it: and he that sells it, is a Cheat, and (u)sins mortally, if he gives not the Purchaser notice of the hazard, and tell him, that when he sells his Estate, or Goods, he has no right to sell them. If the pretended Heretick dye, and leave what he has to his (x)Children, it is no better than if he left them another mans Goods which he had no title to. Yea, though the Children be (y)Catholicks, they lose their portion. But who are those that may take from ⟨p. 363⟩Protestants (or others whom they count Hereticks) what they possess? why, any that will: Authority is given to all who-ever to Rob, spoil, or bereave us. So Sylvester, and others, quoting the Rabbies of the Pontifical Law for it. It is their determination, that in point of Law and Conscience,
(q)Talis clausula ipso jure vel facto, operatur restitutionem fructuum medij temporis—n•ma Die commissi criminis, non facit fructus suos, sed statim debentur fisco Fell. in cap. Rodolphus de rescript. Graff. ibid. n. 21.Talis clausula ipso jure vel facto, operatur restitutionem fructuum medij temporis—n•ma Die commissi criminis, non facit fructus suos, sed statim debentur fisco Fel. in cap. Rodolphus de rescript. Graff. ibid. n. 21.
(r)Dona•io vel alienatio facta per haereticum ante damnationem non tenet—sicut facta damnatione bona alienare non possunt, sic nec ante illam a die commissi criminis, Sylv. ibid. n. 14. Habetque eousque vim talis sententia, ut omnes contractus, nempe donationes, venditionis, atque alij, etiam causa dotis, quos haereticus ab illo articulo secerit, hab•antur pro infectis, Soto. ibid.
(s)Navarre. c. 17. n. 106.Navar. c. 17. n. 106.
(t)Si haereticus alienavit, fiscus vel inquisitores non tenentur restituere pretium emptori, quia •ff•ctus damnationis re•ro trahitur, Sylvest. ibid. fiscus nullo emptoribus restituto pretio sibi adjudicat dicta bona. Soto. ibid. res quaelibet per delinquentem ali•nata a fisco vindicari possit a die commissi criminis, pretio ipsi emptori minime soluto. Graft. ibid. n. 17. Non solum revocabit rem▪ pretio non restituto emptori, qui emit ab haeretico: verum etiam nec •i qui emit, quantumcunque per plures manus transierit, a qui non habuit jus vendendi, haec Jo. Manald. Archidiaconus, & Jo. Andreus & idem. Directorium in Sylvest. ibid.Si haereticus alienavit, fiscus vel inquisitores non tenentur restituere pretium emptori, quia •ff•ctus damnationis re•ro trahitur, Sylvest. ibid. fiscus nullo emptoribus restituto pretio sibi adjudicat dicta bona. Soto. ibid. res quaelibet per delinquentem alinata a fisco vindicari possit a die commissi criminis, pretio ipsi emptori minime soluto. Graff. ibid. n. 17. Non solum revocabit rem pretio non restituto emptori, qui emit ab haeretico: verum etiam nec i qui emit, quantumcunque per plures manus transierit, a qui non habuit jus vendendi, haec Jo. Manald. Archidiaconus, & Jo. Andreus & idem. Directorium in Sylvest. ibid.
By this we may understand in what condition Protestants are, by the Laws of the Romish Chuich, and how Papists are obliged to look upon us, and demean themselves towards us. No Protestant from the (*)Prince to the meanest Subject, has any Title to Lands, Houses, Money, or any thing else which they possess; or can justly call it their own. All rules of Righteousness, which concern property, are void: Papists owe them no observance. In reference to us, we are not capable of Injury upon this account; whatever they do against us, in respect of our Estates, they wrong us not, they sin not, for we have no Title. If they take from us any thing, or all we have, they steal not ought from us, they rob us not, because they take nothing from us that is our own. If they burn our Houses over our heads, and fire Towns and Cities (as they have done, and their famous (a)Simanca says they may do) they ⟨p. 364⟩do us no injury, they sin not on this account, because the Houses and Goods consumed, are none of ours. If they deprive a Protestant Prince of his Throne and Dominions, they sin not; he is by their Law and doctrine but an Usurper, and had no just (b)title to his Crown. If they draw any of his Subjects into war against him, at home or abroad, they do him no wrong; for they are (c)not his Subjects, no more than the Popish Clergy, who are sworn to another Sovereign. Or if he intrust them with the commands of Forts (d)or Garrisons, they may betray them to the Romanists, and not wrong him, because they were not his. If they take all (e)places of trust, or profit, from Nobles or Commons, they do them no wrong, because they had no right to them, nor have their Children after them any, for some generations. If they pay no (f)Debts to Protestants though they were not only under the obligation of a promise, but of solemn Oath, they may justify it, they owe them nothing. If Trust be reposed in them, or any thing be (g)deposited in their hands, or they borrow any thing of us, they may detain it; they need not restore it, for they have nothing of ours. In a word, there can be no Parliaments, or Convention of the three Estates of a Nation, because there are none in that capacity. As there are no persons ⟨p. 365⟩of Honour for Peers, all being (b)infamous, so can there be no Free-holders to choose, or to be chosen for Commons, since there are no Proprietors.
By this we may understand in what condition Protestants are, by the Laws of the Romish Chuich, and how Papists are obliged to look upon us, and demean themselves towards us. No Protestant from the (*)Prince to the meanest Subject, has any Title to Lands, Houses, Money, or any thing else which they possess; or can justly call it their own. All rules of Righteousness, which concern property, are voyd: Papists owe them no observance. In reference to us, we are not capable of Injury upon this account; whatever they do against us, in respect of our Estates, they wrong us not, they sin not, for we have no Title. If they take from us any thing, or all we have, they steal not ought from us, they rob us not, because they take nothing from us that is our own. If they burn our Houses over our heads, and fire Towns and Citys (as they have done, and their famous (a)Simanca says they may do) they ⟨p. 364⟩do us no injury, they sin not on this account, because the Houses and Goods consumed, are none of ours. If they deprive a Protestant Prince of his Throne and Dominions, they sin not; he is by their Law and doctrine but an Ʋsurper, and had no just (b)title to his Crown. If they draw any of his Subjects into war against him, at home or abroad, they do him no wrong; for they are (c)not his Subjects, no more than the Popish Clergy, who are sworn to another Soveraign. Or if he intrust them with the commands of Forts (d)or Garisons, they may betray them to the Romanists, and not wrong him, because they were not his. If they take all (e)places of trust, or profit, from Nobles or Commons, they do them no wrong, because they had no right to them, nor have their Children after them any, for some generations. If they pay no (f)Debts to Protestants though they were not only under the obligation of a promise, but of solemn Oath, they may justifie it, they owe them nothing. If Trust be reposed in them, or any thing be (g)
(*)A Constitution of Pope Paul 4. subscribed by all the Cardinals, declares that all Prelates and Princes, even Kings and Emperors fallen into Heresy, should be, and should be understood to be deprived of all their Benefices, States, Kingdoms and Empires, without farther declaration, and uncapable to be restored to them, even by the Apostolic Sea•; and their Goods, States, Kingdoms, and Empires shall be understood to be common, and to belong to those Catholics who can get them, Hist. of Counc. of Tr. lib. 5. p. 409.A Constitution of Pope Paul 4. subscribed by all the Cardinals, declares that all Prelats and Princes, even Kings and Emperors fallen into Haeresy, should be, and should be understood to be deprived of all their Benifices, States, Kingdoms and Empires, without farther declaration, and uncapable to be restored to them, even by the Apostolick Sea•; and their Goods, States, Kingdoms, and Empires shall be understood to be common, and to belong to those Catholicks who can get them, Hist. of Counc. of Tr. lib. 5. p. 409.
(a)Institut. Cathol. Tit. 45. Sect. 13.
(b)Tenens regnum contra formam juris & mentem papae dicitur tyrannus, Mascon. de imper. Reg. pars. 1. c. 2. Propter haeresin rex non solum regno privatur, sed & filij ejus a succession regni pelluntur. Simanc. ibid. tit. 9. Sect. 259. Post latam sententiam declarativam de crimine haeresis, injuste princeps possidet regnum, & principatum, & excercet jurisdictionem in subditos: tenenturque subditi eximere se ab ejus obedientia, & bellum gerere contra illum, si virus illis suppe•ant, Bannes in 22. q. 10 p. 614. Yea, Bannes says, it is the more common opinion with Aquinus and his followers, that before the sentence declaratory, Subjects may lawfully, if they have strength, exempt themselves from the power of the Prince. p. 590.Tenens regnum contra formam juris & mentem papae dicitur tyrannus, Mascon. de imper. Reg. pars. 1. c. 2. Propter haeresin rex non solum regno privatur, sed & filij ejus a successione regni pelluntur. Simanc. ibid. tit. 9. Sect. 259. Post latam sententiam declarativam de crimine haeresis, injuste princeps possidet regnum, & principatum, & excercet jurisdictionem in subditos: tenenturque subditi eximere se ab ejus obedientia, & bellum gerere contra illum, si vir•s illis suppe•ant, Bannes in 22. q. 10 p. 614. Yea, Bannes says, it is the more common opinion with Aquinus and his followers, that before the sentence declaratory, Subjects may lawfully, if they have strength, exempt themselves from the power of the Prince. p. 590.
And as no Laws can be made, can be valid, there being none who have any power to make them: so there can be no Aids or Subsidies granted, or required, since they cannot be given or required of those who have nothing of their own to give.
Thus by the Popish principles, the foundations of the civil constitution in England, and other Countries in like circumstances, are quite blown up, as if they had been at the mercy of Faux. And those who will follow their conduct, must hold, that we have no Government, no King, no Subjects, no Parliaments, no Laws, no Liberties, no Property; and indeed, none of the rest, because not this last. And all that will be true to the Doctrine and Laws of Popery, must believe this, and may lawfully deal with us accordingly; they sin not if they do, there is no Conscience in the case to hinder them, or secure us; nay, they are bound to do it, if that which they account most sacred, can oblige them, and that as soon as they can. That which restrains them, is not the fear of God, but of the penalties of our Laws, which yet are of no more force by their determination, than the agreement of a company of Robbers, or the constitutions of mere Usurpers, which will stand in their way no longer than till they can master the power which bears them up; against that which the Roman Decrees and Edicts have made equity and justice, in despite of the Laws of God and Nations.
Thus by the Popish principles, the foundations of the civil constitution in England, and other Countrys in like circumstances, are quite blown up, as if they had been at the mercy of Faux. And those who will follow their conduct, must hold, that we have no Government, no King, no Subjects, no Parliaments, no Laws, no Libertys, no Property; and indeed, none of the rest, because not this last. And all that will be true to the Doctrine and Laws of Popery, must believe this, and may lawfully deal with us accordingly; they sin not if they do, there is no Conscience in the case to hinder them, or secure us; nay, they are bound to do it, if that which they account most sacred, can oblige them, and that as soon as they can. That which restrains them, is not the fear of God, but of the penalties of our Laws, which yet are of no more force by their determination, than the agreement of a company of Robbers, or the constitutions of mere Usurpers, which will stand in their way no longer than till they can master the power which bears them up; against that which the Roman Decrees and Edicts have made equity and justice, in despite of the Laws of God and Nations.
Sect. 10. Moreover, they may bear (i)false witness, either privately, or in open Court, for their advantage; and if it do not much wrong another, it is but a small fault; so that if it do no wrong at all, it will be less than a small fault. On this account they may bear false ⟨p. 366⟩witness against a Protestant, or any other, whom they count Heretics, even when Estate or Life is concerned; for by their Laws and Doctrine his life is forfeited, and his goods confiscated, and so though by false testimony he lose both, yet he has no wrong, because he had no right to either. They may use fraud and deceit in bargains, to get what a Protestant sells, for little or nothing, yea, or to cheat him of all he has; for the deceit is not considerable in point of Conscience, but for the wrong it does; and here is no wrong in the case, for he cheats the Heretic of nothing that was his own, and so do's him no injury. They may use perfidiousness in breaking Compacts, Agreements, or Promises; for Perfidiousness, when it is (k)officious, and does but a little injury to those concerned, is one of the least sorts of faults by their doctrine; therefore, when it does no injury at all, it is less than the least: but by breaking promises, or any such Bond of faithfulness, which concerns the Estate of a Heretic, they do him no injury, because he has no Estate of his own, by their account. So that if a Papist should make a thousand promises, and confirm each of them with an Oath to a Heretic, that he will pay what he owes him, or restore to him what is his own, he sins not, though he never pay, nor restore a farthing of it; because nothing is due to a Heretic, nor is there any thing he can call his own. And this is not my inference only, but they themselves declare it to be the consequence of their principles; and what they (l)deliver in express terms, amounts to as much as this charge comes to.
Sect. 10. Moreover, they may bear (i)false witness, either privately, or in open Court, for their advantage; and if it do not much wrong another, it is but a small fault; so that if it do no wrong at all, it will be less than a small fault. On this account they may bear false ⟨p. 366⟩witness against a Protestant, or any other, whom they count Hereticks, even when Estate or Life is concerned; for by their Laws and Doctrine his life is forfeited, and his goods confiscated, and so though by false testimony he lose both, yet he has no wrong, because he had no right to either. They may use fraud and deceit in bargains, to get what a Protestant sells, for little or nothing, yea, or to cheat him of all he has; for the deceit is not considerable in point of Conscience, but for the wrong it does; and here is no wrong in the case, for he cheats the Heretick of nothing that was his own, and so do's him no injury. They may use perfidiousness in breaking Compacts, Agreements, or Promises; for Perfidiousness, when it is (k)officious, and does but a little injury to those concern'd, is one of the least sorts of faults by their doctrine; therefore, when it does no injury at all, it is less than the least: but by breaking promises, or any such Bond of faithfulness, which concerns the Estate of a Heretick, they do him no injury, because he has no Estate of his own, by their account. So that if a Papist should make a thousand promises, and confirm each of them with an Oath to a Heretick, that he will pay what he owes him, or restore to him what is his own, he sins not, though he never pay, nor restore a farthing of it; because nothing is due to a Heretick, nor is there any thing he can call his own. And this is not my inference only, but they themselves declare it to be the consequence of their principles; and what they (l)deliver in express terms, amounts to as much as this charge comes to.
(i)Soto. de. just. & jur. l. 5 q. 7. art. 4. supra.
(k)Cajetan. Sum. v. perfidia.
(l)Si aliquis promisisset eis haereticis solver sub paena vel juramento certo die, non tenetur ut Gloss. Et hoc intellige, si est manifestum ipsum in haeriticam incidisse perfidiam, & dicit Phil. ide• etiamsi est occultus; dummodo probari possit—Panormitan. ibid. vult, quod a die commissi criminis sunt liberi, Angel. Sum. v. haeret. n. 15. Armilla. v. haeres. n. 1. Sylvest. v. haeret. n. 14. He that fails, being bound by Oath or otherwise, to make payment, sins not, because the Creditors Heresy hath discharged him. So Ovandus in 4. dist. 13. prop 30.Si aliquis promisisset eis haereticis solvere sub paena vel juramento certo die, non tenetur ut Gloss. Et hoc intellige, si est manifestum ipsum in haeriticam incidisse perfidiam, & dicit Phil. ide• etiamsi est occultus; dummodo probari possit—Panormitan. ibid. vult, quod a die commissi criminis sunt liberi, Angel. Sum. v. haeret. n. 15. Armilla. v. haeres. n. 1. Sylvest. v. haeret. n. 14. He that fails, being bound by Oath or otherwise, to make payment, sins not, because the Creditors Heresy hath discharged him. So Ovandus in 4. dist. 13. prop 30.
Sect. 11. Thus they leave little that can be sin in Papists, one towards another, but less towards Protestants. 'Tis no sin not to keep Peace or Faith; not to observe either Truth or Honesty towards Heretics. 'Tis no deceit to equivocate with them in private dealing, or ⟨p. 367⟩public transactions; 'tis no Dishonesty to cheat them of what they have; 'tis no Perjury to break Oaths with them; 'tis no Theft to rob or spoil them; 'tis no Inhumanity to burn their Houses over their Heads; 'tis no Murder to kill them; in a word, 'tis no sin for all Relations to deny them, what God hath made their respective duties.
Sect. 11. Thus they leave little that can be sin in Papists, one towards another, but less towards Protestants. 'Tis no sin not to keep Peace or Faith; not to observe either Truth or Honesty towards Hereticks. 'Tis no deceit to equivocate with them in private dealing, or ⟨p. 367⟩publick transactions; 'tis no Dishonesty to cheat them of what they have; 'tis no Perjury to break Oaths with them; 'tis no Theft to rob or spoil them; 'tis no Inhumanity to burn their Houses over their Heads; 'tis no Murder to kill them; in a word, 'tis no sin for all Relations to deny them, what God hath made their respective dutys.
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.
were not mentioned amongst those who are excluded from that priviledge. The civil Law (I suppose, before the Unmarried Clergy were Law-givers) Ordains that Sodomites should be burnt, but the Church has provided that no fire may touch them, if they can escape that from Heaven.
all that will, have Authority to spoyl us of what we have. What he adds, is matter of caution for more plausible proceedings in the spoil and robbery. It seems safe that this be not done but by special edict of the Prince, or of the Church; this is convenient, least otherwise one might seem to do it, rather out of Covetousness or Revenge, than out of Justice and Obedience.
•
▪
•
(u)Navarre. c. 23. n. 89. Sylv. ibid.Navar. c. 23. n. 89. Sylv. ibid.
(x)Nihil habebunt de bonis parentum filij, nec etiam agnati Angel. ibid. n. 7. Si aliquis sit declaratus haereticus, statim potest sieri executio in bonis ejus, exclusis filijs, etiam de legitima. Graff. ibid. n. 10.
(y)Si habue•int Catholicos silios nibilominus confiscantur secundum Gloss. in. Sylvest. ibid. Angelus. ibid. Quinimo veniunt privandi ipsi filij Catholici etiam legitima ita notatur per Genzelinum—quem sequitur, Zabarella & ratio est, quia legitima est quota bonorum, quae pater habebat tempore mortis, sed pater eo in tempore nihil habet quando bona sunt confiscata, Graff. ibid. n. 9.
(z)Si aliter fieri non potest, manu armata sunt eis omnia bona auferenda ut, 23. q. 3 c. 1. Sicut tamen dicit Raynuc. & Gosredus licet Ecclesia videatur dare generalem authoritatem Omnibus expoliandi eos: tamen satis videtur tutum, quod non fiat nisi speciali edicto, vel principis vel ecclesiae: ne aliter videatur quis potius ex cupiditate vel ultione, quam ex justitia & obedientia pugnare, Sylvest. ibid. n. 13. Infidelitas haereticorum est pessima, utrum infideles qui non recognoscunt dominium Ecclesiae licit possint suis rebus spoliari? Resp. Hostiensis, quod sic per illud Mat. ult. data est mihi omnis potestas, &c. quam quidem transtulit in vicarium suum, Angel. Sum. v. infidel. n 3. & n. 7.Si aliter fieri non potest, manu armata sunt eis omnia bona auferenda ut, 23. q. 3 c. 1. Sicut tamen dicit Raynuc. & Gosredus licet Ecclesia videatur dare generalem authoritatem Omnibus expoliandi eos: tamen satis videtur tutum, quod non fiat nisi speciali edicto, vel principis vel ecclesiae: ne aliter videatur quis potius ex cupiditate vel ultione, quam ex justitia & obedientia pugnare, Sylvest. ibid. n. 13. Infidelitas haereticorum est pessima, utrum infideles qui non recognoscunt dominium Ecclesiae licite possint suis rebus spoliari? Resp. Hostiensis, quod sic per illud Mat. ult. data est mihi omnis potestas, &c. quam quidem transtulit in vicarium suum, Angel. Sum. v. infidel. n 3. & n. 7.
deposited in their hands, or they borrow any thing of us, they may detain it; they need not restore it, for they have nothing of ours. In a word, there can be no Parliaments, or Convention of the three Estates of a Nation, because there are none in that capacity. As there are no persons
infamous, so can there be no Free-holders to choose, or to be chosen for Commons, since there are no Proprietors.
(c)Vassalli haereticorum ipso facto liberantur, Angel. Sum. v. haeret. Sylvest. ibid. n. 14. principibus apostantibus a fide non est obediendum, Aquinas 2. 2. q. 10. Concil. Lateran. cap. 3.
(d)Absoluti sunt subditi a debito fidelitatis etiam custodes arcium Simanca, ibid. tit. 46. Sect. 73. Concil. Lateran. ibid.
(e)Angelus. Sum. v. haeret. n. 8. Sylvest. ibid. n. 14. Concil. Lateran. infra.
(f)Si quis promisisset eis solver certo die sub juramento, vel paena, non tenetur ut ibi notat gloss. Sylv. ibid. Angel. ibid. n. 15. Armilla. v. haeret. n. 11. Ovandus. infra.Si quis promisisset eis solvere certo die sub juramento, vel paena, non tenetur ut ibi notat gloss. Sylv. ibid. Angel. ibid. n. 15. Armilla. v. haeret. n. 11. Ovandus. infra.
(g)Simanca. ibid. tit. 45. Sect. 27.
(b)Ipso jure sunt infames, ut neque ad publica offi•ia sen consilia seu ad eligendos ad hujusmodi aliquos; neque ad testimonium admittuntur. Sunt intestabiles etiam, nec ad successiones admittuntur, Angel▪ Sum. n. 21. ibid. For this there is a decree of one of their general Councils (that of Lateran under Innocent. 3) involving not only Heretics themselves, but expressly all the receivers, defenders, and favourers of such. Ex tunc ipso jure sit factu• infamis, nec ad publica officia seu consilia, nec ad eligendos aliquos ad hujusmodi, nec ad testimonium admittitur, sit etiam intestabilis, &c. cap. 3. in Crab. Tom. 2. p. 948.Ipso jure sunt infames, ut neque ad publica offi•ia sen consilia seu ad eligendos ad hujusmodi aliquos; neque ad testimonium admittuntur. Sunt intestabiles etiam, nec ad successiones admittuntur, Angel▪ Sum. n. 21. ibid. For this there is a decree of one of their general Councils (that of Lateran under Innocent. 3) involving not only Hereticks themselves, but expresly all the receivers, defenders, and favourers of such. Ex tunc ipso jure sit factu• infamis, nec ad publica officia seu consilia, nec ad eligendos aliquos ad hujusmodi, nec ad testimonium admittitur, sit etiam intestabilis, &c. cap. 3. in Crab. Tom. 2. p. 948.
