The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 4 · Chapter 5
CHAP. 5. Vindication of the aſſertion of his Majeſty of Great Brittain, that the Canoniſts teach, that fornication is more tolerable in the Miniſters of the Church, then lawfull Matrimony.
THis doctrine of the Canoniſts and other Doctors of the Church of Rome, who hold that whoredom is more tolerable in Prieſts, then lawfull marriage, ſeemed very harſh and prophane to his Majeſty. To which the Cardinal anſwereth, I have read no ſuch thing in the Latin Canoniſts, as having little applyed my ſelf to turn over their writings. This Prelat makes himſelf an ignorant when he pleaſeth, and will not take notice of a thing known to all. Who knows not that at Rome marriage is forbidden to the Clarks, but that Brothel-houſes are there publickly licenſed? Who knows not, that(a)Eman. Sa Aphoriſm in verbo Epiſcopus, meretricium eſt jure permiſſum. if a Prieſt keeps a concubine, or commits whoredom, it is made a laughing matter, but if he had a wife lawfully married, he ſhould be held a monſter, and ſhould by no means be ſuffered? Doth not Cardinal du Perron call the marriage of one that hath vowed continence a ſacriledge? Who ever gave that odious name unto whoredom? Hath not Pope Innocent the third pronounced his judgement upon that? For this being a rule without exception in the Roman Church, that a bigame that is, one that was married the ſecond time is irregular, that is, incapable to atttain unto the order of Prieſthood, as being in a condition incompatible with the holineſs of the Order; yet he that keeps many concubines may be admitted to that Order, and is capable of the Prieſthood; and that by the judgement of Pope Innocent the ſecond in theſe words(b)Extra de Bigam. cap. Quia circa. Poſtulaſti per ſedem Apoſtolicam edoceri ſi Presbyteri plures concubinas habentes bigami cenſeantur. Ad quod duximus reſpondendū, quod cum irregularitatem non incurrerint bigamiae, cum eis tanquam ſimplici fornicatione nota…is, quod ad executionem ſacerdotalis officii poteris diſpenſare. Thou haſt deſired to be taught by the Apoſtolick See, whether Prieſts that have many concubines ought to be accounted bigames. To which we have thought good to anſwer, that ſince they have not incurred the irregularity of bigamy, thou maiſt diſpenſe with them, as for the exerciſe of the Office of Prieſthood, as with perſons that are noted but with ſimple fornication. That Pope held, that a ſecond marriage leaveth a ſtain which is for ever incompatible with the Order of Prieſthood: but as for whoredom with a multitude of harlots, he holds it compatible with the holineſs of the Order, and ſaith that it is but a ſimple fornication. To that Decree of Pope Innocent the Gloſs of the Canon Maximianus (c)Diſt. 81. Communiter dicitur, quod pro ſimplici fornicatione quis deponi non debet, cum pauci ſine illo vitio inveniantur. Vide Diſt. 82. Can. Presbyter, in Gloſſa.is conſonant, which ſpeaks thus, It is commonly ſaid, that a Prieſt ought not to be depoſed for ſimple fornication, ſeeing that very few perſons are found without that vice.
Cardinal du Perron himſelf joins with them in that opinion, calling (with(d)Bellarm. de Monachis cap. 19. Sect. Jam vero. Non ſolum conjugium ſacerdotum, quod ſacrilegium eſt non conjugium, ſed etiam ſanctorum matrimonium ſine pollutione quadam & turpitudine non exerceri. Bellarmin) the marriage after the vow of continence, a manifeſt ſacriledge, ſpeaking thus, Beſides that the infraction of the vow is againſt the precepts of the firſt Table, and imports a manifeſt ſacriledge; other ſins are but acts of ſin, not reſolutions and habits of ſin, Whereas the violation of the vow by marrying, is not a ſimple act of ſin, but a continuance, an habit, a perpetual reſolution of ſin, and a breach of the vow made, not by a ſimple contrary action as fornication, but by a contract, and as it were by a vow of perſevering in the breach of the vow. This Prelat caſteth duſt into the eyes of the ignorant, ſpeaking againſt his conſcience. For he knew that a great multitude of Prieſts and Biſhops commit whoredom, not by one only action, but by a continued habit. He knew that by ſo doing, they ſin againſt the vow which they have made unto God to obey his law, which vow every man is obliged to fulfill. He knew alſo that a Prieſt having a concubine, or many, goeth againſt the vow which he made, when he took upon him the order of Prieſthood, that he would live honeſtly and continently. He knew alſo that a vow made againſt God, and againſt his word, ought not to bee kept; and by conſequent that a Clark ſubject unto whoredom ought to marry, becauſe God ſaith by his Apoſtle, If they contain not, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. So that whereas Holy Scripture ſaith, If they contain not, let them marry; the Roman Church ſaith, If Clarks contain not, let them not marry for that. And whereas St. Paul ſaith, It is better to marry then to burn, the Roman Church ſaith, It is better for Prieſts and Monks to burn then to marry. And whereas St. Paul ſaith, To avoid fornication let every man have his wife, the Roman Church ſaith, Let not Prieſts given to whoredom have any lawfull wife. And whereas St. Paul ſaith, Let the Biſhop and the Deacon be husbands of one wife, and let them inſtruct their children in all gravity, The Roman Church ſaith, Let neither Biſhop, nor Prieſt, nor Deacon have a wife, and let them not beget children.
So many texts of Scripture are ſo many thunderbolts, which the Cardinal thinks to turn away with blowing, bringing teſtimonies of Fathers againſt them, that is, men againſt God. To thoſe teſtimonies of Fathers we will give a chapter apart.
But how can the marriage of Clarks be but odious in the Roman Church, and held worſe then fornication, ſince Sodomy is held among them more tolerable then marriage? For whereas marriage is judged altogether incompatible with ſacred Orders, the like judgement is not made of Sodomy. For by the rules of the Roman Church, a Sodomiſt may exerciſe the Prieſthood, and by that abominable vice doth not run into irregularity. Navarrus the Popes Penitentiary teacheth that, ſaying,(e)Navarr. in Caput in inferenda 23. Q. 3. De defenſione proximi. The crime of Sodomy is not comprehended among the crimes that bring irregularity. Firſt, becauſe a man incurreth not irregularity but by the caſes expreſt by the Law, in which number that crime is not. Secondly, becauſe ſuch are the words of Pope Innocent. Thirdly, becauſe it matters not if that crime be foul and deteſtable, ſeeing that mental hereſie is worſe, as Thomas ſaith; which yet brings no irregularity.