Note 54 — CHAP. IX.

“Furti scilicet conscium, si adhuc vocare possumus Monachum, quasi adulterum secundum, flagello subdi & magnâ coërceri afflictione jubemus; dantes illi unam cum fornicante sententiam, quia & ipse furatus est ut luxuriaretur.”

It is a little surprising that repeated adultery is, in the above Rule, expressly placed on a level with simple fornication. Whether the Framer of this Rule has done so purposely, and thought that adultery ought to be treated with indulgence, on account of the uncommon temptation he supposed Men were under to commit it, or has only been very careless in his manner of expressing himself, I shall not attempt to discuss. Yet, lest the Reader should thence be led to entertain too bad an opinion of the tenets and morals of Monks in general, I shall observe, that all are not in the same way of thinking with respect to adultery, as the Framer of the above Rule seems to have been. As a proof of this, the instance, I think, may be produced of that Monk, mentioned in one of the Epigrams of the Poet Rousseau, who was a great enemy to that sin: one day preaching against it, he grew so warm in his arguments, and took so much pains to convince his Congregation of his own abhorrence of it, that at last he broke out into the following solemn declaration: ‘Yea, my Brethren, I had rather, for the good of my soul, to have to do with ten Maidens every month, than in ten years touch one married Woman.’

The following is the Epigram of Rousseau, which is written in Marotic verses; a kind of jocular style among the French, which admits of old words and turns of phrase.