An Index of Prohibited Books (1840)/Part 6 - Observations I

by Joseph Mendham

 

It will be proper to make a few observations on the preceding Catalogue. It will be recollected, that Vergerio had made some free, or indeed caustic, animadversions on the first Catalogue, and on the personal character of della Casa, the professed author, as he was possibly of the succeeding, and even of the last, that which has just been given. For, although in 1554 he was generally resident in Rome, yet he remembered his residence and occupations in Venice, and doubtless kept up his old interest in the supervision of the press, particularly the censorship of heretical books. It is plain, from a careful inspection of the Catalogue under view, that, if his, he had not forgotten his old friend and instructor, the ex-bishop of Capo d'Istria. He takes politic care, however, to make his castigator as little conspicuous as possible. The notice is discovered by no sign but the addition of the contraction Verg. at the end of the article; a mark which would be overlooked by all who were not a little in the secret of the rancour felt by the compiler towards his reprover. The instances are as follow:-Consiglio, &c., of which we shall have something to say — Copia d'una lettera scritta alli quattro di Genaio. 1550 — Declaratione de Giubileo — Disordine della Chiesa — Discorsi sopra li Fioretti di San Francesco Due lettere d'un Cortigiano nelle quali si dimostra che la Fede — Matrimonio delli Preti & delle Monache. This article has already been alluded to, as standing in the last Roman Index; but, let the reader notice, without the Verg. It would have been going too far to omit the name of Vergerio as a separate article. And it is not omitted. But how is it inserted? Not in the way usual in most, if not all, alphabetic catalogues of the time, by placing it under the initial letter of the Christian name, but under V — Vergerius, Episcopus de Capo d'histria. It may just be observed farther, that the top of recto (signature B. 8) D. XV. is a reference to the first portion of the Jus Canonicum, the Decretum, and the place intended is Dist. XV. iii., Sancta Romana Ecclesia, the list of books condemned by Pope Gelasius, a.d. 493. The Decretalibus, Sig. C. 1, verso, signifies the Libri Decretales which follow the Decretum. But ex Vag. Io. Papæ xcii., on the same page, might puzzle some readers; it is meant for Extravagantes, &c., another, and the last, portion of the pontifical code. I can hardly think that the colophon implies a reprint. If it does, it was almost certainly a reprint by Vergerio, synchronous, and of nearly, if not quite, equal value with the original.

Let us now exainine the first of the foregoing articles, reserved for after considerationi — Consiglio d'alcuni Episcopi congregati in Bologna. Verg. This entry, for substance, stands in all the ensuing Papal Indexes to the last; but with this signal difference — the name Verg. or any allusion to the writer or editor, is altogether omitted. This is not accidental. Rome has a great objection, that any of her sons, especially her bishops, should appear as deserters and heretics. Vergerio has, in his Annotations to the Index of Paul IV., made and established this remark. In order to make the inquiry upon which we are entering, and which has embarrassed some good scholars, clear, the piece before us is carefully to be distinguished from another of the same character, and somewhat the same title, as we shall see, the Consilium de Emendanda Ecclesia, of the date of 1537, and which is likewise inserted in the Pauline and Tridentine Indexes.^[1] This latter produced a lively controversy, as it well might; for, the Advice which was given, with others, by Carafa, as Cardinal, he himself afterwards condemned as Pope Paul IV. It stands in his Index under Lib. inscript., and so in the Tridentine; afterwards, under Consilium. Cardinal Quirini was beaten out of the solution, that only an edition by heretics was condemned, in his controversy with Schelhorn in 1748. And now, mark the impudent knavery of the Church of Rome on the subject. Not in the Index immediately following, 1750 — that was too soon — but in the next to that, 1758, the article appears thus: — Consilium de emendanda Ecclesia. Cum Notis vel Præfationibus Hæreticorum, Ind. Trid. The Italics are a pure addition, and the thing implied necessarily by the Ind. Trid. is absolute, interested falsehood, and such as could not be unknown or unintended.^[2] This excursion is worth being made.

We now rejoin our proper subject. The Consiglio is evidently Italian, and implies that the treatise was written in that language. I do not know that the work is any where ex- tant or accessible. But no one can doubt, particularly considering that it must precede 1554, that it is the same as is known under the following title, which, as the book itself, is in Latin : — Consilium quorundam Episcoporum Bononiæ congregatorum, quod de ratione stabiliendæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Julio III. Ponb. Max. datum est. This document ap- pears in Brown's Fasciculus Rerum Exped. & Fug., which I adduce first, though out of chronological order, for reasons which will appear. It is in the second volume, pp. 641, and following, and is copied from the edition of William Crashaw in 1609, who derived it from different originals, not very distinctly described. There is, however, no reason to doubt their genuineness. It is dated and subscribed thus : — Bononiæ, 20 Octob. Anno mdliii.

1.	Vincentius de Durantibus Episc. Thermularum Brixiensis.
2.	Egidius Falceta Episc. Caprulanus.
3.	Gerhardus Busdragus Episc. Thessalonicensis.

Vergerio, in the first and only volume of his collected works, 1563, includes the Consilium, with the same date, but without the signatures. Wolfius has the work, with the signatures, in his Lectiones Mem., but under the year 1549, and with that date; and consistently therewith it is addressed to Paul III., insiead of Julius III., and wants the allusion in the end to Mary I. of England, who was not then reigning. If the Italian original had this date, this may have been a translation from it. But this supposition involves consequences; and Wolfius gives no information. Dr. William Clagett gave a translation in English of this and the preceding Consilium, in 1688, under the title, State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began, &c.; and in his preface rather wonders at the variation of Wolfius, as if he transcribed from "a false copy." It deserves here to be mentioned, that there is another piece very similar to that under consideration, and, I have no doubt, proceeding from the pen of Vergerio, the first edition of which, as it plainly is, being, in the copy which I have, bound up with other acknowledged productions of the same author, Actiones Duæ, Address to the Dominican fathers about il Rosario, and others. It is entitled, Exemplum Literarum R. D. Gerardi Busdragi in Episcopatu Patavino Suffraganei. Ad Illustrissimum et Reverendissimum D.D. Franciscum Pisanum, In quibus agitur. Quanam ratione præservari possit Italia, ne Lutheranismo inficiatur. It is subscribed, Datum Paduæ die xv Decembris, Anno m.d.lviii. Gerardus Busdragus, Episcopvs Argolicensis. It may be seen likewise in Gerdesii Miscell. Groning. I. 319, &c. He was not aware of the original edition.

Now here a question of some importance arises. Most writers, all indeed, whom I have named, consider the Bolognese Consilium as a serious and real thing, and not as the fiction of Vergerio, like his Actiones and some other works. Clagett, in the preface to his translation, ingeniously enough observes, that the difference between the two Consilia seems to be this, that the Advisers in the first seemed to be serious, and were not; those in the latter were serious, and seemed not to be so. It must be acknowledged, that in the piece with which we are now concerned, there is every appearance of a highly finished parody or satire, such as would naturally flow from the pen of Erasmus or Vergerio. But it may be said with justice, that men of such views and necessities as belong to every Papal corporation, when they talk freely and confidentially among themselves, often, without being sensible of it. use language which appears very like the ridicule of their opponents. And it must be admitted that, in trying matters of fact, mere internal evidence is frequently very insufficient and delusive. A clever speculator in this way might easily prove to his own satisfaction, that every action in the life of Julius Cæsar, or any other well-known individual, was highly improbable; and perhaps bring himself, and others like himself, to the conclusion, that no such person ever existed. But there is reason in things; and we have in the present case some data of facts, which may serve as a guide and test.

Vergerio himself might have settled the business; and in the preface to his collected works he has done something. After correcting the mistake of some, who thought his Actiones a real transaction, he says of the other contents, one of which is the Bolognese Consilium — Quid in aliis Tractatibus agatur, non opus est dicere, cum apertissime & sine ullo fuco impetatur [scil. Papa], dignissimus qui impeteretur cum omnibus suis creaturis, ego hic quandam impeto. I confess I do not quite understand this, and if I did, I think that Vergerio overlooked the piece in question, and referred to the remaining. But we have some other criteria of the description of facts. The two different dates of 1553 and 1519, with agreeing difference of facts, the two popes addressed, and a princess, reigning, or not reigning, agreeably to the differing dates. Then, in Vergerio's own reprint, of his own recital at least, the names of the very persons who give the character and authority are wanting. And when we make use of those persons, or their names and designations, the matter does not much improve. I have availed myself of the assistance of a well-qualified friend, with facilities which I want; and he informs me, that of the principal person, Busdragus, and of his episcopate, whether Thessalonica or Argolis, he can find no trace in Ughelli's Italia Sacra, or Savonarolo, or Richard's Bibliothèque Sacrée. He is not to be found in any list, Greek or Latin, of the bishops of Thessalonica; and such a see as episcopatus Argolicensis does not appear to exist. From the Index Geographicus Episcopatuum, however, of J. Alb. Fabricius, subjoined to his Sal. Lux Evangel. &c. Hamb. 1731, I transcribe — Argolicensis (Argos) in Peloponneso: * Thessalonicensis, Θεσσαλονίχηζ Πάσηζ θετταλίαζ, Thessalonicæ, in Macedonia (Saloniki) Metropolita. Philippi Reciputi S.J. Illyricum Sacrum, & promissum opus Urbani Godfrid. Sibbern, Ecclesiastæ & Professoris Lips. de Thessalonicæ Antiquitatibus. Etiam Ancyrani locum tenebat tempore Andronici Palæologi. The asterisk signifies episcopates existing in 1731. Vincentius Durantes, or de Durantibus, appears in Ughelli as Episcopus Thermulensis from 1539 to 1565; and Aegidius Falzetta, or Falcetta, as Episcopus Caprulensis, from 1542 to 1563, and therefore stand good as solid entities; both, indeed, attended the Council of Trent; but Busdragus seems to be an ens rationis.

I fear, therefore, the conclusion to which we must come is, that the production in question was one of those ingenious effusions for which Vergerio was eminently fitted, and to which he was highly provoked. It is, however, impossible to withstand the conviction, that, as a picture, the Consilium, and its later partner, have done no injustice whatever to the religion, the morality, the wisdom, and the honesty of Rome, in the times of Vergerio, or, since, to our own times — certainly with circumstantial variations of things and degrees, but with substantial identity. Such literary composition, to borrow a term from the school of painting, is intelligible and harmless enough, besides its real truth and use. But when it is reflected, how often and almost irresistibly it is misrepresented by unprincipled persons as forgery and intentional imposition — a misrepresentation, of which, while the authors are conscious, they avail themselves of the benefit, and repeat the slander as long as they feel that it is believed and works; it might be advisable, either to discontinue the practice altogether, or to be very cautious in the use of it.

It has been pretended, that the damnatory Indexes of Rome have no force — "no force whatever," according to Dr. Murray's solemn declaration before the Parliamentary Commissioners — in this united empire. From pages 38 and onwards of the Literary Policy, it will appear, that the very first Index invested with direct Papal authority and responsibility, that of Paul IV. was expressly founded on the Bull Cænæ Domini, which is said to have been first published by Urban V. in his first Constitution. This Constitution, however, has nothing, as I can discover, relative to doctrine, but is simply an excommunication and anathema emitted against certain invaders of secular property, and to be denounced annually. But I can speak with certainty as to the bull in its present form (having the documents), that one, in substance the same, was issued by Sixtus IV. 1476, 3. Id. April. One by Julius II. followed; another by Leo X.; another by Adrian VI. (the two latter of which I have). Perhaps no succeeding pontiff failed in sending forth one of his own. Repetitions, for substance, that is, with alterations of no great extent, suited to times and circumstances, are publicly extant to the sixth year of the pontificate of Clemens XIII., who published one a.d. 1764, May 20. He had done the same before in 1759. In fact, Barberi, in the Bullarium, now in course of publication in Rome, has given the bull at length only in the first instance.^[3] For prudential, or other reasons (it is of no importance what, but in all probability the same as induced the suppression of the Jesuits), Clement XIV. discontinued the annual publication 85 in Rome of a form justly offensive to the European powers. But this was no repeal; much less was it any command or permission to the bishops to discontinue their enjoined publications in their respective cathedrals. In fact, the bull is in as full and strong validity and operation as ever; and it cannot be otherwise without breaking down the whole edifice of Papal discipline. That its primitive force continues, notwithstanding partial, or rather simply apparent, relaxation, is proved by the admission of Romanists: Count Ferdinand Dal Pozzo, Catholicism in Austria, pp. 182, 3; Card. Erskine, in Parliamentary Report concerning Roman Catholics in Foreign Countries, 1816, p. 341; Dr. Sleven, in the Eighth Report on Irish Education, p. 256.^[4]

But in order to put the reader in a position to judge for himself on a point where every artifice is used to mislead, I will set before him the clause in the anathematising bull, which concerns literature, and which stands first and foremost in the black list; putting within brackets a clause which has been added in later times. Excommunicamus, et anathematizamus ex parte Dei Omnipotentis * * * ac omnes, et singulos alios Hæreticos * * * ac eorumdem libros [hæresim continentes, vel de Religione tractantes,] sine auctoritate Nostra, et Sedis Apostolicæ scienter legentes, aut retinentes, imprimentes, seu quomodolibet defendentes, ex quavis causa, publice, vel occulte, quovis ingenio, vel colore: nec non Schismaticos, et eos, qui se a Nostra, et Romani Pontificis pro tempore existentis obedientia pertinaciter subtrahunt, vel recedunt.

This, in plain English (and it ought to be known and well considered by every Englishman), is to the following effect:-

"We (the pontiff) excommunicate and anathematise — after certain heretics named — all others, and those who, without Our authority, and that of the Apostolic See, knowingly read, or keep, or print, or in any way defend, for any cause, publicly or privately, with whatever intention or pretence, the books of such heretics, [containing heresy, or treating of Religion:] as well as all Schismatics, and those who persist in disobedience to the Roman See."

The addition within brackets will appear to have been made with some policy, particularly as Britain, and other heretical states, are concerned; for in them the attempt to restrain the Papal residents from the perusal of all the works of the country would only serve to make disappointment more certain, and put to hazard even a partial obedience. A discreet relaxation of claim is often the best game which ambition can play. Thus, when a Popish government cannot get the control of National Education directly, it will attempt the thing by appointment of schoolmasters. If that scheme fail, then inspection will be tried for; and so on, till defeated, if defeated at last.

Still further to shew the application and importance of the bull in question, or the particular section with which we are concerned, to the subject immediately in view, it is to be recollected, that its provisions, or decisions, are made the groundwork of all the popular books instructing and directing Confessors, in what way they should perform their peculiar duty. This, at least, is the character of the Spanish manuals which I have consulted. The bull Cænæ Domini is expressly referred to as the rule. And I believe it is so in all other manuals for the same purpose, circulated by authority in Papal countries.^[5] In non-Papal countries it is to be expected that such things will be kept out of public sight, or neutralised, or disguised. However, that even in the United Kingdom, and in the present age, this bull supplies the authorised rule and matter of the inquiries in the Confessional, is established past a doubt, by the volumes of Peter Dens, republished in 1832 by the express and proclaimed authority of the Supreme Ecclesiastic Ruler in the Papal Church of Ireland, as "the surest guide of his clergy," and the text-book for their conferences. The repudiation of these portentous volumes, on their first discovery and exposure, succeeded, as it has been, by a shuffling, but very intelligible and real re-embracement, has done all that could be wished by the friends of truth for settling their character, as the absolute and authorised standard of Italian theology in Ireland.^[6] If the reader will take up the sixth volume, which is occupied by the subject of the Sacrament of Penance, and, of course, its integral parts, of which Confession is one, he will find, under the general head of Reserved Cases, a No., that of 219, pages 298 and following, entitled De Bulla Cænæ Domini, and specifying the substance of each of the twenty objects of malediction in order. Each of these are sins, whether from circumstance, mortal or venial, into which the confessor is in duty bound to inquire. And that he is not likely to overlook the first article, relative to heretical books, is plain enough from the No. quickly ensuing, that of 222, which is headed, "Faculties usually granted to the Bishops of Belgium, to allow the reading of prohibited books to those who apply for the license for the purpose of impugning them."^[7] These faculties were not confined to Belgium: Pius VII. granted an Indult to the prelates of France, February 27, 1809, authorising them to permit the having and reading prohibited, heretical, and infidel books — d'avoir et de lire les livres défendus, même ceux des hérétiques et des incrédules, à l'exception néanmoins des livres d'astrologie judiciaire, des livres superstitieux, et des livres obscènes; et de communiquer à d'autres la même faculté, ayant égard à la science et la probité des supplians.^[8]

Let the reader now revert to the Bull Cænæ Domini, particularly as relates to literaure. Let him reflect upon the circumstances by which it is illustrated and confirmed. Let him recollect that the kind of books proscribed is not left to random conjecture, but, in catalogues solemnly compiled, and from time to time enlarged and altered by the highest authority in the Roman Church, is minutely and precisely defined and published. Let him, moreover, consider how intimately the subject is connected with the ordinary and daily occupations of every individual of Papal society, and particularly with the duties of Papal confessors. Let him then weigh well the awful authority, as it must be to every sincere Romanist, of the maledictory judgment of the Great Head of his religious communion, the successor of Apostles, the Vicar of Christ, the Vicegerent of God, his Sovereign Lord on earth. And then — then — let him say, whether he believes it possible, that a sincere member of the Church of Rome, whether laic or cleric, can set at nought the published judgment of such authority, without either gross irreligion, or gross hypocrisy? That the hypocrisy may have considerable advantage, both negative and positive, to recommend it, I am very far from denying. But hypocrisy must not be allowed to escape under such a screen.

But that the authority of Papal restrictions in literature is felt and respected, we need not the simple, though irresistible, deductions of reason. It is proved by facts.

We might naturally expect that it would openly and honestly appear in countries, which, having neither Protestant opposition, nor Protestant scrutiny, to encounter, would want temptation to hypocrisy. And therefore the first instance to be produced is the less extraordinary.

I. It is that of the most respectable convert, Andrew Sall, with whom the public, for its benefit, is likely to become better acquainted.^[9] In the Preface to his True Catholic and Apostolic Faith maintained in the Church of England, he produces a License of the Bishop of Palencia, for three successive years, to keep and read prohibited books. The date is, Madrid, June 15, 1652. At page 128 he refers to it, with some of its untoward effects.^[10]

 

 

1. Dr. M'Crie, in his very valuable Hist, of the Reformation in Italy, pp. 113-5, has confounded the two, supposing that the De Emendanda was signified by the Consiglio.
2. See Lit. Pol. pp. 48, 49.
3. See Bull. Rom. tom. II. 461, and I. 116. In the Appendix ad Synod Tusc. of the Card. Duke or York, Rome, 1764, the bull is transcribed at length in its last form.
4. See the testimonies at length in Lit. Pol. pp. 260, 1. De Potter is added.
5. The intimate, or rather necessary, connexion of the bull in question with the duty of confession is decisively and strikingly established by the fact, with which Ferrari, in his Prompta Bibliotheca, acquaints us, under Visitare, &c. ix. 272, that, among the articles for inquiry by the visitors of churches, besides others of very significant importance, under the subdivision, Pœnitentia, stands the following — An in Sede Confessionali sit affixa tabella Casuum Reservatorum, & SumMarium Bulle In Cænæ Domini? — This Summarium is found in Dens, as will be immediately seen.
6. See Dr. Murray's Letter of Oct. 5, 1836, in all the Dublin papers, on his return from his visit to Rome. I feel impelled to notice one particular passage in this wonderful letter, because it contains a sentiment very vulgarly repeated by the lower class of Popish writers. Its object is to vindicate the Romanist's regard for his oath. "Our inviolable regard for the sanctity of an oath was the only fence that shut us out for centuries from every office of honour and emolument in the State, and left us as despised and degraded aliens in our native land. Our adversaries know this." Could Dr. Murray be so stolid, or imagine that others were, as not to know, that there may be perfect indifference to the sanctity of oath, and at the same time an insuperable dread of the infamy attached to its infraction, or to perjury? This, indeed, since 1836, has suffered some abatement. But it is so clear, that the infamy attendant upon perjury in the view of the uncontaminated portion of the British Protestant public would be an important fence against the intrusion of Romanists into Parliament, that, allowing all the force claimed for their regard to the sanctity of an oath, that regard could not be the only fence. And yet Dr. Murray, relying upon bold assertion, or the deceivability of the mass of mankind, ventured to repeat the untruth. Dr. Murray is a finished Jesuit, and seems to hold the opinion in common with professors of the magical art, that it is a point of honour to be relied upon from the company, for whose amusement the performance is given, to appear to be completely deceived, and an egregious breach of the same to appear to perceive the deception — absolutely shocking to expose and publish the discovery. The Doctor's letter to the approaching meeting of the Papal Institute, dated May 22, 1840, is an admirable instance of the familiar art of contriving to say some truths with the effect of falsehood — an effect so obvious, as by no possibility to be considered as unknown or unintended. Mr. M Ghee quickly tore away the deceptious veil.
7. For every thing, however, relative to the infamous bull in question, see the beginning of the most seasonable, im. portant, and unanswerable "Nullity of the Government of Q. Victoria in Ireland," &c. by the Rev. R. J. M'Ghee. Atp. 13, he has referred to the VIIIth, the Supplemental, volume of Dens, pp. 73, 74, 82-84, 98, 99, 101, 164, 165, as decisive proofs of the recognition of the bull in Ireland, as of standing authority. Some I had before noticed to that effect: but I have since examined the whole number. It is of some importance likewise to observe, that in the elaborate and celebrated work, the Prompta Bibliotheca of Fearari, under the word Excommunicatio, iii. 487-492, the bull in question, as issued by Clement XI. in 1701, is recited at length as the most authentic, and, till repealed by lawful authority, universally binding rule, for the emission of that forinidable thunderbolt. If any thing were wanting to preclude the pretence of the bull not being in force in any part of the Papal dominions, it would be supplied by the assurance to be found in Dens, ii. p. 129, that tacit congent is sufficient. All other formalities are unessential.
8. Complement de la Corresp. de la Cour de Rome avec Buonaparte, &c. par Muzarelli, Paris, 1814, pp. 508-512. I seek the document in vain in the London Relation, &c.
9. His principal work, with copious illustrative notes, has just appeared.
10. The reader will find a good deal that is interesting respecting Dr. Sall, in the Preface of Peter Walsh, Franciscan, to his Four Letters, 1686. He honourably vindicated the seceder from the Roman Church, against the rhodomontade attack of that episcopal weathercock, Nicholas French, of Ferns, in a piece, of rather rare occurrence, the Doleful Fall of Andrew Sull. It goes over all the trite topics of the argument for itself and against Christianity which Popery can muster: with a competent quantity of punning abuse. Walsh, in the view of this particular case, in his second Letter, which is to the odd, clever pseudo-bishop just mentioned, after claiming in favour of Sall's conduct the sovereignty of conscience, adds — "All which being true, it were worth the while to consider, what is it hurries on our Catholic writers generally to such exorbitant passions and barbarous language (besides many downright lies, and mere calumnies often) against all those that leave our Church." This sentence will sufficiently explain the similar style in which it has of late been common to assail the reputation of Walsh by individuals, laic, priestly, or noble, who, in no respect, would bear comparison with the calumniated Franciscan. Walsh has frequently referred to a prior piece of French, not very obvious, I believe, though something was promised of a reprint, some years ago, The Bleeding Iphigenia. This performance originated in the news of Sall's abjuration; and it is worth while to see, how the author speaks of his former friend, and with what infatuated simplicity be draws the teeth with which he would bite. The paper containing the news, he writes, "gave me a great heaviness of hart; for I loved the man dearly for his amiable nature and excellent parts, and esteemed him both a picas person and Learned, and soe did all that knew him; but I see we were all deceiv'd in him." Then, after making him cast by the infernal beast "out of a little heaven: (The State of Religion) wherin," he adds, "for a tyme hee shined like a small starr in vertue and learning," be proceeds thus — "After desalting the Society of Jesus, and naming away with infamy and shame, oat of the whole [holy?] House of Cod, I could not endure him, and therfore resolved to give him a sharp reprehension: at which, if hee shall repine, and fall into choller for my endeavouring to doe him good, I shall houlde that for an ill Symptome," &c.