[The saying originated with the Duke de la Rochefoucault, and occurs in
his _Moral Maxims_, No. 233.]
* * * * *
Replies.
"CONSILIUM NOVEM DELECTORUM CARDINALIUM," ETC.
(Vol. viii., p. 54.)
The Note of your correspondent NOVUS upon this _Consilium_ ought to have
been answered before; but as none of your contributors who can speak as
"having authority" have undertaken to do so, I beg to offer to your readers
the following statements and extracts, collected when my surprise at the
assertions of NOVUS was quite fresh. {128}
The first point on which NOVUS requires correction is, the name of the
pontiff to whom the _Consilium_ purports to be addressed. NOVUS says Julius
III., but the date of this document is unquestionably not later than the
beginning of 1538, for Sleidan tells us that editions of it were printed at
Rome, at Cologne, at Strasburg, and at another place, in the course of the
year 1538; and in the title it is distinctly stated to have been presented
to Paul III., who was pope in that year, whilst Julius III. was not elected
till 1550.
When NOVUS says that this _Consilium_ "has just been once more quoted, for
the fiftieth time, perhaps, within the present generation, as a genuine
document, and as proceeding from adherents of the Church of Rome," he falls
short of the fact. For _every writer_ of the least mark, or likelihood,
whose subject has led him that way, has quoted it: thus, _e.g._, Ranke, who
in his great work on _The Popes and the Papacy_, book ii. § 2., refers to
it as indicative of no dishonourable design on the part of the supreme
pontiff.
Amongst the writers of the time when the _Consilium_ is said to have been
drawn up, who regarded it as genuine, we may mention Luther, who, soon
after it found its way into Germany, published a translation, with one of
his biting caricatures prefixed; and Sturm, who prefaced his translation
with a letter to the cardinals to whom it was ascribed, for which reason
alone his edition was put in the "Index," no other edition being similarly
honoured; and this sufficiently refutes a statement of Schelhorn, in his
letter to Cardinal Quirinus, upon which much reliance has been placed by
those whom NOVUS would regard as sharers of his opinion.
The appearance of the editions at Cologne and Strasburg in 1538, testifies
to the speed with which the _Consilium_ reached Germany. Sleidan asserts
that, when it was published there, some fancied it to be fictitious, and
intended to ridicule both the Pope and the Reformation; but others, that it
was a device of the Pope to gain credit for not being hostile to the
correction of certain confessed abuses. In the next year, on July 16th,
Aleander wrote to Cochlæus thus:
"Multa haberem scribere de Republica, sed mali custodes estis rerum
arcanarum,--Consiliis Cardinalium promulgatis, cum invectiva Sturmii,
manibus hominum teritur, antequam vel auctoribus edita, vel executioni
fuerit demandata."
Which passage might be regarded as decisive of the question of genuineness,
since Aleander was one of the _Cardinales delecti_ whose names are appended
to the _Consilium_.
That Le Plat should insert a copy in his _Monument. ad Hist. Concil.
Trident. potius illustr. spect._, may, perhaps, be considered an
unsatisfactory argument; and the same will certainly be thought of the use
of it by Sarpi. But Pallavicini is a witness not obnoxious to objections
which apply to them, and he says:
"It happened by Divine Providence, that this _Consilium_ was published,
since it showed what were in fact the deepest wounds in the discipline
of the Church, ascertained with great diligence, and exposed with the
utmost freedom by men of incomparable zeal and knowledge. And these
were neither falsity of dogmas, nor corruption of the Scriptures, nor
wickedness of laws, nor politic craft beneath the garb of humility, nor
impure vices, as the Lutherans asserted; but too great indulgence
towards violations and abrogations of laws, which Luther far more
licentiously abrogated," &c.--Vide book IV. ch. v., at the end.
But Ranke's note upon a casual reference to this document in book I. ch.
ii. § 2. of his _History of the Papacy_, completely disposes of the
question of its genuineness, and therefore of its "seriousness" (to use one
of NOVUS' phrases), when taken in conjunction with what has gone before.
"_Consilium, &c._; printed more than once even at the time, and
important as pointing out the evil, so far as it lay in the
administration of discipline, precisely and without reserve. Long after
it had been printed, _the MS. remained incorporated with the MSS. of
the Curia_."
Were it not that the assertion of NOVUS is so roundly made, and in a form
that is sure to adhere in the memories of readers sufficiently interested
in the subject to notice his communication, it would have been enough to
quote from one of the works he refers to, as containing copies of the
_Consilium_, to expose _the origin of his error_; and this, now that I have
shown it to be an error, I crave your permission to do. This, then, is what
Brown says in his _Appendix ad Fascicul. Rer. Expetend. et Fugiend._
(commonly cited as _Fascicul. vol. ii._), ed. 1690, pp. 230, 231.:
"Sæpius excusum est Consilium sequens, cum alibi, tum hic Londini, A.D.
1609, ex bibliothecâ Wilh. Crashavii, qui in Epistolâ dedicatoriâ ad
Rev^{mum} D. Tobiam Matthæum Archiep. Eboracen. citat quædam è
Commentariis Espencæi in Tit. cap. i. ad hoc Consilium ab omni fraudis
et fictionis suspicione liberandum; _quasi præsensisset Crashavius fore
aliquando ut pro re, omnino ficta et falsa censeretur_; cum id in
novissimis Conciliorum editionibus desiderari, et astute suppressum
esse viderat, ut est in admonitione suâ ad Lectorem. Sed longe aliter
res habebit; _suo enim de sorex prodidit indicio; et Cochlæus ipse (qui
nesciit pro nobis mentiri, quantumvis in causâ suâ parum probus
aliquando), hujusce Consilii fidem ab omni labe improbitatis vindicavit
et asseruit_ in historiâ suâ de Actis et Scriptis Lutheri, ad annum
1539, fol. 312. &c. editionis Colonien. 1568. editum est præterea, hoc
idem Consilium, Parisiis, publicâ authoritate, una cum Guliel. Durandi
tractatu de modo Generalis Concilii celebrandi; Libello Clamengii de
corrupto Ecclesiæ statu; Libello Cardinalis de Alliaco, de emendatione
{129} Ecclesiæ; et Gentiani Herveti oratione de reparandâ Ecclesiasticâ
disciplinâ (quæ omnia, excepto primo, huic appendici inserentur), A.D.
1671. In hac nostrâ editione sequimur virum doctissimum et pium
Hermannum Conringium; adhibitis multis aliis exemplaribus, quæ omniâ
simul in hoc uno leges. _Vin' autem, Lector, aliquid penitius de hoc
Corsilio rescire?_ adisis [_sic_] _P. Paulum Vergerium_ (invisum aliis
sed charum nobis nomen), illiusque annotationes, in Catalogum
hæreticorum consule, fol. 251. tomi primi illius operum Tubingæ editi,
A.D. 1563, in 4to., et siquid noveris de reliquorum tomorum editione,
nos Anglos fac, quæso, certiores. [It would seem that the need of your
"N. & Q." was felt long before any one thought of supplying it.] Audi
vero, interea, vel lege, Hermannum Conringium."
And this is what that "learned and godly" man says:
"Libellus ipse Cardinalis Capuani [Nicholas Schomberg], ut creditur,
cura ad amicum in Germaniam missus, mox anno 1539, et populari nostrâ
et suâ est linguâ per Lutherum et Sturmium editus. _Eundem post
vulgavit_, cum acri ad _Papam Paulum IV. (qui olim fuerat auctorum)_
præfatione, _Petrus Paulus Vergerius_, postquam Protestantium partibus
accessisset."
I will not add to the length of this Note by any farther quotations; but I
am bound to say that if those I have given do not satisfy NOVUS, he may
expect to be overwhelmed by confirmations of them.