Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and this remarkable "homage of high intellect" is held forth for the edification of our young men, and the strengthening their faith in the gospel. As though one should say who can doubt when such men believe? Now what is the chaff to the wheat? What are all these, and ten thousand more like them, to one life like that of Paul, or Augustine, or Luther, or Chalmers? The testimony of such a theologian is actually worth more than that of all the mere chemists, and geologists, and mathematicians, and astronomers in Christendom. The evidence of one such man who shows that he is indeed living for eternity, has more intrinsic value than that of any number of speculative or philosophical friends of Christianity, who yet are manifestly living for time-xatÙ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου.

ARTICLE IX.

THE TAX-BOOK OF THE ROMAN CHANCERY.

By ALFRED H. GUERNSEY, New York.

Taxe Cancellariæ Apostolica et Taxæ S. Pœnitentiariæ Apostolicæ, juxta Exemplar Leonis X. Pont. Max. Romæ, 1514, impressum, etc. Sylvæ Ducis, Apud Stephanum Du Mont. 1706. Letters concerning the Roman Chancery. By the Rev. RICHARD FULLER, of Beaufort, S. C., and the Right Rev. JOHN ENGLAND, Bishop of Charleston. Baltimore. 1840.

ONE of the gravest charges brought against the Church of Rome is that of having made crimes of every degree of enormity subjects of express license; so that, as is affirmed, upon the payment of a sum definitely fixed and publicly announced, permission might be obtained to commit fraud, violence, robbery, murder, adultery, incest, and even those abominations for which the modesty of modern languages refuses to furnish a name. If the charge be true, it stamps an ineffaceable brand of infamy upon that Church, which claiming to be immutable, one and the same everywhere and throughout all time, assumes a present responsibility for all her past acts. Where there is no change there can be no amendment. If Rome is guilty of the offence charged, her boasted immutability becomes her bane and her disgrace; the rock upon which she claims to be built becomes the stone to grind her to powder. If, on the other hand, the charge cannot be fully

sustained, it should be frankly abandoned. To bring falsehood to the support of any cause is so far to destroy all that makes a cause worthy of support. It is folly as great as that of the High Priest who should have burned the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat for fuel upon the altar of burnt offering.

The charge is brought by the gravest divines and the most authoritative historians, with a distinctness and emphasis which render it worthy of the most searching investigation. Robertson says: "The Court of Rome granted its pardons to such transgressors as gave a sum of money in order to purchase them. . . . . . The officers of the Roman Chancery published a book containing the precise sum to be exacted for the pardon of every particular sin. A deacon guilty of murder was absolved for 20 crowns; a bishop or abbot might assassinate for 300 livres; any ecclesiastic might violate his vows of chastity, even with aggravated circumstances, for the third part of that sum."" Schlegel affirms, that "according to this book, a man may be absolved for a murder for 20 crowns; a bishop or an abbot may commit a murder whenever he pleases for 300 livres; and for one-third of that sum any clergyman may be guilty of unchastity under the most abominable circumstances." Saurin says of the Catholic clergy: "I think I see them calculating to themselves the profits of their doctrines; consulting that scandalous book in which the price of every sin is stated so much for murder, so much for assassination, so much for incest."" Planck says: "A formal tariff was drawn up for sins of every kind, those even which owed their names to the imagination of some idle casuist. In this the price of each indulgence was estimated upon the most singular principles. This almost incredible monument of the most daring oppression, and of the blindest superstition, is still extant." Bayle, in his Dictionary, quotes from the Tax-Book, and brings similar charges, which he supports by various additional authorities." Merle D'Aubigné says: "They invented the celebrated and scandalous Tariff of Indulgences, which has gone through more than forty editions. The least delicate ears would be offended by an enu

1 Charles V., b. II.

[ocr errors]

2 Note to Mosheim, in Murdock's Translation. Cent. XVI. Sermon on the Sufficiency of Redemption. To this his translator, Mr. Robertson, adds, in a note; Mr. Saurin means the Tax-Book of the Roman Chancery. This scandalous book was first printed at Rome in 1514. . . . There we meet with such articles as these: Absolution for killing a father or mother, 1 ducat, 5 carlins; absolution for all acts of lewdness committed by a priest, with a dispensation to be capable of taking orders, 21 tourn., 5 duc., 5 carlins.' And as if this was not scanda lous enough, it is added, Et nola diligenter-Take notice particularly that these graces and dispensations are not granted to the poor, for not having wherewith to pay, they cannot be comforted.'" The same translator, in his preface, says, "The Pope's Penitentiary has published the price of every crime, as it was noted on the Tax-Book of the Roman Chancery."

[ocr errors]

Geschichte der Entstehung der Protestantischen Lehrbegriffs, vol. I., p. 34. * See especially articles BANCK, PINET, TUPPIUS.

meration of all the horrors it contains. Incest, if not detected, was to cost five groats, and six if known. There was a stated price for murder, infanticide, adultery, perjury, burglary, etc."

991

Citations to the same general purport might be multiplied to almost any extent, and the truth of the charges made has come to be generally believed throughout the Protestant world. They are, however, most strenuously denied by Catholics, who affirm that this Tax-Book is a wicked and malignant forgery, which can be traced to no Catholic source, but has been repeatedly and publicly disavowed and denounced by the Church.

The second work whose title stands at the head of this article is a discussion respecting this Tax-Book, carried on between the late Catholic Bishop of Charleston and a Baptist clergyman. In one respect it is worthy of all praise: it is conducted mainly in an excellent spirit; there is little of that odium theologicum so disgracefully characteristic of many discussions upon religious topics. But unfortunately the disputants were in no condition to bring the matter to an issue. Neither, apparently, had read, or even seen the book in question. Mr. Fuller, indeed, with the most praiseworthy candor, acknowledges that at the opening of the controversy he had only seen the statements of Robertson and Saurin which we have cited; and the Bishop was apparently no better provided. While the discussion was pending, one gentleman gains access to a French copy of Bayle, and a translation of it falls into the hands of the other, which constitute their whole available resources. It is very much as though one should endeavor to settle the Homeric controversy by the authority of the Biographical Dictionary, or bring Goldsmith's Rome to prove the credibility of the early books of Livy. Mr. Fuller has some lurking suspicions that he has not done that justice to the subject which he might have done had he had access to sources of information which he suspects to exist in European libraries. But no such misgivings disturb the Bishop's serenity. He assures his opponent that "when he had Bayle he had all that the libraries of Europe could furnish to sustain him." So far as this discussion is concerned, we need not say that we regard the question as still open.

Pro

The charge, when traced to its ultimate authority, rests upon this so-called Tax-Book, and must be decided by an investigation into the authenticity and character of that book. This subject has been greatly embarrassed by the exceedingly loose manner in which citations from the Tax-Book have been made. testants almost uniformly profess to quote from it as published at Rome in 1514, under the direction of Leo X.; but a great part of the provisions which they cite are not found in any copy claiming such an origin. This diversity, as Schlegel remarks, who,

'History of the Reformation, vol. I., p. 56.

however, falls into the same error, has occasioned the denial of the authenticity of any such book. The fact is, the quotations are all made at second-hand; and are uniformly taken from Bayle, with an occasional attempt to reduce the sums he gives to modern currency. Hence occurs the strange intermixture of livres, and groats, and ducats, and shillings. Bayle has not been sufficiently careful to distinguish the different works from which he quotes, but has been far more so than those who have followed him.

The works thus confounded may be divided into two general classes. The first class does not profess to be taken from any authorized Catholic work; and so can have only an indirect authority upon the question at issue. The works composing this class may all be traced to a common original. The Protestant princes of Germany at various times presented charges against the Court of Rome, as reasons for denying her authority. In 1562 they laid before the Emperor Ferdinand a list of one hundred charges (Centum Gravimina), which they assigned as reasons for refusing to be present at or acknowledge the authority of the Council of Trent. A committee was appointed to maintain these charges, some of which related to the impositions and exactions of the spiritual courts at Rome. In proof of these the committee appended a list purporting to be the sums exacted for various indulgences and dispensations. No attempt was made to assign each specific charge to its appropriate court; which indeed, was not necessary, as the charges were against the courts in general. It was not, moreover, affirmed that the sums were legally exacted, or were anything other than mere official abuses. This is the first mention which we find among Protestants of the Tax-Book.

In 1564 this list was published at Lyons by Antoine du Pinet, a zealous Protestant, accompanied by a French translation and a preface and notes inveighing against the Roman Church. It was published the same year at Basle, by Musculus, in his Loci Communes. In the year following, the book of the committee, with the list annexed, was translated into Latin by Tuppius. Pinet's book seems to have perished; at least, we cannot find it on the catalogues of the various libraries which we have consulted; but we learn from Bayle that it was copied from the list of the German princes; and Daniel Franck, in his work on the Prohibitory Index, states that this list was the same as that published by Musculus in his Loci Communes, which now lies before us. The identification of these three copies is therefore complete. They are traced to their source, which stops short of Rome. Bayle happened to be best acquainted with Pinet's book, and made his citations from it. Modern writers have adopted his quotations, but have assigned them to a wrong source. As far as the charges in question rest upon these books, we must consider them as not

proven.

There are, however, two Tax-Books, substantially agreeing, which profess to be authentic copies of works put forth by papal authority. The first of these was published in 1651, by Laurentius Banck, Professor of Jurisprudence at Franeker, who claims to have compiled it from various authentic documents. This edition we have never seen formally cited, though it is frequently mentioned. With some slight additions it agrees with the TaxBook whose title is placed at the head of this article, claiming to be an accurate and literal transcript of the official copy put forth in 1514, at Rome, by order of Leo X.

From this latter book we shall present somewhat extended extracts, in order to furnish a basis for an inquiry into its authenticity and true character. These extracts will embrace the principal articles which bear upon the question of the licensing of sin; and they will be so far complete that it will be safe to assume that 'any provision cited by writers who treat on this subject, which is not here given in full, does not occur in any work claiming a Roman origin; but is taken, through the medium of Bayle, from Pinet's book.

The edition before us was printed in 1706, at Bois-le-Duc, (Latinized Sylva Ducis), by Stephen Du Mont, and is a copy of the Latin part of an edition which he put forth, in Latin and Dutch, in 1664. The identity of these two editions is shown by the citations of Bayle, made from the earlier edition, which are all found in the later. It forms a small octavo volume of 126 pages, exclusive of prefatory matter, and purports to be taken from a copy printed at Rome in 1514, by Marcellus Silber, otherwise called Franck, under the direction of Leo X. Of this volume 51 pages are occupied with the taxes of the Chancery, 12 by those of the Penitentiary, and the remainder of the volume by illustrative matter of various kinds.

The taxes of the Chancery contain nothing which any well-informed Catholic would deny. Their only importance, so far as the present question is concerned, is the light which they shed upon the taxes of the Penitentiary. They consist of some 500 articles distributed under 37 titles or heads. About one half of these taxes relate to ecclesiastical benefices, the filling of vacancies, and translations from one to another. The remainder refer to various dispensations and privileges granted to laity and clergy. The extracts which follow are a fair specimen of these taxes, both as respects the subjects of taxation and the amounts charged. The sums throughout are given in grossi-a small coin of which the present value is about five cents; but it must be borne in mind that at the date of the Tax-Book the value of money was some three or four times greater than at present.

Gratia Expectativa for a single benefice, for one present, is taxed,
For several benefices, for each is added,

[ocr errors]

12

22

« AnteriorContinuar »