Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 1: On the Inscription of the Preface
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, Apologia pro Responsione sua ad Librum Jacobi Magnae Britanniae Regis, an apology of 1609. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
“To the most sacred and most invincible Prince and Lord Rudolf II, Roman Emperor ever Augustus; to the most serene and most powerful monarchs and kings of the Christian world, the most illustrious and most exalted princes, commonwealths and estates, our dearest brothers, kinsmen, relations, allies and friends: James, by the grace of God king of Great Britain, France and Ireland, propagator and defender of the true Christian, Catholic and Apostolic faith, of the ancient and primitive Church, illustrious with the blood of so many bishops and other faithful crowned with the glory of martyrdom: in Christ Jesus the Saviour of us all and our only mediator, health and perpetual happiness.” This inscription, as far as concerns the faith, is convicted of being false in every part. For first, the faith which the king defends cannot be Christian unless the words of Christ are false. The king condemns in this very preface, page 42, the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ; and yet Christ himself, having taken bread, said: This is my body; as Matthew, chapter 26, Mark, chapter 14, Luke, chapter 22, and Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, witness. Nor can those words of Christ be true except through a conversion and change which the Catholic Church by a word of her own calls transubstantiation, as the Council of Trent rightly teaches, session 13, chapter 4. The king denies, page 48, the primacy of the Apostle Peter; and yet the Lord, in John 21, not once but three times said: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? And Peter answering, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee, he added: Feed my sheep; where no one can deny that Saint Peter was made shepherd of all the faithful, and even of the Apostles themselves, unless he denies that all the faithful, and even the Apostles themselves, were sheep of Christ; which passage I treated and weighed at length in book 1 on the Supreme Pontiff, chapters 14, 15 and 16. The king affirms, page 56, that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist. But Christ, in John 5, said to the Jews: I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. From which passage the holy Fathers Augustine, Chrysostom and Cyril on this passage, and also Irenaeus, book 5 against heresies, Ambrose in the commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2, Jerome in the epistle to Algasia, question 11, gather that Antichrist is to be received by the Jews as the Messiah. But it is well enough established that the Roman Pontiff has never been held by the Jews for the Messiah; therefore by the opinion of Christ he is not Antichrist. I pass over the other things which the king in this preface condemns or denies, such as the intercession of the saints, the Mass, purgatory, indulgences and the like, which he who denies is not a Catholic Christian, as all the faithful, not only the learned but even the unlettered, know and profess.
Then, that the faith which the king defends cannot rightly be called Catholic can be understood from the definition which Vincent of Lérins hands down in the Commonitory against the profane novelties of words; for he says that is Catholic which has been believed always and everywhere. But certainly for fifteen hundred years not even the name of Protestants was heard. And not to undertake a disputation on all the new articles which the king defends, that one certainly which is chief and proper to the English, on the primacy of the king in spiritual things, which article the king himself chiefly strives to propagate and defend, is so recent that its first author lived in our own time, namely Henry VIII, king of the English; he first, the obedience of the Supreme Pontiff being renounced, wished to be named and acknowledged head of the Church of England. Of which thing all the historians of his time are witnesses, John Cochlaeus in the book on the life of Martin Luther, Laurence Surius in the history of our time, and many others. But one author I cannot pass over, who writes what he was present at: this is Maurice Chauncy, an English Carthusian, in the book on the life and martyrdom of the Carthusians, chapter 9, whose words are these: “At the beginning of the year of the Lord 1535 it was determined by the king of England, and established in a solemn act of his parliament, that all should renounce the authority and obedience which they owed to the lord Pope, and to any other superior in other kingdoms, and should receive the king himself as supreme head of the Church, both in spiritual and in temporal things, under the attestation of an oath; and that those contradicting should be held as guilty of treason, and punished with a like death.” And in chapter 10 he writes that Master Thomas Cromwell was sent with some councillors to three Carthusian monks imprisoned in the Tower of London, to propose to them the decree of parliament by which they were ordered to renounce the authority of the lord Pope, and to receive the king alone as head of the Church. And when, he says, our Fathers had answered that they would consent to all things which, and so far as, the divine law permitted, he added: I will admit no exception, whether the divine law permits or not. Our most blessed Fathers replied that the Catholic Church had always held and taught otherwise. He answered: I care not for the Church; will you consent, or not? They said that for fear of God they did not dare to go against and desert the Catholic Church. So he, who has taught us plainly enough whence and when this new English faith had its beginning, which the king in this place names Catholic. But how is it Catholic, that is, always believed, if before the year one thousand five hundred and thirty-five it was not heard of? or if it is not new, but ancient, why did those holy martyrs so shudder at its novelty as to say that the Catholic Church had always held otherwise, and for fear of the Lord preferred to die by a cruel punishment rather than receive that new dogma, contrary to the faith preached?
Nor only is that faith of the king not Catholic because not always believed, but also because not everywhere believed. For the truly Catholic faith from the beginning of the Apostolic preaching began to be sown, to grow and to bear fruit in the whole world; for so the Apostle speaks in Colossians 1: In the whole world, he says, the word of the truth of the gospel is, and bringeth forth fruit and groweth. And in Romans 1: Your faith, he says, is spoken of in the whole world. Nor is it repugnant to this truth that heresies too are in the whole world; for, as Saint Augustine writes in the book on Shepherds, chapter 8, this is the difference between the Catholic faith and heresies, that the Catholic faith is the same in the whole world, but heresies in the whole world are not the same, but most diverse, and thereby none of them can be called Catholic. Certainly the faith of the Roman Church, as truly and properly Catholic, is the same in Europe; the same in Asia; the same in Africa; the same in the world lately found; the same on Mount Lebanon; the same in America; the same among the farthest Japanese. On the contrary, the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches occupy certain places of the East; they do not reach the West. The Lutheran heresies possess a corner of the North; they have not crossed the sea; they have not touched Asia and Africa; trying to land in Greece they were repulsed with disgrace. But neither is the faith of the Lutherans one, but many, and so contrary to one another that some call others heretical. Further, the faith of the English on the primacy of the king in spiritual things is so far from being able to be called Catholic that it cannot even be called the faith of one kingdom, since in Britain itself there is a great multitude of Puritans, who, following Calvin as their author, contend that the ecclesiastical primacy belongs not to the king but to the senate of ministers. For Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 5, paragraph 9, when he had taught that monarchy is not the best government, added that even if monarchy were the best government in the political administration, yet it is not so in the Church; and that no man ought to be called head of the Church, not only principal, but not even ministerial. And in the same book 4, chapter 11, paragraph 13, he teaches that in ecclesiastical causes the emperor is not a fit judge, and therefore vehemently praises Saint Ambrose because, summoned to the palace to confer on the faith before the emperor, he altogether refused to go. And in the same book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 7, he says in express words that the office of a king is not an apostolic office; but the Apostle teaches that the care of the Churches belongs above all to the apostolic office, 1 Corinthians 12 and 2 Corinthians 11. And the same Apostle in Luke, Acts 20, says that bishops placed by God rule the Church. But most openly in chapter 7 of Amos he inveighs against those who call Henry VIII head of the Church. And that the Puritans do not admit the primacy of the king in spiritual things the same king himself teaches in the work which he entitled Basilikon Doron; for in book 2, page 43, he says that they bring into the Church a certain parity and equality. And in this very preface, page 48: “I have inveighed,” he says, “against that confused anarchy and parity of the Puritans, as is well enough established from my Basilikon Doron.” Wherefore since the faith which the king defends, born a few years ago, is contained within the narrowest limits, it ought to be named not Catholic, that is, ancient and universal, but new and particular.
But that it is by no right to be called Apostolic (which name the king gives his faith in the third place), but by every right to be named apostatic, is manifestly proved from this, that the faith which now flourishes in England had for its sowers Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli, both apostates. But the first overthrowers of the Catholic faith in Scotland, and sowers of heresy, were certain factious and turbulent men, whom it would be the greatest crime to name Apostles. Nor on this matter do I wish credit to be given to me, but to the king; for he writes thus in his Basilikon Doron, book 2, pages 40 and 41: “The reformed religion was brought into this our Scotland by a plainly divine miracle; for while many things in that business were done rashly and in disorder by an excited multitude, many also, carried away by the whirlwind of their own desires, were borne by a blind impulse of mind and no judgment to the accomplishing of that work of God.” And a little after: “In that confusion both of things and of times there arose certain preachers of fiery nature, who were carried to such power with the people that, now tasting the sweetness of rule, they began to dream for themselves some form of democratic commonwealth.” So the reformed religion, that is, the overthrow of the Catholic religion, on the king's own witness, was brought into Scotland by rash men, greedy, without judgment, of blind impulse, aiming at principality and rule. But it is very much to be wondered at that the king calls that a reformation of religion, and not rather a deformation, which he grants was brought in by men blind, rash, greedy, ambitious, that is, endowed with no form of virtue, and deformed by a multitude of vices. He will say perhaps that by a divine miracle, through men deformed by every kind of vice, and very far from the virtues of the Apostles, the Apostolic faith was restored in Scotland. But we on the contrary know that the divine law was brought in through Moses and the Prophets, most holy men; the Gospel of Christ preached to the world through the Apostles, who abounded in all the gifts of the Holy Spirit; the reformed bodies of men, which we call religious orders, instituted through men endowed with excellent virtue. Those new miracles, by which grapes are gathered from thorns and figs from thistles, that is, reformation from the deformed, and Apostolic religion from apostates, the truly Christian Church does not know. But of this matter we shall say more in the following disputation.
It follows, then, that we show that the faith which the king defends is not the faith of the ancient and primitive Church, illustrious with the blood of martyrs. For this is the fourth praise which the king gives his faith in the inscription. And that the faith of the king of the English is not the faith of the ancient Church, and thereby is neither truly Christian, nor Catholic, nor Apostolic, we shall show without any trouble from what the king teaches in this very preface. For the king writes, page 38, that he admits, besides the holy Scriptures, the three Creeds, the Apostles', the Nicene and Saint Athanasius's; the first four general councils; and what the holy Fathers in the four hundred (in the English, five hundred) years after Christ taught with unanimous consent. Then, page 42, he condemns the intercession of the saints, the veneration of relics, which he calls intolerable idolatry, private Masses, transubstantiation, and many other things of that kind; as also, page 46, purgatory, indulgences, satisfactions for the dead, and the like. I shall take the intercession of the saints, with the veneration of relics; which if I can show to be approved with unanimous consent by the Fathers who flourished in the first four hundred or five hundred years, I shall at the same time bring it about that the faith of the king of the English is not the faith of the ancient and primitive Church, but the figments and heresies of the innovators.
First, then, the fourth general council, in which 630 bishops were present, and which is received with honour by the king himself, speaks thus in action 11: Flavian lives after death; let the martyr pray for us. And in the epistle of the bishops of Europe to the emperor Leo, which was written in the time of the same council: “But the most holy Proterius we place in the choir and order of the holy martyrs, and by his intercession we ask to have God merciful and propitious.” He, then, who receives the fourth council, which was the greatest and most numerous of all, why does he not receive the intercession of the saints with it? Saint Basil, truly the Great, in the oration on the forty martyrs: “He who is pressed by any distress,” he says, “let him flee to these; he who rejoices, let him pray to these; the one that he may be freed from evils, the other that he may continue in prosperity.” The same on the relics of the same saints, which had been divided through that whole region: “These are they,” he says, “who administer our region, and, like towers joined together, afford security from the incursion of enemies, not shutting themselves up in one place, but now made guests in many places, and adorning many countries.” The same in the oration on Psalm 115: “He who touches,” he says, “the bones of the martyrs takes on a certain fellowship of sanctification from the grace dwelling in the body.” So he. Why then should we not venerate the relics of the saints, whence so great goods come to us? See the same Basil in the oration on Mamas, and the oration on Julitta. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, brother of Saint Basil, in the oration on Saint Theodore: “Intercede,” he says, “and pray for the country before the common King and Lord.” And below: “And if there is need of greater supplication and advocacy, gather the choir of your brother martyrs, and pray together with all; admonish Peter, rouse Paul, John the Theologian and beloved disciple.” The same in the same oration, speaking of relics: “The venerable body,” he says, “the immaculate instrument of himself, laid out and adorned with much honour and worship, is placed in an august and sacred spot.” So he, who adds also that the very dust which is found around the resting place of the relics was wont to be snatched by godly pilgrims as a great gift. So great in that primitive Church was the devotion of the godly toward the sacred pledges, which the king says is intolerable idolatry, and yet makes himself the defender of the faith of the primitive Church. Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in the oration on Saint Cyprian: “Do you,” he says, “look on us from on high, and direct this holy people,” and so on. And in the same place he relates the struggle of a certain holy virgin for chastity: “She asked,” he says, “the Virgin Mary to bring help to the virgin in danger”; and a little after relates that she was heard: “The virgin conquered,” he says, “the demon is conquered.” The same in the first oration against Julian the apostate emperor charges him that he did not honour the relics of the holy martyrs, while he venerated the monuments of false gods: “These,” he says, “you do not honour, but despise and spurn, you who admire the pyre of Hercules, raised because of a calamity and injuries done by a woman.” Eusebius of Caesarea, in book 13 of the Preparation of the Gospel, chapter 7, explaining the rite of the ancient Church: “These things,” he says, “we do daily, who, honouring the soldiers of true piety as friends of God, go also to their monuments, and make vows to them, by whose intercession before God we profess that we are helped not a little.” Saint John Chrysostom, homily 66 to the people of Antioch: “For,” he says, “even he who is clothed in purple comes to embrace those tombs, and, his pride laid aside, stands to supplicate the saints, that they may intercede for him before God.” Where he proclaims the glory of the holy martyrs from this, that not only the people but even the emperor went to their relics, and supplicated the saints themselves. The same in the book against the Gentiles, speaking of the relics of Saint Babylas: “The miracles,” he says, “which are daily wrought by the martyrs make abundant faith for our opinion.” And in the oration on Saints Juventinus and Maximus: “Let us often,” he says, “visit them, adore their tombs, and with great faith touch their relics, that we may obtain some blessing from them.” What, I ask, will the king say here? If the Fathers of the ancient Church cry, let us adore the tombs of the saints, how does the king keep the faith of the ancient Church, and meanwhile say that the adoration of relics is intolerable idolatry? Saint Ephrem in the sermon on the praises of the holy martyrs: “We pray,” he says, “most blessed martyrs, that you deign to entreat the Lord for us wretched sinners, that the grace of Christ may come upon us.” Blessed Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fifth mystagogical catechesis: “When we offer this sacrifice,” he says, “we make mention of those who have fallen asleep before us, first of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, that God by their prayers may receive our prayers.” And in catechesis 18: “But that not only the souls of the saints may be honoured, and it may be believed that even in the bodies of the dead there is a virtue or power, a dead man lying in the tomb of Elisha, touching the dead body of the prophet, was brought to life.” So he, who from this proves that the bodies of the saints are to be honoured, and not only the souls. And these indeed are Greek Fathers, and lights of the East, belonging to that age which the king requires, that they may be understood as Fathers of the ancient and primitive Church. Let us now add the testimonies of Latin Fathers of the same age.
Saint Ambrose, in the book on Widows: “The angels,” he says, “are to be entreated, who have been given us for a guard; the martyrs are to be entreated, whose patronage we seem to claim for ourselves by a certain pledge of their body; they can ask for our sins, who with their own blood have washed away even what sins they had. For these are the martyrs of God, our presidents, watchers of our life and acts. Let us not blush to use them as intercessors for our weakness, since they themselves knew the weakness of the body even while they overcame it.” The same in sermon 93, which is on Saints Nazarius and Celsus, commends at length the cult of relics, which to the king of England is idolatry. But if you say to me, he says, what do you honour in flesh now dissolved and consumed? I honour in the flesh of the martyr the scars received for the name of Christ; I honour the memory of one living by the perpetuity of virtue; I honour in the ashes the seeds of eternity; I honour the body which showed me to love the Lord, which taught me for the Lord's sake not to fear death. But why should not the faithful honour that body which even the demons revere? which they both afflicted in torment and glorify in the tomb? I honour therefore the body which honoured Christ under the sword, which will reign with Christ in heaven. Saint Jerome in the epitaph of Saint Paula: “Farewell,” he says, “O Paula, and help by your prayers the last old age of your worshipper; your faith and works join you to Christ; being present you will more easily obtain what you ask.” The same in the book against Vigilantius, who was held a heretic in the ancient Church for this reason, that he disapproved the cult of relics: “He grieves,” he says, “that the relics of the martyrs are covered with a precious veil, and are not either tied up in rags or haircloth, or thrown on the dunghill, so that Vigilantius alone, drunk or sleeping, may be adored.” The same in the epistle to Marcella, exhorting her to move to Bethlehem, among the other goods of that place recounts that she could adore the ashes of Saint John the Baptist, Elisha and Obadiah; for he thought the adoration of relics not idolatry but a godly cult, because he was not ignorant that there are many kinds of adoration, and that one is owed to God alone, another to created things. Rufinus, an author of the same time, in book 2 of the history, chapter 33, speaks thus of the emperor Theodosius: “He went round with the priests and people all the places of prayer; before the shrines of the martyrs and Apostles he lay prostrate in haircloth, and asked for sure help through the intercession of the saints.” So he; nor was the faith vain; for Theodosius obtained against the tyrant Eugenius an incredible victory, not by the strength of soldiers, but by the protection of the saints, whom he had faithfully implored. This godly emperor, an adorer of relics and an invoker of the saints, the king of the English will not hesitate to call an idolater; and yet we know he was taught by the priests of the ancient Church, and so loved by God that for this victory that poet wrote: O too much beloved of God, for whom the sky fights, and the winds come sworn together to the trumpets. Saint Maximus in the sermon on Saint Agnes: “Therefore,” he says, “O splendid to Christ, beautiful to the Son of God and to all the angels, we beg you with what prayers we can that you deign to remember us.” The same in the sermon on Saints Octavius, Adventor and Solutor: “All the martyrs,” he says, “are to be most devoutly honoured, but those especially are to be venerated by us whose relics we possess.” Saint Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, in the tract on the dedication of a basilica writes much of the cult of relics, and among other things: “That we might have the venerable relics of the saints,” he says, “our God granted; then, that we might be able to found this basilica in their honour, he himself bestowed,” and so on. Where you see that the Fathers of the ancient Church made so much of the relics of the saints that even basilicas were built in their honour. Saint Paulinus in epistle 12 to Severus invokes Saint Clarus in these verses: Receive, good one, these vows of sinners praying, that you be mindful of Paulinus and Therasia. The same in the third birthday of Saint Felix the martyr says: You owe crowns to the tomb, and earth. And in the same place, speaking of the relics of the Apostles, says: For before you were first of lands only by empire and victorious arms; now also by Apostolic tombs. Prudentius, a noble Christian poet of the same age, in the hymn on Saint Lawrence: O thrice and four times, O seven times blessed dweller in the City, who celebrates close at hand the seat of you and your bones; to whom it is allowed to roll himself near, who sprinkles the place with tears, who presses his breast to the ground, who pours out vows in a murmur. Scarcely is the report known to the remote how full of saints Rome is, how richly the soil of the City flowers with sacred tombs. He writes many like things in almost every hymn of the relics and invocation of the saints. Saint Augustine, sermon 17 on the words of the Apostle: “Ecclesiastical discipline has it,” he says, “as the faithful know, that when the martyrs are recited at that place at the altar of God, prayer is not made for them, but for the other dead prayer is made; for it is an injury to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought to commend ourselves.” A like passage is found in tract 84 on John; in which passages the holy doctor mentions not only the intercession of the saints, but also prayer for the dead, and the altar where the sacrifice of the Mass is offered; which the king condemns no less than the invocation of the saints. The same Father in epistle 103 to Quintianus: They carry, he says, the relics of the most blessed and most glorious martyr Stephen, which your Holiness is not ignorant how fittingly you ought to honour, as we too have done. The same in book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, most fully recounts the miracles which God in his time showed through the invocation of the saints at their relics or memorials.
These are the testimonies of the ancient Church, Greek and Latin, of the first 500 years after Christ's ascension into heaven, on the intercession of the saints and the cult of relics. It would be easy to add like testimonies on the other dogmas which the king denies or condemns; but because these are found both in our books of Controversies and in the writings of many other Catholic doctors, I spare the labour both of readers and my own. For I wished it to be established from one dogma at least that the faith which the king defends is not that of the ancient Church, as he himself says in the inscription. But he will say, many things are taught in England and Scotland by the ministers which are common to the ancient Church, and those especially which are contained in the Creed of the faith and the decrees of the first four councils. So it is; but the question between Catholics and Protestants is not whether nothing at all of what the Protestants teach is found in the books of the ancients, but whether those things in which we differ, such as the intercession of the saints, the cult of relics, prayer for the dead, the primacy of Saint Peter, purgatory and the like, were received and approved by the ancient Church, as they are received and approved by us; or rejected and disapproved, as they are rejected and disapproved by the king and his preachers. But we have shown of one principal controverted dogma that it was received and approved by the ancient Church, as it is received and approved by us; and we have made the same manifest in our books of the other controverted dogmas. So we agree with the ancient Church in all articles; but the Protestants agree in few, and disagree in very many, namely in all those in which they differ from us; therefore the faith which they defend against us is not the faith of the ancient Church, but, as we said above, the heresy of the innovators.
It remains that we say a few words on the words propagator and defender, which are set in the last place in the inscription. And indeed where the king has propagated the faith, or announced the Gospel, I confess I do not know. The title of defender of the faith, which I see written in this place in capital letters, as also on the earlier page, and in the Basilikon Doron, and elsewhere, I am not ignorant, nor is there anyone who is ignorant, was conferred by Pope Leo X on Henry VIII, king of England, on account of a book written by the same king on the seven sacraments of the Church against Luther and the other innovators of his time. And if it is asked what is signified by the name of faith in that title, nothing else can be answered than that that faith is signified which he preached who received the title, and which he professed who gave the title, and which was defended in the book for whose sake the title was given and received. Which being so, I cannot but greatly wonder why he takes this title to himself who does not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff by whom the title was given; who condemns that faith which he professed who first received the title; who lastly contends that there are not seven sacraments, for the defence of which the title was given, but two or three only. I ask besides: he who honoured the king of England with so honourable a title, was he the Vicar of Christ, or the adversary of Christ? If the Vicar of Christ, why does the defender of the Christian faith not hear the Vicar of Christ? not receive him? not venerate him? If the adversary of Christ, why does a Christian king glory in a title given by the adversary of Christ? why does he bear the character of Antichrist? For how do these things hang together, that someone should believe the Roman Pontiff to be Antichrist, and not shudder at a title of honour given by him? Therefore let the king, if he is wise, carefully consider with himself the origin of this title, and he will easily understand that it in no way belongs to him, and among wise men has more of vain ostentation than of solid dignity.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM. DE INSCRIPTIONE PR^FATIONE « Sacratissimo atque invictissimo Principi, ac Domino Rudolpho II. Roman. Imper. sem- per Augusto : Serenissimis, atque potentis- simis Christiani orbis monarchis, ac regi¬ bus, illustrissimis celsissimisque principibus, rebuspublicis atque ordinibus, fratribus, consanguineis, affinibus, foederatis, atque amieis carissimis : Jacobus Dei gratia ma¬ gnae Britanniae, Franciee, et Hiberniae rex, (1) Matth. XXVI, 26. (a) Fides Protestantium Anglorum non est vere fidei vere Christianae, Catholicae, Apostoli- cae, veterisque ac primitivae Ecclesiae, tot Episcoporum , aliorumque fidelium mar¬ tyrii gloria coronatorum sanguine illustris, propagator ac defensor : in Christo Jesu omnium nostrum Salvatore, ac mediatore unico, salutem, felicitatemque perpetuam. » Haec inscriptio, quod attinet ad fidem, ab omni parte falsa esse convincitur. Primum enim (a) fides, quam rex defendit, non potest esse Christiana, nisi Christi verba sint falsa. Damnat rex in hac ipsa praefatione pag. 42. transsubstantiationem panis in corpus Chri¬ sti ; et tamen Christus ipse accepto pane di¬ xit : Hoc est corpus meum (1) : testibus Matth. Christiana. APOLOGIS GAP. I. 119 cap. £xvi. Marco cap. xiv. Luca cap. xxn. Paulo I. Gorinth. xi. Neque fieri potest, ut verba illa Christi sint vera, nisi per conver¬ sionem, et transmutationem, quam Ecclesia Catholica proprio vocabulo trans ubstantia- tionem vocat, ut recte docet conc.Trid. sess. 13. cap. 4. Negat rex pag. 48. primatum Apostoli Pe¬ tri, et tamen Dominus Joan. xxi. non semel, sed tertio dixit : Simon Joannis diligis me 'plus his ? Et respondente Petro : Domine tu scis quia amo te , subjunxit : Pasce oves meas (1); ubi nemo negare potest S. Petrum factum esse Pastorem omnium fidelium, et ipsorum etiam Apostolorum, nisi neget fide¬ les omnes, et ipsos etiam Apostolos fuisse oves Christi : quem locum fuse tractavi, et expendi, lib. i. de summo Pontifice cap. 14. 15. et 16. Affirmat rex pag. 56. Romanum Pontifi¬ cem esse Antichristum. At Christus, Joan. v. dixit ad Judaeos : Ego veni in nomine Patris mei , et non recepistis me (a), si alius venerit innomine suo , illum accipietis (2). Ex quo loco colligunt Sancti Patres Augustinus, Chrysostomus, et Cyrillus in hunc locum, necnon Irenseus lib. v. adversus heereses, Ambrosius in Comment. II Thessal. ii. Hie¬ ronymus in epist. ad Algasiam quaest. 11. Antichristum recipiendum esse a Judaeis, ut Messiam. Satis autem constat Romanum Pontificem a Judaeis numquam habitum esse pro Messia : proinde ex sententia Christi, Antichristum non esse. Omitto caetera, quae rex in hac praefatione damnat, vel negat, ut intercessionem Sancto¬ rum, missam, purgatorium, indulgentias, et similia, quae qui negat, eum Catholicum Chri¬ stianum non esse fideles omnes, non- solum docti, sed etiam idiotae sciunt, et profitentur. Deinde, quod (b) fides, quam rex defendit, non possit jure dici Catholica ; intelligi pot¬ est ex definitione, quam tradit Vincentius Lirinensis in Commonitorio adversus pro¬ phanas vocum novitates : illud enim dicit esse Catholicum, quod semper, et ubique creditum est. Certe autem per mille quin¬ gentos annos, ne nomen quidem Protestan- tium auditum est. Ac ne de omnibus articu¬ lis novis, quos rex defendit, disputationem suscipiamus : ille certe primarius, et pro¬ prius Anglorum de primatu regis in spiri¬ tualibus ; quem articulum rex ipse potissi¬ mum propagare, et defendere nititur, adeo recens est, ut primus auctor ejus nostro tem¬ pore vixerit, Henricus videlicet, Octavus rex Anglorum : ipse primus abnegata obedientia Summi Pontificis, se caput Ecclesiae Angli- canae nominari, et agnosci voluit. Cujus rei testes sunt omnes ejus temporis historici, Joannes Cochleus in libro de vita Martini Lutheri, Laurentius Surius in historia no¬ stri temporis, et alii multi. Sed unum aucto¬ rem praeterire non possum, qui scribit ea, quibus interfuit : Is est Mauritius Channei Anglus Carthusianus in libro de vita et mar¬ tyrio Carthusianorum cap. 9. cujus haec sunt verba : (i (c) In principio anni Domini 1535. diffi- nitum fuit per regem Angliae, et in celebri actu parlamenti sui institutum, ut omnesau- ctoritatem, et obedientiam, quam debebant Domino Papae , et cuique alii superiora in aliis regnis, abrenunciarent, et ipsum regem, ut supremum caput Ecclesiae, tam in spiritua¬ libus, quam in temporalibus sub juramenti attestatione susciperent : contradicentes vero tamquam rei laesae Majestatis haberen¬ tur, et aequali morte punirentur. » Et cap. 10. scribit, missum fuisse D. Thomam Cro- well cum aliquot consiliariis ad tres mona¬ chos Carthusianos in turri Londinensi carce- ratos, ut eis proponeret deGretum parlamenti quo jubebantur auctoritati Domini Papae re- nunciare, et solum regem in caput Ecclesiae recipere. Cumque, inquit, respondissent Patres no¬ stri, se consensuros omnibus, quae, et in quantum lex divina permiserit; subjunxit ille (d) : Nullam exceptionem admittam, sive lex divina permiserit, sive non. Replicave¬ runt nostri beatissimi Patres, Ecclesiam Ca¬ tholicam aliter semper tenuisse, ac docuisse. Respondit ille : Non curo Ecclesiam ; vultis consentire, an non? Dixerunt illi, se propter timorem Dei non ausos esse contraire, ac deserere Ecclesiam Catholicam. Haec ille, qui satis aperte nos docuit, unde, et quando initium habuerit nova haec fides Anglicana, quam rex hoc loco Catholicam nominat. (1) Joan. XXI, 16. — (2) Joan. V. 43. (a) Juclcei Antichristum pro suo Messia recipient. — (b) Fides Protestantium Anglorum non est vere Catholica. — (c) Quando coepit hoeresis Anglicana. — (d) Haeretici non magni faciunt legem divinam , quando repugnat humanae cupiditati. 120 APOLOGLE GAP. I. Quomodo autem Catholica est, id est, semper credita, si ante annum millesimum quingen¬ tesimum trigesimum quintum audita non est? vel si nova non est, sed antiqua; cur sancti illi martyres novitatem ejus ita ex¬ horruerunt, ut dicerent Ecclesiam Catholi¬ cam semper aliter tenuisse : et ob timorem Domini crudeli supplicio mori maluerunt, quam novum istud dogma, et praedicatae fi¬ dei contrarium recipere? Neque solum fides ista regis non est Ca¬ tholica, quia non semper credita , sed etiam (a) quia non ubique credita. Fides enim vere Catholica ab initio Apostolicae praedicationis in universo mundo seminari, crescere, et fructificare ccepit : sic enim lo¬ quitur Apostolus ad Coloss. i. : In universo mundo , inquit, est verbum veritatis Evange- lii , et fructificat , et crescit. Et ad Roman. i. Fides , inquit, vestra annunciatur in universo mundo. Neque huic veritati repugnat, quod haereses quoque in universo mundo, sunt : nam ut S. Augustinus scribit in lib. de Pa¬ storibus cap. 8. hoc interest inter fidem Ca¬ tholicam, et haereses, quod fides Catholica in universo mundo eadem est, haereses au¬ tem, in universo mundo non eaedem, sed di¬ versissimae sunt, ac per hoc nulla eorum Ca¬ tholica dici potest. Certe Romanae Ecclesiae fides, ut vere, proprieque Catholica eadem est in Europa ; eadem est in Asia ; eadem in Africa, eadem in orbe nuper invento ; eadem in monte Li¬ bano ; eadem in America, eadem apud ulti¬ mos Japones. Contra vero haereses Nestorii et Eutychetis Orientis loca quaedam occu¬ pant ; ad Occidentem non pertinent. Haere¬ ses Lutheranae Septentrionis angulum possi¬ dent, mare non transierunt ; Asiam, et Afri¬ cam non attigerunt; ad Graeciam appellere conatae cum ignominia repulsae sunt. Sed neque una est fides Lutheranorum, sed mul¬ tae, atque adeo inter se contrariae, ut aliae alias haereticas vocent. Porro fides Anglorum de primatu regis in spiritualibus adeo Catholica dici non potest, ut ne unius quidem regni fides dici possit, cum in ipsa Britannia magna sit multitudo Puritanorum, qui Calvinum auctorem secu¬ ti, primatum Ecclesiasticum , non ad re¬ gem, sed ad Senatum Ministrorum pertinere contendant. ( b ) Calvinus enim lib. iv. Insti- tut. cap. 5. § 9. cum docuisset monarchiam non esse optimum regimen ; addidit, etiam si esset in politica administratione regimen optimum monarchia; tamen in Ecclesia non esse : neque ullum hominem dici debere ca¬ put Ecclesiae, non solum principale, sed ne¬ que ministeriale. Et eodem lib. iv. cap. 11. § 13. docet, in causis Ecclesiasticis non esse imperatorem idoneum cognitorem, ac pro- pterea vehementer laudat S. Ambrosium, quod vocatus ad Palatium ad conferendum de fide coram imperatore, omnino accedere recusaverit. Et eodem lib. iv. cap. 20. § 7. disertis verbis dicit, regis officium apostoli- cum munus non esse : sollicitudinem autem Ecclesiarum ad Apostolicum munus in pri¬ mis pertinere docet Apostolus, I Corinth. xn. et II Corinth. xi. Et idem Apostolus apud Lucam Act. xx. dicit, Episcopos a Deo positos Ecclesiam regere. Sed apertissime in cap. vi. Arnos, invehitur in eos, qui Hen- ricum VIII Ecclesiae caput appellant. Quod autem Puritani non admittant pri¬ matum regis in spiritualibus, docet ipse idem rex in opere quod inscripsit, (JasOaxtov Au>pov Nam lib. n. pag. 43. dicit, eos paritatem quandam, et aequalitatem in Ecclesiam in¬ ducere. Et in hac ipsa praefatione pag. 48. (i Inconfusam, inquit, illam anarchiam, et parilitatem Puritanorum invectus sum, ut ex pccaiAixco meo Awpw satis constat. » Quare cum fides, quam rex defendit, ante paucos annos nata angustissimis limitibus conti¬ neatur, non Catholica, id est, vetus, et uni¬ versalis; sed nova, et particularis nominari debet. Quod vero ( c ) Apostolica (quod nomen fi¬ dei suae tertio loco rex tribuit) nullo jure ap¬ pellanda ; sed apostatica omni jure nomi¬ nanda sit, ex eo manifeste convincitur, quod fides, quae nunc in Anglia viget, seminatores habuerit Bucerum, et Petrum Martyrem Vermilium, utrumque apostatam. Primi au¬ tem in Scotia eversores Catholicae fidei, et haeresis satores fuerunt viri quidam factiosi, et turbulenti, quos Apostolos nominare sce¬ lus maximum esset. Neque de hac re mihi fidem haberi volo, sed regi : sic enim ille scribit in Basilico suo Doro lib. it. pag. 40 et 41. (a) Alia ratio , cur fides Protestandum non possit dici Catholica. — (b) Calvinus repugnat Cal- vinistis Anglicanis, qui pro tesjantes dicuntur. — (c) Fides protestandum Anglorum non est vere Apostolica. APOLOGIS GAP. I. 121 « Reformata religio in hanc nostram Sco¬ tiam divino plane miraculo introducta est : nam cum multa in illo negotio a concitata multitudine temere fierent, et perturbate, multi etiam cupiditatem suarum turbine ab¬ repti, caeco animi impetu, et nullo judicio ad opus illud Dei peragendum ferebantur. » Et paulo post : « In illa et rerum et tempo¬ rum confusione orti sunt quidam igneae natu¬ ra) concionatores, qui eo potentiae apud po¬ pulum provehebantur, ut dulcedinem jam imperii degustantes, inciperent nescio quam democraticae reip. formam sibi somniare. » Itaque reformata religio, id est, Catholica religionis eversio, ipso rege teste, ab homi¬ nibus temerariis, cupidis, sine judicio, caco impetu, principatum, atque imperium am¬ bientibus, in Scotia introducta est. Mirum est autem valde, quod rex reformationem religionis, ac non potius deformationem ap¬ pellet, quam ab hominibus cacis, temera¬ riis, cupidis, ambitiosis, id est, nulla forma virtutis praditis, et multitudine vitiorum de- formatis introductam esse concedit. Dicet fortasse, divino miraculo, per ho¬ mines deformatos omni genere vitiorum, et qui ab Apostolorum virtutibus longissime absint, Apostolicam fidem in Scotia restitu¬ tam fuisse. At nos contra scimus, divinam legem per Mosem, et Prophetas, viros sanctissimos in¬ troductam; Evangelium Christi per Aposto¬ los, qui Spiritus sancti donis omnibus abun¬ dabant, mundo p radicatum ; ccetus homi¬ num reformatos, quos ordines religiosos ap¬ pellamus, per homines excellenti virtute praditos, institutos. Nova ista miracula, qui¬ bus colligantur de spinis uva, et de tribulis ficus, id est, a deformatis reformatio, et ab Apostatis Apostolica Religio, Ecclesia vere Christiana non novit. Sed de hac re in se¬ quenti disputatione plura dicemus. Sequitur igitur, ut ostendamus (a) fidem, quam rex defendit, non esse veteris, ac pri¬ mitiva Ecclesia, Martyrum sanguine illu¬ stris, fidem. Hac enim est quarta laus, quam rex fidei sua in inscriptione attribuit. Non esse autem fidem regis Anglorum, fidem Ecclesia veteris, ac per hoc neque esse vere Christianam, neque Catholicam, neque Apo¬ stolicam ; ex iis qua rex in hac ipsa prafa- tione docet, nullo negotio demonstrabimus. Scribit enim rex pag. 38. admittere se, praterscripturas sanctas, tria Symbola, Apo- stolicum, Nicenum, et S. Athanasii; quatuor prima concilia generalia; et qua sancti Pa¬ tres, quadringentis (in Anglico quingentis) post Christum annis unanimi consensu do¬ cuerunt. Deinde pag. 42. damnat intercessio¬ nem Sanctorum, reliquiarum venerationem, quam intolerabilem idololatriam vocat. Mis¬ sas privatas, transsubstantiationem,'et alia id genus multa; ut etiam pag. 46. purgato¬ rium, indulgentias, satisfactiones pro defun¬ ctis, et similia. Accipiam (b) intercessionem Sanctorum, cum reliquiarum veneratione; quae si osten¬ dere potuero, a Patribus, qui primis qua¬ dringentis, vel quingentis annis floruerunt, unanimi consensu approbari, simul effecero, fidem regis Anglorum non esse fidem vete¬ ris, et primitivae Ecclesiae, sed figmenta, et heereses Novatorum. Primum igitur concilium quartum gene¬ rale, in quo 630. Episcopi interfuerunt, et quod ab ipso rege cum honore suscipitur, ita loquitur act. xi : Flavianus post mortem vivit , Martyr pro nobis oret. Et in Epistola Episco¬ porum Europa2 ad Leonem imperatorem, qua3 tempore ejusdem concilii scripta est : ct Sanctissimum vero proterium in choro, et ordine sanctorum Martyrum ponimus, ct ejus intercessione misericordem, et propitium Deum habere postulamus. » Qui ergo recipit concilium quartum, quod omnium maxi¬ mum, et frequentissimum fuit, cur interces¬ sionem Sanctorum cum illo non recipit? Sanctus Rasilius vere Magnus in Oratione in 40. Martyres : « Qui, inquit, aliqua pre¬ mitur angustia, ad hos confugiat; qui rursus laetatur, hos oret : ille ut a malis liberetur, hic ut duret in rebus laetis. » Idem de reli¬ quiis Sanctorum eorumdem, quae per totam eam regionem divisae erant : « Hi sunt, in¬ quit, qui nostram regionem administrant, et veluti turres quaedam cohaerentes securita¬ tem ab hostium incursu exhibent, non uno loco seipsos includentes, sed multis jam lo¬ cis hospites facti, et multas patrias exornan¬ tes. » Idem in oratione in Psalm. cxv : « Qui contingit, inquit, ossa Martyrum, quamdam sanctificationis societatem assumit ex gra¬ tia corpori infidente. » Haec ille. Quid ni igitur veneremur Sanctorum reliquias, unde (a) Fides Protestantium Anglorum non est fides veteris Ecclesiae , sed recens adinventio . — ( b ) In¬ tercessionem Sanctorum , et venerationem- Reliquiarum admittit vetus Ecclesia orientalis. 422 APOLOGLE GAP. I. tanta bona nobis proveniunt? vide enrodem Basilium oratione in Mamantem, et oratione in Julittam. Sanctus Gregorius Nyssenus sancti Basilii frater, oratione in sanctum Theodorum : ((In¬ tercede, inquit , et deprecare pro patria apud communem regem, et Dominum. » Et infra : « Quod si majori opus fuerit depreca¬ tione, et advocatione, fratrum tuorum Mar¬ tyrum coge Chorum, et cum omnibus una deprecare, admone Petrum, excita Paulum, Joannem Theologum, ac discipulum dile¬ ctum. » Idem in eadem oratione de reliquiis loquens : « Corpus, inquit, venerandum, et immaculatum ipsius instrumentum, cum multo honore, et cultu compositum, atque ornatum, in augusto sacroque loco situm est. » Hsec ille, qui etiam addit, pulverem ipsum, qui circa conditorium reliquiarum reperitur, pro magno munere a piis pere¬ grinis rapi consuevisse. Tanta erat in pri¬ mitiva illa Ecclesia erga sacra pignora pio¬ rum devotio , quam rex intolerabilem idololatriam esse dicit, et tamen fidei pri¬ mitivae Ecclesiae defensorem se facit. S. Gregorius Nazianzenus orat, in S. Cy¬ prianum : « Tu, inquit, e supernis nos re¬ spice, et populum hunc sancti^m dirige, etc.» Et ibidem, refert certamen sanctae cujusdam Virginis pro castitate : « Virginem, inquit, Mariam rogavit, ut periclitanti virgini opem ferret » ; ac paulo post refert, eam fuisse exauditam : « Vicit, inquit, virgo, vincitur Daemon. » Idem in Oratione prima in Julia¬ num imperatorem Apostatam, arguit eum, quod sanctorum Martyrum reliquias non coleret, cum Deorum falsorum monimenta veneraretur : « Haec, inquit, non colis, sed contemnis, et aspernaris, qui Herculis ro¬ gum ex calamitate, injuriisque muliebribus illatis excitatum admiraris. » Eusebius Caesariensis in lib. xm. de Prae- par. Evangel. cap. vn. Explicans ritum Ec¬ clesiae veteris : « Haec,, inquit, nos quotidie factitamus, qui vere pietatis milites, ut Dei amicos honorantes, ad monumenta quoque illorum accedimus, votaque ipsis facimus, quorum intercessione ad Deum non parum juvari profitemur. » S. Joan. Chrysostomus homil. 66. ad po¬ pulum Antiochenum : « Nam, inquit, et ipse, qui purpuram indutus est, accedit illa complexurus sepulcra , et fassu deposito stat Sanctis supplicaturus, ut pro se apud Deum intercedant. » Ubi praedicat gloriam sanctorum Martyrum ex eo, quod non solum populus, sed etiam imperator ad reliquias eorum accederet, et Sanctis ipsis supplica¬ ret. Idem in libro adversus Gentiles, loquens de reliquiis sancti Babylae : « Sententiae, in¬ quit, nostrae abunde fidem faciunt, quae quotidiana a Martyribus eduntur miracula.» Et in oratione de sanctis Juventino, et Maximo : «Saepius, inquit, illos^-invisamus, tumulos adoremus, magnaque fide reliquias eorum contingamus, ut inde benedictionem aliquam assequamur. » Quid hic, quaeso, rex dicet? Si Patres veteris Ecclesiae clamant. Sanctorum tumulos adoremus ; quomodo rex veteris Ecclesiae fidem retinet, et interim dicit, reliquiarum adoratio intolerabilis ido¬ lolatria est? S. Ephrem in serm. de laudibus sancto¬ rum Martyrum : « Precamur, inquit, bea¬ tissimi Martyres, ut pro nobis miseris, et peccatoribus Dominum interpellare digne¬ mini, ut superveniat in nos gratia Christi. » Beatus Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Cate¬ chesi 5. mystagogica : « Cum hoc sacrifi¬ cium, inquit, offerimus, facimus mentionem eorum, qui ante nos obdormierunt, primum Patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum, et Martyrum, ut Deus orationibus illorum suscipiat preces nostras.» Et Catechesi 18. « Ut autem non solum animae Sanctorum honorentur, credaturque quod etiam in cor¬ poribus mortuorum inest virtus, seu poten¬ tia; jacens in sepulcro Elisaei mortuus, mortuumque Prophetae corpus attingens vivificatus est. » Haec ille, qui inde pro¬ bat corpora Sanctorum honoranda esse, et non solum animas. Atque hi quidem Graeci Patres sunt, et Orientis lumina ad aetatem illam pertinent a, quam rex requirit, ut Patres (a) Ecclesiae veteris, et primitivae esse intelligantur. Addamus nunc testimonia Patrum Latinorum aetatis ejusdem. Sanctus Ambrosius in libro de Viduis, «Obsecrandi, inquit, sunt Angeli, qui nobis ad praesidium dati sunt, Martyres obse¬ crandi, quorum videmur nobis quoddam corporis pignore patrocinium vindicare : possunt pro peccatis rogare nostris, qui pro¬ prio sanguine etiam, si quae habuerunt pec¬ cata, laverunt. Isti enim sunt Dei Martyres, nostri Praesules, speculatores vitae actuum- (a) Eadem admittit verus Ecclesia Occidentalis. I APOLOGLE CAP. I. 123 que nostrorum. Non erubescamus eos inter¬ cessores nostrae infirmitatis adhibere : quia ipsi infirmitatem corporis etiam cum vince¬ rent, cognoverunt. » Idem in serm. 93. qui est de sanctis Nazario et Celso satis fuse commendat reliquiarum cultum, qui regi Angliae idololatria est. Quod si dicas mihi, in¬ quit, quid honoras in carne jam. resoluta at¬ que consumpta? honoro in carne Martyris exceptas pro Christi nomine cicatrices : ho¬ noro viventis memoriam perennitate virtu¬ tis : honoro in cineribus semina seternitatis : honoro corpus, quod mihi Dominum osten¬ dit diligere, quod me propter Dominum do¬ cuit mortem non timere. Cur autem non honorent corpus illud fideles, quod reveren¬ tur et Daemones? quod et affliverunt in sup¬ plicio, et glorificant in sepulcro? honoro itaque corpus, quod Christum honoravit in gladio, quod cum Christo regnabit in coelo. Sanctus Hieronymus in Epitaphio sanctae Paulae : « Vale, inquit, o Paula, et cultoris tui ultimam senectutem orationibus juva : fides et opera tua Christo te sociant: praesens facilius quod pos'ulas impetrabis. » Idem in lib. adversus Vigilantium, qui eo nomine haereticus habitus est in veteri Ecclesia, quod reliquiarrum cultum improbaret: «Do¬ let, inquit, Martyrum reliquias pretioso ope¬ riri velamine, et non vel pannis, vel ciliciis colligari, vel projici in sterquilinium; ut so¬ lus Vigilantius ebrius, vel dormiens adore¬ tur. » Idem in Epist. ad Marcellam, horta¬ toria, ut commigretBethleem, inter alia bona ejus loci commemorat, posse sancti Joannis Baptistae, Helisaei, atque Abdiae cineres ado¬ rare, non enim idololatriam, sed pium cultum essesentiebatadorationem reliquiarum ; quia non ignorabat, adorationis esse multa ge¬ nera, et aliam Deo soli, aliam rebus factis deberi. Ruffinus ejusdem temporis auctor lib. 11. hist. cap. 33. de ( a ) Theodosio imperatore sic loquitur : « Circuibat cum Sacerdotibus, et populo omnia orationum loca : ante Mar¬ tyrum, et Apostolorum thecas jacebat cilicio prostratus, et auxilia sibi fida Sanctorum intercessione poscebat.» Haec ille; nec vana fides : obtinuit enim adversus Eugenium ty¬ rannum Theodosius victoriam incredibilem non viribus militum, sed praesidio Sancto¬ rum, quos fideliter imploraverat. Hunc pium imperatorem, reliquiarum adoratorem, et Sanctorum invocatorem rex An glorum ido- lolatram vocare non dubitabit, et tamen edoctum scimus a Sacerdotibus Ecclesiae ve¬ teris, et a Deo ita dilectum, ut propter hanc victoriam scripserit ille : O nimium dilecte Deo, cui militat aether, Et conjurati veniunt ad classica venti. ' ' S. Maximus in serm. de S. Agnete: « Ita¬ que, inquit, o splendida Christo, pulchra Dei filio, et omnibus Angelis, ut nostri me¬ minisse digneris, quibus possumus precibus exoramus. » Idem in serm. de Sanctis Octa¬ vio, Adventore, et Solutore : « Cuncti, in¬ quit, Martyres devotissime percolendi sunt, sed ii praecipue venerandi sunt a nobis, quo¬ rum reliquias possidemus. » Sanctus Gaudentius Episcopus Brixiae in tractatu de Dedicatione Basilicae multa scri¬ bit de cultu reliquiarum, ac inter alia : « Ut venerandas, inquit, Sanctorum reliquias ha¬ beremus, Deus noster tribuit; deinde ut hanc honori earum Basilicam fundare vale¬ remus, ipse largitus est, etc. » Ubi vides» tanti fecisse reliquias Sanctorum Ecclesiae veteris Patres, ut earum honori etiam Basi¬ licae conderentur» S. Paulinus in Epistola 12. ad Severum invocat his versibus sanctum Clarum. Ekec peccatorum bonus accipe vota rogantum Ut sis Paulini, Therasiaeque memor. Idem in tertio natali S. Felicis martyris, in¬ quit, Ad tumulum debes, et terra coronas. Et ibidem de reliquiis Apostolorum loquens ait : Nam prius imperio tantum, et victricibus armis. Nunc et Apostolicis terrarum es prima sepulchris. Prudentius ejusdem aetatis nobilis poeta Christianus in hymno de S. Laurentio. O ter quaterque, o septies Beatus Urbis incola, Qui te ac tuorum comminus Sedem celebrat ossium. Cui propter advolvi licet Qui fletibus spargit locum, (a) Theodosius ImpSr. per intercessionem Sanctorum victoriam maximam obtinuit. 124 APOLOGLE CAP. 1. Qui pectus in terram premit, Qui vota fundit murmure. Vix fama nota est abditis, Quam plena Sanctis Roma sit : Quam dives Urbanum solum Sacris sepulchris floreat. Multa similia in singulis prope hymnis de Sanctorum reliquiis, et invocatione scribit. S. Augustinus serm. 17. de verbis Apo¬ stoli : «Habet, inquit, Ecclesiastica discipli¬ na, quod fideles noverunt cum Martyres eo loco recitant ad altare Dei, ubi non pro ipsis oretur; pro ceeteris autem defunctis oretur; injuria enim est orare pro Martyre, cujus nos debemus orationibus commen¬ dare. » Similis locus habetur tract. 84. in Joan. quibus locis non solum intercessionis Sanctorum meminit sanctus Doctor , sed etiam orationis pro defunctis, et altaris, ubi offertur Sacrificium missse : quse non minus damnat rex, quam invocationem Sanctorum. Idem Pater in Epist. 103. ad Quintianum : Portant, inquit, reliquias beatissimi et glo¬ riosissimi martyris Stephani, quas non igno¬ rat Sanctitas Vestra, sicut et nos fecimus quam convenienter honorare debeatis. Idem in lib ii. de Civitate Dei cap. 8, fusissime commemorat miracula, quse Deus suo tem¬ pore demonstrabat per invocationem San¬ ctorum ad eorum reliquias, vel memorias. Ilsec sunt testimonia veteris Ecclesiae grsecse, et latinae primorum 500. annorum post Christi Ascensionem in coelum, de in¬ tercessione Sanctorum, et reliquiarum cultu. In promptu autem esset similia testimonia adscribere de caeteris dogmatibus, quse rex negat, aut damnat : sed quia bsec habentur tum ia nostris libris Controversiarum, tum in scriptis multorum aliorum Catholicorum Doctorum : parco labori et lectorum, et meo. Volui enim ex uno saltem dogmate constare, fidem, quam rex defendit, non esse veteris Ecclesise, ut ipse in inscriptione dicit. At inquiet, multa docentur in Anglia, et Scotia a Ministris, quae sunt communia ve¬ teri Ecclesiae, atque ea potissimum, quse in Symbolo fidei, et decretis quatuor primo¬ rum conciliorum continentur. Ita est, sed quaestio inter Catholicos, et Protestantes non est, utrum nihil omnino eorum, quae Prote¬ stantes docent, habeatur in libris veterum ; sed utrum ea, in quibus dissentimus, ut inter cessio Sanctorum, reliquiarum cultus, oratio pro|defunctis, Primatus S. Petri, purgatorium, et similia recepta, et probata sint a veteri Ecclesia, ut a nobis recipiuntur, et proban¬ tur ; an rejecta, et improbata, ut a rege, et ejus praedicatoribus rejiciuntur, et impro¬ bantur. Nos autem de uno principali dog¬ mate controverso demonstravimus , rece¬ ptum, et probatum fuisse ab Ecclesia veteri, ut a nobis recipitur, et probatur: et idem in libris nostris de caeteris controversis dogma¬ tibus manifestum fecimus. Itaque nos cum Ecclesia veteri in omnibus articulis conve¬ nimus : Protestantes vero in paucis conve¬ niunt, in plurimis dissident, in iis videlicet omnibus , in quibus a nobis dissentiunt, proinde fides, veteris quam adversus nos de¬ fendunt, non est fides veteris Ecclesiae, sed haeresis, ut supra diximus, Novatorum. Restat ut pauca dicamus de vocibus, pro¬ pagator, et defensor, quae in inscriptione ul¬ timo loco ponuntur. Et quidem ubi rex fi¬ dem propagaverit, vel Evangelium annun¬ tiaverit , ignorare me fateor. (a) Titulum defensoris fidei, quem majus¬ culis litteris hoc loco scribi video, ut etiam in priore pagina, et in Basilico Doro, et alibi, non ignoro, neque ullus est, qui ignoret, a Leone X. Pontifice maximo delatum Hen- rico VIII. Angliae regi ob librum ab eodem rege scriptum de septem Ecclesiae Sacra¬ mentis adversus Lutherum, caeterosque ejus temporis Novatores. Quod si quaeratur, quid nomine fidei in eo titulo significetur ; nihil aliud responderi poterit, nisi fidem illam significatam esse, quam praedicabat, qui ti¬ tulum accepit, et quam profitebatur, qui ti¬ tulum dedit, et quae defendebatur in libro, cujus gratia titulus datus, et acceptus est. Quae cum ita sint, non possum non vehe¬ menter admirari, cur hunc titulum sibi de¬ sumat, qui Romanum Pontificem, a quo titulus datus est, non agnoscit ; qui eam fidem damnat, quam profitebatur, qui titu¬ lum primus accepit ; qui denique non se¬ ptem sacramenta, ob quorum defensionem titulus datus est, sed duo, vel tria tantum esse contendit. Quaero praeterea, qui titulo isto tam hono¬ rifico regem Angliae cohonestavit, Christi Vicarius, an Christi adversarius fuit? Si Christi Vicarius, cur defensor Christianae fidei, Christi Vicarium non audit? non reci- (a) Titulus Defensoris fidei datus a Leone X. Henrico VIII. non convenit Jacobo I APOLOGLE GAP. II. pit? non veneratur? Si Christi adversarius, cur Christianus rex titulo a Christi adversa¬ rio dato gloriatur? cur characterem Anti- christi gerit ? Quomodo enim ista cohaerent, ut quis Romanum Pontificem Anticbristum esse credat, et titulum honoris ab eo datum non exhorreat? Ergo rex, si sapit, originem hujus tituli apud se diligenter cogitet, et fa¬ cile intelliget, eum ad se minime pertinere, et apud homines sapientes plus vanae osten¬ tationis habere, quam solidae dignitatis.