Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 3: On the Comparison of the King and the Pontiff
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).
About to enter the disputation, the king gives two reasons why in the Apology for the oath of fidelity, when first published, he concealed his name, but now discloses it. One reason is that he thought it unworthy of his royal Majesty to publish a theological disputation under his own name, since it belongs to kings to write decrees and edicts rather than books. And he proves this, saying: “For neither do I believe myself in any respect inferior to the Pontiff (by his leave I say it), whom the censors of my Apology excuse by the same reasoning: that he wrote the Briefs briefly and precisely, and added no reasons or arguments, because it is not his part to dispute, but to judge and decree.” But the censors of the Apology did not say that it is not the Pontiff's part to write books, or to dispute on theological matters. For we know that some Pontiffs have published most learned books with great praise; but that Pope Paul V, when he sent those Briefs to the English, sent not a book, but an exhortatory letter, which should do the office of an edict. They added also that a prince would be imprudent who believed he could not forbid a wicked action unless he wrote a whole book in the manner of philosophers. So the censors of the Apology did not say that it is unworthy of pontifical or royal majesty to write theological or philosophical books, but that the edicts and decrees of Pontiffs or kings are not to be written in the philosophical manner, with reasons and arguments added, in subtle and long disputation.
But these things left aside, which do not bear much on the matter, that I cannot pass over at all which the king says, that he is in no respect inferior to the Pontiff. For certainly, if he believes that he belongs to the fold of Christ, he cannot but judge himself inferior to him to whom it was said by the Lord: Feed my sheep; unless perhaps he wishes to deny that sheep are inferior to the shepherd. Nor is it to the point what he himself says in this preface, page 21, that the Pontiff has no power over him, because he is counted by us a heretic, and made equal to Julian the Apostate, and believed to be outside the fold and flock of the Pontiff; and therefore is to be reckoned by the same right as heathen princes, over whom we confess the Pontiff can do nothing. This, I say, is not to the point; for heresy and apostasy deprive heretics and apostates of many goods which are common to the faithful, but do not deprive the Pontiff of the authority which he has over them; otherwise he could neither punish them, nor forgive the punishment to those returning. And heretics are indeed outside the fold in fact, and in favourable matters, as the jurists speak; but by right, and in penal matters, they belong to it, and can by right be compelled to return to it. Nor do we confess absolutely that the Pontiff can do nothing over heathen princes; for we follow the doctrine of Saint Thomas, who in 2-2, question 10, article 10, affirms that unbelieving princes can by the sentence of the Church be deprived in certain cases of the dominion which they have over the faithful, as if they have seized the lands of Christians by force, or are busy turning their faithful subjects from the faith. Add that, since the Supreme Pontiff governs and rules many very great kingdoms, and indeed the whole Christian world, and kings and princes themselves, as a father his sons and a shepherd his sheep, it is a wonder that he who has two islands subject to him in a corner of the North so presumes of himself as to say: “I believe myself in no respect inferior to the Pontiff.” But if he is in no respect inferior, let him count the kings and commonwealths which render him obedience, as we a little before counted the kings and commonwealths which with solemn rite rendered obedience to Pope Paul V. Nor is this honour shown to the Supreme Pontiff by the kings of the West only; for the emperor Justin, when Pope John came to him, adored him prostrate on the ground, as Anastasius the Librarian witnesses. Justinian the Elder called John II head of all the Churches, as is to be seen in the law Inter claras, Code, on the highest Trinity and the Catholic faith. Liberatus also writes in the Breviary on the cause of the Nestorians, chapter 22, that at the time when the emperor sent Pope Silverius into exile, the bishop of Patara went to the emperor, and called the divine judgment to witness, and said that there are many kings, but none such as he who is Pope over the Church of the whole world.
But if King James affirms that he is in no respect inferior to the Pontiff, certainly he cannot affirm this of the kings of England his predecessors. There exists an epistle of Henry II to Pope Alexander III in these words: “To his most holy lord Alexander, by the grace of God Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, Henry, king of England, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou and Maine, health, and the service of devoted subjection.” And below: “The kingdom of England is of your jurisdiction, and as far as the obligation of feudatory right is concerned, I am held and bound as liable to you alone. Let England find out what the Roman Pontiff can do.” See Peter of Blois, epistle 136, or Cardinal Baronius, volume 12, page 660. There exists an epistle of Eleanor, queen of England, to Celestine III, where these things are read: “Is not every kingdom and every power committed to the Apostle Peter, and in him to you, to be ruled? Blessed be God, who has given such power to men. No king, no emperor or duke is exempt from the yoke of your power.” See these and many other like things in Peter of Blois, epistle 145, or in Cardinal Baronius, same volume, page 865. There exists a complaint of the king of the English against the king of France to Innocent III as to a common judge, chapter Novit, on judgments. There exists an embassy of Richard, king of England, to the Roman Pontiff in these words: “Holy Father, our lord Richard, king of the English, greets your Excellency, and asks that justice be shown him concerning the Duke of Austria.” See Matthew Paris in the English history for the year of the Lord 1195. There exists in the same Matthew Paris, in the English history for the year of the Lord 1213, the resignation of the whole kingdom of England and Ireland made by John, king of England, with the consent of the barons, into the hands of Pope Innocent III; and the receiving of the same kingdoms in fief; so that the king, as a secondary lord, acknowledges that he holds them from the Roman Church; and in sign of subjection his successors ought to render fidelity to the same Church, and acknowledge homage; and also to pay to the same Church a thousand marks sterling every year. Therefore the king of the English, by the testimony and opinion of his own forefathers, is not only not equal to the Roman Pontiff, but subject by a twofold right: one common to all Christian men, by reason of the Apostolic power, which extends to all, according to that of Psalm 44: Thou shalt make them (the Apostles, namely) princes over all the earth; the other proper, by reason of the direct dominion which the Roman Church has over the kingdom of England and Ireland, on the witness of two witnesses above all exception, Kings Henry II and John. Although this subjection is much older, if we believe Polydore Vergil; for he writes in book 4 of the English history that King Ina was the first who made the kingdom of England tributary to the Supreme Pontiff about the year of the Lord 740. The same tribute was afterwards confirmed in the year of the Lord 775 by King Offa; and also afterwards by King Ethelwulf in the year of the Lord 847. Lastly by the most powerful king of the English and Danes, Canute, who began to reign in England in the year of the Lord 1016. That the same tribute was confirmed Ingulf witnesses, who wrote his history five hundred years ago. Further, as to Ireland, the Pontiff has a far greater right over it. For it is established that that island was given by Pope Hadrian IV to King Henry II in the year 1156, under many conditions, which the kings of England have by no means kept. There exist on this whole matter the testimonies of historians, William of Newburgh, book 3, chapter 9, Polydore Vergil, book 13, Nicholas Sander on the English Schism from the year 1542; there exist lastly the Apostolic letters of John XXII to Edward II.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. De comparatione regis , et Pontificis. Ingressurus disputationem rex, duas ra¬ tiones reddit, (a) cur in Apologia pro jura¬ mento fidelitatis, primum edita, nomen suum celaverit, nunc autem prodat. Altera ratio est, quod indignum Majestate sua regia exi- stimaretsub nomine suo disputationem Theo¬ logicam evulgare : cum ad reges pertineat scribere potius decreta, et edicta, quam li¬ bros. Id autem probat dicens : « Nam neque me Pontifice ulla ex parte inferiorem esse credo '(pace ipsius dixerim) quem eadem ra¬ tione censores mese Apologice excusant : eum quippe Rrevia strictim, et praecise con¬ scripsisse ; nec rationes, aut argumenta ad¬ didisse, quod non sit illius disputare, sed judicare, atque decernere. » At censores Apologice non dixerunt, non esse Pontificis libros scribere, aut de rebus theologicis disputare. Scimus enim Pontifi¬ ces aliquos magna cum laude libros doctis¬ simos edidisse : sed Paulum V. Pontificem, cum Brevia illa ad Anglos misit, non librum, sed epistolam hortatoriam misisse, quce vi¬ cem edicti gereret. Addiderunt etiam, im¬ prudentem fore principem, qui iniquam actionem prohibere se non posse crederet, nisi librum integrum Philosophorum more conscriberet. Itaque non dixerunt censores Apologice, indignum esse Pontificia, vel re¬ gia majestate libros theologicos, vel philo¬ sophicos scribere ; sed edita , et decreta Pontificum, vel regum non esse scribenda more philosophico cum adjunctis rationibus, et argumentis, subtili et longa disputatione. Sed his omissis, quce ad rem non multum faciunt, illud omnino preeterire non possum, quod rex ait, ( b ) nulla ex parte se Pontifice inferiorem esse. Certe enim si ad Ovile Christi se pertinere credit, non potest se non inferiore illo judicare, cui dictum est a (a) Cur rex Jacobus nomen suum non adscripserit Apologice pro juramento fidelitatis. — (b) Non recte affirmat Jacobus rex , nulla exparte se Pontifice Romano inferiorem esse. 1 \ APOLOGLE GAP. III, 127 Domino : Pasce oves meas : nisi forte oves Pastore inferiores esse negare voluerit. Neque ad rem facit, quod ipse in hac prae¬ fatione pag. 21. dicit, nihil in se potestatis Pontificem habere, quod a nobis haereticus censeatur, Julianoque apostatae aequetur, ex¬ tra caulam, gregemque Pontificis esse cre¬ datur : proinde eodem jure cum ethnicis principibus censendus, in quos nihil posse Pontificem fatemur : lio;, inquam, ad rem non facit ; siquidem haeresis, et apostasia privat haereticos, et apostatas multis bonis, quae communia sunt fidelibus ; sed non pri¬ vat Pontificem auctoritate, quam in eos ha¬ bet : alioqui neque punire eos, neque red¬ euntibus poenam condonare posset. Et sunt quidem haeretici extra caulam de facto, et in favorabilibus, ut jureconsulti loquuntur; sed de jure, et in poenalibus ad eam perti¬ nent, atque ad eam ut redeant compelli jure possunt. Neque fatemur absolute (a), Ponti¬ ficem in Ethnicos Principes nihil posse : se¬ quimur enim Doctrinam S. Thomae, qui in 2. 2. quaest. 10. art. 10. affirmat, posse infi¬ deles principes per sententiam Ecclesiae pri¬ vari in certis casibus dominio quod habent super fideles, ut si terras Christianorum vi occupaverint, vel subditos fideles a fide aver¬ tere satagant. Adde quod cnm Summus Pontifex multa maxima regna, atque adeo totum orbem Christianum, et ipsos etiam reges, et prin¬ cipes, ut filios pater, atque ut oves pastor gubernet, et regat ; mirum est, quod is qui in angulo septentrionis duas insulas subje¬ ctas habet, ita de se praesumat, ut dicat : a Nulla ex parte me Pontifice inferiorem esse credo. » Quod si nulla ex parte inferior est; numeret reges, et respublicas, quae obe- dientiam illi praestent ; quemadmodum nos paulo ante numeravimus reges, et respubli¬ cas, quae solemni ritu Paulo V. Pontifici obedientiam praestiterunt. Neque iste honor exhibetur Summo Pon¬ tifici a regibus tantum Occidentis ; nam Ju¬ stinus imperator, venientem ad se Joannem Papam, pronus in terram adoravit, ut Ana- stasius Bibliothecarius testatur. Justinianus Senior Joannem secundum, caput omnium Ecclesiarum appellavit, ut videre est L. in¬ ter claras, C. de summa Trinitate, et fide Cathol. Scribit etiam Liberatus in Breviario de causa Nestorianorum cap. 22. quo tem¬ pore imperator, Silverium Papam in exilium misit, Episcopum Patarensem adiisse impe¬ ratorem, et contestatum esse divinum judi¬ cium ; ac dixisse, multos esse reges, sed nul¬ lum talem esse, qualis ille, qui est Papa su¬ per Ecclesiam mundi totius. Sed si Jacobus rex nulla ex parte Ponti¬ fice inferiorem se esse affirmat; certe non id affirmare poterit de regibus Angliae prae¬ decessoribus suis. Exstat Epistola Henrici Secundi ad Alex¬ andrum III. Pontificem in haec verba : ( b ) « Sanctissimo Domino suo Alexandro, Dei gratia Catholicae Ecclesiae Summo Pontifici, Henricus rex Angliae, dux Northmanniae, et Aquitaniae, Comes Andegavensis, et Ceno- •manensis salutem, et devotae subjectionis obsequium. » Et infra : « Vestrae jurisdictio¬ nis est Angliae regnum, et quantum ad feu- datarii juris obligationem vobis dumtaxat obnoxius teneor, et astringor. Experiatur Anglia quid possit Romanus Pontifex. » Vi¬ de Petrum Blesensem epistol. 1 36. vel Car¬ dinalem Baronium tom. 12. pag. 660. Exstat epist. Aleonorae regina; Angliae ad Ccelestinum III. ubi haec leguntur : « Nonne Petro Apostolo, et in eo vobis omne regnum, omnisque potestas regenda committitur? Benedictus Deus, qui talem potestatem de¬ dit hominibus. Non rex, non imperator, aut dux a jugo vestrae potestatis eximitur. » Vi¬ de haec, et alia multa his similia apud Pe¬ trum Bles. epistol. 145. vel apud Card. Ba¬ ronium eodem tomo pag. 865. Exstat querela regis Anglorum adversus regem Franciae ad Innocentium III. tamquam ad communem judicem, cap. Novit, de Ju¬ diciis. Exstat Legatio Richardi Regis Angliae ad Pontificem Romanum in haec verba : « Pater Sancte, salutat Excellentiam vestram Domi¬ nus noster Rex Anglorum Richardus, et po¬ stulat sibi justitiam exhiberi 'de Duce Au- striae. » Vide Matthaeum Paris, in historia An- glicana anni Domini 1195. Exstat apud eumdem Matthaeum Paris, in hist. Anglicana anni Domini 1213. resigna- tio totius regni Angliae, et Hiberniae facta a Joanne rege Angliae de consensu baronum (a) Jurisdictio Summi Pontificis ad Haereticos puniendos extenditur. — (b) Reges Anglios olim summi Pontificis auctoritatem super omnem Ecclesiam 9 et super ipsos reges , agnoscebant , et con¬ fitebantur. » 128 APOLOGLE CAP. IV. /* in manus Innocentii 111. Pontificis; et rece¬ ptio eorumdem regnorum in feudum : ita ut rex tamquam secundarius Dominus a Ro¬ mana Ecclesia illa se habere agnoscat ; et in signum subjectionis debeant successores ei¬ dem Ecclesise fidelitatem praestare, et ho- magium recognoscere : necnon in annos sin¬ gulos mille marcas sterlingorum eidem Ec- clesiai numerare.' Ergo rex Anglorum ex testimonio, et sententia majorum suorum, non solum par non est Romano Pontifici ; sed duplici jure subjectus, uuo communi omnibus Christianis hominibus, ratione A- postolicee potestatis, qua 3 in omnes extendi¬ tur, juxta illud Ps. xliv Constitues eos (Apo- stolosvidehcet)/b7>icqoessuj»er omnem terram : altero proprio ratione directi dominii, quod in regnum Angliae, et Hyberniee Romana ha¬ bet Ecclesia, testibus duobus omni excep¬ tione majoribus Henrico II et Joanne regibus. Quamquam hasc subjectio multo est anti¬ quior, si Polydoro Virgilio credimus : scri¬ bit enim lib. iv. hist. Anglicamr, Inam re¬ gem fuisse primum, qui (a) regnum Anglise summo Pontifici tributarium fecit circa an¬ num Domini 740. Idem postea tributum con¬ firmatum anno Domini 775. ab Offa rege : nec non postea a rege Atulpho anno Domini 947. Denique a rege potentissimo Anglorum, et Danorum Canuto, qui regnare coepit in Anglia anno Domini 1010. Idem tributum confirmatum testatur Ingulphus, qui ante quingentos annos scripsit historiam. Porro quod attinet ad (b) Hyberniam, jus longe majus in eam Pontifex habet. Constat enim ab Adriano IV. Pontifice datam fuisse eam insulam Henrico II. regi anno 1156. sub conditionibus multis, quas reges Anglise mi¬ nime servarunt. Exstant de tota hac re testi¬ monia historicorum, Gulielmi Neubrugensis lib. m. cap. 9. Polydori Virgilii lib. xm. Ni¬ colai Sanderi de Schismate Anglicano ab anno 1542 ; exstant denique litterae Apo- stolicee Joannis XXII. ad Edwardum II. da¬ ta;.